Inter- and intra-tumoural heterogeneity in cancer-associated fibroblasts of human pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Cancer‐associated fibroblasts (CAF) are orchestrators of the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) microenvironment. Stromal heterogeneity may explain differential pathophysiological roles of the stroma (pro‐ versus anti‐tumoural) in PDAC. We hypothesised that multiple CAF functional subtypes exist in PDAC, that contribute to stromal heterogeneity through interactions with cancer cells. Using molecular and functional analysis of patient‐derived CAF primary cultures, we demonstrated that human PDAC‐derived CAFs display a high level of inter‐ and intra‐tumour heterogeneity. We identified at least four subtypes of CAFs based on transcriptomic analysis, and propose a classification for human PDAC‐derived CAFs (pCAFassigner). Multiple CAF subtypes co‐existed in individual patient samples. The presence of these CAF subtypes in bulk tumours was confirmed using publicly available gene expression profiles, and immunostainings of CAF subtype markers. Each subtype displayed specific phenotypic features (matrix‐ and immune‐related signatures, vimentin and α‐smooth muscle actin expression, proliferation rate), and was associated with an assessable prognostic impact. A prolonged exposure of non‐tumoural pancreatic stellate cells to conditioned media from cancer cell lines (cancer education experiment) induced a CAF‐like phenotype, including loss of capacity to revert to quiescence and an increase in the expression of genes related to CAF subtypes B and C. This classification demonstrates molecular and functional inter‐ and intra‐tumoural heterogeneity of CAFs in human PDAC. Our subtypes overlap with those identified from single‐cell analyses in other cancers, and pave the way for the development of therapies targeting specific CAF subpopulations in PDAC. © 2018 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Trybeca-1: A randomized, phase 3 study of eryaspase in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (NCT03665441)

TPS471

Background: Second-line treatment options for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma are currently limited. Eryaspase, asparaginase (ASNase) encapsulated in red blood cells (RBCs) is an investigational product under development. Following infusion, asparagine and glutamine are actively transported into RBCs where they are hydrolyzed by the encapsulated ASNase. We have recently reported the outcome of a randomized Phase 2b study inpatients with advanced pancreatic cancer whose disease progressed following first-line treatment(NCT02195180). Eryaspase in combination with gemcitabine monotherapy or FOLFOX combination therapy improved overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). The safety profile of eryaspase was acceptable. The results of this Phase 2b study provided a rationale for initiating this confirmatory Phase 3 pivotal trial (TRYbeCA-1). Methods: TRYbeCA-1 is an international, randomized, open-label Phase 3 trial (N = ~500) of eryaspase combined with chemotherapy in patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas who have failed only one prior line of systemic anti-cancer therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer and have measurable disease. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive gemcitabine/abraxane or irinotecan-based therapy (FOLFIRI [FOLinic acid-Fluorouracil-IRInotecan regimen] or irinotecan liposome injection/5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) with or without eryaspase, administered as IV infusion on Day 1 and Day 15 of each 4-week cycle. Key eligibility criteria include performance status 0 or 1; stage IV disease; documented evidence of disease progression; available tumor tissue; and adequate organ function. The primary endpoint is OS. Key secondary endpoints include PFS and objective response rate, safety, quality of life, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and biomarker research. An HR in OS of 0.725 is being targeted representing a conservative estimate based on the P2b data and is viewed as being highly clinically relevant. An IDMC will be established to review safety at regular intervals and to review efficacy data at the planned interim and final analyses. Clinical trial information: NCT03665441.

Gemcitabine and Oxaliplatin Chemotherapy or Surveillance in Resected Biliary Tract Cancer (PRODIGE 12-ACCORD 18-UNICANCER GI): A Randomized Phase III Study

PURPOSE

No standard adjuvant treatment currently is recommended in localized biliary tract cancer (BTC) after surgical resection. We aimed to assess whether gemcitabine and oxaliplatin chemotherapy (GEMOX) would increase relapse-free survival (RFS) while maintaining health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients who undergo resection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial in 33 centers. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) within 3 months after R0 or R1 resection of a localized BTC to receive either GEMOX (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m² on day 1 and oxaliplatin 85 mg/m² infused on day 2 of a 2-week cycle) for 12 cycles (experimental arm A) or surveillance (standard arm B). Primary end points were RFS and HRQOL.

