Back

In silico clinical trials of BiTE expression by oncolytic viruses reveal the impact of patient heterogeneity on dosage protocol

Jenner, A. L.; Araujo, R. P.; Levi, N. L.; Ungerechts, G.; Engeland, C. E.; Heidbuechel, J. P. W.

2026-07-06 oncology
10.64898/2026.07.02.26357107 medRxiv
Show abstract

Immunotherapies have become a transformative therapeutic strategy for many cancer types in recent years. Bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs) are one promising immunotherapy that enhances cellular antitumour immunity by redirecting T cells towards cancer cells. Recent evidence suggests that BiTE efficacy can be augmented by encoding BiTEs in oncolytic measles virus vectors (MV-BiTE). Infection of cancer cells with MV-BiTE causes the local production of BiTEs and has shown safety and efficacy in murine tumour models. However, whether the observed efficacy of this treatment will translate to a heterogeneous human population is unknown. In this work, we generate an in silico clinical trial of MV-BiTE therapy using a system of ordinary differential equations. We capture potential heterogeneity of individual patients using variability in in vivo tumour volume and change in baseline (%) measurements from a Phase II clinical trial. In lieu of human MV-BiTE data, we use the oncolytic virus talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) as a surrogate oncolytic virus carrying an immunostimulatory payload. Our predictions imply that the main drivers of heterogeneity are the underlying effector T cell killing rate and BiTE pharmacokinetics. Furthermore, we find that if individuals are classified as non-responders to the Phase II T-VEC clinical protocol, they may respond to more frequent administration of lower dosages. This work highlights how in silico clinical trials can provide predictions for novel therapeutics to generate hypotheses and guide the design of treatment schedules for clinical translation.

Published in PLOS Computational Biology (predicted rank #1) · training set

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.