## Abstract Semliki Forest virus (SFV) is one of the latest candidates for a virotherapeutic agent against cancer, and recent studies have demonstrated its efficacy in tumor models. In the present study, we examined the antitumor efficacy of an avirulent SFV strain A7(74) and its derivative, a repl
Replication competent Semliki Forest virus prolongs survival in experimental lung cancer
✍ Scribed by Ann-Marie Määttä; Kimmo Mäkinen; Anna Ketola; Timo Liimatainen; Felicitas Newu Yongabi; Markus Vähä-Koskela; Risto Pirinen; Outi Rautsi; Riikka Pellinen; Ari Hinkkanen; Jarmo Wahlfors
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2008
- Tongue
- French
- Weight
- 387 KB
- Volume
- 123
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0020-7136
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Abstract
We evaluated the therapeutic potential of the replication competent vector VA7‐EGFP, which is based on the avirulent Semliki Forest virus (SFV) strain A7 (74) carrying the EGFP marker gene in an orthotopic lung cancer tumor model in nude mice. We have previously shown that this oncolytic vector destroys tumor cells efficiently in vitro and in vivo (in subcutaneous tumor model). Tumor growth in animals with orthotopically implanted adenocarcinoma cells (A549) were monitored during the study with small animal CT. We show that locally administered virotherapy with VA7‐EGFP increased survival rate in experimental lung cancer significantly (p < 0.001) comparable to results obtained with the second generation conditionally replicating adenoviral vector Ad5‐Δ24TK‐GFP, used for comparison. The limited efficacy in systemically administered oncolytic viruses is the essential problem in oncolytic virotherapy and also in this study we were not able to elicit significant response with systemic administration route. Despite the fact that tumor microenvironment in orthotopic lung cancer is more optimal, viruses failed to home to the tumors and were unable to initiate efficient intratumoral replication. Clearly, the efficacy of virotherapy is influenced by many factors such as the route of virus administration, immunological and physiological barriers and cancer cell–specific features (IFN‐responsiveness). © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES