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

Unraveling dedifferentiation and metastasis traces in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ductal cells: Insights from single-cell RNA sequencing analysis of ITGB4 and C19orf33

Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) ranks among the most prevalent gastrointestinal malignancies, with risk factors including smoking, alcohol abuse, diabetes mellitus, obesity, age, family history, and genetic predisposition. Extensive research has focused on unraveling biomarkers and molecular intricacies associated with PDAC. Leveraging data from the Gene Expression Omnibus microarray and single-cell RNA sequencing datasets, our study identified ITGB4 and C19orf33 as potentially differentially expressed genes in PDAC samples when contrasted with non-malignant tissues. Notably, these genes exhibited a strong correlative expression pattern, primarily within ductal cells. Gene Expression Profiling Interactive Analysis corroborated our findings, further confirming the correlation between ITGB4 and C19orf33. Additionally, we conducted experiments involving two pivotal PDAC-related cell lines, MIA PaCa-2 and PANC-1, treated with oxaliplatin and 5-Fluorouracil. We also assessed the expression of these candidate genes in PDAC samples in comparison to adjacent normal tissues. Our findings revealed that C19orf33 is upregulated in PDAC samples, and treatment of PDAC cells with chemotherapeutic agents led to a correlated decrease in the expression of both ITGB4 and C19orf33. These co-expressed and correlated genes are implicated in relevant signaling pathways, suggesting shared biological activities that may contribute to the promotion of metastasis within malignant ductal cells. This study identifies ITGB4 and C19orf33 as key genes potentially shedding light on the molecular mechanisms driving tumorigenesis and metastasis in PDAC. These genes hold promise as potential diagnostic and therapeutic targets, offering valuable insights into the management of this challenging disease.

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.

Systemic oncological treatments in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a scoping review and evidence map

PURPOSE

To identify, describe, and organise currently available evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) (chemotherapy, targeted/biological therapies, and immunotherapy) compared to best supportive care (BSC) for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC).

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review and evidence mapping, adhering to PRISMA-ScR checklist. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible studies. We included systematic reviews (SRs), randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, and observational studies evaluating SOTs compared to BSC or no treatment in patients with advanced PC. Two independent reviewers performed the screening process and data extraction. We developed evidence maps as an interactive visualization display, including the assessed interventions and outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 50,601 records obtained from our search, we included 43 studies: 2 SRs, 16 RCTs, 4 quasi-experimental studies, 20 observational studies, and 1 protocol for a quasi-experimental study. Forty-two studies reported survival-related outcomes and most favoured SOTs, while five reported toxicity and most favoured BSC. Other patient-centred outcomes, such as quality of life, were scarcely reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the current evidence gaps in studies assessing treatments for patients with advanced PC, mainly the lack of reports of non-survival-related outcomes, pointing out research areas that need further attention to make better recommendations for these patients.

[18F]FDG PET/MRI enables early chemotherapy response prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Purpose

In this prospective exploratory study, we evaluated the feasibility of [¹⁸F]fluorodeoxyglucose ([¹⁸F]FDG) PET/MRI-based chemotherapy response prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at two weeks upon therapy onset.

Material and methods

In a mixed cohort, seventeen patients treated with chemotherapy in neoadjuvant or palliative intent were enrolled. All patients were imaged by [¹⁸F]FDG PET/MRI before and two weeks after onset of chemotherapy. Response per RECIST1.1 was then assessed at 3 months [¹⁸F]FDG PET/MRI-derived parameters (MTV_50%, TLG_50%, MTV_2.5, TLG_2.5, SUV_max, SUV_peak, ADC_max, ADC_mean and ADC_min) were assessed, using multiple t-test, Man–Whitney-U test and Fisher’s exact test for binary features.

Results

At 72 ± 43 days, twelve patients were classified as responders and five patients as non-responders. An increase in ∆MTV_50% and ∆ADC (≥ 20% and 15%, respectively) and a decrease in ∆TLG_50% (≤ 20%) at 2 weeks after chemotherapy onset enabled prediction of responders and non-responders, respectively. Parameter combinations (∆TLG_50% and ∆ADC_max or ∆MTV_50% and ∆ADC_max) further improved discrimination.

Conclusion

Multiparametric [¹⁸F]FDG PET/MRI-derived parameters, in particular indicators of a change in tumor glycolysis and cellularity, may enable very early chemotherapy response prediction. Further prospective studies in larger patient cohorts are recommended to their clinical impact.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13550-021-00808-4.

