Randomized Phase II study of the safety, efficacy and immune response of GVAX pancreas (with cyclophosphamide) and CRS-207 with or without nivolumab in patients with previously treated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (STELLAR)

Improved DNA delivery using invasive E. coli DH10B in human cells by modified bactofection method

E. coli mediated gene delivery faces a major drawback of low efficiency despite of being a safer alternative to viral vectors. This study showed a novel, simple and effective strategy to enhance invasive E. coli DH10B vector's efficiency in human epithelial cells. The bactofection efficiency of invasive E .coli vector was analyzed in nine cell lines. It demonstrated highest (16%) reporter gene (GFP) expression in cervical cells. Methods were employed to further enhance its efficiency by adding transfection reagents (trans-bactofection method) to promote entry into host cells, lysosomotropic reagents for escape from lysosomal degradation or antibiotics to lyse internalized bacteria. Increased bacterial entry, as elucidated from nil to 3% expression in liver cells, was obtained upon complexing bacteria with PULSin. Chloroquine mediated endosomal escape resulted in 7.2 folds increase whereas tetracycline addition to lyse internalized bacteria caused ≈90% of GFP in HeLa. Eventually, the combined effect of these three methods exhibited close to 100% GFP in cervical and remarkable increase of 138 folds in breast cells. This is the first study showing comparative study of vector's gene delivery ability in various epithelial cells of the human body with improving its delivery efficiency. These data demonstrated the potential of developed bactofection method to boost up the efficiency of other bacterial vectors also, which could further be used for effectual therapeutic gene delivery in human cells.

Harnessing the Immune System in Pancreatic Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Managing patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPDA) is a challenging proposition for any treating oncologist. Although the potency of first-line therapies has improved with the approvals of FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, many patients are unable to derive significant benefit from later lines of therapy upon progression. Enrollment on clinical trials remains among the best options for patients with mPDA in all lines of therapy. At our institution, we routinely check for microsatellite instability (MSI-H) and perform next-generation sequencing (NGS) at the time of diagnosis in all good performance status mPDA patients. Although MSI-H status is only found in 1% of patients with mPDA, given pembrolizumab's tissue-agnostic approval for MSI-H tumors in later-line settings, it is a viable option when deciding on subsequent lines of therapy. Any use of immune therapy in mPDA is investigational outside the MSI-H setting. NGS can identify BRCA or other DNA damage response (DDR) defects in patients which can predict sensitivity to platinum-based therapies and influence choice of both initial and later lines of therapy. It can also identify rare actionable genomic alterations such as HER2 (2%) and TRK fusions (0.1%) and offer patients the option of enrollment on clinical trials with agents targeting these or other identified alterations. We believe enrolling mPDA patients on clinical trials with immune-modulating agents is critical to determine if there are other patient subsets, outside of the MSI-H setting, who would benefit from these approaches. Immunotherapy's general tolerability and potential to generate durable responses make it particularly appealing for mPDA patients. Although single-modality immunotherapy such as checkpoint inhibitors or vaccines have not demonstrated efficacy in this disease, combinatorial strategies targeting unique aspects of PDA including the tumor microenvironment and desmoplastic stroma have shown preclinical or early-phase success. Validating these treatments with later-phase prospective studies is essential to making immunotherapy a routine component of the treatment armamentarium for mPDA patients.

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the locally advanced and metastatic setting, with mixed results. This review attempts to synthesise all the randomised data available to help better inform patient and clinician decision-making when dealing with this difficult disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both for first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Our primary outcome was overall survival, while secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, grade 3/4 adverse events, therapy response and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for published and unpublished studies in CENTRAL (searched 14 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 14 June 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2017) and CANCERLIT (1999 to 2002) databases. We also handsearched all relevant conference abstracts published up until 14 June 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised studies assessing overall survival outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, alone or in combination, were the eligible treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently analysed studies, and a third settled any disputes. We extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QoL), and we assessed risk of bias for each study.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 studies addressing chemotherapy in 9463 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We did not identify any eligible studies on radiotherapy.We did not find any benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care. However, two identified studies did not have sufficient data to be included in the analysis, and many of the chemotherapy regimens studied were outdated.Compared to gemcitabine alone, participants receiving 5FU had worse OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.27, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.92) and QoL. On the other hand, two studies showed FOLFIRINOX was better than gemcitabine for OS (HR 0.51 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.57) and response rates (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.65), but it increased the rate of side effects. The studies evaluating CO-101, ZD9331 and exatecan did not show benefit or harm when compared with gemcitabine alone.Giving gemcitabine at a fixed dose rate improved OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94, high-quality evidence) but increased the rate of side effects when compared with bolus dosing.When comparing gemcitabine combinations to gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine plus platinum improved PFS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95) and response rates (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98) but not OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, low-quality evidence). The rate of side effects increased. Gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine improved OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95), PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87) and response rates (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.47, high-quality evidence), but it also increased side effects. Gemcitabine plus topoisomerase inhibitor did not improve survival outcomes but did increase toxicity. One study demonstrated that gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel improved OS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, high-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82) and response rates (RR 3.29, 95% CI 2.24 to 4.84) but increased side effects. Gemcitabine-containing multi-drug combinations (GEMOXEL or cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU/gemcitabine) improved OS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, low-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) and QOL.We did not find any survival advantages when comparing 5FU combinations to 5FU alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination chemotherapy has recently overtaken the long-standing gemcitabine as the standard of care. FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are highly efficacious, but our analysis shows that other combination regimens also offer a benefit. Selection of the most appropriate chemotherapy for individual patients still remains difficult, with clinicopathological stratification remaining elusive. Biomarker development is essential to help rationalise treatment selection for patients.