Search

Oncolytic virus (OV) is a replication competent virus that selectively invades cancer cells; as these cells die under the viral burden, the released virus particles proceed to infect other cancer cells. Oncolytic viruses are designed to also be able to stimulate the anticancer immune response. Thus, one may represent an OV by two parameters: its replication potential and its immunogenicity. In this paper we consider a combination therapy with OV and a checkpoint inhibitor, anti-PD-1. We evaluate the efficacy of the combination therapy in terms of the tumor volume at some later time, for example, 6 months from initial treatment. Since T cells kill not only virus-free cancer cells but also virus-infected cancer cells, the following question arises: Does increasing the amount of the checkpoint inhibitor always improve the efficacy? We address this question, by a mathematical model consisting of a system of partial differential equations. We use the model to construct, by simulations, an efficacy map in terms of the doses of the checkpoint inhibitor and the OV injection. We show that there are regions in the map where an increase in the checkpoint inhibitor actually decreases the efficacy of the treatment. We also construct efficacy maps with checkpoint inhibitor vs. the replication potential of the virus that show the same antagonism, namely, an increase in the checkpoint inhibitor may actually decrease the efficacy. These results have implications for clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we consider a combination therapy of cancer. One drug is a vaccine which activates dendritic cells so that they induce more T cells to infiltrate the tumor. The other drug is a checkpoint inhibitor, which enables the T cells to remain active against the cancer cells. The two drugs are positively correlated in the sense that an increase in the amount of each drug results in a reduction in the tumor volume. We consider the question whether a treatment with combination of the two drugs at certain levels is preferable to a treatment by one of the drugs alone at ‘roughly’ twice the dosage level; if that is the case, then we say that there is a positive ‘synergy’ for this combination of dosages. To address this question, we develop a mathematical model using a system of partial differential equations. The variables include dendritic and cancer cells, CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, IL-12 and IL-2, GM-CSF produced by the vaccine, and a T cell checkpoint inhibitor associated with PD-1. We use the model to explore the efficacy of the two drugs, separately and in combination, and compare the simulations with data from mouse experiments. We next introduce the concept of synergy between the drugs and develop a synergy map which suggests in what proportion to administer the drugs in order to achieve the maximum reduction of tumor volume under the constraint of maximum tolerated dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interleukin-12 is a pro-inflammatory cytokine which promotes Th1 and cytotoxic T lymphocyte activities, such as Interferon- secretion. For this reason Interleukin-12 could be a powerful therapeutic agent for cancer treatment. However, Interleukin-12 is also excessively toxic. Interleukin-27 is an immunoregulatory cytokine from the Interleukin-12 family, but it is not as toxic as Interleukin-12. In recent years, Interleukin-27 has been considered as a potential anti-tumor agent. Recent experiments in vitro and in vivo have shown that cancer cells transfected with IL-27 activate CD8+ T cells to promote the secretion of anti-tumor cytokines Interleukin-10, although, at the same time, IL-27 inhibits the secretion of Interferon- by CD8+ T cells. In the present paper we develop a mathematical model based on these experimental results. The model involves a dynamic network which includes tumor cells, CD8+ T cells and cytokines Interleukin-27, Interleukin-10 and Interferon-. Simulations of the model show how Interleukin-27 promotes CD8+ T cells to secrete Interleukin-10 to inhibit tumor growth. On the other hand Interleukin-27 inhibits the secretion of Interferon- by CD8+ T cells which somewhat diminishes the inhibition of tumor growth. Our numerical results are in qualitative agreement with experimental data. We use the model to design protocols of IL-27 injections for the treatment of cancer and find that, for some special types of cancer, with a fixed total amount of drug, within a certain range, continuous injection has better efficacy than intermittent injections in reducing the tumor load while the treatment is ongoing, although the decrease in tumor load is only temporary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lack of immunogenicity of cancer cells has been considered a major reason for their failure in induction of a tumor specific T cell response. In this paper, we present evidence that decitabine (DAC), a DNA methylation inhibitor that is currently used for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and other malignant neoplasms, is capable of eliciting an anti-tumor cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) response in mouse EL4 tumor model. C57BL/6 mice with established EL4 tumors were treated with DAC (1.0 mg/kg body weight) once daily for 5 days. We found that DAC treatment resulted in infiltration of IFN-γ producing T lymphocytes into tumors and caused tumor rejection. Depletion of CD8+, but not CD4+ T cells resumed tumor growth. DAC-induced CTL response appeared to be elicited by the induction of CD80 expression on tumor cells. Epigenetic evidence suggests that DAC induces CD80 expression in EL4 cells via demethylation of CpG dinucleotide sites in the promoter of CD80 gene. In addition, we also showed that a transient, low-dose DAC treatment can induce CD80 gene expression in a variety of human cancer cells. This study provides the first evidence that epigenetic modulation can induce the expression of a major T cell co-stimulatory molecule on cancer cells, which can overcome immune tolerance, and induce an efficient anti-tumor CTL response. The results have important implications in designing DAC-based cancer immunotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]