Perioperative or only adjuvant gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel for resectable pancreatic cancer (NEONAX)-a randomized phase II trial of the AIO pancreatic cancer group.

BACKGROUND: Data on perioperative chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (rPDAC) are limited. NEONAX examined perioperative or adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in rPDAC (National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria). PATIENTS AND METHODS: NEONAX is a prospective, randomized phase II trial with two independent experimental arms. One hundred twenty-seven rPDAC patients in 22 German centers were randomized 1 : 1 to perioperative (two pre-operative and four post-operative cycles, arm A) or adjuvant (six cycles, arm B) gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. RESULTS: The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) at 18 months in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population [R0/R1-resected patients who started neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CTX) (A) or adjuvant CTX (B)]. The pre-defined DFS rate of 55% at 18 months was not reached in both arms [A: 33.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18.5% to 48.1%), B: 41.4% (95% CI 20.7% to 62.0%)]. Ninety percent of patients in arm A completed neoadjuvant treatment, and 42% of patients in arm B started adjuvant chemotherapy. R0 resection rate was 88% (arm A) and 67% (arm B), respectively. Median overall survival (mOS) (ITT population) as a secondary endpoint was 25.5 months (95% CI 19.7-29.7 months) in arm A and 16.7 months (95% CI 11.6-22.2 months) in the upfront surgery arm. This difference corresponds to a median DFS (mDFS) (ITT) of 11.5 months (95% CI 8.8-14.5 months) in arm A and 5.9 months (95% CI 3.6-11.5 months) in arm B. Treatment was safe and well tolerable in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: The primary endpoint, DFS rate of 55% at 18 months (mITT population), was not reached in either arm of the trial and numerically favored the upfront surgery arm B. mOS (ITT population), a secondary endpoint, numerically favored the neoadjuvant arm A [25.5 months (95% CI 19.7-29.7months); arm B 16.7 months (95% CI 11.6-22.2 months)]. There was a difference in chemotherapy exposure with 90% of patients in arm A completing pre-operative chemotherapy and 58% of patients starting adjuvant chemotherapy in arm B. Neoadjuvant/perioperative treatment is a novel option for patients with resectable PDAC. However, the optimal treatment regimen has yet to be defined. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02047513) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT 2013-005559-34).

Gemcitabine plus sorafenib versus gemcitabine alone in advanced biliary tract cancer: a double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II AIO study with biomarker and serum programme.

BACKGROUND: Since sorafenib has shown activity in different tumour types and gemcitabine regimens improved the outcome for biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients, we evaluated first-line gemcitabine plus sorafenib in a double-blind phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 102 unresectable or metastatic BTC patients with histologically proven adenocarcinoma of gallbladder or intrahepatic bile ducts, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0-2 were randomised to gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 once weekly, first 7-weeks+1-week rest followed by once 3-weeks+1-week rest) plus sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or placebo. Treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Tumour samples were prospectively stained for sorafenib targets and potential biomarkers. Serum samples (first two cycles) were measured for vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) and stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF1)α by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS: Gemcitabine plus sorafenib was generally well tolerated. Four and three patients achieved partial responses in the sorafenib and placebo groups, respectively. There was no difference in the primary end-point, median progression-free survival (PFS) for gemcitabine plus sorafenib versus gemcitabine plus placebo (3.0 versus 4.9 months, P=0.859), and no difference for median overall survival (OS) (8.4 versus 11.2 months, P=0.775). Patients with liver metastasis after resection of primary BTC survived longer with sorafenib (P=0.019) compared to placebo. Patients who developed hand-foot syndrome (HFS) showed longer PFS and OS than patients without HFS. Two sorafenib targets, VEGFR-2 and c-kit, were not expressed in BTC samples. VEGFR-3 and Hif1α were associated with lymph node metastases and T stage. Absence of PDGFRß expression correlated with longer PFS. CONCLUSION: The addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine did not demonstrate improved efficacy in advanced BTC patients. Biomarker subgroup analysis suggested that some patients might benefit from combined treatment.

[Local ablation of malignant lesions of the liver - potential applications and limitations of the different methods]. / Lokale Ablationsverfahren als Ergänzung der Therapie maligner Leberläsionen.

Malignant lesions of the liver are among the most frequent and difficult problems in clinical practice. Liver tumors can be classified as primary (hepatocellular carcinoma HCC, cholangiocarcinoma CC) and secondary liver lesions (metastasis). The therapeutic principle of resecting liver tumours, applies to both types of liver lesions. Unfortunately many patients with primary and secondary liver lesions are inoperable because of technical difficulties or comorbidity. This stimulated the development of percutaneous ablation methods. These procedures allow to destroy tumors percutaneously with alcohol, acetic acid, radiofrequency, microwaves or laser. Potential applications and limitations of the methods are discussed.

Induction of cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses against hepatitis delta virus antigens which protect against tumor formation in mice.

The cellular immune response is a crucial defense mechanism against hepatotropic viruses and in chronic viral hepatitis prevention. Moreover, hepatitis delta virus (HDV) immunogenicity may be an important component in the development of prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines. Therefore, we evaluated the immunogenicity of the small (HDAg) or large delta antigen (LHDAg) to be used as a DNA-based vaccine. We immunized different mouse haplotypes, determined cellular immune responses, and tested protection of animals against tumor formation using syngeneic tumor cells stably expressing the delta antigens. Both LHDAg and HDAg primed CD4+ and CD8+ T cell immunity against both forms of delta antigens. CD8+ T cell frequencies were about 1% and antigen-specific CD8+ T cells remained detectable directly ex vivo for at least 35 days post-injection. No anti-delta antibody responses could be detected despite multiple detection systems and varied immunization approaches. We observed protection against syngeneic tumor formation and growth in mice immunized with DNA plasmids encoding secreted or intracellular forms of HDAg and LHDAg but not with recombinant HDAg establishing the generation of significant cellular immunity in vivo. Both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were required for antitumoral activity as determined by in vivo T cell depletion experiments. The results indicate that DNA-based immunization with genes encoding LHDAg and HDAg induces strong T cell responses and, therefore, is an attractive approach for the construction of therapeutic and prophylactic T cell vaccines against HDV.