Moving the Target on the Optimal Adjuvant Strategy for Resected Pancreatic Cancers: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Cancers (Basel). 2020;12. [PMID: 32110977 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12030534]

Exploring the potential of multiomics liquid biopsy testing in the clinical setting of lung cancer

The transformative role of artificial intelligence (AI) and multiomics could enhance the diagnostic and prognostic capabilities of liquid biopsy (LB) for lung cancer (LC). Despite advances, the transition from tissue biopsies to more sophisticated, non-invasive methods like LB has been impeded by challenges such as the heterogeneity of biomarkers and the low concentration of tumour-related analytes. The advent of multiomics - enabled by deep learning algorithms - offers a solution by allowing the simultaneous analysis of various analytes across multiple biological fluids, presenting a paradigm shift in cancer diagnostics. Through multi-marker, multi-analyte and multi-source approaches, this review showcases how AI and multiomics are identifying clinically valuable biomarker combinations that correlate with patients' health statuses. However, the path towards clinical implementation is fraught with challenges, including study reproducibility and lack of methodological standardization, thus necessitating urgent solutions to solve these common issues.

The role of bone modifying agents for secondary osteoporosis prevention and pain control in post-menopausal osteopenic breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant aromatase inhibitors

Introduction

Hormonal therapy (HT) blocks the hormone-mediated growth signal dramatically reducing estrogenic levels with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) becoming a crucial component of the treatment mainstay in patients with early breast cancer (BC). Postmenopausal BC patients receiving HT present with a significant risk of secondary osteoporosis with AIs further reducing estrogen levels and ultimately leading to an accelerated rate of bone resorption and thus decreased bone mineral density (BMD). This was an observational retrospective clinical study that consecutively enrolled early BC patients with osteopenia to compare the impact of alendronate versus denosumab on secondary osteoporosis prevention and pain control.

Methods

We identified two groups of patients treated with denosumab 60 mg by subcutaneous injection once every six months or alendronate 70 mg orally once a week. All the patients underwent a baseline physiatric evaluation (T0) and underwent a follow-up visit after 18 months (T1) together with femoral and vertebral Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) exam evaluating T-Score marks. From September 2015 to December 2019 a total of 50 early (stage I-III) BC patients were considered eligible and consecutively enrolled in our study if they met pre-specified inclusion criteria.

Results

In the entire observed population, the addition of treatment with alendronate or denosumab led to a significant T-score improvement at the lumbar spine level (-1.92 vs -1.52, p=0.03), with a comparable contribution from alendronate (-1.60 vs -1.45, p=0.07) and denosumab (-2.26 vs -1.58, p=0.07). Regarding the femoral region, neither alendronate (-0.98 vs -1.07, p=0.23) nor denosumab (-1.39 vs -1.34, p=0.81) were able to produce any statistically relevant effect. However, concerning pain control, BMAs had a significant impact on reducing NRS scoresin the general population (T1 3.94 vs. baseline 4.32, p=0.007), with a likelyspecific contribution from alendronate (T1 3.52 vs. baseline 3.88, p=0.004) compared to denosumab (T1 4.36 vs baseline 4.76, p=0.12), without any differences in analgesic therapy assumption over time (p=0.93).

Discussion

Both alendronate and denosumab significantly contributed to preventing secondary osteoporosis in early BC patients with low BMD undergoing AIs, mostly at the lumbar spine level. Moreover, alendronate seemed to significantly impact pain control in such patients further supporting alendronate as a cost-effective option in this frail setting, although BMAs particularities should be carefully considered on an individual basis according to specific clinical contexts.

The significance of tissue-agnostic biomarkers in solid tumors: the more the merrier?

INTRODUCTION

To date, several emerging biomarkers have gained considerable interest in the field of predictive molecular oncology. The advent of precision medicine has led to the development of innovative drugs targeting rare molecular pathways independently from histology, defined as tissue-agnostic drugs.

AREAS COVERED

Although there is a lot of promise for this new tissue-agnostic model in the oncological scenario, crucial issues from both the diagnostic and therapeutic standpoint are emerging. This review aims to critically examine the role of tissue-agnostic biomarkers in different solid tumors, focusing on the prevalence and methods of detection of agnostic biomarkers together with drug approvals to guide clinicians in this evolving landscape.

