Best supportive care (BSC) versus oxaliplatin, folinic acid and 5-fluorouracil (OFF) plus BSC in patients for second-line advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III-study from the German CONKO-study group. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:1676-1681. [PMID: 21565490 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.04.011]

Circulating Tumor DNA is Prognostic and Potentially Predictive of Eryaspase Efficacy in Second-line in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

Eryaspase is composed of l-asparaginase encapsulated in erythrocytes and has demonstrated significant efficacy in a randomized phase II trial. We assessed the prognostic and predictive value of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients, plasma included in this trial.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Samples prospectively collected pretreatment were centrally analyzed by next-generation sequencing. Prognostic values of baseline ctDNA and ctDNA early changes between day 0 and 28 were assessed in both arms combined on objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS); three groups were defined: negative ctDNA (Neg), ctDNA responders (Resp), and ctDNA nonresponders (NResp). Predictive value of ctDNA for eryaspase efficacy was investigated.

RESULTS

ctDNA was positive at baseline in 77 patients of the 113 tested patients (68%). Detectable ctDNA was an independent negative prognostic factor for OS (4.6 vs. 8.8 months; P = 0.0025) and PFS (1.6 vs. 3.3 months; P = 0.00043). Early change in ctDNA levels was correlated with ORR (20%, 26%, 0%; P < 0.04), PFS (3.7, 3.4, 1.6 months; P < 0.0001), and OS (11.7, 6.5, 4.3 months; P < 0.0001) according to the three defined groups (Neg, Res, NResp, respectively). In patients with ctDNA detectable at baseline, eryaspase was associated with better PFS [HR = 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.3-0.94)] and OS (HR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.29-0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

We confirm from a prospective randomized trial that: (i) the presence of ctDNA at baseline is a major prognostic factor, (ii) the early change of ctDNA correlates with treatment outcome, and (iii) the ctDNA could be a predictive biomarker of eryaspase efficacy.

Precision Therapy of Pancreatic Cancer: From Bench to Bedside

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), with a mortality rate of 94% and a 5-year-survival rate of only 8%, is one of the deadliest cancer entities worldwide, and early diagnostic methods as well as effective therapies are urgently needed.

SUMMARY

This review summarizes current clinical procedure and recent developments of oncological therapy in the palliative setting of metastatic PDAC. It further gives examples of successful, as well as failed, targeted therapy approaches and finally discusses promising ongoing research into the decade-old question of the "undruggability" of KRAS.

KEY MESSAGES

Bench-driven concepts change the clinical landscape from "one size fits all" towards precision medicine. With growing insight into the molecular mechanisms of pancreatic cancer the era of targeted therapy in PDAC is gaining a new momentum.

FOLFIRINOX after first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer: a retrospective comparison with FOLFOX and FOLFIRI schedules

Background

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death. In cases with metastasis, the combination of 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy regimens are considered the standard of care. However, the optimal sequence of these regimens is unclear.

Methods

This retrospective study initially evaluated 186 patients with locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer at three Italian institutions between February 2013 and October 2019. All patients had progressed after receiving gemcitabine-based first-line chemotherapy and were subsequently offered second-line FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX-6, or FOLFIRI treatment. This study evaluated progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival from the start of second-line treatment (OS2), overall survival from the start of first-line treatment (OS1), and safety outcomes.

Results

A total of 77 patients received ⩾4 cycles of second-line chemotherapy and were considered eligible: 15 patients received FOLFIRINOX, 32 patients received FOLFOX-6, and 30 patients received FOLFIRI. The FOLFIRINOX group had median PFS of 26.29 weeks and median OS2 of 47.86 weeks, while the FOLFIRI group had median PFS of 10.57 weeks and median OS2 of 25.00 weeks (p = 0.038). No significant differences were observed between the FOLFIRINOX and FOLFOX-6 groups in terms of PFS (26.29 weeks versus 23.07 weeks) or OS2 (47.86 weeks versus 42.00 weeks). The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia, which occurred more frequently in the FOLFIRINOX and FOLFOX-6 groups.

Conclusion

Relative to the FOLFIRI regimen, the FOLFIRINOX regimen had a favorable toxicity profile and better survival outcomes. No significant differences were observed relative to the FOLFOX-6 regimen.

Predictive implications of decreased CA19-9 at 8 weeks during nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for the induction of second-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

Background

Second‐line (2L) chemotherapy after nab‐paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (AG) is important for improving the survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). However, many patients fail to receive 2L chemotherapy because of rapid disease progression. Therefore, early recognition of any ineffectiveness during AG might lead to an increased induction rate of 2L chemotherapy.

Aim

We investigated the significance of treatment response at 8 weeks as a predictive factor for the induction of 2L chemotherapy after AG.

Methods and results

From January 2015 to January 2019, 41 patients with APC underwent AG as first‐line chemotherapy at our institute. Thirty‐three patients were evaluated at 8 weeks. Sixteen patients (48%) underwent 2L chemotherapy and 17 (52%) underwent no 2L chemotherapy. Clinical features and treatment response at 8 weeks were, retrospectively, compared among patients. Predictive factors for the induction of 2L chemotherapy were analyzed. Patients with an objective response by 8 weeks received 2L chemotherapy more frequently (P = .026). Decreased CA19‐9 (<50%) at 8 weeks was identified as an independent negative predictive factor for the induction of 2L chemotherapy.

Conclusions

Decreased CA19‐9 (<50%) at 8 weeks may indicate the ineffectiveness of AG and signify that a move to 2L chemotherapy may be required without delay.

Systemic Treatment of Patients With Gastrointestinal Cancers During the COVID-19 Outbreak: COVID-19-adapted Recommendations of the National Cancer Institute of Milan

The current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak poses a major challenge in the treatment decision-making of patients with cancer, who may be at higher risk of developing a severe and deadly SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the general population. The health care emergency is forcing the reshaping of the daily assessment between risks and benefits expected from the administration of immune-suppressive and potentially toxic treatments. To guide our clinical decisions at the National Cancer Institute of Milan (Lombardy region, the epicenter of the outbreak in Italy), we formulated Coronavirus-adapted institutional recommendations for the systemic treatment of patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Here, we describe how our daily clinical practice has changed due to the pandemic outbreak, with the aim of providing useful suggestions for physicians that are facing the same challenges worldwide.

