Treatment outcome of advanced pancreatic cancer patients who are ineligible for a clinical trial

Clinical practice guideline for the treatment of malignant ascites: section summary in Clinical Practice Guideline for peritoneal dissemination (2021)

Patients with peritoneal dissemination (PD) caused by abdominal malignancies are often associated with massive ascites, which shows extremely dismal prognosis because of the discontinuation of systemic chemotherapy mostly due to poor performance status. Many treatment methods, such as simple drainage, peritoneovenous shunting (PVS) and cell-free and concentrated reinfusion therapy (CART), have been used for symptom relief. However, the clinical efficacies of these methods have not been fully investigated yet. Recently, we developed the Clinical Practice Guideline for PD caused by various malignancies according to "Minds Clinical Practice Guideline Development Guide 2017". In this guideline, we systematically reviewed information on clinical diagnosis and treatments for PD using PubMed databases (2000 – 2020), and clarified the degree of recommendation for clinical questions (CQ). The evidence level was divided into groups by study design and quality. The literature level and a body of evidence were evaluated in reference to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Based on the results of systematic review, the strength of the recommendations was evaluated at a consensus meeting of the Guideline Committee. This is the English synopsis of the part of treatment of malignant ascites in Clinical Practice Guideline for PD, 2021 in Japanese. The guidelines summarize the general aspect of the treatment of malignant ascites and statements with recommendation strengths, evidence levels, agreement rates and future perspective for four raised clinical questions.

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.

Ectopic high endothelial venules in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A unique site for targeted delivery

BACKGROUND

Nanomedicine offers an excellent opportunity to tackle treatment-refractory malignancies by enhancing the delivery of therapeutics to the tumor site. High endothelial venules (HEVs) are found primarily in lymph nodes or formed de novo in peripheral tissues during inflammatory responses. They express peripheral node addressin (PNAd), which is recognized by the monoclonal antibody MECA79.

METHODS

Here, we demonstrated that HEVs form de novo in human pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We engineered MECA79 coated nanoparticles (MECA79-NPs) that recognize these ectopic HEVs in PDAC.

FINDINGS

The trafficking of MECA79-NPs following intravenous delivery to human PDAC implanted in a humanized mouse model was more robust than non-conjugated NPs. Treatment with MECA79-Taxol-NPs augmented the delivery of Paclitaxel (Taxol) to the tumor site and significantly reduced the tumor size. This effect was associated with a higher apoptosis rate of PDAC cells and reduced vascularization within the tumor.

INTERPRETATION

Targeting the HEVs of PDAC using MECA79-NPs could lay the ground for the localized delivery of a wide variety of drugs including chemotherapeutic agents. FUND: National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants: T32-EB016652 (B·B.), NIH Cancer Core Grant CA034196 (L.D.S.), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases grants R01-AI126596 and R01-HL141815 (R.A.).

Generalization and representativeness of phase III immune checkpoint blockade trials in non-small cell lung cancer

Background

Strict eligibility criteria for patient enrollment in phase III trials raise questions regarding generalization to ineligible patients. We evaluated whether pivotal phase III trials of immune checkpoint blockades (ICBs) represent the overall population of non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

Methods

We reviewed the inclusion and exclusion criteria of three phase III trials (CheckMate057, CheckMate017, and KEYNOTE‐010). Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC patients diagnosed from 2011 to 2013 at Seoul National University Hospital (cohort 1) were reviewed. We also analyzed the criteria in 53 patients with NSCLC who were treated with nivolumab or pembrolizumab as routine practice (cohort 2).

Results

Among the 715 patients in cohort 1, 499 (69.9%) were ineligible for the three trials. Reasons for ineligibility included: no prior platinum doublet treatment (23.6%), lack of tissue availability (22.7%), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status > 1 (14.1%), steroid use (18.2%), active cerebral nervous system metastasis (8.3%), hepatitis B/hepatitis C/human immunodeficiency virus (8.0%), and no measurable lesion (7.3%). EGFR mutations were more common in the ineligible group. In cohort 2, 67.9% of patients were classified as ineligible. Treatment outcomes of ICB in cohort 2 appeared inferior to those in the three pivotal trials, with a response rate of 11.3% and median progression‐free survival of 1.67 months.

