4.7 Article

Autologous cytokine-induced killer cell transfusion increases overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY & ONCOLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13045-016-0237-6

关键词

Cytokine-induced killer cells; Immunotherapy; Pancreatic cancer; Overall survival

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81000914]
  2. Foundation of Henan Health Committee [2011010011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Advanced pancreatic cancer (PC) has very poor prognosis with present treatments, thus necessitating continued efforts to find improved therapeutic approaches. Both preclinical and preliminary clinical data indicate that cytokine-induced killer (CIK) cells are an effective tool against various types of solid tumors. Here, we conducted a study to determine whether CIK cell-based therapy (CBT) can improve the outcomes of advanced PC. Methods: Eighty-two patients with advanced PC, whose predicted survival time was longer than 3 months, were analyzed retrospectively. Of all the patients, 57 individuals were receiving chemotherapy, while the remaining 25 individuals were treated with CBT. Results: The overall survival analysis was based on 48 deaths in the 57 patients in the chemotherapy group (84.2 %) and 18 deaths in the 25 patients in the CBT group (72.0 %). In the CBT group, the median overall survival time was 13.5 months, as compared to 6.6 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.39; 95 % confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.65; p < 0.001). The survival rate was 88.9 % in the CBT group versus 54.2 % in the chemotherapy group at 6 months, 61.1 % versus 12.5 % at 12 months, and 38.9 % versus 4.2 % at 18 months. The disease control rate was 68.0 % in the CBT group and 29.8 % in the chemotherapy group (p < 0.001). Conclusions: These results from this retrospective analysis appeared to imply that CBT might prolong survival in these high-risk PC patients. Prospective study is needed to corroborate this observation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据