A Phase I Study of Dinaciclib in Combination With MK-2206 in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

The combination of drugs targeting Ral and PI3K/AKT signaling has antitumor efficacy in preclinical models of pancreatic cancer. We combined dinaciclib (small molecule cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor with MK-2206 (Akt inhibitor) in patients with previously treated/metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients were treated with dinaciclib (6-12 mg/m² i.v.) and MK-2206 (60-135 mg p.o.) weekly. Tumor biopsies were performed to measure pAKT, pERK, and Ki67 at baseline and after one completed cycle (dose level 2 and beyond). Thirty-nine patients participated in the study. The maximum tolerated doses were dinaciclib 9 mg/m² and MK-2206 135 mg. Treatment-related grade 3 and 4 toxicities included neutropenia, lymphopenia, anemia, hyperglycemia, hyponatremia, and leukopenia. No objectives responses were observed. Four patients (10%) had stable disease as their best response. At the recommended dose, median survival was 2.2 months. Survival rates at 6 and 12 months were 11% and 5%, respectively. There was a nonsignificant reduction in pAKT composite scores between pretreatment and post-treatment biopsies (mean 0.76 vs. 0.63; P = 0.635). The combination of dinaciclib and MK-2206 was a safe regimen in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, although without clinical benefit, possibly due to not attaining biologically effective doses. Given the strong preclinical evidence of Ral and AKT inhibition, further studies with better tolerated agents should be considered.

Efficacy of S-1 in second-line chemotherapy after nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Second-line (2 L) chemotherapy is important for improved survival. However, the efficacy of S-1 after nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (AG) for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) remains unclear.

AIM

We retrospectively investigated the clinical impact of S-1 after AG.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From January 2015 to July 2018, 37 patients with APC underwent AG as first-line chemotherapy at our institute. Of these patients, 14 (38%) underwent S-1 as 2 L chemotherapy after AG (S-1 group), five (14%) received another agent after AG, and 18 (49%) underwent no 2 L chemotherapy (best supportive care [BSC] group). The clinical features were retrospectively compared between the S-1 and BSC groups. Prognostic factors for residual survival (RS) were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model. The induction rate of 2 L chemotherapy was 51%, and most patients received S-1 monotherapy (74%). The disease control rate and progression-free survival duration were 57.1% and 2.8 months, respectively. The median RS duration in the S-1 and BSC groups was 5.2 and 2.4 months, respectively; this difference was statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.33; P = .005). The median overall survival duration in the S-1 and BSC groups was 12.3 and 5.0 months, respectively; this difference was also statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.26; P = .001). The efficacy of S-1 in 2L chemotherapy for RS was identified in the multivariate analysis, as was age (<65 vs ≥65 y) and the presence of liver metastasis.

CONCLUSION

The antitumor activity of S-1 was retained after AG, and the induction of S-1 after AG might improve the prognosis of patients with APC.

Meta-analysis examining overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer treated with second-line 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin-based therapy after failing first-line gemcitabine-containing therapy: effect of performance status and comparison with other regimens

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis and few choices of therapy. For patients with adequate performance status, FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are preferred first-line treatment. 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based therapy (e.g. FOLFIRI, OFF, or FOLFOX) are often used in patients who previously received gemcitabine-based regimens. A systematic review was conducted of the safety and efficacy of FOLFOX for metastatic pancreatic cancer following prior gemcitabine-based therapy. A Bayesian fixed-effect meta-analysis with adjustment of patient performance status (PS) was conducted to evaluate overall survival (OS) and compare outcomes with nanoliposomal irinotecan combination therapy.

METHODS

PubMed.gov , FDA.gov , ClinicalTrials.gov , congress abstracts, Cochrane.org library, and EMBASE database searches were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials of advanced/metastatic disease, prior gemcitabine-based therapy, and second-line treatment with 5-FU and oxaliplatin. The database search dates were January 1, 1990-June 30, 2019. Endpoints were OS and severe treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Trial-level PS scores were standardized by converting Karnofsky grade scores to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Grade, and overall study-weighted PS was calculated based on weighted average of all patients.

RESULTS

Of 282 studies identified, 11 randomized controlled trials (N = 454) were included in the meta-analysis. Baseline weighted PS scores predicted OS in 10 of the 11 studies, and calculated PS scores of 1.0 were associated with a median OS of 6.3 months (95% posterior interval, 5.4-7.4). After adjusting for baseline PS, FOLFOX had a similar treatment effect profile (median OS, range 2.6-6.7 months) as 5-FU/leucovorin plus nanoliposomal irinotecan therapy (median OS, 6.1 months; 95% confidence interval 4.8-8.9). Neutropenia and fatigue were the most commonly reported Grade 3-4 TRAEs associated with FOLFOX.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline PS is a strong prognostic factor when interpreting the efficacy of 5-FU and oxaliplatin-based therapy of pancreatic cancer after progression on first-line gemcitabine-based regimens. When baseline PS is considered, FOLFOX has a similar treatment effect as 5-FU and nanoliposomal irinotecan therapy and a comparable safety profile. These findings suggest that 5-FU and oxaliplatin-based therapies remain an acceptable and alternative second-line treatment option for patients with pancreatic cancer and adequate PS (e.g. ECOG 0-1) following gemcitabine treatment.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-Up of Exocrine Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Evidence Evaluation and Recommendations by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM)

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in women (7%) and the sixth in men (5%) in Italy, with a life expectancy of around 5% at 5 years. From 2010, the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) developed national guidelines for several cancers. In this report, we report a summary of clinical recommendations of diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of PDAC, which may guide physicians in their current practice. A panel of AIOM experts in upper gastrointestinal cancer malignancies discussed the available scientific evidence supporting the clinical recommendations.

Modified FOLFIRINOX as a second-line therapy following gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel therapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer

Background

There is no established second-line treatment after failure of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) as a second-line therapy for MPC and to investigate prognostic factors for survival.

Methods

From 2015 to 2019, we retrospectively reviewed the medical records of consecutive patients receiving mFFX for MPC after failure of GnP therapy. Patients were treated every 2 weeks with mFFX (intravenous oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², intravenous irinotecan 150 mg/m², and continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m² for 46 h without bolus infusion).

Results

In total, 104 patients received mFFX. The median overall survival (OS) was 7.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.2–9.8) and the progression-free survival (PFS) 3.9 months (95% CI 2.8–5.0). The objective response rate was 10.6% and the disease control rate 56.7%. The median relative dose intensities of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and infusional 5-FU were 80.0% (range 21.5–100%), 77.2% (range 38.1–100%), and 85.9% (range 36.9–100%), respectively. Grade 3–4 toxicities were reported in 57 patients (54.8%), including neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. Glasgow prognostic score and carcinoembryonic antigen level were independently associated with survival. Our prognostic model using these parameters could classify the patients into good (n = 38), intermediate (n = 47), and poor (n = 19) prognostic groups. The median OS and PFS time was 14.7 (95% CI 7.6–16.3) and 7.6 months (95% CI 4.1–10.5) for the good prognostic factors, 6.5 (95% CI 5.5–10.0) and 3.6 months (95% CI 2.7–4.8) for the intermediate prognostic factors and 5.0 (95% CI 2.9–6.6) and 1.7 months (95% CI 0.9–4.3) for the poor prognostic factors, respectively.

