Effect of a MUC5AC Antibody (NPC-1C) Administered With Second-Line Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel on the Survival of Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Mechanisms of Resistance to Oncogenic KRAS Inhibition in Pancreatic Cancer

KRAS inhibitors demonstrate clinical efficacy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC); however, resistance is common. Among patients with KRASG12C-mutant PDAC treated with adagrasib or sotorasib, mutations in PIK3CA and KRAS, and amplifications of KRASG12C, MYC, MET, EGFR, and CDK6 emerged at acquired resistance. In PDAC cell lines and organoid models treated with the KRASG12D inhibitor MRTX1133, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and PI3K-AKT-mTOR signaling associate with resistance to therapy. MRTX1133 treatment of the KrasLSL-G12D/+; Trp53LSL-R172H/+; p48-Cre (KPC) mouse model yielded deep tumor regressions, but drug resistance ultimately emerged, accompanied by amplifications of Kras, Yap1, Myc, Cdk6, and Abcb1a/b, and co-evolution of drug-resistant transcriptional programs. Moreover, in KPC and PDX models, mesenchymal and basal-like cell states displayed increased response to KRAS inhibition compared to the classical state. Combination treatment with KRASG12D inhibition and chemotherapy significantly improved tumor control in PDAC mouse models. Collectively, these data elucidate co-evolving resistance mechanisms to KRAS inhibition and support multiple combination therapy strategies. Significance: Acquired resistance may limit the impact of KRAS inhibition in patients with PDAC. Using clinical samples and multiple preclinical models, we define heterogeneous genetic and non-genetic mechanisms of resistance to KRAS inhibition that may guide combination therapy approaches to improve the efficacy and durability of these promising therapies for patients. See related commentary by Marasco and Misale, p. 2018.

Targeting a chemo-induced adaptive signaling circuit confers therapeutic vulnerabilities in pancreatic cancer

Advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) respond poorly to all therapies, including the first-line treatment, chemotherapy, the latest immunotherapies, and KRAS-targeting therapies. Despite an enormous effort to improve therapeutic efficacy in late-stage PDAC patients, effective treatment modalities remain an unmet medical challenge. To change the status quo, we explored the key signaling networks underlying the universally poor response of PDAC to therapy. Here, we report a previously unknown chemo-induced symbiotic signaling circuit that adaptively confers chemoresistance in patients and mice with advanced PDAC. By integrating single-cell transcriptomic data from PDAC mouse models and clinical pathological information from PDAC patients, we identified Yap1 in cancer cells and Cox2 in stromal fibroblasts as two key nodes in this signaling circuit. Co-targeting Yap1 in cancer cells and Cox2 in stroma sensitized PDAC to Gemcitabine treatment and dramatically prolonged survival of mice bearing late-stage PDAC, whereas simultaneously inhibiting Yap1 and Cox2 only in cancer cells was ineffective. Mechanistically, chemotherapy triggers non-canonical Yap1 activation by nemo-like kinase in 14-3-3ζ-overexpressing PDAC cells and increases secretion of CXCL2/5, which bind to CXCR2 on fibroblasts to induce Cox2 and PGE2 expression, which reciprocally facilitate PDAC cell survival. Finally, analyses of PDAC patient data revealed that patients who received Statins, which inhibit Yap1 signaling, and Cox2 inhibitors (including Aspirin) while receiving Gemcitabine displayed markedly prolonged survival compared to others. The robust anti-tumor efficacy of Statins and Aspirin, which co-target the chemo-induced adaptive circuit in the tumor cells and stroma, signifies a unique therapeutic strategy for PDAC.

The application of lung immune prognostic index in predicting the prognosis of 302 STS patients

Background

Soft tissue sarcoma (STS) are heterogeneous and rare tumors, and few studies have explored predicting the prognosis of patients with STS. The Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI), calculated based on baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and the derived neutrophils/(leukocytes minus neutrophils) ratio (dNLR), was considered effective in predicting the prognosis of patients with pulmonary cancer and other malignancies. However, the efficacy of the LIPI in predicting the prognosis of patients with STS remains unclear.

Methods

This study retrospectively reviewed patients with STS admitted to our center from January 2016 to January 2021. Their hematological and clinical characteristics were collected and analyzed to construct the LIPI specific to STS. The correlations between various predictive factors and overall survival (OS) were examined using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. Independent risk factors for OS were identified using univariate and multivariate analyses. Finally, a LIPI nomogram model for STS was established.

