Yu-Fei Fan1, Yuan Qin1, Ding-Gang Li1, David Kerr1. 1. Yu-Fei Fan, Beijing Yanhua Hospital; Yuan Qin and Ding-Gang Li, Beijing Haidian Hospital, Beijing, China; and David Kerr, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Hyperthermia is a mechanistically plausible partner with chemotherapy, although many of the underlying molecular mechanisms of this combination treatment are not yet properly understood. Preclinical studies suggest that there is potential synergy with gemcitabine and that provides the basis for retrospective analysis of a clinical series combining these treatment modalities for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic carcinoma with malignant ascites were treated with intraperitoneal cisplatin 30 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 800 to 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days until tumor progression. Patients also received regional hyperthermia treatment (41 to 42°C) on the upper abdomen two times per week from days 1 to 21. RESULTS: In all, 83 cycles of chemotherapy were administered and were generally well tolerated. No patients had a complete response, 13 had a partial response, seven had stable disease, and 9 had progressive disease. Mean progression-free survival and overall survival were 119 ± 61days and 195 ± 98 days, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence that the treatment approach of combined systemic and intraperitoneal chemotherapy plus hyperthermia is well tolerated, is active, and has an acceptable survival profile for patients with stage IV pancreatic cancer and ascites.
PURPOSE:Hyperthermia is a mechanistically plausible partner with chemotherapy, although many of the underlying molecular mechanisms of this combination treatment are not yet properly understood. Preclinical studies suggest that there is potential synergy with gemcitabine and that provides the basis for retrospective analysis of a clinical series combining these treatment modalities for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic carcinoma with malignant ascites were treated with intraperitoneal cisplatin 30 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 800 to 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days until tumor progression. Patients also received regional hyperthermia treatment (41 to 42°C) on the upper abdomen two times per week from days 1 to 21. RESULTS: In all, 83 cycles of chemotherapy were administered and were generally well tolerated. No patients had a complete response, 13 had a partial response, seven had stable disease, and 9 had progressive disease. Mean progression-free survival and overall survival were 119 ± 61days and 195 ± 98 days, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence that the treatment approach of combined systemic and intraperitoneal chemotherapy plus hyperthermia is well tolerated, is active, and has an acceptable survival profile for patients with stage IV pancreatic cancer and ascites.
The health burden of pancreatic cancer in China is increasing, with annual mortality
rates almost equal to incidence rates, and it has been calculated that China hosts
almost 20% of the world’s newly incident cases.[1] For the subgroup of patients with advanced
pancreatic cancer who present with malignant ascites, the median survival is
reported to be extremely poor (63 to 81 days).[2,3] The requirement for
novel therapeutic approaches for this particularly poor prognostic group is
obvious.Hyperthermia (HT) uses high-frequency electromagnetic waves to heat tumor cells to
41° to 45°C. These increased temperatures can alter the
pathophysiology of the cancer by increasing the permeability of tumor cells and
facilitating cytotoxic drug diffusion, reducing and reversing multidrug resistance
in tumor cells, inhibiting the repair of DNA damage, upregulating heat shock protein
expression, increasing tumor antigenicity, and enhancing natural killer (NK) cell
activity.[4-8]There is some evidence to suggest that intraperitoneal (IP) administration of
cytotoxic drugs generates a pharmacokinetic advantage by delivering much higher
peritoneal drug concentrations compared with systemic administration. Increasing
cytotoxic drug exposure within the compartment harboring the majority of the tumor
burden may increase tumor response rates. This has been proven in a large,
well-designed randomized trial which has demonstrated that IP administration of
cisplatin confers a survival advantage for patients with ovarian cancer compared
with its conventional intravenous administration.[9]Here, we report our experience using a combination of chemotherapy (intravenous
gemcitabine plus IP cisplatin) combined with regional radiofrequency thermotherapy
(RFTT) as a first-line treatment for patients who presented with advanced pancreaticcancer and ascites.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Our results were obtained from a retrospective analysis of a protocol-driven clinical
series of consecutive patients who presented to the YuanHua Hospital in Beijing,
China. All patients provided written informed consent for the treatment regimen;
however, because this was not a prospective clinical trial, no institutional review
board approval was sought. Recruitment took place between 2007 and 2012. Patient
characteristics are summarized in Table
1.
Table 1
Patient Characteristics
Patient Characteristics
Treatment Procedure
After draining ascites, an indwelling peritoneal catheter was inserted under
local anesthetic control. This permitted IP infusion of cisplatin 30
mg/m2 (in 2 to 2.5 L of normal saline over 30 minutes) on days 1,
8, and 15. Gemcitabine was administered at 800 to 1,000 mg/m2
intravenously by 30-minute infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 and repeated every 28
days until progression was documented. These patients also received regional
hyperthermia treatment (41 to 42°C) for 1 hour on the upper abdomen twice
per week for 3 weeks (days 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18; Table 2).
Table 2
Treatment Schedule
Treatment ScheduleThe device used was the SR 1000 tumor hyperthermia system from Beijing Xinke
Establish Science and Technology (Fig 1).
The target temperature of the treated area was set at 42°C. Heat was
applied through a pair of electrodes placed on opposite sides of the hepatic
region. Each electrode was covered with a water pad, and a saline solution
maintained at 5°C was perfused into the water pad to avoid excessive
heating of skin and subcutaneous fat. Treatment time per session ranged from 40
to 60 minutes (depending on patient tolerance) at a power setting of 150 W.