Conclusions

The mFFX showed to be a tolerable second-line treatment for MPC after GnP failure. Our prognostic model might be useful for deciding whether mFFX is indicated in this setting.

Multicenter Retrospective Analysis of Second-Line Therapy after Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Patients

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal solid tumors. In many European countries gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel is the preferred first-line treatment. An increasing number of patients are eligible for second-line therapy, but the best regimen is still controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based compared to irinotecan-based therapies in this setting. 181 advanced pancreatic cancer patients consecutively treated in three centers with a second-line therapy progressed on gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel were retrospectively enrolled. OS and PFS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and survival of the two groups was compared using the log-rank test. The median PFS and OS were respectively 3.5 (95%CI 3.2-3.8) and 8.8 months (95%CI 7.9-9.8) from second-line therapy in the overall population. The median PFS and OS were respectively 3.3 (95%CI 3.1-3.5) and 8.2 months (95%CI 7.24-9.34) with an irinotecan-based combination compared to 4.0 (95%CI 2.4-5.7) and 10.3 months (95%CI 8.62-12.02) in patients receiving an oxaliplatin-based combination. We observed a clear trend for longer survival outcomes with platinum-based doublet compared to regimens including irinotecan or nal-IRI. Head-to-head trials are still lacking. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and the presence of liver metastases could drive physicians in tailoring the treatment strategy.

FOLFIRINOX for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Patients After Nab-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine Failure

OBJECTIVES

There is no standard chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) after gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GP) failure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRINOX (5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) (5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) (FFX) and modified FFX (mFFX) for APC patients after GP failure.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy and safety of FFX in APC patients who were refractory or intolerant of GP.

RESULTS

Between July 2014 and October 2018, 23 patients received FFX after failure of GP. The overall response rate (RR) was 23%, and the disease control rate (DCR) was 68%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.3 months (95% confidence interval, 2.5-8.9), and the median overall survival (OS) was 12.1 months (95% confidence interval, 4.0-14.2). Twelve patients received FFX, and 11 patients received mFFX. In the FFX group, the RR was 9%, the DCR was 73%, the PFS was 5.3 months, and the OS was 6.9 months. In the mFFX group, the RR was 23%, the DCR was 64%, the PFS was 4.3 months, and the OS was 12.8 months. There was no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

FOLFIRINOX has potential activity for patients with APC in whom GP failed.

Real-world Outcomes Among Patients Treated With Gemcitabine-based Therapy Post-FOLFIRINOX Failure in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Limited evidence exists for chemotherapy selection in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) after first-line FOLFIRINOX. Second-line gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GEMNAB) is publicly funded in the Canadian provinces of Alberta (AB) and Manitoba (MB), but not in British Columbia (BC). We compared population-based outcomes by region to examine the utility of second-line GEMNAB versus gemcitabine (GEM) alone.

METHODS

We identified patients treated with first-line FOLFIRINOX between 2013 and 2015 across BC, AB, and MB. Baseline characteristics and treatment regimens were compared between AB/MB and BC. Survival outcomes were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with log-rank test.

RESULTS

A total of 368 patients were treated with first-line FOLFIRINOX (143 AB/MB, 225 BC): median age 61 (interquartile range: 55 to 68) years, 42% comprising female individuals, and 67% with metastatic disease. Receipt of second-line therapy was 48% in AB/MB versus 44% in BC (P=0.35), and time from diagnosis to second-line therapy was 7.7 (AB/MB) versus 9.4 months (BC; P=0.1). Distribution of second-line GEM use: 73% GEMNAB, 23% GEM (AB/MB) versus 27% GEMNAB, 66% GEM (BC; P<0.001). Median overall survival (OS) from diagnosis was similar: 12.4 (AB/MB) versus 11.5 months (BC; P=0.91). On Cox regression analysis, region was not significant. Secondary survival analysis by second-line regimen demonstrated a median OS of 18.0 months with GEMNAB versus 14.3 months with GEM (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based comparison of APC patients treated with first-line FOLFIRINOX, survival outcomes were comparable regardless of funded access to second-line GEMNAB. OS by regimen favored second-line GEMNAB, but patient selection may be largely responsible for this difference.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy after FOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer

Background

There are no randomized data to guide treatment decisions for patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma following first-line FOLFIRINOX. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using gemcitabine-based chemotherapy after FOLFIRINOX to assess treatment efficacy and toxicity.

Methods

We included studies published between 2011 and 2018 that evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy after FOLFIRINOX in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Primary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), any grade 3/4 toxicity rate, and progression-free survival (PFS). We used the random-effects model to generate pooled estimates for proportions.

Results

Sixteen studies met the eligibility criteria. Overall, ORR was 10.8%, DCR was 41.1%, and any grade 3/4 toxicity rate was 28.6%. In subgroup analyses, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel was associated with superior ORR (14.4 versus 8.4%; p = 0.038) and DCR (53.5 versus 30.5%; p < 0.001) compared with single-agent gemcitabine. Median PFS ranged from 1.9 to 6.4 months and numerically favored gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel.

Conclusions

Our study suggests gemcitabine-based chemotherapy likely outperforms best supportive care after FOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer. Also, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel seems to be more active than single-agent gemcitabine (CRD42018100421).

FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel for treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer: Single-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (Gem + nabPTX) were recently introduced for metastatic pancreatic cancer treatment. However, studies that compared these two regimens and studies in Asian populations are lacking.

AIM

To compare the treatment outcomes of FOLFIRINOX and Gem + nabPTX regimen for metastatic pancreatic cancer treatment in Korean population.

METHODS

Patients with metastatic or recurrent pancreatic cancer treated with FOLFIRINOX (n = 86) or Gem + nabPTX (n = 81) as the first-line since January 2015 were identified using the Severance Hospital Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Registry. Treatment efficacy, treatment-related adverse events and economic aspects were compared.

RESULTS

Patients in the FOLFIRINOX group were significantly younger (54 vs 65 years; P < 0.001) and had better performance statuses at diagnosis. The median overall survival (10.7 vs 12.1 mo; P = 0.157), progression-free survival (8.0 vs 8.4 mo; P = 0.134), and objective response rates (33.7% vs 46.9%; P = 0.067) were not significantly different when compared with Gem + nabPTX group. Grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the FOLFIRINOX group. The drug costs of both regimens were similar.

CONCLUSION

Treatment efficacy and economic burdens were comparable between the two regimens. But, the details of adverse event were different. Gem + nabPTX regimen might be considered preferentially in certain conditions.

Phase Ib/II study combining tosedostat with capecitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Background

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive malignancy with limited therapeutic options. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the aminopeptidase inhibitor tosedostat with capecitabine in advanced PDAC.