RESULTS

Between July 2009 and February 2014, 196 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two arms. After a median follow-up of 46.5 months (95% CI, 42.6 to 49.3 months), 126 RFS events and 82 deaths were recorded. There was no significant difference in RFS between the two arms (median, 30.4 months in arm A v 18.5 months in arm B; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.25; P = .48). There was no difference in time to definitive deterioration of global HRQOL (median, 31.8 months in arm A v 32.1 months in arm B; HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.73 to 2.26; log-rank P = .39). Overall survival was not different (median, 75.8 months in arm A v 50.8 months in arm B; HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.66; log-rank P = .74). Maximal adverse events were grade 3 in 62% (arm A) versus 18% (arm B) and grade 4 in 11% versus 3% ( P < .001).

CONCLUSION

There was no benefit of adjuvant GEMOX in resected BTC despite adequate tolerance and delivery of the regimen.

Appropriateness of pancreatic resection in high-risk individuals for familial pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a patient-level meta-analysis and proposition of the Beaujon score

Background

About 5% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas are inherited due to a deleterious germline mutation detected in 20% or fewer families. Pancreatic screening in high-risk individuals is proposed to allow early surgical treatment of (pre)malignant lesions. The outcomes of pancreatic surgery in high-risk individuals have never been correctly explored.

Objectives

To evaluate surgical appropriateness and search for associated factors in high-risk individuals.

Methods

A patient-level meta-analysis was performed including studies published since 1999. Individual classification distinguished the highest risk imaging abnormality into low-risk or high-risk abnormality, and the highest pathological degree of malignancy of lesions into no/low malignant potential or potentially/frankly malignant. Surgical appropriateness was considered when potentially/frankly malignant lesions were resected.

Results

Thirteen out of 24 studies were selected, which reported 90 high-risk individuals operated on. Low-risk/high-risk abnormalities were preoperatively detected in 46.7%/53.3% of operated high-risk individuals, respectively. Surgical appropriateness was consistent in 38 (42.2%) high-risk individuals, including 20 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (22.2%). Identification of high-risk abnormalities was strongly associated with surgical appropriateness at multivariate analysis (P = 0.001). We proposed a score and nomogram predictive of surgical appropriateness, including high-risk abnormalities, age and existence of deleterious germline mutation.

Conclusion

Overall, 42.2% of high-risk individuals underwent appropriate surgery. The proposed score might help selecting the best candidates among high-risk individuals for pancreatic resection.

Comparison of Temozolomide-Capecitabine to 5-Fluorouracile-Dacarbazine in 247 Patients with Advanced Digestive Neuroendocrine Tumors Using Propensity Score Analyses

INTRODUCTION

Although chemotherapy combining 5-fluorouracil (5FU)-dacarbazine (DTIC) or temozolomide (TEM)-capecitabine (CAP) is extensively used in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NET), they were never compared. We compared their tolerance and efficacy in advanced NET.

METHODS

We evaluated the records of consecutive patients with pancreatic or small-intestine advanced NET who received 5FU-DTIC or TEM-CAP between July 2004 and December 2017 in 5 French centers. Tolerance, tumor response and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared. Factors associated with PFS were analyzed using Cox multivariate regression model. To reduce the confounding bias of the nonrandomized design, PFS was compared using propensity score analyses.

RESULTS

Ninety-four (5FU-DTIC) patients and 153 (TEM-CAP) patients were included. Pancreatic NET represented 82.3% of cases and 17.1, 61.8 and 10.9% of patients had G1, G2 or G3 NET respectively. Progression at baseline was reported in 92.7% of patients with available data. Grades 3-4 adverse events occurred in 24.7 and 8.5% of TEM-CAP and 5FU-DTIC patients respectively (p = 0.002). The overall response rate was 38.3 and 39.2% respectively (p = 0.596). Median PFS on raw analysis was similar to 5FU-DTIC and TEM-CAP (13.9 vs. 18.3 months, respectively p = 0.86). TEM-CAP was associated with an increased risk of progression on the raw multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.90, 95% CI [1.32-2.73], p = 0.001) and when adjusted on propensity score (HR 1.65, 95% CI [1.18-2.31], p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

PFS may be longer with 5FU-DTIC than TEM-CAP in patients with advanced NET. Although patients often prefer oral chemotherapy, 5FU-DTIC is a relevant alternative. A randomized comparison is needed to confirm these results.

