Pancreatic cancer

Definition and Predictors of Early Recurrence in Neoadjuvantly Treated Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: a Dual-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

ABSTARCT

BACKGROUND: Early recurrence after esophagectomy is often used as a surrogate for aggressive tumor biology and treatment failure. However, there is no standardized definition of early recurrence, and predictors for early recurrence are unknown. Therefore, we aimed to define an evidence-based cutoff to discriminate early and late recurrence and assess the influence of neoadjuvant treatment modalities for patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal-junction adenocarcinoma (EAC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This dual-center retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent esophagectomy for stage II-III EAC after neoadjuvant treatment with chemotherapy using 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) or radiochemotherapy according to the Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer followed by Surgery Study (CROSS) protocol from 2012 to 2022. The optimal cutoff for early versus late recurrence was calculated by using the most significant difference in survival after recurrence (SAR). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with early recurrence.

RESULTS

Of 334 included patients, 160 (47.9%) were diagnosed with recurrence. Most patients had systemic (60.5%) or multiple sites of recurrence (21.1%), whereas local-only recurrence (9.2%) and carcinomatosis (9.2%) were rare. The optimal interval between surgery and recurrence for distinguishing early and late recurrence was 18 months (median SAR: 9.1 versus 17.8 months, p = 0.039) with only 24% of recurrences diagnosed after the calculated cutoff. Advanced pathologic tumor infiltration (ypT3-4, p = 0.006), nodal positivity (p = 0.013), poor treatment response (>10% residual tumor, p = 0.015), and no adjuvant treatment (p = 0.048) predicted early recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Early recurrence can be defined as recurrent disease within 18 months. Hallmarks for early recurrence are poor response to neoadjuvant therapy with persisting advanced disease. In those patients, adjuvant therapy and closer follow-up should be considered.

What is the optimal surgical approach for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic neck? - a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The appropriate surgical approach for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is determined by the tumor's relation to the porto-mesenteric axis. Although the extent and location of lymphadenectomy is dependent on the type of resection, a pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), distal pancreatectomy (DP), or total pancreatectomy (TP) are considered equivalent oncologic operations for pancreatic neck tumors. Therefore, we aimed to assess differences in histopathological and oncological outcomes for surgical approaches in the treatment of pancreatic neck tumors.

METHODS

Patients with resected PDAC located in the pancreatic neck were identified from the National Cancer Database (2004-2020). Patients with metastatic disease were excluded. Furthermore, patients with 90-day mortality and R2-resections were excluded from the multivariable Cox-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Among 846 patients, 58% underwent PD, 25% DP, and 17% TP with similar R0-resection rates (p = 0.722). Significant differences were observed in nodal positivity (PD:44%, DP:34%, TP:57%, p < 0.001) and mean-number of examined lymph nodes (PD:17.2 ± 10.4, DP:14.7 ± 10.5, TP:21.2 ± 11.0, p < 0.001). Furthermore, inadequate lymphadenectomy (< 12 nodes) was observed in 30%, 44%, and 19% of patients undergoing PD, DP, and TP, respectively (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis yielded similar overall survival after DP (HR:0.83, 95%CI:0.63-1.11), while TP was associated with worse survival (HR:1.43, 95%CI:1.08-1.89) compared to PD.

CONCLUSION

While R0-rates are similar amongst all approaches, DP is associated with inadequate lymphadenectomy which may result in understaging disease. However, this had no negative influence on survival. In the premise that an oncological resection of the pancreatic neck tumor is feasible with a partial pancreatectomy, no benefit is observed by performing a TP.

Biliary tract cancer

BACKGROUND

Biliary tract cancers comprise a heterogeneous collection of malignancies usually described as cholangiocarcinoma of the intra- or extrahepatic bile duct, including perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer.

METHODS

A review of pertinent parts of the ESSO core curriculum for the UEMS diploma targets (Fellowships exam, EBSQ), based on updated and available guidelines for diagnosis, surgical treatment and oncological management of cholangiocarcinoma.

RESULTS

Following the outline from the ESSO core curriculum we present the epidemiology and risk factors for cholangiocarcinoma, as well as the rationale for the current diagnosis, staging, (neo-)adjuvant treatment, surgical management, and short- and long-term outcomes. The available guidelines and consensus reports (i.e. NCCN, BGS and ESMO guidelines) are referred to. Recognition of biliary tract cancers as separate entities of the intrahepatic biliary ducts, the perihilar and distal bile duct as well as the gallbladder is important for proper management, as they each provide distinct clinical, molecular and treatment profiles to consider.

CONCLUSION

Core competencies in knowledge to the diagnosis, management and outcomes of biliary tract cancers are presented.

