Explore the vast range of titles available.

Pancreatic cancer is typically characterized by its aggressive tumor growth and dismal prognosis. Approximately 30% of patients with pancreatic cancer present with locally advanced disease, broadly defined as having a tumor-to-artery interface >180°, having an unreconstructable portal vein or superior mesenteric vein and no signs of metastatic disease. These patients are currently designated to palliative systemic chemotherapy, though median overall survival remains poor (approximately 11 months). Therefore, several innovative local therapies have been investigated as new treatment options for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). This article provides an overview of available data with regard to morbidity and oncological outcome of novel local therapies for LAPC.

BackgroundTo analyze long-term oncological outcomes of open and percutaneous thermal ablation in the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).MethodsThis assessment from a prospective, longitudinal tumor registry included 329 patients who underwent 541 procedures for 1350 CRLM from January 2010 to February 2021. Three cohorts were formed: 2010–2013 (129 procedures [53 percutaneous]), 2014–2017 (206 procedures [121 percutaneous]) and 2018–2021 (206 procedures [135 percutaneous]). Local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) and overall survival (OS) data were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Potential confounding factors were analyzed with uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses.ResultsLTPFS improved significantly over time for percutaneous ablations (2-year LTPFS 37.7% vs. 69.0% vs. 86.3%, respectively, P < .0001), while LTPFS for open ablations remained reasonably stable (2-year LTPFS 87.1% [2010–2013], vs. 92.7% [2014–2017] vs. 90.2% [2018–2021], P = .12). In the latter cohort (2018–2021), the open approach was no longer superior regarding LTPFS (P = .125). No differences between the three cohorts were found regarding OS (P = .088), length of hospital stay (open approach, P = .065; percutaneous approach, P = .054), and rate and severity of complications (P = .404). The rate and severity of complications favored the percutaneous approach in all three cohorts (P = .002).ConclusionOver the last 10 years efficacy of percutaneous ablations has improved remarkably for the treatment of CRLM. Oncological outcomes seem to have reached results following open ablation. Given its minimal invasive character and shorter length of hospital stay, whenever feasible, percutaneous procedures may be favored over an open approach.

Abstract Purpose of ReviewBased on good local control rates and an excellent safety profile, guidelines consider thermal ablation the gold standard to eliminate small unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). However, efficacy decreases exponentially with increasing tumour size. The preferred treatment for intermediate-size unresectable CRLM remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare safety and efficacy of local ablative treatments for unresectable intermediate-size CRLM (3–5 cm).Recent FindingsWe systematically searched for publications reporting treatment outcomes of unresectable intermediate-size CRLM treated with thermal ablation, irreversible electroporation (IRE) or stereotactic ablative body-radiotherapy (SABR). No comparative studies or randomized trials were found. Literature to assess effectiveness was limited and there was substantial heterogeneity in outcomes and study populations. Per-patient local control ranged 22–90% for all techniques; 22–89% (8 series) for thermal ablation, 44% (1 series) for IRE, and 67–90% (1 series) for SABR depending on radiation dose.SummaryFocal ablative therapy is safe and can induce long-term disease control, even for intermediate-size CRLM. Although SABR and tumuor-bracketing techniques such as IRE are suggested to be less susceptible to size, evidence to support any claims of superiority of one technique over the other is unsubstantiated by the available evidence. Future prospective comparative studies should address local-tumour-progression-free-survival, local control rate, overall survival, adverse events, and quality-of-life.