Identification of Cystic Lesions by Secondary Screening of Familial Pancreatic Cancer (FPC) Kindreds Is Not Associated with the Stratified Risk of Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) are associated with risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). It is unclear if an IPMN in individuals at high risk of PDAC should be considered as a positive screening result or as an incidental finding. Stratified familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) populations were used to determine if IPMN risk is linked to familial risk of PDAC.

METHODS

This is a cohort study of 321 individuals from 258 kindreds suspected of being FPC and undergoing secondary screening for PDAC through the European Registry of Hereditary Pancreatitis and Familial Pancreatic Cancer (EUROPAC). Computerised tomography, endoscopic ultrasound of the pancreas and magnetic resonance imaging were used. The risk of being a carrier of a dominant mutation predisposing to pancreatic cancer was stratified into three even categories (low, medium and high) based on: Mendelian probability, the number of PDAC cases and the number of people at risk in a kindred.

RESULTS

There was a median (interquartile range (IQR)) follow-up of 2 (0-5) years and a median (IQR) number of investigations per participant of 4 (2-6). One PDAC, two low-grade neuroendocrine tumours and 41 cystic lesions were identified, including 23 IPMN (22 branch-duct (BD)). The PDAC case occurred in the top 10% of risk, and the BD-IPMN cases were evenly distributed amongst risk categories: low (6/107), medium (10/107) and high (6/107) (P = 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of finding BD-IPMN was independent of genetic predisposition and so they should be managed according to guidelines for incidental finding of IPMN.

FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine as Adjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Among patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) leads to longer overall survival than gemcitabine therapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen with gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 493 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to receive a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen (oxaliplatin [85 mg per square meter of body-surface area], irinotecan [180 mg per square meter, reduced to 150 mg per square meter after a protocol-specified safety analysis], leucovorin [400 mg per square meter], and fluorouracil [2400 mg per square meter] every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks. The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival and safety.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, the median disease-free survival was 21.6 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 12.8 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for cancer-related event, second cancer, or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.73; P<0.001). The disease-free survival rate at 3 years was 39.7% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 21.4% in the gemcitabine group. The median overall survival was 54.4 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 35.0 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86; P=0.003). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 63.4% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 48.6% in the gemcitabine group. Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 75.9% of the patients in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and in 52.9% of those in the gemcitabine group. One patient in the gemcitabine group died from toxic effects (interstitial pneumonitis).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant therapy with a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen led to significantly longer survival than gemcitabine among patients with resected pancreatic cancer, at the expense of a higher incidence of toxic effects. (Funded by R&D Unicancer and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01526135 ; EudraCT number, 2011-002026-52 .).

Pancreatic cancer: French clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up (SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, AFC)

BACKGROUND

This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA), updated in July 2018.

DESIGN

This collaborative work was produced under the auspices of all French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of PA. It is based on the previous guidelines, recent literature review and expert opinions. Recommendations were graded in three categories, according to the level of evidence.

RESULTS

Over the last seven years, significant changes in PA management have been implemented in clinical practice. Imaging/staging: diffusion magnetic resonance imaging is useful before surgery to rule out small liver metastases.

SURGERY

centralization of pancreatic surgery in expert centers is associated with a decreased postoperative mortality. Adjuvant chemotherapy: modified FOLFIRINOX in fit patients, or gemcitabine, or 5-FU, or gemcitabine plus capecitabine, to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Locally advanced PA: no survival benefit of chemoradiotherapy. Metastatic PA: FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel combination are first-line standards in fit patients; second-line with 5FU/nal-IRI or 5FU/oxaliplatin combination after first-line gemcitabine.