EXPERT OPINION

To strengthen the framework for tissue-agnostic approvals, the dialogue between regulatory, industrial, and academic parties should be intensified. Critical questions include the development of an efficient network system that can overcome the heterogeneity of patients' inclusion criteria along with the increasingly difficult interpretation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) profiling technologies. Cost-effectiveness and risk-benefit studies are needed in the national context considering the modalities of access to diagnostic tests and reimbursement of treatments.

Prognostic Value of Drug Targets Predicted Using Deep Bioinformatic Analysis of m6A-Associated lncRNA-Based Pancreatic Cancer Model Characteristics and Its Tumour Microenvironment

The role of N6-methyladenosine (m6A)-associated long-stranded non-coding RNA (lncRNA) in pancreatic cancer is unclear. Therefore, we analysed the characteristics and tumour microenvironment in pancreatic cancer and determined the value of m6A-related lncRNAs for prognosis and drug target prediction. An m6A-lncRNA co-expression network was constructed using The Cancer Genome Atlas database to screen m6A-related lncRNAs. Prognosis-related lncRNAs were screened using univariate Cox regression; patients were divided into high- and low-risk groups and randomised into training and test groups. In the training group, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) was used for regression analysis and to construct a prognostic model, which was validated in the test group. Tumor mutational burden (TMB), immune evasion, and immune function of risk genes were analysed using R; drug sensitivity and potential drugs were examined using the Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer database. We screened 129 m6A-related lncRNAs; 17 prognosis-related m6A-related lncRNAs were obtained using multivariate analysis and three m6A-related lncRNAs (AC092171.5, MEG9, and AC002091.1) were screened using LASSO regression. Survival rates were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the low-risk than in the high-risk group. Risk score was an independent predictor affecting survival (p < 0.001), with the highest risk score being obtained by calculating the c-index. The TMB significantly differed between the high- and low-risk groups (p < 0.05). In the high- and low-risk groups, mutations were detected in 61 of 70 samples and 49 of 71 samples, respectively, with KRAS, TP53, and SMAD4 showing the highest mutation frequencies in both groups. A lower survival rate was observed in patients with a high versus low TMB. Immune function HLA, Cytolytic activity, and Inflammation-promoting, T cell co-inhibition, Check-point, and T cell co-stimulation significantly differed in different subgroups (p < 0.05). Immune evasion scores were significantly higher in the high-risk group than in the low-risk group. Eight sensitive drugs were screened: ABT.888, ATRA, AP.24534, AG.014699, ABT.263, axitinib, A.443654, and A.770041. We screened m6A-related lncRNAs using bioinformatics, constructed a prognosis-related model, explored TMB and immune function differences in pancreatic cancer, and identified potential therapeutic agents, providing a foundation for further studies of pancreatic cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer in the United States based on PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is associated with low median overall survival. Combination chemotherapy regimens FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GemNab) are the new adjuvant treatment standards for resectable pancreatic cancer. PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials demonstrated superior clinical outcomes with FOLFIRINOX and GemNab, each vs gemcitabine monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab for resectable pancreatic cancer in adults from the U.S. payer perspective, in order to inform decision makers about which of these treatments is optimal. METHODS: A Markov model with 3 disease states (relapse free, progressive disease, and death) was developed. Cycle length was 1 month, and time horizon was 10 years. Transition probabilities were derived from PRODIGE-24 and APACT survival data. All cost and utility input parameters were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The effect of uncertainty on model parameters was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Our analysis estimated that the cost for FOLFIRINOX was $40,831 higher than GemNab ($99,669 vs. $58,837). Despite increased toxicity, FOLFIRINOX was associated with additional 0.18 QALYs and 0.25 LYs compared with GemNab (QALY: 1.65 vs. 1.47; LY: 2.09 vs. 1.84). The ICER for FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab was $226,841 per QALY and $163,325 per LY. FOLFIRINOX was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200,000 per QALY, and this was confirmed by the PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Total monthly cost for FOLFIRINOX was approximately 1.7 times higher than GemNab. If the WTP threshold increases to or above $250,000 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX then becomes a cost-effective treatment option. DISCLOSURES: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Pancreatic cancer in 2021: What you need to know to win

Pancreatic cancer is one of the solid tumors with the worst prognosis. Five-year survival rate is less than 10%. Surgical resection is the only potentially curative treatment, but the tumor is often diagnosed at an advanced stage of the disease and surgery could be performed in a very limited number of patients. Moreover, surgery is still associated with high post-operative morbidity, while other therapies still offer very disappointing results. This article reviews every aspect of pancreatic cancer, focusing on the elements that can improve prognosis. It was written with the aim of describing everything you need to know in 2021 in order to face this difficult challenge.