BackgroundIrreversible electroporation (IRE) and stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) are cytoreductive therapies for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Both may signify immunogenic cell death. We aimed to compare systemic immune responses between the treatments.MethodsAs part of the randomized phase II CROSSFIRE trial (NCT02791503), comparing the oncological efficacy of IRE to SABR in patients with LAPC, pre- and post-treatment (2 weeks and 3 months) peripheral blood samples were collected. Frequency and activation status of lymphocytic and myeloid subsets were determined using flow cytometry. T cell responses to pancreatic cancer associated with Wilms tumor-1 (WT-1) and survivin tumor antigens were determined by interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay.ResultsIn total, 20 IRE and 20 SABR-treated participants were analyzed (20 men; median age 65 (IQR 55–70)). IRE induced immediate decreases in systemic regulatory T cell (Treg) and conventional type-1 dendritic cell rates, coinciding with CD4+/CD8+ T cell activation by upregulation of PD-1, which was associated with improved overall survival (OS). SABR similarly induced immediate CD4+/CD8+ T cell activation by upregulation of Ki67 and CD25 but resulted in asynchronously delayed Treg downregulation. SABR also induced a durable increase in CD4+ EM T cells, associated with improved OS. Ablation-induced WT-1 or survivin-specific T cell responses were observed in 9/16 (56%) immune competent participants (IRE n=5, SABR n=4) and were associated with longer OS.ConclusionDistinct immune stimulatory responses associated with improved OS, suggest that SABR might benefit from combined Treg depletion strategies while IRE could benefit from PD-1 checkpoint inhibition.Trial registration numberThe trial was registered on clinical trials.gov (NCT02791503).

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.

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a novel image-guided tumor ablation technique with the ability to generate a window for the establishment of systemic antitumor immunity. IRE transiently alters the tumor’s immunosuppressive microenvironment while simultaneously generating antigen release, thereby instigating an adaptive immune response. Combining IRE with immunotherapeutic drugs, i.e., electroimmunotherapy, has synergistic potential and might induce a durable antitumor response. The primary objective of this study is to assess the safety of the combination of IRE with IMO-2125 (a toll-like receptor 9 ligand) and/or nivolumab in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). In this randomized controlled phase I clinical trial, 18 patients with mPDAC pretreated with chemotherapy will be enrolled in one of three study arms: A (control): nivolumab monotherapy; B: percutaneous IRE of the primary tumor followed by nivolumab; or C: intratumoral injection of IMO-2125 followed by percutaneous IRE of the primary tumor and nivolumab. Assessments include contrast enhanced computed tomography (ceCT), 18F-FDG and 18F-BMS-986192 (PD-L1) positron emission tomography (PET)-CT, biopsies of the primary tumor and metastases, peripheral blood samples, and quality of life and pain questionnaires. There is no curative treatment option for patients with mPDAC, and palliative chemotherapy regimens only moderately improve survival. Consequently, there is an urgent need for innovative and radically different treatment approaches. Should electroimmunotherapy establish an effective and durable anti-tumor response, it may ultimately improve PDAC’s dismal prognosis.

PurposeIrreversible electroporation (IRE) induces apoptosis with high-voltage electric pulses. Although the working mechanism is non-thermal, development of secondary Joule heating occurs. This study investigated whether the observed conductivity rise during IRE is caused by increased cellular permeabilization or heat development.MethodsIRE was performed in a gelatin tissue phantom, in potato tubers, and in 30 patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Continuous versus sequential pulsing protocols (10-90 vs. 10-30-30-30) were assessed. Temperature was measured using fiber-optic probes. After temperature had returned to baseline, 100 additional pulses were delivered. The primary technique efficacy of the treated CRLM was compared to the periprocedural current rise. Seven patients received ten additional pulses after a 10-min cool-down period.ResultsTemperature and current rise was higher for the continuous pulsing protocol (medians, gel: 13.05 vs. 9.55 °C and 9 amperes (A) vs. 7A; potato: 12.70 vs. 10.53 °C and 6.0A vs. 6.5A). After cooling-down, current returned to baseline in the gel phantom and near baseline values (Δ2A with continuous- and Δ5A with sequential pulsing) in the potato tubers. The current declined after cooling-down in all seven patients with CRLM, although baseline values were not reached. There was a positive correlation between current rise and primary technique efficacy (p = 0.02); however, the previously reported current increase threshold of 12–15A was reached in 13%.ConclusionThe observed conductivity rise during IRE is caused by both cellular permeabilization and heat development. Although a correlation between current rise and efficacy exists, the current increase threshold seems unfeasible for CRLM.