CONCLUSION

Guidelines for management of PA are continuously evolving and need to be regularly updated. This constant progress is made possible through clinical and translational research. However, as each individual case is particular, they cannot substitute to multidisciplinary tumor board discussion.

Sporadic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor: Surgery of the primary tumor

The management of patients with sporadic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET) is multi-disciplinary and often, multimodal. Surgery has a large part in treatment because it is the only potentially curative therapeutic modality if resection can be complete. The update reviews the operative indications and the different surgical techniques available (including parenchymal-sparing surgery) to treat the primary lesion according to patient status, preoperative work-up and whether the tumor is functioning or not. The place of observation for "small" non-functional sporadic PNET is also discussed.

Screening and surveillance in hereditary gastrointestinal cancers: Recommendations from the European Society of Digestive Oncology (ESDO) expert discussion at the 20th European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)/World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona, June 2018

Patients with hereditary gastrointestinal (GI) cancers represent a substantial fraction of the overall affected population. Although awareness for hereditary GI cancer syndromes is on the rise, identification of patients and measures of surveillance are often unclear in everyday clinical routine. Therefore, the European Society of Digestive Oncology expert discussion 2018 at the World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer focussed on screening and surveillance of hereditary colorectal, gastric and pancreatic cancers. An international panel of experts and opinion leaders developed the here presented recommendations based on published evidence and on profound clinical expertise to facilitate clinical routine in identification and caretaking of patients with familial GI cancers.

Phase I/II trial of pimasertib plus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer

The selective MEK1/2 inhibitor pimasertib has shown anti-tumour activity in a pancreatic tumour model. This phase I/II, two-part trial was conducted in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPaCa) (NCT01016483). In the phase I part, oral pimasertib was given once daily discontinuously (5 days on/2 days off treatment) or twice daily continuously (n = 53) combined with weekly gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2 ) in 28-day cycles to identify the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of pimasertib. In the phase II part, patients were randomised to pimasertib (RP2D) or placebo plus weekly gemcitabine (n = 88) to investigate progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. The RP2D was determined to be 60 mg BID. PFS and OS outcomes did not indicate any treatment benefit for pimasertib over placebo in combination with gemcitabine (median PFS 3.7 and 2.8 months, respectively, HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.58-1.42: median OS 7.3 vs. 7.6 months, respectively). KRAS status did not influence PFS or OS. The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was 91.1% and 85.7% for pimasertib/gemcitabine and placebo/gemcitabine respectively, but there was a higher incidence of ocular events with pimasertib/gemcitabine (28.9% vs. 4.8% for placebo/gemcitabine). In conclusion, no clinical benefit was observed with first-line pimasertib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with mPaCa.

[Role of radiation therapy in the management of pancreatic cancer]

At diagnosis, about 15% of patients with pancreatic cancer present with a resectable tumour, 50% have a metastatic tumour, and 25% a locally advanced tumor (non-metastatic but unresectable due to vascular invasion) or borderline resectable. Despite the technical progress made in the field of radiation therapy and the improvement of the efficacy of chemotherapy, the prognosis of these patients remains very poor. Recently, the role of radiation therapy in the management of pancreatic cancer has been much debated. This review aims to evaluate the role of radiation therapy for these patients.

Guidelines for reporting secondary findings of genome sequencing in cancer genes: the SFMPP recommendations

In oncology, the expanding use of multi-gene panels to explore familial cancer predisposition and tumor genome analysis has led to increased secondary findings discoveries (SFs) and has given rise to important medical, ethical, and legal issues. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published a policy statement for managing SFs for a list of genes, including 25 cancer-related genes. Currently, there are few recommendations in Europe. From June 2016 to May 2017, the French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine (SFMPP) established a working group of 47 experts to elaborate guidelines for managing information given on the SFs for genes related to cancers. A subgroup of ethicists, lawyers, patients' representatives, and psychologists provided ethical reflection, information guidelines, and materials (written consent form and video). A subgroup with medical expertise, including oncologists and clinical and molecular geneticists, provided independent evaluation and classification of 60 genes. The main criteria were the "actionability" of the genes (available screening or prevention strategies), the risk evaluation (severity, penetrance, and age of disease onset), and the level of evidence from published data. Genes were divided into three classes: for class 1 genes (n = 36), delivering the information on SFs was recommended; for class 2 genes (n = 5), delivering the information remained questionable because of insufficient data from the literature and/or level of evidence; and for class 3 genes (n = 19), delivering the information on SFs was not recommended. These guidelines for managing SFs for cancer-predisposing genes provide new insights for clinicians and laboratories to standardize clinical practices.

