Advertisement
Panasonic
Panasonic

Cancer-Fighting Virus

A small patient trial offers hope that cancer-killing viruses might be a viable therapy after all.

By | June 13, 2012

image: Cancer-Fighting Virus Virus modelsFlickr, Razza Mathadsa

Virus modelsFLICKR, RAZZA MATHADSA

A common virus given to patients intravenously can avoid immune detection, hitching a ride on immune cells in the blood, and find its way to tumor targets, where it replicates and destroys the cancerous cells, according to a report out today (June 13) in Science Translational Medicine.

“A lot of people in the field … had suggested that giving the virus into the blood couldn’t work because the antibodies would neutralize it straight away,” explained Alan Melcher, a clinical oncologist at the University of Leeds in the UK, who led the study. His team’s work now shows it is in fact an efficient way to target a tumor.

A laboratory-grown virus that can infect humans and evade the immune system might sound like it belongs on a bioterrorist’s must-have list, but in fact it’s what some cancer researchers have been waiting for. The viruses in question, including the one used by Melcher and colleagues, are adept at killing cancer cells but leave healthy tissue alone.  “Often tumors get rid of genes to become immortal, and when they do that they actually become weak when it comes to viral infection,” explained John Bell, a specialist in Cancer Therapeutics at Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in Canada, who was not involved in the work.

But because these viruses, known as oncolytic viruses, commonly infect humans, most people have antibodies against them, and researchers feared that this might put the kibosh on any plans for their therapeutic use.  Indeed in mice that were injected with reovirus—the virus used by Melcher and colleagues—preexisting antibodies prevented its delivery to tumors.

This turns out not to happen in humans, however. By injecting a large amount of reovirus into the blood, Melcher’s team was able to overcome the antibody neutralization. “I think they have demonstrated pretty nicely that one of the predicted barriers to therapeutic success isn’t in fact a barrier,” said Brain Lichty, a pathologist at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, who also did not participate in the research. “[They’ve shown] that by simply dumping-in sufficient virus, even in people that have preexisting antibodies, they’re clearly able to deliver virus to tumors,” he said.

“It is a good example of why we have to do experiments in people and not just in animals,” added Bell.

Melcher and his colleagues administered large doses of reovirus to patients suffering from colorectal cancers that had metastasized to the liver. Ten patients, who were scheduled to have the liver tumors surgically removed, agreed to be dosed in the arm with reovirus after being told that, “in theory this virus might have some activity against your cancer, but it is absolutely not proven,” said Melcher.

Reovirus normally doesn’t cause any disease in humans, only rarely resulting in mild colds or stomach upsets. The patients, who received injections between a week and a month prior to surgery, suffered mild flu-like symptoms. Blood samples were taken at various time points and, after surgery, tumor tissue and surrounding normal liver were analyzed for the presence of the virus.

The researchers found that while virus particles in the serum of patients’ blood were mostly non-viable—no doubt neutralized by the patients’ antibodies—those particles that instead associated with immune cells, survived and were capable of replication in vitro. It is not yet clear whether the viruses entered the immune cells or attached to the outside, but live replicating virus detected in the tumors indicates that these immune-cell-associated viruses were escorted unharmed to the site of cancer.

The tumor cells also showed signs of cell death, suggesting that once the viruses reached the cancer, they were effective killers. Furthermore, it was only the tumor cells, and not normal liver tissue, that showed signs of both virus infection and cell death.

The big question—whether patients actually benefited from the therapy—remains unanswered. “To be honest, the numbers are too small to say,” said Melcher. “Unfortunately, in some of them their cancer has returned… but there is absolutely no way, from 10 patients, of saying whether the virus has made things any better or worse.” Much larger clinical trials are necessary, and these are now in development, he said.

Back in the laboratory, Melcher plans to test other types of cancer-killing viruses in a variety of tumor types to see which are best at killing which cancers. However, curing cancer isn’t going to be as simple as catching a cold. “We’re putting a very high dose of virus into the circulation [of the patients],” Melcher explained. “So sadly it’s not that catching these infections just from the normal course of things would help people with cancer. It needs to be targeted and deliberate treatment.”

 

R.A. Adair et al. “Cell Carriage, Delivery, and Selective Replication of an Oncolytic Virus in Tumor in Patients,” Sci. Transl. Med. 4, 138ra77, 2012.

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Robert Bruck

Robert Bruck

Posts: 1

June 14, 2012

My mentor Dr. Norman Molomut of the Waldemar Cancer Research Institute NY made this discovery in 1960 and published 50 papers on it through 1990.  This is not news!
Dr. Robert Bruck

Avatar of: Guest

Anonymous

June 14, 2012

Robert, you're absolutely right that the idea is not new.  What is new, hopefully, is, is that a special modified virus may have been "engineered," -- an update in the progress of applying the idea.  But, then, of course, if Dr. Molomut engineered this same special virus, or one with the same characteristics, that is another matter.

Another aspect of the newly engineered virus is not new, either.  It is the issue of how we can ascertain that this, or any other, newly engineered cancer-cell-only-selecting killer virus might be capable of acquiring one or more other characteristics by way of co-invading a normal cell being invaded by another virus, and pick up RNA fragments, perhaps, that would render it capable of harming non-cancerous cells.

This is not meant to be nay-saying.  It is inconceivable that the laboratory in which a specialized cancer-cell-killing virus has not thought of this, and factored this potential into its designing.

Again, let me emphasize that this is not intended to be an obstructive question on my part but, rather, a constructive question -- and one that has undergone much rigorous analysis by the researchers involved.  For all you and I know, upon reading the article, the "cancer-cell-targeting virus" attacks some isolated characteristic in a cancer cell, at the molecular level, that healthy cells do not have.

So many, many efforts to gain the upper hand over cancer have turned out to be comparable to chess moves, which, having been transacted, thence are subject to counter-play on part of the "opponent," the cancer.  But, rather than being a two-dimensional game, the contest is far more complex.  It is as if one can invent a new game piece that is capable of doing things the existing knights, bishops, pawns... as it were cannot do but, in changing the rules, such a piece might even be vulnerable to being used by the opponent, or even by its interaction with the veritable rules of the game, become a detriment to our effort, in its own right.

That is very abstract, I know.  But it is only meant to suggest just how many twists and turns have frustrated efforts to defeat (or neutralize) this enemy of human coping.

If the writers of the paper are reading these comments, perhaps they would enlighten us on their thinking, as to if, and if so how, any newly engineer virus can be kept from, as it were, going feral and becoming a nuisance in its own right.  I feel sure you would welcome such additional information as much as I.

Avatar of: JohnnyMorales

JohnnyMorales

Posts: 9

June 14, 2012

The question I have is why didn't they inject the virus directly into the parts of the body where the tumors are located. This would ensure a much higher load of virus particles would reach the cancerous cells without the help of the immune cells.

Immunity, I thought, is carried in the blood stream primarily. By avoiding it and directly injecting the particles into the site of the cancer most of the immunity would be avoided.

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement
Anova
Anova

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
NuAire Inc.
NuAire Inc.
Advertisement
NeuroScientistNews
NeuroScientistNews