Methods

We conducted a phase Ib/II trial of tosedostat with capecitabine as second-line therapy for advanced PDAC. Planned enrollment was 36 patients. Eligible patients were treated with capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² oral twice-daily days 1-14 and oral tosedostat in a dose de-escalation design on days 1-21 of each 21-day cycle. Primary endpoints were the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

Sixteen patients were enrolled. Tosedostat 120 mg oral twice daily with capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² oral twice daily was the RP2D. There was one dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) (grade 3 acute coronary syndrome) during phase Ib. The most common treatment-related adverse events were gastrointestinal (nausea, diarrhea), cardiac [QTc prolongation, decreased ejection fraction (EF)], and fatigue. The median PFS was 7.1 months, and the median treatment failure free survival was 3 months. Eight patients experienced stable disease for greater than 3 months. The study was closed early due to lack of drug availability.

Conclusions

Tosedostat with capecitabine displayed tolerable toxicity, and prolonged disease control in a subset of patients. These data encourage further exploration of aminopeptidase inhibitors in pancreatic cancer.

Pluronic Polymer-Based Ormeloxifene Nanoformulations Induce Superior Anticancer Effects in Pancreatic Cancer Cells

Utilization of safe cytotoxic agents with precise anticancer activity is considered as the prime focus of cancer therapeutics research. A greater incentive for such agents arises from the molecules/drugs that are already being used for other indications. Ormeloxifene (ORM) is a nonsteroidal, nonhormonal selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), which has been in human use for contraception purposes. Although in the recent past, many reports have suggested its emerging role as an anticancer agent, no significant attention was paid toward generating simple and safe nanoformulation(s) for improved therapeutic activity and tumor cell-specific delivery. Our aim is to develop nanoformulation(s) of ormeloxifene to improve its targeted delivery in tumor cells. We developed ormeloxifene nanoformulation(s) by utilizing various biocompatible polymers. The optimized formulations with pluronic polymers F127 and F68 show improved nanoparticle characteristics. These formulations show enhanced cellular uptake that allows ormeloxifene's intracellular availability. We further evaluated its improved anticancer activity by performing cell proliferation, flow cytometry, and immunoblotting assays. Overall, this study confirms possible novel nanoformulation(s) of ormeloxifene to be evolved as a new therapeutic modality for cancer treatment.

External validation of the Besançon nomogram in Asian patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving second-line chemotherapy: A multi-institute experience in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Determining survival outcome in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (aPDAC) patients receiving second-line (L2) chemotherapy is important for clinical decision-making. The Besançon group from France recently proposed a prognostic nomogram to predict overall survival (OS) for aPDAC patients receiving L2 chemotherapy. The present study aimed to externally validate the performance of the Besançon nomogram in predicting OS in an Asian cohort.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 349 patients who received L2 chemotherapy for aPDAC between 2010 and 2016 at four institutes in Taiwan. The performance of the Besançon model in this cohort was evaluated with C-index and calibration plots.

RESULTS

The median OS time in our patient cohort was 4.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0-5.0). Using the Besançon nomogram-predicted risk groups, the median OS times in the low, intermediate, and high-risk groups were 6.7 (95% CI, 5.3-8.2), 3.2 (95% CI, 2.4-3.9), and 1.7 months (95% CI, 0.6-2.7), respectively. The C-index of the predicted six- and 12-month survival probabilities for the Besançon nomogram were 0.766 (95% CI, 0.715-0.816) and 0.698 (95% CI, 0.641-0.754), respectively. The calibration plot showed that the observed six-month survival probability was close to the diagonal line, while that for 12-month survival deviated below the diagonal line compared to the survival probability predicted by the Besançon nomogram.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the Besançon nomogram tended to over-estimate the 12-month survival probability, our study demonstrated that the nomogram is a reliable and readily applicable model to estimate survival outcomes of aPDAC patients receiving L2 chemotherapy.

Evolving Treatment Paradigms for Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is an extremely aggressive tumor which is supposed to become the second deadliest malignancy in 2030. For a long time the possibilities to treat this complex disease were very limited.

SUMMARY

In the last years the development of new chemotherapeutic regimens has led to a better outcome in the ad-juvant, neoadjuvant, and palliative setting. Furthermore, progress in sequencing technologies has enabled a detailed investigation of the genetic alterations, mutational burden, expression pattern, and stroma composition in pancreatic cancer and led to the identification of subtypes of this disease.

MESSAGES

This analysis will increase our understanding of tumor heterogeneity and hopefully translate into new potential targets, biomarkers, and the development of individual therapeutic approaches in the future.

Outcomes and Characteristics of Patients Receiving Second-line Therapy for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVES

There is limited randomized data to guide second-line chemotherapy selection in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). We aimed to characterize predictors and outcomes of second-line chemotherapy in patients with APC.

METHODS

We identified all patients with APC [locally advanced (LAPC) or metastatic (MPC)] who received ≥1 cycle of first-line chemotherapy between January 2012 and December 2015 across 6 cancer centers in British Columbia, Canada. Baseline characteristics and survival outcomes were summarized.

RESULTS

Of 676 patients with APC (31% LAPC, 69% MPC) who received ≥1 cycle of chemotherapy, 164 (24%) received second-line chemotherapy. These patients were younger, with lower ECOG and higher CA19-9 at presentation, compared with patients who did not receive second-line chemotherapy. There were no differences in rates of second-line chemotherapy between LAPC and MPC (28% vs. 23%; P=0.18). Only first-line FOLFIRINOX was associated with second-line chemotherapy. Median overall survival (OS) from second-line chemotherapy was longer with second-line gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel than fluoropyrimidine or gemcitabine (7.9 vs. 5.1 vs. 4.3 mo; P=0.008). On multivariable analysis, longer OS from second-line chemotherapy was associated with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, lower ECOG, and LAPC.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based cohort, first-line FOLFIRINOX was the strongest predictor of second-line chemotherapy. Duration of therapy remains short and novel treatments are urgently needed.

Helical tomotherapy for chemo-refractory multiple liver metastases

Background

Despite advances in chemotherapy, curing multiple liver metastases is quite rare. Even when response is obtained, regrowth of the tumors is almost inevitable. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of helical tomotherapy for chemo‐refractory multiple liver metastases.

Methods

Forty‐five patients with chemo‐refractory multiple (3‐10) liver metastases after standard systemic chemotherapy entered the single‐institutional prospective study. Liver metastases were the major disease; however, 31 also had uncontrolled primary lesions and/or other metastases. The prescribed dose was 55 Gy in 25 fractions. The median planning target volume (PTV) and normal liver volume (NLV) of first treatment were 128 cm³ and 1175 cm³, respectively. The median of V_15Gy, V_30Gy, and mean dose to NLV were 45%, 23%, and 19.4 Gy, respectively.

