Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39060020›Full record

ArticleJournal for immunotherapy of cancer2024

Combination of oncolytic Maraba virus with immune checkpoint blockade overcomes therapy resistance in an immunologically cold model of advanced melanoma with dysfunctional T-cell receptor signalling.

Edward Armstrong, Matthew K L Chiu, Shane Foo, Lizzie Appleton, Pablo Nenclares, Anton Patrikeev, Nitya Mohan, Martin Mclaughlin, Galabina Bozhanova, Julia Hoebart and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal for immunotherapy of cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Edward ArmstrongDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Matthew K L ChiuDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Shane FooDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Lizzie AppletonImperial College London, London, London, UK.
Pablo NenclaresDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1750-3179
Anton PatrikeevDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Nitya MohanDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Martin MclaughlinDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Galabina BozhanovaDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Julia HoebartDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Victoria RoulstoneThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Emmanuel PatinThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5390-5733
Malin PedersenDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1887-733X
Joan KyulaThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Masahiro OnoImperial College London, London, London, UK.
Fiona Errington-MaisLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St. James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2155-534X
John BellCancer Therapeutics, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9083-357X
Kevin J HarringtonDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6014-348X
Alan MelcherDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2042-3380
Victoria JenningsDivision of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK v.a.jennings@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1321-0333

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the past decade, cancer immunotherapies have revolutionized the treatment of melanoma; however, responses vary across patient populations. Recently, baseline tumor size has been identified as an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in patients with melanoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. MG1 is a novel oncolytic agent with broad tumor tropism that has recently entered early-phase clinical trials. The aim of this study was to characterize T-cell responses in human and mouse melanoma models following MG1 treatment and to establish if features of the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) at two distinct tumor burdens would impact the efficacy of oncolytic virotherapy.

methodsHuman three-dimensional in vitro priming assays were performed to measure antitumor and antiviral T-cell responses following MG1 infection. T-cell receptor (TCR) sequencing, T2 killing assay, and peptide recall assays were used to assess the evolution of the TCR repertoire, and measure specific T-cell responses, respectively. In vivo, subcutaneous 4434 melanomas were characterized using RNA sequencing, immunohistochemistry, and flow cytometry. The effectiveness of intratumoral MG1 was assessed in advancing 4434 tumors and the generation of antitumor and antiviral T cells measured by splenocyte recall assays. Finally, combination MG1 and programmed cell death protein-1 antibody (αPD-1) therapy was investigated in advanced 4434 tumors.

resultsMG1 effectively supported priming of functional cytotoxic T cells (CTLs) against tumor-associated antigens as well as virus-derived peptides, as assessed using peptide recall and T2 killing assays, respectively. TCR sequencing revealed that MG1-primed CTL comprised larger clusters of similar CDR3 amino acid sequences compared with controls. In vivo testing of MG1 demonstrated that MG1 monotherapy was highly effective at treating early disease, resulting in 90% cures; however, the efficacy of MG1 reduced as the disease burden (local tumor size) increased, and the addition of αPD-1 was required to overcome resistance in more advanced disease. Differential gene expression profiles revealed that increased tumor burden was associated with an immunologically colder TIME. Furthermore, analysis of TCR signaling in advancing tumors demonstrated a different dynamic of TCR engagement compared with smaller tumors, in particular a shift in antigen recognition by CD4+ cells, from conventional to regulatory subsets.

conclusionAddition of αPD-1 to MG1 is required to overcome viral therapy resistance in immunologically 'colder' more advanced melanoma, highlighting the importance of tumor burden to different types of immunotherapy.

Indexed as

Immune Checkpoint InhibitorsMelanomaOncolytic VirotherapyOncolytic VirusesReceptors, Antigen, T-CellAnimalsCell Line, TumorFemaleHumansMiceSignal TransductionTumor MicroenvironmentImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsReceptors, Antigen, T-CellImmune Checkpoint InhibitorImmunosuppressionImmunotherapyOncolytic virusT cell

Identifiers

PMID39060020
PMCPMC11284828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.