Therapeutic Strategies Targeting Tumor Suppressor Genes in Pancreatic Cancer

The high mortality of pancreatic cancer is attributed to the insidious progression of this disease, which results in a delayed diagnosis and advanced disease stage at diagnosis. More than 35% of patients with pancreatic cancer are in stage III, whereas 50% are in stage IV at diagnosis. Thus, understanding the aggressive features of pancreatic cancer will contribute to the resolution of problems, such as its early recurrence, metastasis, and resistance to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Therefore, new therapeutic strategies targeting tumor suppressor gene products may help prevent the progression of pancreatic cancer. In this review, we discuss several recent clinical trials of pancreatic cancer and recent studies reporting safe and effective treatment modalities for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Therapeutic Options in Resectable and Advanced/Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Indirect Comparison

OBJECTIVES

FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (gem-nab/P), and gemcitabine-capecitabine (gem-cap) demonstrated superiority over gemcitabine monotherapy for pancreatic cancer (PC). It is still unclear which chemotherapy regimen is the most optimal. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review (SR) and indirect comparison to compare safety and efficacy of FOLFIRINOX versus gem-nab/P and gem-cap in PC.

METHODS

An SR was conducted in several databases from inception to November 2020. RCTs investigating resectable or advanced PC were included. Primary outcomes including overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS)/progression-free survival (PFS)/relapse-free survival (RFS), and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were pooled using a random effects model. Indirect comparisons were done to compare FOLFIRINOX versus gem-cap and gem-nab/P. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Nine studies were identified involving 6,564 patients. Indirect comparisons showed FOLFIRINOX had significantly better OS (resectable: HR 0.78 [0.61-0.99]; advanced: HR 0.71 [0.60-0.85]) and RFS/DFS/PFS (resectable: HR 0.67 [0.55-0.82]; advanced: HR 0.65 [0.57-0.74]) compared to gem-cap as well as OS (resectable: HR 0.78 [0.61-1.00]; advanced: HR 0.73 [0.54-0.98]) and DFS/PFS (resectable: HR 0.66 [0.53-0.82]; advanced: HR 0.64 [0.49-0.83]) compared to gem-nab/P. FOLFIRINOX increased grade 3/4 AE risk compared to gem-cap and gem-nab/P.

CONCLUSIONS

FOLFIRINOX is associated with significant survival benefits compared to gem-nab/P and gem-cap. However, it is important to consider the increased grade 3/4 AE risk associated with FOLFIRINOX.

Usefulness of Imaging Response Assessment after Irreversible Electroporation of Localized Pancreatic Cancer-Results from a Prospective Cohort

Simple Summary

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a novel therapy that is being studied for the treatment of nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer. The current methods for evaluating the treatment response after IRE have been adapted from the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). However, it is uncertain whether these methods are appropriate, because the methods have not been validated. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the correlation between survival time and the most commonly used imaging assessment methods on FDG-PET/CT scans. We confirmed that the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are correlated with survival, when applied as intended. However, no correlation was found when the often-used lesion-level method was used. FDG-PET-derived data did not provide any benefit over conventional CT data. Several novel methods for lesion-level analysis were explored.

Abstract

(1) Background: Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a nonthermal ablation technique that is being studied in nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer (PC). Most published studies use imaging outcomes as an efficacy endpoint, but imaging interpretation can be difficult and has yet to be correlated with survival. The aim of this study was to examine the correlation of imaging endpoints with survival in a cohort of IRE-treated PC patients. (2) Methods: Several imaging endpoints were examined before and after IRE on ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) with computed tomography. Separate analyses were performed at the patient and lesion levels. Mortality rate (MR) ratios for imaging endpoints after IRE were estimated. (3) Results: Forty-one patients were included. Patient-level analysis revealed that progressive disease (PD), as defined by RECIST 1.1, is correlated with a higher MR at all time intervals, but PD, as defined by EORTC PET response criteria, is only correlated with the MR in the longest interval. No correlation was found between PD, as defined by RECIST, and the MR in the lesion-level analysis. (4) Conclusions: Patient-level PD, as defined by RECIST, was correlated with poorer survival after IRE ablation, whereas no correlations were observed in the lesion-level analyses. Several promising lesion-level outcomes were identified.