Figure
1 Changes in overall survival across multiple cancers between 1971 and
2011.
Credit: Cancer UK; from (2) Cancer Research UK. (2019, July
19). Cancer survival for common cancers. Retrieved October 14, 2020, from
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancerstatistics/survival/common-cancers-compared.
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is currently one of
the most difficult to treat types of cancer, with an overall five-year survival
rate of only 9%, and an increase in death rates between 2012 and 2016 (1).
There has been very little progress in PDAC treatment efficacy despite decades
of research. This in in contrast to many other cancer types which have seen
significant improvements in available treatment options, as seen in figure 1
(2). This sets PDAC apart as an area of particular importance for developing
effective treatment strategies to try to overcome many of these
difficulties.
PDAC is a disease that develops from non-malignant
precursor lesions that progress slowly, often taking years to adapt a
metastatic phenotype and developing into an advanced stage invasive
cancer(3,4). At this point, disease progression becomes much more rapid,
contributing to the poor survival rates (5). This pattern of progression is
perhaps the largest hurdle that clinicians need to overcome, as during this
long period of growth and development most patients experience no symptoms at
all, making early detection or treatment next to impossible (6). Because of
this, when most patients are finally diagnosed the disease is already at an
advanced stage, with less than 20% of PDAC diagnoses shown to be surgically resectable
due to tissue invasion or metastasis (7). This puts an emphasis on the need for
non-surgical treatment options, but these treatments have many of their own
problems.
PDAC is characterized by a highly desmoplastic and fibrotic
microenvironment surrounding the tumor core, packed with immune cells and
cancer-associated fibroblasts that produce large amounts of extracellular
matrix factors (8). This microenvironment serves to isolate the tumor core,
which is the reason why most patients are asymptomatic. However, it also serves
as very effective barrier for chemotherapy treatments (9), and because most
drugs have difficulties reaching the tumor core they are developed to act on,
even the most promising drugs will inevitably prove ineffective. Currently, the
most effective chemotherapeutic agent is FOLFIRINOX, which is a combination of
oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fleurouracil, and leucovorin that has been shown to
increase overall survival by 11.1 months (10). However, this efficacy comes
with a price of high toxicity, with serious side effects including severe
fatigue, sensory neuropathy, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and diarrhea. Because of
the toxicity of FOLFIRINOX, many patients are not able to receive this
treatment due to poor health. As a way of providing some treatment to patients
who cannot withstand the toxicity of FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine along with
albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) can be administered to increase
overall survival by 8.5 months with a much better safety profile (11, 12). However,
these patients have to settle for suboptimal therapy, so there is certainly a
need to find a way to increase the efficacy of chemotherapy in these patients
without increasing toxicity.
Figure 2 Visualization
of microbubble forces in sonoporation.
From (14) Fan, Z., Kumon, R. E., & Deng, C. X. (2014).
Mechanisms of microbubble-facilitated sonoporation for drug and gene delivery. Therapeutic delivery, 5(4), 467-486.
doi:10.4155/tde.14.10
To address this issue, studies are being performed using
sonoporation in conjugation with less toxic PDAC treatments including
gemcitabine and paclitaxel to try and elicit a more effective response.
Sonoporation involves the use of microbubbles that, along with ultrasound
stimulation, can result in temporary formations of small pores in the nearby
cells (13). These pores are created by the forces generated by the microbubbles
as they are manipulated by the ultrasound waves (14). The different types of
forces can be seen illustrated in figure 2. The idea behind using this
technique is that creating these pores will facilitate drug entry into cells,
both increasing efficacy and reducing the required dose.
Additionally,
sonoporation can be localized to very specific areas depending on ultrasound
administration, and the process is very safe, as microbubbles have been used
for many years as a contrast agent in ultrasound imaging (15).
Figure 3 Overall
survival increases seen in patients treated with gemcitabine +
sonoporation.
From (17)
Dimcevski, G., Kotopoulis, S., Bjånes, T., Hoem, D., Schjøtt, J., Gjertsen, B.
T., . . . Gilja, O. H. (2016). A human clinical trial using ultrasound and
microbubbles to enhance gemcitabine treatment of inoperable pancreatic cancer. Journal of Controlled Release, 243,
172-181.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.10.007
Initial tests of this technique applied in orthotopic
xenograft mouse models of PDAC demonstrated a significant decrease in tumor
volume compared to normal gemcitabine treatment alone, as well as an increased
survival rate in the mice treated with sonoporation (16). These results were
very promising, and prompted a shift to human clinical trials to understand if
sonoporation could result in more effective treatments without toxicity.
Testing sonoporation + gemcitabine chemotherapy in patients with inoperable
pancreatic cancer proved quite successful. Median survival of patients was
increased from 8.9 months to 17.6 months, and patients were able to undergo more
cycles of chemotherapy. Many patients also experienced an overall decrease in
tumor volume (17). These results are very promising, and demonstrate the
potential utility of sonoporation in conjunction with chemotherapy as a means
of increasing treatment efficacy without putting the patient at a higher risk
of toxicity. However, much work remains to be done to determine the ideal
conditions to ensure the greatest efficacy increase while maintaining a safe
profile.