Results

Forty‐two patients (93%) completed the planned treatment. Median survival time (MST) for all patients was 8 months, and the 1‐year survival rate was 29%. The median local control (LC) period was 5 months and the 6‐month control rate of irradiated tumors was 33%. A ≥30% decrease in tumor markers was observed in 31%. The most common grade 3 toxicity was lymphocytopenia (40%), followed by fatigue (6%). Radiation‐induced liver disease (RILD) was not observed. Pancreatic cancer as the primary tumor, distant metastases outside the liver, low pretreatment neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and low pretreatment monocyte‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (MLR) were associated with poorer prognoses.

Conclusions

Helical tomotherapy for chemo‐refractory multiple liver metastases is a feasible and potentially effective treatment. Incorporating tomotherapy into the first‐line treatment in combination with systemic chemotherapy should be considered.

Trial registration number

CROG 12005.

An update on treatment options for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal solid organ tumors. Due to the rising incidence, late diagnosis, and limited treatment options, it is expected to be the second leading cause of cancer deaths in high income countries in the next decade. The multidisciplinary treatment of this disease depends on the stage of cancer at diagnosis (resectable, borderline, locally advanced, and metastatic disease), and combines surgery, chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, and supportive care. The landscape of multidisciplinary pancreatic cancer treatment is changing rapidly, especially in locally advanced disease, and the number of treatment options in metastatic disease, including personalized medicine, innovative targets, immunotherapy, therapeutic vaccines, adoptive T-cell transfer, or stemness inhibitors, will probably expand in the near future. This review summarizes the current literature and provides an overview of how new therapies or new therapeutic strategies (neoadjuvant therapies, conversion surgery) will guide multidisciplinary disease management, future clinical trials, and, hopefully, will increase overall survival.

[Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma]

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma represents the most common malignant tumor of the pancreas. Despite substantial research efforts and gradual diagnostic and therapeutic improvements, its prognosis remains dismal. In accordance with the current German, European, and US guidelines, this CME-article provides a comprehensive review of the disease. In addition, selected up-to-date aspects of epidemiology, etiopathology, genetics, and basic principles of diagnostics and therapy including potential future therapeutic options are discussed.

Paradigm Shifting of Systemic Chemotherapy for Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer in Japan

Systemic chemotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, to improve the survival of patients with pancreatic cancer. Unresectable pancreatic cancer can be classified into three categories: metastatic, locally advanced, and hereditary pancreatic cancers. Furthermore, the second-line chemotherapy is required to prolong the survival. The combined regimens of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFIRINOX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM plus nab-PTX) have been recognized as the standard of care for advanced pancreatic cancer. However, the consensus of selection of the first-line chemotherapy still remains. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between FOLFIRINOX and GEM plus nab-PTX are ongoing for locally advanced and metastatic disease in Japan, respectively. Hereditary pancreatic cancer, especially associated with BRCA mutations, is responsive to platinum-containing regimens and/or poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. It is becoming more important to examine the presence/absence of BRCA mutations to select the appropriate treatment strategy for individual patients. Although some S-1-based regimens have been investigated in the second-line treatment after GEM-based chemotherapy in Japan, no regime demonstrated survival benefit. Nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus FF has been established as the standard of care in the second-line treatment in a global phase III trial (NAPOLI-1). A randomized phase II trial comparing FF plus nal-IRI with FF alone was also conducted in Japan to examine the efficacy and safety of the FF plus nal-IRI in Japanese patients.

Palliative chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer-treatment sequences

Pancreatic cancer belongs to the most deadly malignancies and is expected to become the second deadliest cancer by 2040. Still, in most of the cases the tumor is detected in a nonresectable or metastatic state and, untreated, the disease will progress rapidly. Even with chemotherapeutic treatment the prognosis is poor and the 5-year overall survival rate is less than 10%. Therefore, there is a need for proper therapeutic options for the palliative treatment of the disease. Despite great efforts to find new drugs for the treatment of pancreatic cancer, for a long time the therapy was limited to the use of gemcitabine with very limited benefit. Recently new chemotherapeutic regimens have been identified that helped to improve the overall survival significantly. In addition, even second-line therapies have been established. This review will provide an overview on the current standard of care, discusses possible treatment sequences and offer a perspective on future developments.

A real-world analysis of second-line treatment options in pancreatic cancer: liposomal-irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid

Background:

Nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) is a novel treatment option for gemcitabine-pretreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) patients, but real-world evidence is rare. Our aim was to determine the effectiveness and tolerability of this regimen in advanced PAC patients and to compare it with oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidines in the second-line setting after failure of gemcitabine.

Methods:

This is a retrospective single-center analysis of all patients who have been treated with nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV. To compare its effectiveness with other second-line treatment options, all patients who had received oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidines after gemcitabine-based chemotherapy were also eligible for analysis.

Results:

Fifty-two patients were treated with nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV between April 2016 and August 2018. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.84 months and the median overall survival (OS) was 6.79 months. Median OS from the beginning of the treatment for advanced disease was 19.9 months. Median PFS in patients that received nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV as second-line treatment after gemcitabine-based chemotherapy was 4.49 months whereas median PFS in a matched cohort of patients treated with oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidines was 3.44 months (p = 0.007). Between these two groups the median OS of patients with CA 19-9 levels above the statistical median (⩾772.8 kU/l) differed significantly (9.33 versus 6.18 months, p = 0.038).

Conclusion:

Our data confirms the effectiveness of nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV treatment as a well-tolerated regimen in the treatment of advanced PAC and extends available data on its use as a second-line treatment option when compared with oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidines.

Chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer

Chemotherapy is an important part of multimodality pancreatic cancer treatment. After curative resection, adjuvant chemotherapy can significantly improve disease free survival and overall survival. The current standard of care is six months adjuvant chemotherapy with modified folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX) in patients fit enough for this protocol, otherwise six months of gemcitabine and capecitabine based on the European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-4 study. In patients with metastatic disease, combination chemotherapy according to the FOLFIRINOX protocol or with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel is an important improvement to gemcitabine monotherapy that was the standard for many years. Patients not fit for combination chemotherapy however may still benefit from gemcitabine. Patients with good performance status may benefit from second-line chemotherapy. Chemoradiation has long been used in locally advanced pancreatic cancer but is now tempered following the LAP07 study. This trial showed no difference in overall survival in those patients with stable disease after four months of gemcitabine (with or without erlotinib) randomized to either continuation of gemcitabine therapy or chemoradiation (54Gy with capecitabine). As an alternative to radiation, other forms local therapies including radiofrequency ablation, irreversible electroporation, high-intensity focused ultrasound, microwave ablation and local anti-KRAS therapy (using siG12D-LODER) are currently under investigation. Given the systemic nature of pancreas cancer from an early stage, the success of any local approach other than complete surgical resection (with adjuvant systemic therapy) is likely to be very limited. In patients with locally advanced, irresectable cancer, chemotherapy may offer the chance for secondary resection with a survival similar to patients with primary resectable disease. Downstaging regimens need to be evaluated in prospective randomized trials in order to make firm recommendations. Selection of patient groups for specific therapy including cytotoxics is becoming a reality using assays based on drug cellular transport and metabolism, and molecular signatures. Going forward, high throughput screening of different chemotherapy agents using molecular signatures based on patients' derived organoids holds considerable promise.

