Combining CD40 agonist mitazalimab with mFOLFIRINOX in previously untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (OPTIMIZE-1): a single-arm, multicentre phase 1b/2 study.

BACKGROUND: Current systemic therapies for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma are associated with poor outcomes with a 5-year overall survival rate under 5%. We aimed to assess the safety and antitumour activity of mitazalimab, a human CD40 agonistic IgG1 antibody, with modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX; fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan), in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: OPTIMIZE-1 was a single-arm, multicentre, phase 1b/2 study which enrolled adults with histologically-confirmed metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 in 14 university hospitals in Belgium, France, and Spain. The primary endpoint of phase 1b was to determine the recommended phase 2 dose of intravenous mitazalimab (450 µg/kg or 900 µg/kg) when combined with intravenous mFOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2, fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2). In the first 21-day treatment cycle, mitazalimab was administered on days 1 and 10, and mFOLFIRINOX on day 8. In subsequent 14-day cycles mitazalimab was administered 2 days after mFOLFIRINOX. The phase 2 primary endpoint was objective response rate. Activity and safety analyses were conducted on the full analysis set (all patients who received the combination of mitazalimab at the recommended phase 2 dose and mFOLFIRINOX for at least two treatment cycles) and safety set (all patients who received any study treatment), respectively. Enrolment is complete, and data represents a primary analysis of the ongoing trial. The trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04888312). FINDINGS: Between Sept 29, 2021, and March 28, 2023, 88 patients were screened and 70 patients were enrolled (40 [57%] were female and 30 [43%] were male). In phase 1b, 900 µg/kg mitazalimab was determined as the recommended phase 2 dose. Overall, five patients received 450 µg/kg mitazalimab; 65 received 900 µg/kg mitazalimab. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed at 450 µg/kg, and one dose-limiting toxicity was observed at 900 µg/kg. 57 patients were evaluated for activity, and all 70 patients were included in the safety set. At data cutoff on Nov 14, 2023, median follow-up was 12·7 months (95% CI 11·1-15·7). Of the 57 patients, 29 (51%) remained on study and 18 (32%) remained on treatment. The primary endpoint (objective response rate >30%) was met (objective response rates in 23 [40%]; one-sided 90% CI ≥32 of 57 patients). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (18 [26%] of 70 patients), hypokalaemia (11 patients [16%]), and anaemia and thrombocytopenia (eight patients [11%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 29 (41%) of 70 patients, the most common being vomiting (five [7%] of 70 patients), decreased appetite (four [6%]), and diarrhoea and cholangitis (three [4%] of 70 patients for each), none considered related to mitazalimab. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Mitazalimab with mFOLFIRINOX demonstrated manageable safety and encouraging activity, warranting continued development in a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial. The results from OPTIMIZE-1 pave the way for further exploration and confirmation of a novel immunotherapy treatment regimen for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, which is a complex and aggressive cancer with very low survival rates and restricted treatment options. FUNDING: Alligator Bioscience.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Surgical Resection for Treatment of Pancreatic Insulinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) is emerging as a safe and effective treatment for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. We aimed to compare EUS-RFA and surgical resection for the treatment of pancreatic insulinoma (PI). METHODS: Patients with sporadic PI who underwent EUS-RFA at 23 centers or surgical resection at 8 high-volume pancreatic surgery institutions between 2014 and 2022 were retrospectively identified and outcomes compared using a propensity-matching analysis. Primary outcome was safety. Secondary outcomes were clinical efficacy, hospital stay, and recurrence rate after EUS-RFA. RESULTS: Using propensity score matching, 89 patients were allocated in each group (1:1), and were evenly distributed in terms of age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, distance between lesion and main pancreatic duct, lesion site, size, and grade. Adverse event (AE) rate was 18.0% and 61.8% after EUS-RFA and surgery, respectively (P < .001). No severe AEs were observed in the EUS-RFA group compared with 15.7% after surgery (P < .0001). Clinical efficacy was 100% after surgery and 95.5% after EUS-RFA (P = .160). However, the mean duration of follow-up time was shorter in the EUS-RFA group (median, 23 months; interquartile range, 14-31 months vs 37 months; interquartile range, 17.5-67 months in the surgical group; P < .0001). Hospital stay was significantly longer in the surgical group (11.1 ± 9.7 vs 3.0 ± 2.5 days in the EUS-RFA group; P < .0001). Fifteen lesions (16.9%) recurred after EUS-RFA and underwent a successful repeat EUS-RFA (11 patients) or surgical resection (4 patients). CONCLUSION: EUS-RFA is safer than surgery and highly effective for the treatment of PI. If confirmed in a randomized study, EUS-RFA treatment can become first-line therapy for sporadic PI.

