Phase I Trial of Cyclophosphamide as an Immune Modulator for Optimizing Oncolytic Reovirus Delivery to Solid Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Reovirus is a wild-type oncolytic virus that is ubiquitous in the environment; most patients are therefore preimmune. Therapeutic administration leads to an increase in neutralizing antireovirus antibody (NARA) titer. We hypothesized that if NARA limited reovirus antitumor activity, the effect might be attenuated by coadministration of cyclophosphamide. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In a phase I study, patients with advanced cancer received cyclophosphamide 3 days before intravenous reovirus serotype 3 Dearing (RT3D). The primary objective was to reduce the resulting rise in NARA titer. Cyclophosphamide dose was escalated from 25-1,000 mg/m(2) through nine cohorts; we aimed to define a well-tolerated immunomodulatory dose. RESULTS: The combination was well tolerated in 36 patients, with grade 3/4 toxicities only seen at or above the maximum tolerated dose of cyclophosphamide, which was 800 mg/m(2) combined with reovirus. Immunosuppressive effect, defined as maintaining NARA titer rise below a predefined threshold, was observed in only one patient. Furthermore, despite expected myelosuppression seen at higher cyclophosphamide doses, no changes in T-cell subsets, including Tregs, occurred with dose escalation. Viable virus was detected in association with peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from 14% of patients 10 days after the last RT3D injection, despite high plasma NARA titer, demonstrating a potential mechanism for prolonged evasion of neutralization by reovirus. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of cyclophosphamide with reovirus is safe, but does not attenuate host antiviral responses. Alternative immunomodulation approaches should be explored, but association with PBMCs may allow reovirus to persist and evade even high levels of neutralizing antibodies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".