Evolution of the chemotherapeutic landscape and survival outcome in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: a four-institute cohort study in Taiwan, 2010-2016

Background

Only 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), cisplatin, and gemcitabine have been reimbursed for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) treatment in Taiwan since 2003. It is uncertain whether the reimbursement of S-1 in June 2014 might change the treatment pattern and improve the survival of mPC patients in Taiwan.

Patients and methods

A total of 645 patients with newly diagnosed mPC who received palliative chemotherapy between 2010 and 2016 in Taiwan were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were stratified according to year at diagnosis of mPC for analysis of chemotherapeutic treatment pattern and survival.

Results

Overall, the most common chemotherapeutic agents used for the treatment of mPC were gemcitabine (94.8%), followed by cisplatin (52.4%), S-1 (38.1%), and 5-FU (29.7%). The percentage of patients treated with S-1 between 2010 and 2016 increased from 2.6% to 74.0% (P<0.001), while the percentage of patients treated with 5-FU decreased from 31.6% to 21.2% (P<0.001). The percentage of patients treated with gemcitabine, cisplatin, etc. remained consistent. An increase in the number of lines of treatment was observed throughout the study period, with 27.6% of patients receiving two or more lines of treatment in 2010, compared with 50.0% of patients in 2016 (P=0.013). The 12-month survival rate increased from 11.8% in 2010 to 41.4% in 2016, corresponding to an adjusted average annual percent change of 13.6% (0.3-28.7, P<0.05).

Conclusion

Based on this multi-institute cohort study in Taiwan, the reimbursement of S-1 changed the clinical practice and is associated with an improvement in survival outcome of mPC patients.

Low-dose nab-paclitaxel-based combination chemotherapy in heavily pretreated pancreatic cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Heavily pretreated pancreatic cancer patients have a grave prognosis. In this case series study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of nab-paclitaxel-based chemotherapy for such patients.

METHODS

The data of pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients (n = 40) treated with nab-paclitaxel after the failure of gemcitabine or fluoropyrimidines at our institution in 2013-2015 were reviewed.

RESULTS

The median number of prior chemotherapy regimens was two (range, 1-6). Eighteen patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≥2. The regimens comprised nab-paclitaxel combined with the following drugs: gemcitabine (n = 28), gemcitabine and fluoropyrimidine (n = 3), platinum and fluoropyrimidine (n = 4), fluoropyrimidine (n = 4), and irinotecan and fluoropyrimidine (n = 1). The median dose of nab-paclitaxel was 63 (range, 51-72) mg/m²/dose, with the schedule of D1/15, D1/8, and D1/8/15 followed in 23, 14, and 3 patients, respectively. The median overall survival was 5.1 (95% CI, 4.6-5.7) months. Among 32 evaluable patients, two partial responses and six stable diseases were observed. The median progression-free survival was 2.6 (95% CI, 1.9-3.2) months. Grade 3/4 leucopenia or neutropenia was observed in three and two patients, respectively. Grade 3/4 anemia was observed in four patients. Other significant (grade 3 or more) nonhematological toxicities were not frequent, except for sepsis/infection (n = 7). However, more severe anemia or sepsis/infection was significantly associated with disease control.

CONCLUSION

In heavily pretreated pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients, low-dose nab-paclitaxel-based chemotherapy was fairly tolerable with modest efficacy.

Multicentre study of multidisciplinary team assessment of pancreatic cancer resectability and treatment allocation

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings have been adopted widely to ensure optimal treatment for patients with cancer. Agreements in tumour staging, resectability assessments and treatment allocation between different MDTs were assessed.

METHODS

Of all patients referred to one hospital, 19 patients considered to have non-metastatic pancreatic cancer for evaluation were selected randomly for a multicentre study of MDT decisions in seven units across Northern Europe. Anonymized clinical information and radiological images were disseminated to the MDTs. All patients were reviewed by the MDTs for radiological T, N and M category, resectability assessment and treatment allocation. Each MDT was blinded to the decisions of other teams. Agreements were expressed as raw percentages and Krippendorff's α values, both with 95 per cent confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 132 evaluations in 19 patients were carried out by the seven MDTs (1 evaluation was excluded owing to technical problems). The level of agreement for T, N and M categories ranged from moderate to near perfect (46·8, 61·1 and 82·8 per cent respectively), but there was substantial variation in assessment of resectability; seven patients were considered to be resectable by one MDT but unresectable by another. The MDTs all agreed on either a curative or palliative strategy in less than half of the patients (9 of 19). Only fair agreement in treatment allocation was observed (Krippendorff's α 0·31, 95 per cent c.i. 0·16 to 0·45). There was a high level of agreement in treatment allocation where resectability assessments were concordant.

CONCLUSION

Considerable disparities in MDT evaluations of patients with pancreatic cancer exist, including substantial variation in resectability assessments.

Genipin Enhances the Therapeutic Effects of Oxaliplatin by Upregulating BIM in Colorectal Cancer

Despite an increase in the survival rate of patients with cancer owing to the use of current chemotherapeutic agents, adverse effects of cancer therapies remain a concern. Combination therapies have been developed to increase efficacy, reduce adverse effects, and overcome drug resistance. Genipin is a natural product derived from Gardenia jasminoides, which has been associated with anti-inflammatory, anti-angiogenic, and anti-proliferative effects; hypertension; and anti-ischemic brain injuries. However, the enhancement of oxaliplatin sensitivity by genipin remains unexplored. Our study showed that a combination of genipin and oxaliplatin exerts synergistic antitumor effects in vitro and in vivo in colorectal cancer cell lines through the reactive oxygen species (ROS)/endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress/BIM pathway. Importantly, the combination did not affect normal colon cells. BIM knockdown markedly inhibited apoptosis induced by the combination. In addition, genipin induced ROS by inhibiting superoxide dismutase 3 activity. These findings suggest that genipin may be a novel agent for increasing the sensitivity of oxaliplatin against colorectal cancer. The combination of oxaliplatin and genipin hold significant therapeutic potential with minimal adverse effects.

Long-term outcome of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer treated with sequential chemotherapies before the era of modern combination therapy protocols

INTRODUCTION

Patients (pts) with locally advanced (LAPC) or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) have a dismal prognosis. Recently, new combination chemotherapies such as FOLFIRINOX and nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine have demonstrated superiority over gemcitabine monotherapy. However, a substantial proportion of pts cannot tolerate these intensive front-line protocols. Moreover, the long-term superiority of multiagent protocols over less intensive strategies remains to be shown. To provide a benchmark for future studies, we analyzed the outcome of patients with LAPC or mPDAC treated at the West German Cancer Center before the FOLFIRINOX/nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine era.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included 201 consecutive pts with LAPC and mPDAC treated between 2007 and 2011. Efficacy parameters were correlated with type of chemotherapy, number of treatment lines and clinicopathological parameters.

