Pathophysiology of acute experimental pancreatitis: Lessons from genetically engineered animal models and new molecular approaches

The incidence of acute pancreatitis is growing and worldwide population-based studies report a doubling or tripling since the 1970s. 25% of acute pancreatitis are severe and associated with histological changes of necrotizing pancreatitis. There is still no specific medical treatment for acute pancreatitis. The average mortality resides around 10%. In order to develop new specific medical treatment strategies for acute pancreatitis, a better understanding of the pathophysiology during the onset of acute pancreatitis is necessary. Since it is difficult to study the early acinar events in human pancreatitis, several animal models of acute pancreatitis have been developed. By this, it is hoped that clues into human pathophysiology become possible. In the last decade, while employing molecular biology techniques, a major progress has been made. The genome of the mouse was recently sequenced. Various strategies are possible to prove a causal effect of a single gene or protein, using either gain-of-function (i.e., overexpression of the protein of interest) or loss-of-function studies (i.e., genetic deletion of the gene of interest). The availability of transgenic mouse models and gene deletion studies has clearly increased our knowledge about the pathophysiology of acute pancreatitis and enables us to study and confirm in vitro findings in animal models. In addition, transgenic models with specific genetic deletion or overexpression of genes help in understanding the role of one specific protein in a cascade of inflammatory processes such as pancreatitis where different proteins interact and co-react. This review summarizes the recent progress in this field. Copyright (c) 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) in gemcitabine refractory advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a phase II study

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) are active as first-line therapy against advanced pancreatic cancer. This study aims to evaluate the activity and tolerability of this combination in patients refractory to standard gemcitabine (GEM). A total of 33 patients (median age of 57) were included with locally advanced and metastatic evaluable diseases, who had progressed during or following GEM therapy. The GEMOX regimen consisted of 1000 mg m−2 of GEM at a 100-min infusion on day 1, followed on day 2 by 100 mg m−2 of oxaliplatin at a 2-h infusion; a cycle that was given every 2 weeks. All patients received at least one cycle of GEMOX (median 5; range 1–29). Response by 31 evaluable patients was as follows: PR: 7/31(22.6%), s.d. ⩾8 weeks: 11/31(35.5%), s.d. <8 weeks: 1/31(3.2%), PD: 12/31(38.7%). Median duration of response and TTP were 4.5 and 4.2 months, respectively. Median survival was 6 months (range 0.5–21). Clinical benefit response was observed in 17/31 patients (54.8%). Grade III/IV non-neurologic toxicities occurred in 12/33 patients (36.3%), and grade I, II, and III neuropathy in 17(51%), 3(9%), and 4(12%) patients, respectively. GEMOX is a well-tolerated, active regimen that may provide a benefit to patients with advanced pancreatic cancer after progression following standard gemcitabine treatment