Regional hyperthermia with cisplatin added to gemcitabine versus gemcitabine in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: The HEAT randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Regional hyperthermia (RHT) with cisplatin added to gemcitabine showed efficacy in gemcitabine-pre-treated patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We conducted a randomised clinical trial to investigate RHT with cisplatin added to gemcitabine (GPH) compared with gemcitabine (G) in the adjuvant setting of resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This randomised, multicentre, open-label trial randomly assigned patients to either GPH (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on day 1, 15 and cisplatin 25 mg/m2 with RHT on day 2, 3 and 15,16) or to G (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on day 1,8,15), four-weekly over six cycles. Disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary end-point. Secondary end-points included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS: A total of 117 eligible patients (median age, 63 years) were randomly allocated to treatment (57 GPH; 60 G). With a follow-up time of 56.6 months, the median DFS was 12.7 compared to 11.2 months for GPH and G, respectively (p = 0.394). Median post-recurrence survival was significantly prolonged in the GPH-group (15.3 versus 9.8 months; p = 0.031). Median OS reached 33.2 versus 25.2 months (p = 0.099) with 5-year survival rates of 28.4% versus 18.7%. Excluding eight patients who received additional capecitabine in the G-arm (investigators choice), median OS favoured GPH (p = 0.052). Adverse events CTCAE (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) grade ≥3 occurred in 61.5% (GPH) versus 63.6% (G) of patients. Two patients in the G-group died because of treatment-related toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: The randomised controlled Hyperthermia European Adjuvant Trial study failed to demonstrate a significant difference in DFS. However, it suggests a difference in post-recurrence survival and a trend for improved OS. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, number NCT01077427.

Gemcitabine and cisplatin combined with regional hyperthermia as second-line treatment in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: There is no standard second-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) after gemcitabine (G) failure. Cisplatin (Cis)-based chemotherapy has shown activity in APC. It is proven that cytotoxicity of G and Cis is enhanced by heat exposure at 40° to 42°C. Therefore G plus Cis with regional hyperthermia (RHT) might be beneficial for patients with G-refractory APC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 23 patients with advanced (n = 2) or metastatic (n = 21) pancreatic cancer with relapse after G mono first-line chemotherapy (n = 23). Patients had received G (day 1, 1000 mg/m(2)) and Cis (day 2 and 4, 25 mg/m(2)) in combination with RHT (day 2 and 4, 1 h) biweekly for 4 months. We analysed feasibility, toxicity, time to second progression (TTP2), overall survival (OS) and clinical response. RESULTS: Between October 1999 and August 2008 23 patients were treated. Haematological toxicity was low with no grade 4 event. Hyperthermia-associated toxicity consisted of discomfort because of bolus pressure (3%), power-related pain (7%) or position-related pain (17%). Median TTP1 was 5.9 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.6-9.2), median TTP2 was 4.3 months (95%CI: 1.2-7.4) and OS 12.9 months (95%CI: 9.9-15.9). The disease control rate in 16 patients with available CT scans was 50%. CONCLUSION: We show first clinical data of G plus Cis with RHT being clinically active in G-pretreated APC with low toxicity. A prospective controlled phase II second-line clinical trial (EudraCT: 2005-003855-11) and a randomised phase III adjuvant clinical trial offering this treatment (HEAT; EudraCT: 2008-004802-14) are currently open for recruitment.

Modified vaccinia virus Ankara delivers a robust surrogate marker for immune monitoring to sarcoma cells even if cells are being exposed to chemotherapy and heat treatment.

PURPOSE: Adding hyperthermia to chemotherapy improved the clinical outcome of patients with high risk soft tissue sarcoma. Further improvement might be possible if combined with vaccination strategies. As no sarcoma-associated antigens are known, the ectopic expression of a surrogate marker for which immune monitoring tools are available, is envisaged. We tested surrogate marker transfer into sarcoma cells in vitro using modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA), which has well established clinical safety. We examined its robustness against standard sarcoma treatment modalities, such as ifosfamide and hyperthermia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We transduced sarcoma cell lines and primary tumour cells from sarcoma patients with MVA encoding the human tyrosinase gene (MVA-hTyr). Kinetics of tyrosinase expression and the potency to activate tyrosinase-specific cytotoxic T cells were assessed. In addition cells were exposed to chemotherapy and heat, imitating the clinical setting. RESULTS: Tyrosinase was ectopically expressed in sarcoma cells. Infected cells presented tyrosinase epitopes for T cell recognition even if exposed to ifosfamide/heat. CONCLUSIONS: As sarcoma patients receive surgery up front or after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy/hyperthermia, tumour material is generally available. Our data document that primary sarcoma cells can be infected with MVA-hTyr in vitro and antigen presentation is not affected by ifosfamide or heat treatment. Infected cells can serve as a source for vaccine preparation. MVA-hTyr infection of tumour cells lacking defined antigens is a feasible system to introduce a robust surrogate marker to provide an immune monitoring marker for assessing the induction of antigen-specific T cell activation.