Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are multimodal cancer therapeutics, with one of their dominant mechanisms being in situ vaccination. There is a growing consensus that optimal cancer therapies should generate robust tumor-specific immune responses. Immunogenic cell death (ICD) is a paradigm of cellular demise culminating in the spatiotemporal release of danger-associated molecular patterns that induce potent anticancer immunity. Alongside traditional ICD inducers like anthracycline chemotherapeutics and radiation, OVs have emerged as novel members of this class of therapeutics. OVs replicate in cancers and release tumor Ags, which are perceived as dangerous because of simultaneous expression of pathogen-associated molecular patterns that activate APCs. Therefore, OVs provide the target Ags and danger signals required to induce adaptive immune responses. This review discusses why OVs are attractive candidates for generating ICD, biological barriers limiting their success in the clinic, and groundbreaking strategies to potentiate ICD and antitumor immunity with rationally designed OV-based combination therapies.

Viruses are ubiquitous intracellular genetic parasites that heavily rely on the infected cell to complete their replication life cycle. This dependency on the host machinery forces viruses to modulate a variety of cellular processes including cell survival and cell death. Viruses are known to activate and block almost all types of programmed cell death (PCD) known so far. Modulating PCD in infected hosts has a variety of direct and indirect effects on viral pathogenesis and antiviral immunity. The mechanisms leading to apoptosis following virus infection is widely studied, but several modalities of PCD, including necroptosis, pyroptosis, ferroptosis, and paraptosis, are relatively understudied. In this review, we cover the mechanisms by which viruses activate and inhibit PCDs and suggest perspectives on how these affect viral pathogenesis and immunity.

The immune system can recognize tumor cells to mount antigen-specific T cell response. Central to the establishment of T cell-mediated adaptive immunity are the inflammatory events that facilitate antigen presentation by stimulating the expression of MHC and costimulatory molecules and the secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Such inflammatory events can be triggered upon cytotoxic treatments that induce immunogenic cancer cell death modalities. However, cancers have acquired a plethora of mechanisms to subvert, or to hide from, host-encoded immunosurveillance. Here, we discuss how tumor intrinsic oncogenic factors subvert desirable intratumoral inflammation by suppressing immunogenic cell death.

Cancer immunotherapies using monoclonal antibodies to block inhibitory checkpoints are showing durable remissions in many types of cancer patients, although the majority of breast cancer patients acquire little benefit. Human melanoma and lung cancer patient studies suggest that immune checkpoint inhibitors are often potent in patients that already have intratumoral T cell infiltrate; although it remains unknown what types of interventions can result in an intratumoral T cell infiltrate in breast cancer. Using non-T cell-inflamed mammary tumors, we assessed what biological processes and downstream inflammation can overcome the barriers to spontaneous T cell priming. Here we show a specific type of combination therapy, consisting of oncolytic virus and chemotherapy, activates necroptosis and limits tumor growth in autochthonous tumors. Combination therapy activates proinflammatory cytokines; intratumoral influx of myeloid cells and cytotoxic T cell infiltrate in locally treated and distant autochthonous tumors to render them susceptible to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Background: Initiation of antitumor immunity is reliant on the stimulation of dendritic cells (DCs) to present tumor antigens to naïve T cells and generate effector T cells that can kill cancer cells. Induction of immunogenic cell death after certain types of cytotoxic anticancer therapies can stimulate T cell-mediated immunity. However, cytotoxic therapies simultaneously activate multiple types of cellular stress and programmed cell death; hence, it remains unknown what types of cancer cell death confer superior antitumor immunity. Methods: Murine cancer cells were engineered to activate apoptotic or pyroptotic cell death after Dox-induced expression of procell death proteins. Cell-free supernatants were collected to measure secreted danger signals, cytokines, and chemokines. Tumors were formed by transplanting engineered tumor cells to specifically activate apoptosis or pyroptosis in established tumors and the magnitude of immune response measured by flow cytometry. Tumor growth was measured using calipers to estimate end point tumor volumes for Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Results: We demonstrated that, unlike apoptosis, pyroptosis induces an immunostimulatory secretome signature. In established tumors pyroptosis preferentially activated CD103⁺ and XCR1⁺ type I conventional DCs (cDC1) along with a higher magnitude and functionality of tumor-specific CD8⁺ T cells and reduced number of regulatory T cells within the tumor. Depletion of cDC1 or CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells ablated the antitumor response leaving mice susceptible to a tumor rechallenge. Conclusion: Our study highlights that distinct types of cell death yield varying immunotherapeutic effect and selective activation of pyroptosis can be used to potentiate multiple aspects of the anticancer immunity cycle.

Oncolytic viruses are novel immunotherapeutic agents that appear to mediate potent antineoplastic effects in both preclinical and clinical settings. Recent studies demonstrate that manipulating the...