By Zeke Rozmus, A Master of Medical Science
Student at the University of Kentucky
References:
1. Siegel, R.
L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2019). Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin, 69(1), 7-34.
doi:10.3322/caac.21551
2. Cancer
Research UK. (2019, July 19). Cancer survival for common cancers. Retrieved
October 14, 2020, from https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/survival/common-cancerscompared
3. Hidalgo, M.
(2010). Pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med,
362(17), 1605-1617. doi:10.1056/NEJMra0901557
4. Yachida,
S., Jones, S., Bozic, I., Antal, T., Leary, R., Fu, B., . . . Iacobuzio-Donahue,
C. A. (2010). Distant metastasis occurs late during the genetic evolution of
pancreatic cancer. Nature, 467(7319),
1114-1117. doi:10.1038/nature09515
5. Yu, J.,
Blackford, A. L., Dal Molin, M., Wolfgang, C. L., & Goggins, M. (2015).
Time to progression of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from low-to-high tumour
stages. Gut, 64(11), 1783-1789.
doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308653
6. Bekkali, N.
L. H., & Oppong, K. W. (2017). Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
epidemiology and risk assessment: Could we prevent? Possibility for an early
diagnosis. Endoscopic ultrasound, 6(Suppl
3), S58-S61.
doi:10.4103/eus.eus_60_17
7. Sohn, T.
A., Yeo, C. J., Cameron, J. L., Koniaris, L., Kaushal, S., Abrams, R. A., . . .
Lillemoe, K. D. (2000).
Resected adenocarcinoma of the
pancreas-616 patients: results, outcomes, and prognostic indicators. J Gastrointest Surg, 4(6), 567-579.
doi:10.1016/s1091-255x(00)80105-5
8. Dauer, P.,
Nomura, A., Saluja, A., & Banerjee, S. (2017). Microenvironment in determining
chemo-resistance in pancreatic cancer: Neighborhood matters. Pancreatology : official journal of the
International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et al.], 17(1), 7-12.
doi:10.1016/j.pan.2016.12.010
9. Oberstein,
P. E., & Olive, K. P. (2013). Pancreatic cancer: why is it so hard to
treat? Therapeutic advances in
gastroenterology, 6(4), 321-337. doi:10.1177/1756283X13478680
10. Conroy, T.,
Desseigne, F., Ychou, M., Bouché, O., Guimbaud, R., Bécouarn, Y., . . .
Ducreux, M. (2011).
FOLFIRINOX versus Gemcitabine for
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer. New England
Journal of Medicine, 364(19), 1817-1825. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1011923
11. Von Hoff,
D. D., Ervin, T., Arena, F. P., Chiorean, E. G., Infante, J., Moore, M., . . .
Renschler, M. F. (2013).
Increased Survival in Pancreatic
Cancer with nab-Paclitaxel plus Gemcitabine. New England Journal of Medicine, 369(18), 1691-1703.
doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1304369
12. Ellenrieder,
V., König, A., & Seufferlein, T. (2016). Current Standard and Future
Perspectives in First- and Second-Line Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic
Adenocarcinoma. Digestion, 94(1),
44-49. doi:10.1159/000447739
13. Delalande,
A., Kotopoulis, S., Rovers, T., Pichon, C., & Postema, M. (2011).
Sonoporation at a low mechanical index. Bubble
Science, Engineering & Technology, 3(1), 3-12.
doi:10.1179/1758897911Y.0000000001
14. Fan, Z.,
Kumon, R. E., & Deng, C. X. (2014). Mechanisms of microbubble-facilitated
sonoporation for drug and gene delivery. Therapeutic
delivery, 5(4), 467-486. doi:10.4155/tde.14.10
15. Erchinger,
F., Dimcevski, G., Engjom, T., & Gilja, O. (2011). Transabdominal
ultrasonography of the pancreas: basic and new aspects. Imaging in Medicine, 3, 411-422.
16. Kotopoulis,
S., Delalande, A., Popa, M., Mamaeva, V., Dimcevski, G., Gilja, O. H., . . .
McCormack, E. (2014). Sonoporation-Enhanced Chemotherapy Significantly Reduces
Primary Tumour Burden in an Orthotopic Pancreatic Cancer Xenograft. Molecular Imaging and Biology, 16(1),
53-62. doi:10.1007/s11307-0130672-5
17. Dimcevski,
G., Kotopoulis, S., Bjånes, T., Hoem, D., Schjøtt, J., Gjertsen, B. T., . . .
Gilja, O. H. (2016). A human clinical trial using ultrasound and microbubbles
to enhance gemcitabine treatment of inoperable pancreatic cancer. Journal of Controlled Release, 243,
172-181.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.10.007