Long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation of benign insulinomas.

OBJECTIVE: In recent years, endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) has emerged as an alternative nonsurgical treatment for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. The aim of our study was to assess the long-term follow-up of patients treated with EUS-RFA for a sporadic insulinoma in our centre in terms of efficacy, safety and risk of recurrence. DESIGN, PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS: We retrospectively analysed the data of 11 patients with an insulinoma treated by EUS-RFA in our tertiary centre between June 2018 and April 2022. Clinical and biological, as well as imaging, follow-up was planned at 3, 6, 12 months and then annually. RESULTS: In our series, there were nine women and two men with a median age of 65 years. All tumours were sporadic, with a mean size of 11 mm. The procedure allowed an immediate and complete symptomatic and biological remission in all patients without notable complications. Complete radiological resolution of the tumour after ablation was observed in seven patients, and persistence of an asymptomatic tumour residue was observed in four patients. During the mean follow-up period of 26 months, two patients presented a significant but asymptomatic increase of the tumour residue; a second EUS-RFA session was performed in one patient and the other patient is being closely monitored. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-RFA treatment of benign insulinomas provides a long-term complete clinical resolution of hypoglycaemia. A long-term follow-up is essential if residual tumour persists after initial EUS-RFA treatment.

Preoperative treatment with mFOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine/Nab-paclitaxel +/- isotoxic high-dose stereotactic body Radiation Therapy (iHD-SBRT) for borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (the STEREOPAC trial): study protocol for a randomised comparative multicenter phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), surgical resection remains the only potentially curative treatment. Surgery is generally followed by postoperative chemotherapy associated with improved survival, yet neoadjuvant therapy is a rapidly emerging concept requiring to be explored and validated in terms of treatment options and oncological outcomes. In this context, stereotactic body radiation (SBRT) appears feasible and can be safely integrated into a neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen of modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) with promising benefits in terms of R0 resection, local control and survival. However, the optimal therapeutic sequence is still not known, especially for borderline resectable PDAC, and the role of adding SBRT to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting needs to be evaluated in randomised controlled trials. The aim of the STEREOPAC trial is to assess the impact and efficacy of adding isotoxic high-dose SBRT (iHD-SBRT) to neoadjuvant mFFX or Gemcitabine/Nab-Paclitaxel (Gem/Nab-P) in patients with borderline resectable PDAC. METHODS: This is a randomised comparative multicentre phase II trial, planning to enrol patients (n = 256) diagnosed with a borderline resectable biopsy-confirmed PDAC. Patients will receive 4 cycles of mFFX (or 6 doses of Gem/Nab-P). After full disease restaging, non-progressive patients will be randomised for receiving either 4 additional mFFX cycles (or 6 doses of Gem/Nab-P) (Arm A), or 2 mFFX cycles (or 3 doses of Gem/Nab-P) + iHD-SBRT (35 to 55 Gy in 5 fractions) + 2 mFFX cycles (or 3 doses of Gem/Nab-P) (Arm B). Then curative surgery will be performed followed by adjuvant chemotherapy according to patient's condition. The co-primary endpoints are R0 resection and disease-free survival after the complete sequence strategy. The secondary endpoints include resection rate, overall survival, locoregional failure / distant metastasis free interval, pathologic complete response, toxicity, postoperative complications and quality of life assessment. DISCUSSION: This trial will help define the best neoadjuvant treatment sequence for borderline resectable PDAC and aims to evaluate if a total neoadjuvant treatment integrating iHD-SBRT improves the patients' oncological outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at ClinicalTrails.gov (NCT05083247) on October 19th, 2021, and in the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) EU CT database (2022-501181-22-01) on July 2022.

Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (COSMIC-312): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib has shown clinical activity in combination with checkpoint inhibitors in solid tumours. The COSMIC-312 trial assessed cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib as first-line systemic treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: COSMIC-312 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma not amenable to curative or locoregional therapy and previously untreated with systemic anticancer therapy at 178 centres in 32 countries. Patients with fibrolamellar carcinoma, sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma, or combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma were not eligible. Tumours involving major blood vessels, including the main portal vein, were permitted. Patients were required to have measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, adequate organ and marrow function, and Child-Pugh class A. Previous resection, tumour ablation, radiotherapy, or arterial chemotherapy was allowed if more than 28 days before randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1) via a web-based interactive response system to cabozantinib 40 mg orally once daily plus atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily, or single-agent cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily. Randomisation was stratified by disease aetiology, geographical region, and presence of extrahepatic disease or macrovascular invasion. Dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1 as assessed by a blinded independent radiology committee in the first 372 patients randomly assigned to the combination treatment of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab or sorafenib (progression-free survival intention-to-treat [ITT] population), and overall survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib plus atezolizumab or sorafenib (ITT population). Final progression-free survival and concurrent interim overall survival analyses are presented. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03755791. FINDINGS: Analyses at data cut-off (March 8, 2021) included the first 837 patients randomly assigned between Dec 7, 2018, and Aug 27, 2020, to combination treatment of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab (n=432), sorafenib (n=217), or single-agent cabozantinib (n=188). Median follow-up was 15·8 months (IQR 14·5-17·2) in the progression-free survival ITT population and 13·3 months (10·5-16·0) in the ITT population. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (99% CI 5·6-8·3) in the combination treatment group versus 4·2 months (2·8-7·0) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·63, 99% CI 0·44-0·91, p=0·0012). Median overall survival (interim analysis) was 15·4 months (96% CI 13·7-17·7) in the combination treatment group versus 15·5 months (12·1-not estimable) in the sorafenib group (HR 0·90, 96% CI 0·69-1·18; p=0·44). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were alanine aminotransferase increase (38 [9%] of 429 patients in the combination treatment group vs six [3%] of 207 in the sorafenib group vs 12 [6%] of 188 in the single-agent cabozantinib group), hypertension (37 [9%] vs 17 [8%] vs 23 [12%]), aspartate aminotransferase increase (37 [9%] vs eight [4%] vs 18 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (35 [8%] vs 17 [8%] vs 16 [9%]); serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 78 (18%) patients in the combination treatment group, 16 (8%) patients in the sorafenib group, and 24 (13%) in the single-agent cabozantinib group. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in six (1%) patients in the combination treatment group (encephalopathy, hepatic failure, drug-induced liver injury, oesophageal varices haemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and tumour lysis syndrome), one (<1%) patient in the sorafenib group (general physical health deterioration), and one (<1%) patient in the single-agent cabozantinib group (gastrointestinal haemorrhage). INTERPRETATION: Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab might be a treatment option for select patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but additional studies are needed. FUNDING: Exelixis and Ipsen.

Development and external validation of a prediction model for overall survival after resection of distal cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Various prognostic factors are associated with overall survival (OS) after resection of distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA). The objective of this study was to develop and validate a prediction model for 3-year OS after pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA. METHODS: The derivation cohort consisted of all patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA in the Netherlands (2009-2016). Clinically relevant variables were selected based on the Akaike information criterion using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model, with model performance being assessed by concordance index (C-index) and calibration plots. External validation was performed using patients from the Belgium Cancer Registry (2008-2016), and patients from two university hospitals of Southampton (U.K.) and Verona (Italy). RESULTS: Independent prognostic factors for OS in the derivation cohort of 454 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA were age (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), pT (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.07-1.90) and pN category (pN1: HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.37-2.32; pN2: HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.63-3.01), resection margin status (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.39-2.29) and tumour differentiation (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.62-2.53). The prediction model was based on these prognostic factors. The optimism-adjusted C-indices were similar in the derivation cohort (0.69), and in the Belgian (0.66) and Southampton-Verona (0.68) validation cohorts. Calibration was accurate in the Belgian validation cohort (slope = 0.93, intercept = 0.12), but slightly less optimal in the Southampton-Verona validation cohort (slope = 0.88, intercept = 0.32). Based on this model, three risk groups with different prognoses were identified (3-year OS of 65.4%, 33.2% and 11.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The prediction model for 3-year OS after resection of dCCA had reasonable performance in both the derivation and geographically external validation cohort. Calibration slightly differed between validation cohorts. The model is readily available via www. pancreascalculator.com to inform patients from Western European countries on their prognosis, and may be used to stratify patients for clinical trials.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy With or Without Rapid On-site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The benefit of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has never been evaluated in a randomized study. This trial aimed to test the hypothesis that in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB without ROSE was not inferior to that of EUS-FNB with ROSE. METHODS: A noninferiority study (noninferiority margin, 5%) was conducted at 14 centers in 8 countries. Patients with SPLs requiring tissue sampling were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EUS-FNB with or without ROSE using new-generation FNB needles. The touch-imprint cytology technique was used to perform ROSE. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy, and secondary endpoints were safety, tissue core procurement, specimen quality, and sampling procedural time. RESULTS: Eight hundred patients were randomized over an 18-month period, and 771 were analyzed (385 with ROSE and 386 without). Comparable diagnostic accuracies were obtained in both arms (96.4% with ROSE and 97.4% without ROSE, P = .396). Noninferiority of EUS-FNB without ROSE was confirmed with an absolute risk difference of 1.0% (1-sided 90% confidence interval, -1.1% to 3.1%; noninferiority P < .001). Safety and sample quality of histologic specimens were similar in both groups. A significantly higher tissue core rate was obtained by EUS-FNB without ROSE (70.7% vs. 78.0%, P = .021), with a significantly shorter mean sampling procedural time (17.9 ± 8.8 vs 11.7 ± 6.0 minutes, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNB demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy in evaluating SPLs independently on execution of ROSE. When new-generation FNB needles are used, ROSE should not be routinely recommended. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT03322592.).