Conclusion

Only 30% of NSCLC patients were eligible for ICB phase III trials. The actual efficacy in the 70% of ineligible patients is unknown. These findings suggest a huge gap between practice‐changing phase III trials and the overall population of NSCLC patients.

Second-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer: Which is the best option?

Despite recent biological insight and therapeutic advances, the prognosis of advanced pancreatic cancer still remains poor. For more than 15 years, gemcitabine monotherapy has been the cornerstone of first-line treatment. Recently, prospective randomized trials have shown that novel upfront combination regimens tested in prospective randomized trials have resulted in improved patients' outcome increasing the proportion of putative candidate to second-line therapy. There is no definite standard of care after disease progression. A novel formulation in which irinotecan is encapsulated into liposomal-based nanoparticles may increase the efficacy of the drug without incrementing its toxicity. NAPOLI-1 was the first randomized trial to compare nanoliposomal irinotecan and fluorouracil-leucovorin (5-FU/LV) to 5-FU/LV alone after a gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. This review focuses on the current data for the management of second-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, presents the most interesting ongoing clinical trials and illustrates the biologically-driven future options beyond disease progression.

Gemcitabine Compared With Gemcitabine and S-1 Combination Therapy in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Several reports suggest that gemcitabine (GEM) plus S-1 combination (GS) is associated to prolong the survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC). We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the safety and efficacy of GS versus GEM.Summary data from randomized trials and retrospective studies were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses based on the chemotherapy cycles were performed to explore the efficacy and toxicity for therapy. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by removing specific studies to assess the effects of study quality.Between January 2004 and August 2012, 4 RCTs and 2 retrospective studies including a total of 1025 cases were identified. The overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96; P = 0.01) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.77; P < 0.001) for the GS arm were significantly longer than the GEM arm. The differences in objective response rate (ORR) (RR: 1.24; 95% CI, 1.17-1.33; P < 0.001) and disease control rate (DCR) were also better in the GS arm (RR: 1.37; 95% CI, 1.19-1.59; P < 0.001). Grades 3 to 4 toxicities in both the groups were similar except neutropenia and diarrhea, which were more frequent in the GS arm (P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the cycle for chemotherapy every 4 weeks has equivalent efficacy and less toxicity than regimens every 3 weeks in the GS arm.The current meta-analysis suggested that GEM significantly prolonged OS and PFS when added to S-1 combination in patients with unresectable PC. GS therapy also offers better ORR and DCR than GEM monotherapy and no unexpected toxicity was evident.

Molecular Targeted Intervention for Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer (PC) remains one of the worst cancers, with almost uniform lethality. PC risk is associated with westernized diet, tobacco, alcohol, obesity, chronic pancreatitis, and family history of pancreatic cancer. New targeted agents and the use of various therapeutic combinations have yet to provide adequate treatments for patients with advanced cancer. To design better preventive and/or treatment strategies against PC, knowledge of PC pathogenesis at the molecular level is vital. With the advent of genetically modified animals, significant advances have been made in understanding the molecular biology and pathogenesis of PC. Currently, several clinical trials and preclinical evaluations are underway to investigate novel agents that target signaling defects in PC. An important consideration in evaluating novel drugs is determining whether an agent can reach the target in concentrations effective to treat the disease. Recently, we have reported evidence for chemoprevention of PC. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of current updates on molecularly targeted interventions, as well as dietary, phytochemical, immunoregulatory, and microenvironment-based approaches for the development of novel therapeutic and preventive regimens. Special attention is given to prevention and treatment in preclinical genetically engineered mouse studies and human clinical studies.