Registration for a live webinar on 'Precision medicine treatment for anticancer drug resistance' is now open.
See webinar detailsWe noted you are experiencing viewing problems
-
Check with your IT department that JWPlatform, JWPlayer and Amazon AWS & CloudFront are not being blocked by your network. The relevant domains are *.jwplatform.com, *.jwpsrv.com, *.jwpcdn.com, jwpltx.com, jwpsrv.a.ssl.fastly.net, *.amazonaws.com and *.cloudfront.net. The relevant ports are 80 and 443.
-
Check the following talk links to see which ones work correctly:
Auto Mode
HTTP Progressive Download Send us your results from the above test links at access@hstalks.com and we will contact you with further advice on troubleshooting your viewing problems. -
No luck yet? More tips for troubleshooting viewing issues
-
Contact HST Support access@hstalks.com
-
Please review our troubleshooting guide for tips and advice on resolving your viewing problems.
-
For additional help, please don't hesitate to contact HST support access@hstalks.com
We hope you have enjoyed this limited-length demo
This is a limited length demo talk; you may
login or
review methods of
obtaining more access.
Printable Handouts
Navigable Slide Index
- Introduction
- Declaration of interests
- Systemic versus local delivery
- Example of intratumoural injections
- Intratumoural injections in head and neck cancer
- Pattern recognition receptors activate innate immunity
- Activation of pattern recognition receptors
- Viruses as pathogens
- Oncolytic viruses
- Viruses in oncolytic therapy
- T-VEC
- Deletion of ICP34.5 attenuates replication
- ICP34.5 deletion results in tumour-selective replication
- T-VEC – local and systemic effects
- A Phase I study of OncoVEXGM-CSF
- Phase II clinical trial
- Phase II clinical trial: lesions & survival
- OPTiM Phase III trial (005/05)
- OPTiM endpoints
- 64% of injected lesions responded to T-VEC
- 34% of non-injected non-visceral lesions responded to T-VEC
- 15% of visceral lesions responded to T-VEC
- I.T. oncolytic viruses as immunomodulators
- MASTERKEY-265 study
- MASTERKEY-265 study: survival
- MASTERKEY-265 study: response level
- GALV – fusogenic membrane glycoprotein
- GALV increases cytotoxicity and gene expression
- GALV-expressing virus is more active in vivo
- GALV-expressing virus increases immune infiltrates
- GALV-expressing virus is active with anti-PD1 MAB
- RP1 as a platform for next-generation viral immunotherapies
- Thank you for listening
Topics Covered
- Enhancing innate anti-tumour immunity
- Systemic versus local delivery
- Intratumoral injections in head and neck cancer
- Pattern recognition receptors activate innate immunity
- Viruses in oncolytic therapy
- T-VEC: local and systemic effects
- Different clinical studies
Links
Series:
Categories:
Therapeutic Areas:
Talk Citation
Harrington, K. (2024, November 28). Enhancing innate anti-tumour immunity: lessons from virotherapy and STING agonism 1 [Video file]. In The Biomedical & Life Sciences Collection, Henry Stewart Talks. Retrieved December 19, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.69645/FGVW6016.Export Citation (RIS)
Publication History
Financial Disclosures
- Prof. Kevin Harrington has not informed HSTalks of any commercial/financial relationship that it is appropriate to disclose.
Enhancing innate anti-tumour immunity: lessons from virotherapy and STING agonism 1
Published on November 28, 2024
38 min
Other Talks in the Series: Periodic Reports: Advances in Clinical Interventions and Research Platforms
Transcript
Please wait while the transcript is being prepared...
0:00
Hello, my name is
Kevin Harrington.
I'm a Professor in Biological
Cancer Therapies at
the Institute of
Cancer Research,
and a Clinical Oncologist at
the Royal Marsden
Hospital in London.
It's my pleasure today
to discuss with you
Enhancing Innate Anti-Tumour Immunity:
Lessons from Virotherapy and STING Agonism.
0:23
These are my declarations
of interest.
0:27
I'm going to begin
the discussion by
thinking about the question of
whether or not we
should be using
systemically
administered agents or
whether or not we should be
delivering them by
local injection.
To illustrate this,
I will talk about
two separate virus
therapies that
are in clinical development.
On the left-hand
side of the slide,
you see the oncolytic
reovirus agent, pelareorep,
which has been delivered in
a number of clinical studies
by intravenous injection.
The virus can colonise
tumours leading to
infection and setting
up virus factories.
These viruses will grow
within tumour cells that
have an abnormality in
the activation status of
the RAS pathway—either through
RAS mutation or through
constitutive activation of
the EGFR-MAP kinase ERK pathway.
Viruses will grow within
these tumour cells,
with such abnormalities
leading to
their lysis and their killing,
and potentially,
activation of anti-tumour
immune responses.
On the right-hand side of
the slide, in contrast,
I show you an
approach related to
direct intratumoral
injection of an agent,
so through local delivery.
Here, the idea is that
the virus infects a directly
injected tumour deposit,
replicates within it,
lysing the tumour cells.
Releasing new viruses
for ongoing infection,
danger-associated
molecular patterns and
pathogen-associated molecular
patterns for immune activation,
and also tumour-associated
antigens that
can be picked up by
dendritic cells within
the tumour microenvironment.
Those dendritic cells
will become activated,
mature and migrate to
locoregional lymph nodes
where they will demonstrate
those antigens to
T cells within the lymph nodes.
If there is one T
cell that expresses
a cognate T cell receptor
against that antigen,
that T cell can
become activated,
can replicate—generating
thousands, indeed,
millions of copies
of that T cell that
can be released back into
the systemic circulation to
return to the locally
injected disease,
to locoregional lymph nodes
containing the disease,
and to more distant deposits to
mediate a systemic
anti-tumour effect.
So in effect, local
vaccination for
a systemic therapy benefit.
Hide