Search

Abstract Due to the challenge for intratumoral administration, innate agonists have not made it beyond preclinical studies for efficacy testing in most tumor types. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a hostile tumor microenvironment that renders T cells dysfunctional. Innate agonist treatments may serve as a T cell priming mechanism to sensitize PDACs to anti-PD-1 antibody (a-PD-1) treatment. Using a transplant mouse model with spontaneously formed liver metastasis, a genetically engineered KPC mouse model that spontaneously develops PDAC, and a human patient-derived xenograft model, we compared the antitumor efficacy between intrahepatic/intratumoral and intramuscular systemic administration of BMS-986301, a next-generation STING agonist. Flow cytometry, Nanostring, and cytokine assays were used to evaluate local and systemic immune responses. This study demonstrated that administration of STING agonist systemically via intramuscular injection is equivalent to its intratumoral injection in inducing both effector T cell response and antitumor efficacy. Compared to intratumoral administration, T cell exhaustion and immunosuppressive signals induced by systemic administration were attenuated. Nonetheless, either intratumoral or systemic treatment of STING agonist was associated with increased expression of CTLA-4 on tumor-infiltrating T cells. However, the combination of a-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 antibody with systemic STING agonist demonstrated the antitumor efficacy in the KPC mouse spontaneous PDAC model. The mouse pancreatic and liver orthotopic model of human patient-derived xenograft reconstituted with PBMC also showed that antitumor and abscopal effects of both intratumoral and intramuscular STING agonist are equivalent. Taken together, this study supports the clinical development of innate agonists via systemic administration for treating PDAC.

Background: Prolonged survival of patients after pancreaticoduodenectomy can be associated with late complications due to altered gastrointestinal anatomy. The incidence of gastric cancer is increasingly reported. We set out to examine our experience with gastric cancer as a late complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy with a focus on incidence, risk factors, and outcomes. Methods: We queried our prospectively collected institutional database for patients that developed gastric cancer after pancreaticoduodenectomy and conducted a systematic review of the literature. Results: Our database revealed 6 patients who developed gastric cancer following pancreaticoduodenectomy, presenting with a mean age of 62.2 years and an even sex distribution. All of those patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignant indications with an average time to development of metachronous gastric cancer of 8.3 years. Four patients complained of gastrointestinal discomfort prior to diagnosis of secondary malignancy. All of these cancers were poorly differentiated and were discovered at an advanced T stage (≥3). Only half developed at the gastrointestinal anastomosis. Four underwent surgery with a curative intent, and 2 patients are currently alive (mean postgastrectomy survival = 25.5 months). In accordance with previous literature, biliopancreatic reflux from pancreaticoduodenectomy reconstruction, underlying genetic susceptibility, and adjuvant therapy may play a causative role in later development of gastric cancer. Conclusion: Long-term survivors after pancreaticoduodenectomy who develop nonspecific gastrointestinal complaints should be evaluated carefully for complications including gastric malignancy. This may serve as an opportunity to intervene on tumors that typically present at an advanced stage and with aggressive histology.