RESULTS

Gemcitabine monotherapy was given as first-line therapy in 51.1%, whereas 48.9% received combination chemotherapies such as gemcitabine/oxaliplatin or FOLFOX. Patients received a median of two lines of treatment, with 54.8% receiving second-line and 37.9% receiving third- and further-line therapies. There was no significant difference between gemcitabine monotherapy and combination therapies. Despite moderate activity of first-line treatment, median overall survival for LAPC was 11.3 months and 8.7 months for mPDAC. Multivariate analysis identified age and number of treatment lines as prognostic markers.

CONCLUSION

The long-term outcome of unselected pts with LAPC and mPDAC treated before the introduction of aggressive multiagent chemotherapy protocols compares favorably with the results of contemporary benchmark trials. This suggests a multifactorial benefit from interdisciplinary care provided over sequential treatment lines at high volume expert centers.

Reviewing two decades of nanomedicine implementations in targeted treatment and diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: An emphasis on state of art

Pancreatic cancer is nowadays the most life-threatening cancer type worldwide. The problem of poor diagnosis, anti-neoplastics resistance and biopharmaceutical drawbacks of effective anti-cancer drugs lead to worsen disease state. Nanotechnology-based carrier systems used in both imaging and treatment procedures had solved many of these problems. It is critical to develop advanced detection method to save patients from being too late diagnosed. Targeting the pancreatic cancer cells as well helped in decreasing the side effects associated with normal cells destruction. Drug resistance is another challenge in pancreatic cancer management that can be solved by thorough understanding of the microenvironment associated with the disease to design creative nanocarriers. This is the first article to review multifaceted approaches of nanomedicine in pancreatic cancer detection and management. Additionally, mortality rates in selected Arab and European countries were illustrated herein. An emphasis was given on therapeutic and diagnostic challenges and different nanotechnologies adopted to overcome. The four main approaches encompassed nanomedicine for herbal treatment, nanomedicine of synthetic anti-cancer drugs, metal nanoparticles as a distinct treatment policy and nanotechnology for cancer diagnosis. Future research perspectives have been finally proposed.

Multicenter phase II trial of modified FOLFIRINOX in gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of modified FOLFIRINOX as a second-line treatment for gemcitabine (GEM)-refractory unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC).

METHODS

This study was a prospective, multicenter, one-arm, open-label, phase II trial. Patients with unresectable PC, who showed disease progression during GEM-based chemotherapy were enrolled. All patients were administered FOLFIRINOX with reduced irinotecan and oxaliplatin (RIO; irinotecan 120 mg/m² and oxaliplatin 60 mg/m²), which was set according to the phase I study of FOLFIRINOX. The objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events were evaluated. Additionally, changes in quality of life (QoL) were assessed using a questionnaire on QoL.

RESULTS

Between August 2015 and May 2016, a total of 48 patients were enrolled. The median follow-up time was 259 d with a median of 8.5 cycles. The ORR and DCR were 18.8% and 62.5%, respectively, including one patient who showed complete remission. The median PFS was 5.8 mo [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.7-7.9] and median OS was 9.0 mo (95%CI: 6.4-11.6). Neutropenia (64.6%) was the most common grade 3-4 adverse event, followed by febrile neutropenia (16.7%). Although 14.6% of patients experienced grade 3 fatigue, most non-hematologic AEs were under grade 2. In the QoL analysis, the global health status score before treatment was not different from the score at the last visit after treatment (45.43 ± 22.88 vs 48.66 ± 24.14, P = 0.548).

CONCLUSION

FOLFIRINOX with RIO showed acceptable toxicity and promising efficacy for GEM-refractory unresectable PC. However, this treatment requires careful observation of treatment-related hematologic toxicities.

A systematic assessment of statistics, risk factors, and underlying features involved in pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer remains the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in the world, and will continue to become the number two cause of cancer-related death unless a remarkable breakthrough is achieved. With a slim chance of early diagnosis, surgery can only provide a median survival of 17-23 months. The presence of a dense stroma makes this cancer resilient to chemotherapy, with very few potent inhibitors like nab paclitaxelin available that can work in combination with chemotherapeutic agents. Survival rates, on the one hand, lie at 8.5%. Variation in types of pancreatic cancer, on the other hand, makes it notoriously difficult to come up with a practical solution for the treatment of this disease. A deeper understanding of the root cause would be beneficial for diagnosis. Advancement in the field of genomics has made the identification of novel biomarkers relatively easier. By coupling this factor with the production of suitable inhibitors, testing in large numbers can be made possible with the help of cell lines. With the combined efforts of biological knowledge and modern technology, the cure for pancreatic cancer could be at hand.

Retrospective analysis of efficacy and safety of Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma experiencing disease progression on FOLFIRINOX

Background

Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPA) represents a highly lethal condition. Despite the improvements seen with FOLFIRINOX, there is no randomized data to guide treatment selection beyond this regimen. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with MPA progressing on FOLFIRINOX who were treated with Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy afterwards.

Methods

We included patients aged 18 years or older, treated for MPA with FOLFIRINOX in the first-line setting and who experienced disease progression, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-2, and treated with at least one cycle of Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in second or further lines of treatment. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the study population and Cox proportional-hazards models to describe factors associated with survival. As an exploratory analysis, we compared the outcomes of patients treated with single-agent Gemcitabine with those of patients undergoing Gemcitabine-based polychemotherapy.

Results

The study population consisted of 42 patients. Median age was 59 years and 78.6% of patients presented ECOG 0-1. Thirty-three patients (78.6%) were treated with Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in the second-line setting and 27 patients (64.3%) were treated with single-agent Gemcitabine. Objective response rate and disease control rate were 2.4% and 33.4%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were 2.9 and 5.5 months, respectively. Six-month PFS and OS rates were 19.2% and 46.2%, respectively. We observed no significant difference in OS according to the type of Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy, despite numerically improved disease control rate and PFS for those treated with Gemcitabine-based polychemotherapy. In multivariate analysis, ECOG 2 (vs. ECOG 0-1) was the only factor significantly associated with inferior PFS and OS.

Conclusions

a subgroup of patients with MPA derives benefit from treatment with Gemcitabine-based regimens after FOLFIRINOX. There is a suggestion that Gemcitabine-based combinations, in particular Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel, provide superior outcomes compared to single-agent Gemcitabine. Additionally, treatment in this setting should be offered carefully to patients with ECOG 2, as they present shorter survival and increased risk of toxicity.

