Title |
A hypofractionated radiation regimen avoids the lymphopenia associated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy of borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, August 2016
|
DOI | 10.1186/s40425-016-0149-6 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Todd Crocenzi, Benjamin Cottam, Pippa Newell, Ronald F. Wolf, Paul D. Hansen, Chet Hammill, Matthew C. Solhjem, Yue-Yun To, Amy Greathouse, Garth Tormoen, Zeljka Jutric, Kristina Young, Keith S. Bahjat, Michael J. Gough, Marka R. Crittenden |
Abstract |
Preclinical studies have shown synergy between radiation therapy and immunotherapy. However, in almost all preclinical models, radiation is delivered in single doses or short courses of high doses (hypofractionated radiation). By contrast in most clinical settings, radiation is delivered as standard small daily fractions of 1.8-2 Gy to achieve total doses of 50-54 Gy (fractionated radiation). We do not yet know the optimal dose and scheduling of radiation for combination with chemotherapy and immunotherapy. To address this, we analyzed the effect of neoadjuvant standard fractionated and hypofractionated chemoradiation on immune cells in patients with locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We found that standard fractionated chemoradiation resulted in a significant and extended loss of lymphocytes that was not explained by a lack of homeostatic cytokines or response to cytokines. By contrast, treatment with hypofractionated radiation therapy avoided the loss of lymphocytes associated with conventional fractionation. Hypofractionated neoadjuvant chemoradiation is associated with reduced systemic loss of T cells. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01342224, April 21, 2011; NCT01903083, July 2, 2013. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 5 | 83% |
Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 11 | 20% |
Other | 6 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
Other | 10 | 19% |
Unknown | 13 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 35% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 8 | 15% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
Other | 2 | 4% |
Unknown | 18 | 33% |