Blood pressure and pulse rate were monitored every 15 minutes during
hyperthermia. Body temperature was measured before and after treatment.
Fig 1
Patient being treated with abdominal radiofrequency thermotherapy.
Patient being treated with abdominal radiofrequency thermotherapy.
Main Outcome Measures
Patients were observed for evidence of response (Response Evaluation Criteria in
Solid Tumors [RECIST]) by abdominal computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography-CT (PET-CT) scans. Toxicity was
recorded by using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v3.0),
and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were measured from
day 1 of the first cycle of treatment. Kaplan-Meier plots were made from
survival data.
RESULTS
Patient Characteristics
In all, 29 patients were recruited (17 male, 12 female); age ranged from 34 to 74
years, with a median age of 60 years. Primary tumors were located predominantly
in the pancreatic head and neck (n = 19), with the remainder located in the
pancreatic body and tail (n = 10). According to the American Joint Committee on
Cancer (AJCC; 7th Edition) staging, all patients had stage IV disease. All
patients were chemotherapy naive. Prechemotherapy, Karnofsky performance score
(KPS) for 13 patients (44.8%) was 50 to 70, and for 16 patients (55.2%), it was
80 to 100. The 29 patients completed a total of 83 cycles of chemotherapy
(range, one to five cycles; median, three cycles; Table 1)
Efficacy Analysis
Follow-up using the most appropriate imaging technique (CT, MRI, or PET-CT) was
repeated every two cycles, and all scans were reviewed by a single radiologist
using RECIST criteria. There were no complete responses (CRs), 13 patients
(44.8%) had partial responses (PRs), and seven patients (24.4%) had stable
disease (SD). Nine patients (31.0%) had progressive disease (PD). Overall
objective response rate (CR + PR) was 44.8%, and disease control rate (CR + PR+
SD) was 70.0%. Mean PFS for the whole group (n = 29) was 119 ± 61 days;
the mean OS was 195 ± 98 days.
Safety Analysis
Common toxicities included grade 2 nausea and vomiting (10.3% of patients), grade
3 or 4 thrombocytopenia (13.8%), grade 2 or 3 fatigue (13.8%), and grade 3 or 4
neutropenia (17.2%). Grade 1 or 2 fever was found in 17.2% of patients and grade
1 or 2 abdominal pain was found in 34.5% after IP cisplatin administration.
Abdominal pain was improved by increasing the volume of normal saline used in IP
infusion (Table 3).
Table 3
Worst Toxicity Experienced
Worst Toxicity Experienced
DISCUSSION
This small, retrospective clinical study suggests that systemic gemcitabine plus IP
cisplatin in combination with RFTT was well tolerated in patients with advanced
pancreatic cancer and associated ascites. This treatment approach offered a
remarkable disease control rate and respectable OS in this notably refractory
patient group.[2]The standard treatment for pancreatic cancer has evolved over the last decade, moving
away from single-agent gemcitabine to more complex regimens such as fluorouracil,
leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX). A large well-designed study
has demonstrated that good-performance-score patients with advanced pancreaticcancer treated with FOLFIRINOX had improved survival (11.1 v 6.8
months), PFS (6.4 v 3.3 months), and objective response rates
(31.6% v 9.4%) compared with single-agent gemcitabine.[10] Only 20% of patients in this trial
were found to have peritoneal tumor deposits and, generally, they had a higher
performance status and perhaps better prognosis than the wider population of
patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. There is increasing interest in
hyperthermic IP chemotherapy (HIPEC) for treating patients with cancer who have
peritoneal metastases; however, there is little clinical experience with this
modality in pancreatic cancer. There are some preliminary data (n = 21) for using
HIPEC in an adjuvant setting after resection of primary pancreatic cancer,[11] suggesting that it might reduce
local recurrence rates, but much larger studies are required.The obvious limitations for our study are its size, single-center experience, lack of
a control group, and the fact that data collection and analysis were retrospective
rather than prospective. Nevertheless, these pilot data are sufficiently compelling
to warrant further investigation, perhaps through a prospective multicenter trial
that could simply aim to repeat these results or include a factorially randomized
element, say with or without hyperthermia, and intravenous versus IP cisplatin
administration, to better define the contribution of the individual components of
this regimen.
Authors: G Keszler; Z Csapó; T Spasokoutskaja; M Sasvari-Székely; S Virga; A Demeter; S Eriksson; M Staub Journal: Adv Exp Med Biol Date: 2000 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Thierry Conroy; Françoise Desseigne; Marc Ychou; Olivier Bouché; Rosine Guimbaud; Yves Bécouarn; Antoine Adenis; Jean-Luc Raoul; Sophie Gourgou-Bourgade; Christelle de la Fouchardière; Jaafar Bennouna; Jean-Baptiste Bachet; Faiza Khemissa-Akouz; Denis Péré-Vergé; Catherine Delbaldo; Eric Assenat; Bruno Chauffert; Pierre Michel; Christine Montoto-Grillot; Michel Ducreux Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D S Alberts; P Y Liu; E V Hannigan; R O'Toole; S D Williams; J A Young; E W Franklin; D L Clarke-Pearson; V K Malviya; B DuBeshter Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-12-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R Komdeur; B E Plaat; H J Hoekstra; W M Molenaar; H Hollema; E van den Berg; M F Mastik; W T van der Graaf Journal: Cancer Date: 2001-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: John DeWitt; Menggang Yu; Mohamad A Al-Haddad; Stuart Sherman; Lee McHenry; Julia K Leblanc Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 9.427