Analysis of the Role of Plasma 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Levels in Survival Outcomes in Patients from the Phase III MPACT Trial of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

Vitamin Nutritional Status in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer: A Narrative Review

Due to the high mortality rate in Western countries, pancreatic cancer is considered one of the big killers, leaving patients and their families with little hope upon diagnosis. Although surgical and drug therapies are critical for cancer patients to improve life expectancy and alleviation of suffering, nutrition plays a key role in improving cancer treatment outcomes. This narrative review, conducted as part of the activities of the Italian Society of Human Nutrition (SINU) working group in oncology, focuses on the prevalence of vitamin malnutrition among pancreatic cancer patients. The results of the literature search show that pancreatic cancer patients are at a heightened risk of water-soluble vitamin deficiencies, particularly of vitamins B1, B3, and B6. Additionally, they also face an increased risk of deficiency of fat-soluble vitamins. Among these vitamins, the potential role of vitamin D in pancreatic cancer has garnered the most attention, with its plasma levels being identified as a significant factor in patient survival. Investigating vitamin nutritional status could provide valuable insights for incorporating nutritional approaches into the prevention and treatment of pancreatic cancer, thereby reducing the exacerbation of symptoms associated with the diagnosis.

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.