Yu-Ping Liu1, Michael B Steele1, Lukkana Suksanpaisan1, Mark J Federspiel2, Stephen J Russell3, Kah Whye Peng4, Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez5. 1. Department of Molecular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. Department of Molecular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Department of Molecular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Department of Molecular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Division of Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Division of Gynecologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: bakkum.jamie@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Current adjuvant therapy for advanced-stage, recurrent, and high-risk endometrial cancer (EC) has not reduced mortality from this malignancy, and novel systemic therapies are imperative. Oncolytic viral therapy has been shown to be effective in the treatment of gynecologic cancers, and we investigated the in vitro and in vivo efficacy of the Edmonston strain of measles virus (MV) and vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) on EC. METHODS: Human EC cell lines (HEC-1-A, Ishikawa, KLE, RL95-2, AN3 CA, ARK-1, ARK-2, and SPEC-2) were infected with Edmonston strain MV expressing the thyroidal sodium iodide symporter, VSV expressing either human or murine IFN-β, or recombinant VSV with a methionine deletion at residue 51 of the matrix protein and expressing the sodium iodide symporter. Xenografts of HEC-1-A and AN3 CA generated in athymic mice were treated with intratumoral MV or VSV or intravenous VSV. RESULTS: In vitro, all cell lines were susceptible to infection and cell killing by all 3 VSV strains except KLE. In addition, the majority of EC cell lines were defective in their ability to respond to type I IFN. Intratumoral VSV-treated tumors regressed more rapidly than MV-treated tumors, and intravenous VSV resulted in effective tumor control in 100% of mice. Survival was significantly longer for mice treated with any of the 3 VSV strains compared with saline. CONCLUSION: VSV is clearly more potent in EC oncolysis than MV. A phase 1 clinical trial of VSV in EC is warranted.
OBJECTIVE: Current adjuvant therapy for advanced-stage, recurrent, and high-risk endometrial cancer (EC) has not reduced mortality from this malignancy, and novel systemic therapies are imperative. Oncolytic viral therapy has been shown to be effective in the treatment of gynecologic cancers, and we investigated the in vitro and in vivo efficacy of the Edmonston strain of measles virus (MV) and vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) on EC. METHODS:Human EC cell lines (HEC-1-A, Ishikawa, KLE, RL95-2, AN3 CA, ARK-1, ARK-2, and SPEC-2) were infected with Edmonston strain MV expressing the thyroidal sodium iodide symporter, VSV expressing either human or murineIFN-β, or recombinant VSV with a methionine deletion at residue 51 of the matrix protein and expressing the sodium iodide symporter. Xenografts of HEC-1-A and AN3 CA generated in athymic mice were treated with intratumoral MV or VSV or intravenous VSV. RESULTS: In vitro, all cell lines were susceptible to infection and cell killing by all 3 VSV strains except KLE. In addition, the majority of EC cell lines were defective in their ability to respond to type I IFN. Intratumoral VSV-treated tumors regressed more rapidly than MV-treated tumors, and intravenous VSV resulted in effective tumor control in 100% of mice. Survival was significantly longer for mice treated with any of the 3 VSV strains compared with saline. CONCLUSION:VSV is clearly more potent in EC oncolysis than MV. A phase 1 clinical trial of VSV in EC is warranted.
Authors: Kensuke Hirasawa; Sandra G Nishikawa; Kara L Norman; Tommy Alain; Anna Kossakowska; Patrick W K Lee Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-03-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Carol Aghajanian; Michael W Sill; Kathleen M Darcy; Benjamin Greer; D Scott McMeekin; Peter G Rose; Jacob Rotmensch; Mack N Barnes; Parviz Hanjani; Kimberly K Leslie Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David Dingli; Kah-Whye Peng; Mary E Harvey; Philip R Greipp; Michael K O'Connor; Roberto Cattaneo; John C Morris; Stephen J Russell Journal: Blood Date: 2003-11-06 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Nathan Jenks; Rae Myers; Suzanne M Greiner; Jill Thompson; Emily K Mader; Andrew Greenslade; Guy E Griesmann; Mark J Federspiel; Jorge Rakela; Mitesh J Borad; Richard G Vile; Glen N Barber; Thomas R Meier; Michael C Blanco; Stephanie K Carlson; Stephen J Russell; Kah-Whye Peng Journal: Hum Gene Ther Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 5.695
Authors: Yu-Ping Liu; Jiahu Wang; Victoria A Avanzato; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Stephen J Russell; John C Bell; Kah-Whye Peng Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 5.482