Results

This study enrolled 302 patients with STS, of which 87 (28.9%), 162 (53.6%), and 53 (17.5%) were classified into three LIPI-based categories: good, moderate, and poor, respectively (P < 0.0001). The time-dependent operator curve showed that the LIPI had better prognostic predictive ability than other hematological and clinical characteristics. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified the Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer grade (FNCLCC/G), tumor size, and LIPI as independent risk factors. Finally, a nomogram was constructed by integrating the significant prognostic factors. Its C-index was 0.72, and the calibration curve indicated that it could accurately predict the three- and five-year OS of patients with STS. The decision and clinical impact curves also indicated that implementing this LIPI-nomogram could significantly benefit patients with STS.

Conclusion

This study explored the efficacy of the LIPI in predicting the prognosis of 302 patients with STS, classifying them into three categories to evaluate the prognosis. It also reconstructed a LIPI-based nomogram to assist clinicians in predicting the three- and five-year OS of patients with STS, potentially enabling timely intervention and customized management.

Enhancing cancer immunotherapy: Nanotechnology-mediated immunotherapy overcoming immunosuppression

Immunotherapy is an important cancer treatment method that offers hope for curing cancer patients. While immunotherapy has achieved initial success, a major obstacle to its widespread adoption is the inability to benefit the majority of patients. The success or failure of immunotherapy is closely linked to the tumor's immune microenvironment. Recently, there has been significant attention on strategies to regulate the tumor immune microenvironment in order to stimulate anti-tumor immune responses in cancer immunotherapy. The distinctive physical properties and design flexibility of nanomedicines have been extensively utilized to target immune cells (including tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), T cells, myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), and tumor-associated fibroblasts (TAFs)), offering promising advancements in cancer immunotherapy. In this article, we have reviewed treatment strategies aimed at targeting various immune cells to regulate the tumor immune microenvironment. The focus is on cancer immunotherapy models that are based on nanomedicines, with the goal of inducing or enhancing anti-tumor immune responses to improve immunotherapy. It is worth noting that combining cancer immunotherapy with other treatments, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and photodynamic therapy, can maximize the therapeutic effects. Finally, we have identified the challenges that nanotechnology-mediated immunotherapy needs to overcome in order to design more effective nanosystems.

Mature MUC5AC Expression in Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Predicts Treatment Response and Outcomes

Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for early-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) has recently gained prominence. We investigated the clinical significance of mucin 5 AC (MUC5AC), which exists in two major glycoforms, a less-glycosylated immature isoform (IM) and a heavily glycosylated mature isoform (MM), as a biomarker in resected PDA. Immunohistochemistry was performed on 100 resected PDAs to evaluate the expression of the IM and MM of MUC5AC using their respective monoclonal antibodies, CLH2 (NBP2-44455) and 45M1 (ab3649). MUC5AC localization (cytoplasmic, apical, and extra-cellular (EC)) was determined, and the H-scores were calculated. Univariate and multivariate (MVA) Cox regression models were used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Of 100 resected PDA patients, 43 received NAT, and 57 were treatment-naïve with upfront surgery (UpS). In the study population (n = 100), IM expression (H-scores for objective response vs. no response vs. UpS = 104 vs. 152 vs. 163, p = 0.01) and MM-MUC5AC detection rates (56% vs. 63% vs. 82%, p = 0.02) were significantly different. In the NAT group, MM-MUC5AC-negative patients had significantly better PFS according to the MVA (Hazard Ratio: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.059-0.766, p = 0.01). Similar results were noted in a FOLFIRINOX sub-group (n = 36). We established an association of MUC5AC expression with treatment response and outcomes.

Clinical outcomes of second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a real-world study

OBJECTIVE

Little progress has been made in recent years using first-line chemotherapy, including gemcitabine combined with nab-paclitaxel, FOLFIRINOX, and NALIRIFOX, for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (APC). In addition, the optimal second-line chemotherapy regimen has not been determined. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of different types of second-line chemotherapy for APC.

METHODS

Patients with APC who received first-line treatment from January 2008 to January 2021 were considered eligible for this retrospective analysis. The primary and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), respectively.

RESULTS

Four hundred and thirty-seven and 617 patients were treated with 5-fluorouracil- and gemcitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment, respectively. Demographic and clinical features, except age and liver metastasis, were comparable between the two groups (P < 0.05). The median OS was 8.8 and 7.8 months in patients who received a 5-fluorouracil- and gemcitabine-based combined regimen for first-line therapy, respectively (HR = 1.244, 95% CI = 1.090-1.419; P < 0.001). The median OS was 5.6 and 1.9 months in patients who received second-line chemotherapy and supportive care, respectively (HR = 0.766, 95% CI = 0.677-0.867; P < 0.001). The median PFS was not significantly differently between gemcitabine or 5-fluorouracil monotherapy and combination therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

A 5-fluorouracil- or gemcitabine-based combined regimen was shown to be as effective as a single 5-fluorouracil or gemcitabine regimen as second-line therapy for patients with APC.