Current Therapeutic Options for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic cancer remains the fourth most common cause of cancer-related mortality and is a major health threat. The majority of cases are diagnosed at advanced disease stages, limiting the chances of long-term survival. Several new therapeutic regimens have been introduced into routine clinical practice in recent years and a plethora of novel approaches is currently undergoing preclinical and early clinical evaluation. This review discusses the current standards of care for systemic therapy of pancreatic cancer and gives a brief outlook on ongoing clinical trials.

[Palliative therapy concepts for pancreatic carcinoma]

The majority of patients with ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma are already in a locally advanced or metastatic stage at the time of diagnosis and require palliative therapy. Interventional and operative measures are available for the restoration of biliary outflow in bile duct obstruction and the continuity of the upper intestinal lumen in duodenal or gastric outlet obstruction. In the presence of tumor-related pain, pain therapy according to the World Health Organization (WHO) scheme or a truncus coeliacus blockade, in cachexia a nutritional therapy and in thromboembolic events an anticoagulant therapy are used. An individualized palliative chemotherapy regimen should be selected for each patient, taking into account the patient's general condition and the side effects profile of the chemotherapeutic agents. Radiochemotherapy and local ablative therapies should currently only be used within the framework of studies. A palliative resection is not recommended according to current knowledge.

Current status and dilemma of second-line treatment in advanced pancreatic cancer: is there a silver lining?

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most lethal malignant diseases worldwide. The majority of patients present with advanced disease and, therefore, need palliative chemotherapy. Some chemotherapeutic regimens have been well established as first-line therapies and have been shown to increase survival; however, almost all patients with advanced pancreatic cancer will experience disease progression after first-line therapy. Nevertheless, many patients who retain good performance status after initial treatment remain good candidates for additional therapy. Historically, few studies have assessed second-line therapy, with most reports representing small phase II trials with variable findings; however, clinical research for second-line treatment has increased in the past decade, and several randomized controlled trials using different regimens have been published. The current literature shows varying results on treatment efficacy and tolerability. Thus, we reviewed the published data on the use of chemotherapy in the second-line setting for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma neo-adjuvant FOLF(IRIN)OX-based chemotherapy - a multicenter, non-comparative, randomized, phase II trial (PANACHE01-PRODIGE48 study)

BACKGROUND

At time of diagnosis, less than 10% of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PDAC) are considered to be immediately operable (i.e. resectable). Considering their poor overall survival (OS), only tumours without vascular invasion (NCCN 2017) should be considered for resection, i.e. those for which resection with disease-free margins (R0) is theoretically possible in absence of presurgery treatment. With regard to high R1 rates and undetectable locoregional and/or metastatic spreading prior to surgery explain (at least in part) the observed 1-year relapse and mortality rates of 50 and 25%, respectively. Today, upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is the reference treatment in Europe. The main limitation of the adjuvant approach is the low rate of completion of the full therapeutic sequence. Indeed, only 47 to 60% patients received any adjuvant therapy after resection compared to more than 75% for neoadjuvant therapy. No previous prospective study has compared this approach to a neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or FOLFOX chemotherapy for resectable PDAC.

METHODS

PANACHE01-PRODIGE48 is a prospective multicentre controlled randomized non comparative Phase II trial, evaluating the safety and efficacy of two regimens of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (4 cycles of mFOLFIRINOX or FOLFOX) relative to the current reference treatment (surgery and then adjuvant chemotherapy) in patients with resectable PDAC. The main co-primary endpoints are OS rate at 12 months and the rate of patients undergoing the full therapeutic sequence.

DISCUSSION

The "ideal" cancer treatment for resectable PDAC would have the following characteristics: administration to the highest possible proportion of patients, ability to identify fast-progressing patients (i.e. poor candidates for surgery), a low rate of R1 resections (through optimisation of local disease control), and an acceptable toxicity profile. The neoadjuvant approach may meet all these criteria. With respect to published data on the efficacy of FOLFOX and mFOLFIRINOX, these two regimens are potential candidates for neoadjuvant use in the aim to optimising oncological outcomes in resectable PDAC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02959879 . Trial registration date: November 9, 2016.

Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: diagnosis and treatment with a view to the future

Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) is a lethal disease with a poor 5-year survival. Systemic treatments can be used to control symptoms and prolong life. Cytotoxic chemotherapies are commonly administered, with combination treatments, such as fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) or nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine showing the largest clinical benefits. Newer genomic classifications of PDAC may provide a rationale for targeted therapies or immunotherapies, although at present these remain largely experimental. This review discusses the evidence behind the currently used regimens, while introducing the potential future of pancreatic cancer care.

Therapeutic developments in pancreatic cancer: current and future perspectives

The overall 5-year survival for pancreatic cancer has changed little over the past few decades, and pancreatic cancer is predicted to be the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the next decade in Western countries. The past few years, however, have seen improvements in first-line and second-line palliative therapies and considerable progress in increasing survival with adjuvant treatment. The use of biomarkers to help define treatment and the potential of neoadjuvant therapies also offer opportunities to improve outcomes. This Review brings together information on achievements to date, what is working currently and where successes are likely to be achieved in the future. Furthermore, we address the questions of how we should approach the development of pancreatic cancer treatments, including those for patients with metastatic, locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, as well as for patients with resected tumours. In addition to embracing newer strategies comprising genomics, stromal therapies and immunotherapies, conventional approaches using chemotherapy and radiotherapy still offer considerable prospects for greater traction and synergy with evolving concepts.

Outcomes with second-line chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancers: A retrospective study from a tertiary cancer center in India

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 40% of patients receiving first-line chemotherapy (CT1) for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PDACs) receive second-line chemotherapy (CT2). The most appropriate regimen to be used has not been identified, and data regarding CT2 in advanced PDAC from India are scarce.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of advanced PDAC patients who were evaluated during the period of August 2013 to August 2016 in the Department of GI medical Oncology, at Tata Memorial Hospital was conducted. Patients with histologically proven PDAC and started on CT2 postprogression or recurrence after CT1 were included for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 237 patients received CT1 in the period of study, of which 76 patients (39.66%) received CT2. The median age of patients was 59.5 years (range: 38-82), majority were male (69.7%), and 14 patients (18.4%) had undergone curative pancreatic resection at baseline. The common regimens used as CT2 were modified 5 fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan (mFOLFIRI) (35.5%), gemcitabine-nab paclitaxel (18.4%), and gemcitabine-erlotinib (11.8%). Common grade 3/4 toxicities noted were fatigue (10.3%), anemia (10.3%), neutropenia (7.4%), and vomiting (7.4%). Dose reductions were required in 32.9% of patients. RR, DCR, median event free survival, and median overall survival were 21.1%, 48.7%, and 5.94 months (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 4.68-7.20) and 8.08 months (95% CI: 7.11-9.07) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

CT2 in advanced PDAC appears feasible in the Indian setting if the patients are appropriately selected and they can be treated with acceptable toxicities and reasonable outcomes.