Outcome prioritization and preferences among older adults with cancer starting chemotherapy in a randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults with cancer facing competing treatments must prioritize between various outcomes. This study assessed health outcome prioritization among older adults with cancer starting chemotherapy. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a randomized trial addressing vulnerabilities in older adults with cancer. Patients completed three validated outcome prioritization tools: 1) Health Outcomes Tool: prioritizes outcomes (survival, independence, symptoms) using a visual analog scale; 2) Now vs. Later Tool: rates the importance of quality of life at three times-today versus 1 or 5 years in the future; and 3) Attitude Scale: rates agreement with outcome-related statements. The authors measured the proportion of patients prioritizing various outcomes and evaluated their characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients (median [range] age 71 [65-88], 68% with metastatic disease) were included. On the Health Outcomes Tool, 60.7% prioritized survival over other outcomes. Having localized disease was associated with choosing survival as top priority. On the Now vs. Later Tool, 50% gave equal importance to current versus future quality of life. On the Attitude Scale, 53.4% disagreed with the statement "the most important thing to me is living as long as I can, no matter what my quality of life is"; and 82.2% agreed with the statement "it is more important to me to maintain my thinking ability than to live as long as possible". CONCLUSION: Although survival was the top priority for most participants, some older individuals with cancer prioritize other outcomes, such as cognition and function. Clinicians should elicit patient-defined priorities and include them in decision-making.

Multi-omic molecular comparison of primary versus metastatic pancreatic tumours.

BACKGROUND: Molecular profiling is increasingly used to match patients with metastatic cancer to targeted therapies, but obtaining a high-quality biopsy specimen from metastatic sites can be difficult. METHODS: Patient samples were received by Perthera to coordinate genomic, proteomic and/or phosphoproteomic testing, using a specimen from either the primary tumour or a metastatic site. The relative frequencies were compared across specimen sites to assess the potential limitations of using a primary tumour sample for clinical decision support. RESULTS: No significant differences were identified at the gene or pathway level when comparing genomic alterations between primary and metastatic lesions. Site-specific trends towards enrichment of MYC amplification in liver lesions, STK11 mutations in lung lesions and ATM and ARID2 mutations in abdominal lesions were seen, but were not statistically significant after false-discovery rate correction. Comparative analyses of proteomic results revealed significantly elevated expression of ERCC1 and TOP1 in metastatic lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Tumour tissue limitations remain a barrier to precision oncology efforts, and these real-world data suggest that performing molecular testing on a primary tumour specimen could be considered in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who do not have adequate tissue readily available from a metastatic site.

Gene-mediated cytotoxic immunotherapy as adjuvant to surgery or chemoradiation for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: While surgical resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma provides the only chance of cure, long-term survival remains poor. Immunotherapy may improve outcomes, especially as adjuvant to local therapies. Gene-mediated cytotoxic immunotherapy (GMCI) generates a systemic anti-tumor response through local delivery of an adenoviral vector expressing the HSV-tk gene (aglatimagene besadenovec, AdV-tk) followed by anti-herpetic prodrug. GMCI has demonstrated synergy with standard of care (SOC) in other tumor types. This is the first application in pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Four dose levels (3 × 10(10) to 1 × 10(12) vector particles) were evaluated as adjuvant to surgery for resectable disease (Arm A) or to 5-FU chemoradiation for locally advanced disease (Arm B). Each patient received two cycles of AdV-tk + prodrug. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients completed therapy, 12 per arm, with no dose-limiting toxicities. All Arm A patients were explored, eight were resected, one was locally advanced and three had distant metastases. CD8(+) T cell infiltration increased an average of 22-fold (range sixfold to 75-fold) compared with baseline (p = 0.0021). PD-L1 expression increased in 5/7 samples analyzed. One node-positive resected patient is alive >66 months without recurrence. Arm B RECIST response rate was 25 % with a median OS of 12 months and 1-year survival of 50 %. Patient-reported quality of life showed no evidence of deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: AdV-tk can be safely combined with pancreatic cancer SOC without added toxicity. Response and survival compare favorably to expected outcomes and immune activity increased. These results support further evaluation of GMCI with more modern chemoradiation and surgery as well as PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in pancreatic cancer.