Unicancer GI PRODIGE 24/CCTG PA.6 trial: A multicenter international randomized phase III trial of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine (gem) in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas

LBA4001

Background: FOLFIRINOX is more effective than gem as first-line treatment in metastatic pancreatic cancer for patients (pts) with good performance status. This trial assessed the benefit of mFOLFIRINOX in the adjuvant setting. Methods: PRODIGE 24/CCTG PA.6 is a phase III multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Pts aged 18-79 years with histologically proven pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, 21-84 days after R0 or R1 resection, WHO PS ≤1, adequate hematologic and renal function, and no cardiac ischemia, were eligible. Randomization was stratified by center, pN, R margin status, and post-operative CA 19-9 level (≤ 90 U/mL vs 91-180). Arm A pts received 28-day cycles of gem on days 1, 8, and 15 for 6 cycles. Arm B pts received mFOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², leucovorin 400 mg/m², irinotecan 150 mg/m² D1, and 5-FU 2.4 g/m² over 46 h) every 14 days for 12 cycles. Primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and adverse events (AE). 490 pts were required to observe 342 events to show a gain in 3-year DFS from 17% to 27% (HR = 0.74) with a two-sided α = 0.05 and 80% power. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI were estimated by a stratified Cox proportional hazard model. We observed 91.5% of the events required. The IDMC approved early ITT analysis before March 15, 2018. Surgical procedures, pathology and postoperative CT scans reports were centrally reviewed. Results: From Apr 2012 to Oct 2016, 493 pts were enrolled in 77 centers: Arm A/B: 246/247. With a median follow up of 30.5 months [m] (95% CI, 29.5-33.7), median DFS was 12.8 (95% CI, 11.7-15.2) in Arm A vs 21.6 m (95% CI, 17.5-26.7) in Arm B, HR = 0.59 (95% CI, 0.47-0.74). The median OS (Arm A/B) was 34.8 (95% CI, 28.6-43.8) vs 54.4 m (95% CI, 41.5- --), HR = 0.66 (95% CI, 0.49-0.89). The median MFS (Arm A/B) was 17.7 (95% CI, 14.2-21.7) vs 30.4 m (95% CI, 21.6- --), HR = 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46-0.76). Grade 3-4 AE (Arm A/B) were reported in 51.1% vs 75.5%, including 12% grade 4 in each arm, with a toxic death in Arm A. Conclusion: Adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX is safe and significantly improves DFS, MFS and OS compared to gem. Clinical trial information: NCT01526135.

Prevalence of Microsatellite Instability in Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms of the Pancreas

Microsatellite instability (MSI) caused by mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) is detected in a small proportion of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs). dMMR and MSI have been associated with responses of metastatic tumors, including PDACs, to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. We performed immunohistochemical analyses of a 445 PDAC specimens, collected from consecutive patients at multiple centers, to identify those with dMMR, based on loss of mismatch repair proteins MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and/or PMS2. We detected dMMR in 1.6% of tumor samples; we found dMMR in a larger proportion of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms-related tumors (4/58, 6.9%) than non- intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms PDAC (5/385, 1.3%) (P = .02). PDACs with dMMR contained potentially immunogenic mutations because of MSI in coding repeat sequences. PDACs with dMMR or MSI had a higher density of CD8+ T cells at the invasive front than PDACs without dMMR or MSI (P = .08; Fisher exact test). A higher proportion of PDACs with dMMR or MSI expressed the CD274 molecule (PD-L1, 8/9) than PDACs without dMMR or MSI (4/10) (P = .05). Times of disease-free survival and overall survival did not differ significantly between patients with PDACs with dMMR or MSI vs without dMMR or MSI. Studies are needed to determine whether these features of PDACs with dMMR or MSI might serve as prognostic factors.