Evaluation of KRAS inhibitor-directed therapies for pancreatic cancer treatment

Despite significant advancements in the treatment of other cancers, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains one of the world's deadliest cancers. More than 90% of PDAC patients harbor a Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) gene mutation. Although the clinical potential of anti-KRAS therapies has long been realized, all initial efforts to target KRAS were unsuccessful. However, with the recent development of a new generation of KRAS-targeting drugs, multiple KRAS-targeted treatment options for patients with PDAC have entered clinical trials. In this review, we provide an overview of current standard of care treatment, describe RAS signaling and the relevance of KRAS mutations, and discuss RAS isoform- and mutation-specific differences. We also evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of mutation-selective and multi-selective inhibitors, in the context of PDAC. We then provide a comparison of clinically relevant KRAS inhibitors to second-line PDAC treatment options. Finally, we discuss putative resistance mechanisms that may limit the clinical effectiveness of KRAS-targeted therapies and provide a brief overview of promising therapeutic approaches in development that are focused on mitigating these resistance mechanisms.

Gemcitabine and Paclitaxel Versus Gemcitabine Alone After 5-Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin, and Irinotecan in Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Phase III PRODIGE 65-UCGI 36-GEMPAX UNICANCER Study

PURPOSE

GEMPAX was an open-label, randomized phase III clinical trial designed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel versus gemcitabine alone as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) who previously received 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.

METHODS

Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed mPDAC were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive GEMPAX (paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2; IV; once at day (D) 1, D8, and D15/arm A) or gemcitabine (arm B) alone once at D1, D8, and D15 every 28 days until progression, toxicity, or patient's decision. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life, and safety.

RESULTS

Overall, 211 patients (median age, 64 [30-86] years; 62% male) were included. After a median study follow-up for alive patients of 13.4 versus 13.8 months in arm A versus arm B, the median OS (95% CI) was 6.4 (5.2 to 7.4) versus 5.9 months (4.6 to 6.9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [0.63 to 1.20]; P = 0.4095), the median PFS was 3.1 (2.2 to 4.3) versus 2.0 months (1.9 to 2.3; HR, 0.64 [0.47 to 0.89]; P = 0.0067), and the ORR was 17.1% (11.3 to 24.4) versus 4.2% (0.9 to 11.9; P = 0.008) in arm A versus arm B, respectively. Overall, 16.7% of patients in arm A and 2.9% in arm B discontinued their treatment because of adverse events (AEs). One grade 5 AE associated with both gemcitabine and paclitaxel was reported in arm A (acute respiratory distress), and 58.0% versus 27.1% of patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs in arm A versus arm B, among which 15.2% versus 4.3% had anemia, 15.9% versus 15.7% had neutropenia, 19.6% versus 4.3% had thrombocytopenia, 10.1% versus 2.9% had asthenia and 12.3% versus 0.0% had neuropathy.

CONCLUSION

While GEMPAX did not meet the primary end point of OS versus gemcitabine alone in patients with mPDAC in the second-line setting, both PFS and ORR were significantly improved.

A Phase I Expansion Cohort Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of the CHK1 Inhibitor LY2880070 with Low-dose Gemcitabine in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

Combining gemcitabine with CHK1 inhibition has shown promise in preclinical models of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Here, we report the findings from a phase I expansion cohort study (NCT02632448) investigating low-dose gemcitabine combined with the CHK1 inhibitor LY2880070 in patients with previously treated advanced PDAC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with metastatic PDAC were treated with gemcitabine intravenously at 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15, and LY2880070 50 mg orally twice daily on days 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 of each 21-day cycle. Pretreatment tumor biopsies were obtained from each patient for correlative studies and generation of organoid cultures for drug sensitivity testing and biomarker analyses.

RESULTS

Eleven patients with PDAC were enrolled in the expansion cohort between August 27, 2020 and July 30, 2021. Four patients (36%) experienced drug-related grade 3 adverse events. No objective radiologic responses were observed, and all patients discontinued the trial by 3.2 months. In contrast to the lack of efficacy observed in patients, organoid cultures derived from biopsies procured from two patients demonstrated strong sensitivity to the gemcitabine/LY2880070 combination and showed treatment-induced upregulation of replication stress and DNA damage biomarkers, including pKAP1, pRPA32, and γH2AX, as well as induction of replication fork instability.

CONCLUSIONS

No evidence of clinical activity was observed for combined low-dose gemcitabine and LY2880070 in this treatment-refractory PDAC cohort. However, the gemcitabine/LY2880070 combination showed in vitro efficacy, suggesting that drug sensitivity for this combination in organoid cultures may not predict clinical benefit in patients.