Combination Therapy of High-Dose Rabeprazole Plus Metronomic Capecitabine in Advanced Gastro-Intestinal Cancer: A Randomized Phase II Trial

Simple Summary

This is the first phase II study of high dose rabeprazole repurposing (1.5 mg/kg bid, three days a week) combined with metronomic capecitabine (mCAP), 1500 mg/daily, in gastrointestinal cancer, aimed at evaluating the activity and safety of high-dose proton pump inhibitor in combination with mCAP as salvage treatment in pretreated patients. A 3-months PFS rate of 66% and 57% was reported in the mCAP-rabeprazole and mCAP group, respectively. Although, the adjunct of high dose rabeprazole to mCAP did not improve mCAP activity, the combination of proton pump inhibitor with chemotherapy would deserve to be further investigated.

Abstract

Background: In recent years, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been investigated at high-dose to modulate tumor microenvironment acidification thus restoring chemotherapeutic sensitivity. This is the first trial to study activity and safety of repurposing high dose rabeprazole combined with metronomic capecitabine (mCAP). Methods: A phase II study in which patients with gastrointestinal cancer, refractory to standard treatments, who had a life expectancy >3 months, were blind randomized 1:1 to mCAP, 1500 mg/daily, continuously with or without rabeprazole 1.5 mg/kg bid, three days a week. The primary endpoint was 3-months progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were clinical benefit (CB) and overall survival (OS). Safety and plasma concentrations of capecitabine and its metabolites (5′-DFUR and 5-FU) were also evaluated. Results: Sixty-seven (median age 69 years; 63% male; 84% colorectal cancer, 76% ECOG-PS ≤ 1; 84% pretreated with two or more lines of chemotherapy) out of 90 patients screened for eligibility, were randomized to receive mCAP+rabeprazole (n = 32) vs. mCAP (n = 35). All patients were evaluable for response. No significant difference between mCAP+rabeprazole vs. mCAP, in terms of 3-months PFS rate (HR = 1.43, 95%CI 0.53–3.85; p = 0.477), median PFS (HR = 1.22, 95%CI 0.75–2.00, p = 0.420), CB (RR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.29–2.44; p = 0.786) and median OS (HR = 0.89, 95%CI 0.54–1.48; p = 0.664) was observed. However, a 3-year OS rate of 10% and 12% was reported in the mCAP-rabeprazole and mCAP groups, respectively. Overall, no grade 3 or 4 toxicity occurred but grade 1 or 2 adverse event of any type were more frequently in the mCAP+rabeprazole group than in the mCAP (OR 2.83, 95%CI 1.03–7.79; p = 0.043). Finally, there was not statistically significant difference in the plasma concentration of capecitabine and its metabolites between the two groups. Conclusions: Although the adjunct of high dose rabeprazole to mCAP was not shown to affect mCAP activity, as PPI are being investigated worldwide as drugs to be repositioned in cancer treatment and also considering the limited sample size as well as the favorable safety profile of the combination in the present study, further clinical investigations are desirable.

The economic burden of metastatic pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Objectives: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a costly disease with a limited life-expectancy as it generally presents as an advanced, metastatic disease. Though current literature suggests cost varies by first line treatment, there is limited real-world knowledge about the economic burden of pancreatic cancer. This study describes the economic burden of pancreatic cancer patients overall and by observed first line treatments.

METHODS

The IBM MarketScan databases were used to identify adult metastatic PC patients from January 1, 2010 through 3/31/2017. Those without other primary cancers, pregnancy, or prior PC treatment, and with 6 months of continuous enrollment prior to PC were included. Treatment patterns and healthcare utilization and expenditures were measured during the variable-length follow-up period. Continuous measures were presented as per patient per month (PPPM).

RESULTS

A total of 6,360 patients met all inclusion criteria. Almost half (46.8%) of patients were untreated. Gemcitabine alone (15.6%) and FOLFIRINOX (11.4%) were the most commonly observed first line regimens. Treated patients incurred $17,513 PPPM (Gemcitabine alone) to $27,889 PPPM (FOLFIRINOX) during follow-up. Untreated patients incurred the highest unadjusted ($30,777 PPPM) and adjusted ($20,392 PPPM) cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Metastatic PC patients incur a high economic burden driven by high utilization of healthcare resources, which varies by first line treatment. Also, the high proportion of untreated patients is alarming as these patients may be the most expensive of all patients. There is an unmet need in these patients for effective treatments that also reduce their economic burden.