Preoperative imaging and pathologic classification for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

The management of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (PNET), whether hormonally secretory or not, is multidisciplinary and often multimodal. Surgical treatment plays a central role because complete resection is the only potentially curative treatment. The choice of the therapeutic plan for a PNET requires precise localization of the primary tumor (which may sometimes be multiple in case of genetic predisposition), confirmation of the diagnosis of PNET, a search for metastases (mainly hepatic), and identification of the main histoprognostic factors. This update focuses on the WHO 2017 histological classification and recent innovations in the preoperative assessment of PNET using conventional and isotopic imaging. The aim is to not only allow the mapping of primary and metastatic lesions but also to predict tumor aggressiveness.

Phase II LAPACT trial of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) plus gemcitabine (G) for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC)

204

Background: In the phase 3 MPACT study, treatment with nab-P + G resulted in a > 3-fold reduction in primary pancreatic tumor burden vs G in patients with metastatic PC, suggesting the potential for activity against LAPC. This international, multicenter single arm, phase 2 trial (LAPACT) was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an induction phase regimen of nab-P + G in previously untreated patients with LAPC. Methods: Treatment-naive patients with unresectable LAPC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤ 1 were enrolled. The induction phase was designed as 6 cycles of nab-P 125 mg/m2 + G 1000 mg/m2 on D 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. After induction, patients without progressive disease or unacceptable adverse events were eligible for continued treatment with nab-P + G, chemoradiation, or surgery per investigator’s choice (IC). Surgery could occur prior to completing 6 induction cycles if the investigator deemed there had been a sufficient tumor response. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF) in patients treated with nab-P + G as induction therapy followed by IC treatment. Key secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Of 107 patients enrolled, 106 were evaluable for the safety analysis. No new toxicities were identified. The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events during induction were neutropenia (42%), anemia (11%), and fatigue (10%); grade 3 peripheral neuropathy occurred in 4% of patients. The most frequent reasons for discontinuing induction were adverse events (18%) and progressive disease (7%). Forty-six (43%) patients received IC treatment after induction: 13 (12%) continued nab-P + G, 17 (16%) received chemoradiation, and 16 (15%) underwent surgical resection (R0, n = 7; R1, n = 9). DCR and ORR during induction were 78% and 35%, respectively; with a median TTF of 8.6 months and median PFS of 10.2 months. Conclusion: A nab-P + G induction regimen in LAPC appears tolerable and feasible and is associated with encouraging antitumor activity and promising TTF and PFS. NCT02301143. Clinical trial information: NCT02301143.

Efficacy and Safety of Sunitinib in Patients with Well-Differentiated Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours

BACKGROUND

In a phase III study, sunitinib led to a significant increase in progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (panNETs). This study was a post-marketing commitment to support the phase III data.

METHODS

In this ongoing, open-label, phase IV trial (NCT01525550), patients with progressive, advanced unresectable/metastatic, well-differentiated panNETs received continuous sunitinib 37.5 mg once daily. Eligibility criteria were similar to those of the phase III study. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours v1.0 (RECIST). Other endpoints included PFS per Choi criteria, overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Sixty-one treatment-naive and 45 previously treated patients received sunitinib. By March 19, 2016, 82 (77%) patients had discontinued treatment, mainly due to disease progression. Median treatment duration was 11.7 months. Investigator-assessed median PFS per RECIST (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 13.2 months (10.9-16.7): 13.2 (7.4-16.8) and 13.0 (9.2-20.4) in treatment-naive and previously treated patients, respectively. ORR (95% CI) per RECIST was 24.5% (16.7-33.8) in the total population: 21.3% (11.9-33.7) in treatment-naive and 28.9% (16.4-44.3) in previously treated patients. Median OS, although not yet mature, was 37.8 months (95% CI, 33.0-not estimable). The most common treatment-related AEs were neutropenia (53.8%), diarrhoea (46.2%), and leukopenia (43.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

This phase IV trial confirms sunitinib as an efficacious and safe treatment option in patients with advanced/metastatic, well-differentiated, unresectable panNETs, and supports the phase III study outcomes. AEs were consistent with the known safety profile of sunitinib.