PurposeIn percutaneous ablation procedures, periprocedural pain, unrest and respiratory concerns can be detrimental to achieve a safe and efficacious ablation and impair treatment outcome. This study aimed to compare the association between anesthetic technique and local disease control in patients undergoing percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Materials and MethodsThis IRB-exempted single-center comparative, retrospective analysis of three cohorts analyzed 90 patients treated for hepatic malignancies from January 2013 until September 2018. The local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS), safety and periprocedural pain perception were assessed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analyses to correct for potential confounders.ResultsIn 114 procedures (22 general anesthesia; 32 midazolam; 60 propofol), 171 liver tumors (136 CRLM; 35 HCC) were treated with percutaneous MWA. Propofol and general anesthesia were superior to midazolam/fentanyl sedation regarding LTPFS (4/94 [4.3%] vs. 19/42 [45.2%] vs. 2/35 [5.7%]; P < 0.001, respectively). Local tumor progression rate was 14.6% (25/171). Eighteen tumors (72.0%) were retreated by ablation. Of them, 14 (78%) were previously treated with midazolam. Propofol versus midazolam (P < 0.001), general anesthesia versus midazolam (P = 0.016), direct postprocedural visual analog pain score above 5 (P = 0.050) and more than one tumor per procedure (P = 0.045) were predictors for LTPFS. Multivariate analysis revealed that propofol versus midazolam (HR 7.94 [95% CI 0.04–0.39; P < 0.001]) and general anesthesia versus midazolam (HR 6.33 [95% CI 0.04–0.69; P = 0.014]) were associated with LTPFS. Pain during and directly after treatment was significantly worse in patients who received midazolam sedation (P < 0.001).ConclusionsCompared to propofol and general anesthesia, midazolam/fentanyl sedation was associated with an increased periprocedural perception of pain and lower local tumor progression-free survival. To reduce the number of repeat procedures required to eradicate hepatic malignancies, general anesthesia and propofol sedation should be favored over midazolam.

Thermal ablation and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) are techniques to eradicate colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study compares the safety, efficacy and long-term oncological outcomes of these treatment methods. All prospectively registered patients (AmCORE registry) treated with thermal ablation or SABR alone for unresectable CRLM between 2007 and 2020 were analyzed using multivariate Cox-proportional hazard regression. In total 199 patients were included for analysis: 144 (400 CRLM) thermal ablation; 55 (69 CRLM) SABR. SABR patients were characterized by older age (p = 0.006), extrahepatic disease at diagnosis (p = 0.004) and larger tumors (p < 0.001). Thermal ablation patients were more likely to have synchronous disease, higher clinical risk scores (p = 0.030) and higher numbers of CRLMs treated (p < 0.001). Mortality was zero and morbidity low in both groups: no serious adverse events were recorded following SABR (n = 0/55) and nine (n = 9/144 [6.3%]; all CTCAE grade 3) after thermal ablation. SABR was associated with an inferior overall survival (OS) (median OS 53.0 months vs. 27.4 months; HR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.12–1.49; p = 0.003), local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) per-tumor (HR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.01–1.52; p = 0.044) and local control per-patient (HR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.20–2.04; p = 0.001) and per-tumor (HR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.44–2.49; p < 0.001). In this study thermal ablation was superior to SABR with regard to OS, LTPFS and local control, albeit at the cost of a limited risk of serious adverse events. Further studies are required to assess whether the worse outcomes following SABR were the effect of true differences in ablative treatment or a result of residual confounding.

Background Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are widely accepted techniques to eliminate small unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Although previous studies labelled thermal ablation inferior to surgical resection, the apparent selection bias when comparing patients with unresectable disease to surgical candidates, the superior safety profile, and the competitive overall survival results for the more recent reports mandate the setup of a randomized controlled trial. The objective of the COLLISION trial is to prove non-inferiority of thermal ablation compared to hepatic resection in patients with at least one resectable and ablatable CRLM and no extrahepatic disease. Methods In this two-arm, single-blind multi-center phase-III clinical trial, six hundred and eighteen patients with at least one CRLM (≤3 cm) will be included to undergo either surgical resection or thermal ablation of appointed target lesion(s) (≤3 cm). Primary endpoint is OS (overall survival, intention-to-treat analysis). Main secondary endpoints are overall disease-free survival (DFS), time to progression (TTP), time to local progression (TTLP), primary and assisted technique efficacy (PTE, ATE), procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, assessment of pain and quality of life (QoL), cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Discussion If thermal ablation proves to be non-inferior in treating lesions ≤3 cm, a switch in treatment-method may lead to a reduction of the post-procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay and incremental costs without compromising oncological outcome for patients with CRLM. Trial registration NCT03088150 , January 11th 2017.