| Literature DB >> 27322463 |
Kaitlyn J Kelly1, Joyce Wong1, Mithat Gönen2, Peter Allen1, Murray Brennan1, Daniel Coit1, Yuman Fong3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with peritoneal dissemination of pancreatic adenocarcinoma do not benefit from surgical resection, but radiologic and cytologic detection of peritoneal cancer lack sensitivity. This trial sought to determine if an oncolytic virus may be used as a diagnostic agent to detect peritoneal cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Diagnostic laparoscopy; Herpes simplex virus; Oncolytic viral therapy; Pancreatic adenocarcinoma; Peritoneal fluid cytology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27322463 PMCID: PMC4909379 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.03.043
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EBioMedicine ISSN: 2352-3964 Impact factor: 8.143
Fig. 1Fluorescent microscopic image of strongly eGFP-positive cells in peritoneal washing from a patient with pancreatic cancer who had negative cytology (magnification 100 ×).
Univariate analysis of clinicopathologic variables associated with eGFP positivity in all patients.
| Clinicopathologic features | Total (n = 82) | eGFP positive (n = 50) | eGFP negative (n = 32) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T-stage | 1.00 | |||
| Tx | 11 | 11 | 0 | |
| T1–2 | 7 | 4 | 3 | |
| T3–4 | 64 | 35 | 29 | |
| LN metastasis | 29 | 13 | 16 | 0.78 |
| Peritoneal metastasis | 9 | 9 | 0 | |
| Hepatic metastasis | 16 | 15 | 1 | |
| Positive cytology | 12 | 12 | 0 | |
| Stage | ||||
| I–IIA | 24 | 10 | 14 | |
| IIB–IV | 58 | 40 | 18 | |
| Differentiation | 0.76 | |||
| Unknown | 21 | 11 | 10 | |
| Well/moderate | 46 | 30 | 16 | |
| Poor | 15 | 9 | 6 | |
| Vascular invasion | 27 | 15 | 12 | 0.07 |
| Perineural invasion | 34 | 16 | 18 | 1.00 |
Values in bold font are statistically significant.
Pathologic information was used when available for defining T and N stages. When pathology was not available, clinical staging information was used.
Fig. 2(A) Fluorescent microscopic image of cells in peritoneal washing from a patient with pancreatic cancer, demonstrating large, round, strongly eGFP positive cells, and rare, weakly eGFP positive cells with dendritic processes (10 ×). The cells were subsequently sorted by eGFP expression. The weakly eGFP positive cells were counter-stained with a fluorescent antibody to a human leukocyte antigen (HLA-DR), confirming them to be dendritic cells (B; 100 ×). Conversely, the strongly eGFP positive cells counter-stained with an antibody to CEA (C; 100 ×). eGFP positive cells isolated from a patient with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) were fixed and stained with an antibody to c-KIT (D; 100 ×).
Fig. 3Kaplan–Meier curve demonstrating recurrence free survival for pancreatic cancer patients who underwent R0 resection who were eGFP positive (n = 16) or negative (n = 17). At a median follow up of 15.4 months, eGFP positive patients had significantly shorter time to intraperitoneal recurrence (A) and any recurrence (B) (P = 0.05, 0.02; respectively).
Fig. 4Kaplan–Meier curve demonstrating disease specific survival for pancreatic cancer patients who underwent R0 resection stratified by eGFP status. Median DSS was clinically, but not statistically, significantly shorter in the eGFP positive patients (18.3 versus 36.2 months; P = 0.19).
Univariate analysis of pathologic variables associated with recurrence and survival in patients undergoing R0 resection (N = 33).
| Variable | Recurrence free survival | Disease specific survival | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O.R. | 95% C.I. | O.R. | 95% C.I. | |||
| eGFP positive | 2.64 | 1.21–5.78 | 1.72 | 0.74–4.00 | 0.21 | |
| Tumor depth | 0.25 | 0.46 | ||||
| T1–2 | REF | REF | ||||
| T3 | 2.33 | 0.55–9.86 | 1.73 | 0.40–7.45 | 0.46 | |
| Positive lymph nodes | 1.11 | 0.50–2.43 | 0.80 | 1.25 | 0.51–3.06 | 0.62 |
| Differentiation | 0.11 | 0.64 | ||||
| Well | REF | REF | ||||
| Moderate/poor | 2.05 | 0.85–4.94 | 1.21 | 0.52–2.85 | 0.65 | |
| Vascular invasion | 1.97 | 0.79–4.93 | 0.15 | 1.53 | 0.52–4.53 | 0.44 |
| Perineural invasion | 1.37 | 0.18–10.17 | 0.76 | 1.81 | 0.23–14.35 | 0.57 |
Values in bold font are statistically significant.