No abstract

Purpose: Local tumor ablation through irreversible electroporation (IRE) may offer a novel therapeutic option for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). It may also serve as a means of in vivo vaccination. To obtain evidence of the induction of systemic antitumor immunity following local IRE-mediated ablation, we performed an explorative immune monitoring study. Methods: In ten patients enrolled in a clinical trial exploring the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of percutaneous image-guided IRE in LAPC, we determined the frequency and activation state of lymphocytic and myeloid subsets in pre- and post-treatment peripheral blood samples using flow cytometry. Tumor-specific systemic T cell responses to the pancreatic cancer associated antigen Wilms Tumor (WT)1 were determined after in vitro stimulation in an interferon-y enzyme-linked immunospot assay (Elispot), at baseline and at 2 weeks and 3 months after IRE. Results: Our data showed a transient decrease in systemic regulatory T cells (Treg) and a simultaneous transient increase in activated PD-1+ T cells, consistent with the temporary reduction of tumor-related immune suppression after the IRE procedure. Accordingly, we found post-IRE boosting of a pre-existing WT1 specific T cell response in two out of three patients as well as the de novo induction of these responses in another two patients. There was a trend for these WT1 T cell responses to be related to longer overall survival (p = .055). Conclusions: These findings are consistent with a systemic and tumor-specific immune stimulatory effect of IRE and support the combination of percutaneous IRE with therapeutic immune modulation.

P ancreatic adenocarcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the United States (1). The 5-year relative survival of patients with pancreatic cancer is less than 8% (1). Contributing to the dismal survival rate is that most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease because of lack of symptoms at early stage pancreatic cancer (1). Surgical resection with adjuvant chemotherapy is considered the best treatment option for long-term survival. However, fewer than 20% of patients present with resectable disease, and, even in this subset of patients, median overall survival (OS) after successful resection and adjuvant therapy is only 28 months (2). Furthermore, one-third of patients develop isolated local recurrence after resection (3), which is commonly unresectable because of vascular involvement (4).Approximately 30% of patients present with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III), defined as greater than 180° circumference tumor encasement of the superior mesenteric or celiac

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive disease with high mortality. The vast majority of patients present with unresectable, advanced stage disease, for whom standard of care chemo(radio)therapy may improve survival by several months. Immunotherapy has led to a fundamental shift in the treatment of several advanced cancers. However, its efficacy in PDAC in terms of clinical benefit is limited, possibly owing to the immunosuppressive, inaccessible tumor microenvironment. Still, various immunotherapies have demonstrated the capacity to initiate local and systemic immune responses, suggesting an immune potentiating effect. In this review, we address PDAC’s immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and immune evasion methods and discuss a wide range of immunotherapies, including immunomodulators (i.e., immune checkpoint inhibitors, immune stimulatory agonists, cytokines and adjuvants), oncolytic viruses, adoptive cell therapies (i.e., T cells and natural killer cells) and cancer vaccines. We provide a general introduction to their working mechanism as well as evidence of their clinical efficacy and immune potentiating abilities in PDAC. The key to successful implementation of immunotherapy in this disease may rely on exploitation of synergistic effects between treatment combinations. Accordingly, future treatment approaches should aim to incorporate diverse and novel immunotherapeutic strategies coupled with cytotoxic drugs and/or local ablative treatment, targeting a wide array of tumor-induced immune escape mechanisms.

The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a ‘toolbox’ of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.