Anatomical and Biological Considerations to Determine Resectability in Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains associated with poor outcomes with a 5-year survival of 12% across all stages of the disease. These poor outcomes are driven by a delay in diagnosis and an early propensity for systemic dissemination of the disease. Recently, aggressive surgical approaches involving complex vascular resections and reconstructions have become more common, thus allowing more locally advanced tumors to be resected. Unfortunately, however, even after the completion of surgery and systemic therapy, approximately 40% of patients experience early recurrence of disease. To determine resectability, many institutions utilize anatomical staging systems based on the presence and extent of vascular involvement of major abdominal vessels around the pancreas. However, these classification systems are based on anatomical considerations only and do not factor in the burden of systemic disease. By integrating the biological criteria, we possibly could avoid futile resections often associated with significant morbidity. Especially patients with anatomically resectable disease who have a heavy burden of radiologically undetected systemic disease most likely do not derive a survival benefit from resection. On the contrary, we could offer complex resections to those who have locally advanced or oligometastatic disease but have favorable systemic biology and are most likely to benefit from resection. This review summarizes the current literature on defining anatomical and biological resectability in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Hepatocellular carcinoma

An update on the management of Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is provided in the present article for those interested in the UEMS/EBSQ exam in Surgical Oncology. The most recent publications in HCC, including surveillance, guidelines, and indications for liver resection, liver transplantation, and locoregional or systemic therapies, are summarised. The objective is to yield a set of main points regarding HCC that are required in the core curriculum of hepatobiliary oncological surgery.

Combination of RUNX1 inhibitor and gemcitabine mitigates chemo-resistance in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma by modulating BiP/PERK/eIF2α-axis-mediated endoplasmic reticulum stress

BACKGROUND

Gemcitabine (GEM)-based chemotherapy is the first-line option for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, the development of drug resistance limits its efficacy, and the specific mechanisms remain largely unknown. RUNX1, a key transcription factor in hematopoiesis, also involved in the malignant progression of PDAC, but was unclear in the chemoresistance of PDAC.

METHODS

Comparative analysis was performed to screen GEM-resistance related genes using our single-cell RNA sequencing(scRNA-seq) data and two public RNA-sequencing datasets (GSE223463, GSE183795) for PDAC. The expression of RUNX1 in PDAC tissues was detected by qRT-PCR, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and western blot. The clinical significance of RUNX1 in PDAC was determined by single-or multivariate analysis and survival analysis. We constructed the stably expressing cell lines with shRUNX1 and RUNX1, and successfully established GEM-resistant cell line. The role of RUNX1 in GEM resistance was determined by CCK8 assay, plate colony formation assay and apoptosis analysis in vitro and in vivo. To explore the mechanism, we performed bioinformatic analysis using the scRNA-seq data to screen for the endoplasm reticulum (ER) stress signaling that was indispensable for RUNX1 in GEM resistance. We observed the cell morphology in ER stress by transmission electron microscopy and validated RUNX1 in gemcitabine resistance depended on the BiP/PERK/eIF2α pathway by in vitro and in vivo oncogenic experiments, using ER stress inhibitor(4-PBA) and PERK inhibitor (GSK2606414). The correlation between RUNX1 and BiP expression was assessed using the scRNA-seq data and TCGA dataset, and validated by RT-PCR, immunostaining and western blot. The mechanism of RUNX1 regulation of BiP was confirmed by ChIP-PCR and dual luciferase assay. Finally, the effect of RUNX1 inhibitor on PDAC was conducted in vivo mouse models, including subcutaneous xenograft and patient-derived xenograft (PDX) mouse models.

RESULTS

RUNX1 was aberrant high expressed in PDAC and closely associated with GEM resistance. Silencing of RUNX1 could attenuate resistance in GEM-resistant cell line, and its inhibitor Ro5-3335 displayed an enhanced effect in inhibiting tumor growth, combined with GEM treatment, in PDX mouse models and GEM-resistant xenografts. In detail, forced expression of RUNX1 in PDAC cells suppressed apoptosis induced by GEM exposure, which was reversed by the ER stress inhibitor 4-PBA and PERK phosphorylation inhibitor GSK2606414. RUNX1 modulation of ER stress signaling mediated GEM resistance was supported by the analysis of scRNA-seq data. Consistently, silencing of RUNX1 strongly inhibited the GEM-induced activation of BiP and PERK/eIF2α signaling, one of the major pathways involved in ER stress. It was identified that RUNX1 directly bound to the promoter region of BiP, a primary ER stress sensor, and stimulated BiP expression to enhance the reserve capacity for cell adaptation, which in turn facilitated GEM resistance in PDAC cells.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies RUNX1 as a predictive biomarker for response to GEM-based chemotherapy. RUNX1 inhibition may represent an effective strategy for overcoming GEM resistance in PDAC cells.

Current Approaches for the Curative-Intent Surgical Treatment of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Radical resection is the only curative treatment for pancreatic cancer. However, only up to 20% of patients are considered eligible for surgical resection at the time of diagnosis. Although upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy has become the gold standard of treatment for resectable pancreatic cancer there are numerous ongoing trials aiming to compare the clinical outcomes of various surgical strategies (e.g., upfront surgery or neoadjuvant treatment with subsequent resection). Neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgery is considered the best approach in borderline resectable pancreatic tumors. Individuals with locally advanced disease are now candidates for palliative chemo- or chemoradiotherapy; however, some patients may become eligible for resection during the course of such treatment. When metastases are found, the cancer is qualified as unresectable. It is possible to perform radical pancreatic resection with metastasectomy in selected cases of oligometastatic disease. The role of multi-visceral resection, which involves reconstruction of major mesenteric veins, is well known. Nonetheless, there are some controversies in terms of arterial resection and reconstruction. Researchers are also trying to introduce personalized treatments. The careful, preliminary selection of patients eligible for surgery and other therapies should be based on tumor biology, among other factors. Such selection may play a key role in improving survival rates in patients with pancreatic cancer.