Efficacy and safety of abemaciclib alone and with PI3K/mTOR inhibitor LY3023414 or galunisertib versus chemotherapy in previously treated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC) are characterized by frequent cell cycle pathways aberrations. This study evaluated safety and efficacy of abemaciclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, as monotherapy or in combination with PI3K/mTOR dual inhibitor LY3023414 or TGFβ inhibitor galunisertib versus standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy in patients with pretreated metastatic PDAC.

METHODS

This Phase 2 open-label study enrolled patients with metastatic PDAC who progressed after 1-2 prior therapies. Patients were enrolled in a safety lead-in (abemaciclib plus galunisertib) followed by a 2-stage randomized design. Stage 1 randomization was planned 1:1:1:1 for abemaciclib, abemaciclib plus LY3023414, abemaciclib plus galunisertib, or SOC gemcitabine or capecitabine. Advancing to Stage 2 required a disease control rate (DCR) difference ≥0 in abemaciclib-containing arms versus SOC. Primary objectives for Stages 1 and 2 were DCR and progression-free survival (PFS), respectively. Secondary objectives included response rate, overall survival, safety, and pharmacokinetics.

RESULTS

One hundred and six patients were enrolled. Abemaciclib plus galunisertib did not advance to Stage 1 for reasons unrelated to safety or efficacy. Stage 1 DCR was 15.2% with abemaciclib monotherapy, 12.1% with abemaciclib plus LY3023414, and 36.4% with SOC. Median PFS was 1.7 months (95% CI: 1.4-1.8), 1.8 months (95% CI: 1.3-1.9), and 3.3 months (95% CI: 1.1-5.7), respectively. No arms advanced to Stage 2. No new safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSION

In patients with pretreated metastatic PDAC, abemaciclib-based therapy did not improve DCRs or PFS compared with SOC chemotherapy. No treatment arms advanced to Stage 2. Abemaciclib remains investigational in patients with PDAC.

Adagrasib in Advanced Solid Tumors Harboring a KRASG12C Mutation

PURPOSE

Adagrasib, a KRASG12C inhibitor, has demonstrated clinical activity in patients with KRASG12C-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC). KRASG12C mutations occur rarely in other solid tumor types. We report evaluation of the clinical activity and safety of adagrasib in patients with other solid tumors harboring a KRASG12C mutation.

METHODS

In this phase II cohort of the KRYSTAL-1 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03785249; phase Ib cohort), we evaluated adagrasib (600 mg orally twice daily) in patients with KRASG12C-mutated advanced solid tumors (excluding NSCLC and CRC). The primary end point was objective response rate. Secondary end points included duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety.

RESULTS

As of October 1, 2022, 64 patients with KRASG12C-mutated solid tumors were enrolled and 63 patients treated (median follow-up, 16.8 months). The median number of prior lines of systemic therapy was 2. Among 57 patients with measurable disease at baseline, objective responses were observed in 20 (35.1%) patients (all partial responses), including 7/21 (33.3%) responses in pancreatic and 5/12 (41.7%) in biliary tract cancers. The median duration of response was 5.3 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 7.3) and median PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3 to 8.6). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade were observed in 96.8% of patients and grade 3-4 in 27.0%; there were no grade 5 TRAEs. TRAEs did not lead to treatment discontinuation in any patients.

CONCLUSION

Adagrasib demonstrates encouraging clinical activity and is well tolerated in this rare cohort of pretreated patients with KRASG12C-mutated solid tumors.

Predictive Value of MUC5AC Signature in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Hypothesis Based on Preclinical Evidence

Mucin 5AC (MUC5AC) glycoprotein plays a crucial role in carcinogenesis and drug sensitivity in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), both individually and in combination with other mucins. Its function and localization are glycoform-specific. The immature isoform (detected by the CLH2 monoclonal antibody, or mab) is usually in the perinuclear (cytoplasmic) region, while the mature (45 M1, 2-11, Nd2) variants are in apical and extracellular regions. There is preclinical evidence suggesting that mature MUC5AC has prognostic and predictive (response to treatment) value. However, these findings were not validated in clinical studies. We propose a MUC5AC signature with three components of MUC5AC-localization, variant composition, and intensity-suggesting a reliable marker in combination of variants than with individual MUC5AC variants alone. We also postulate a theory to explain the occurrence of different MUC5AC variants in abnormal pancreatic lesions (benign, precancerous, and cancerous). We also analyzed the effect of mature MUC5AC on sensitivity to drugs often used in PDAC management, such as gemcitabine, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, cisplatin, and paclitaxel. We found preliminary evidence of its predictive value, but there is a need for large-scale studies to validate them.