Endoscopic management of subepithelial lesions including neuroendocrine neoplasms: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape), but EUS alone is not able to distinguish among all types of SEL.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests providing tissue diagnosis for all SELs with features suggestive of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) if they are of size > 20 mm, or have high risk stigmata, or require surgical resection or oncological treatment.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue diagnosis of SELs ≥ 20 mm in size.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends against surveillance of asymptomatic gastrointestinal (GI) tract leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, granular cell tumors, schwannomas, and glomus tumors, if the diagnosis is clear.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests surveillance of asymptomatic esophageal and gastric SELs without definite diagnosis, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 3-6 months, and then at 2-3-year intervals for lesions < 10 mm in size, and at 1-2-year intervals for lesions 10-20 mm in size. For asymptomatic SELs > 20 mm in size that are not resected, ESGE suggests surveillance with EGD plus EUS at 6 months and then at 6-12-month intervals.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) if they grow larger than 10 mm. The choice of resection technique should depend on size, depth of invasion, and location in the stomach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests considering removal of histologically proven gastric GISTs smaller than 20 mm as an alternative to surveillance. The decision to resect should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. The choice of technique should depend on size, location, and local expertise.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that, to avoid unnecessary follow-up, endoscopic resection is an option for gastric SELs smaller than 20 mm and of unknown histology after failure of attempts to obtain diagnosis.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends basing the surveillance strategy on the type and completeness of resection. After curative resection of benign SELs no follow-up is advised, except for type 1 gastric NEN for which surveillance at 1-2 years is advised.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 10: For lower or upper GI NEN with a positive or indeterminate margin at resection, ESGE recommends repeating endoscopy at 3-6 months and another attempt at endoscopic resection in the case of residual disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Kras and Lkb1 mutations synergistically induce intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm derived from pancreatic duct cells.

OBJECTIVE: Pancreatic cancer can arise from precursor lesions called intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN), which are characterised by cysts containing papillae and mucus-producing cells. The high frequency of KRAS mutations in IPMN and histological analyses suggest that oncogenic KRAS drives IPMN development from pancreatic duct cells. However, induction of Kras mutation in ductal cells is not sufficient to generate IPMN, and formal proof of a ductal origin of IPMN is still missing. Here we explore whether combining oncogenic KrasG12D mutation with an additional gene mutation known to occur in human IPMN can induce IPMN from pancreatic duct cells. DESIGN: We created and phenotyped mouse models in which mutations in Kras and in the tumour suppressor gene liver kinase B1 (Lkb1/Stk11) are conditionally induced in pancreatic ducts using Cre-mediated gene recombination. We also tested the effect of ß-catenin inhibition during formation of the lesions. RESULTS: Activating KrasG12D mutation and Lkb1 inactivation synergised to induce IPMN, mainly of gastric type and with malignant potential. The mouse lesions shared several features with human IPMN. Time course analysis suggested that IPMN developed from intraductal papillae and glandular neoplasms, which both derived from the epithelium lining large pancreatic ducts. ß-catenin was required for the development of glandular neoplasms and subsequent development of the mucinous cells in IPMN. Instead, the lack of ß-catenin did not impede formation of intraductal papillae and their progression to papillary lesions in IPMN. CONCLUSION: Our work demonstrates that IPMN can result from synergy between KrasG12D mutation and inactivation of a tumour suppressor gene. The ductal epithelium can give rise to glandular neoplasms and papillary lesions, which probably both contribute to IPMN formation.

Infigratinib in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 gene fusions/translocations: the PROOF 301 trial.

Cholangiocarcinoma is an aggressive malignancy with poor overall survival. Approximately 15% of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas contain FGFR alterations. Infigratinib is an oral FGFR 1-3 kinase inhibitor. Favorable results from a Phase II trial of infigratinib in advanced/metastatic FGFR-altered cholangiocarcinomas has led to its further investigation in the front-line setting. In this article we describe the design, objectives and rationale for PROOF 301, a Phase III multicenter, open label, randomized trial of infigratinib in comparison to standard of care gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced/metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 translocations. The results of this study have the potential to define a new role for a chemotherapy-free, targeted therapy option in the front-line setting for these patients. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03773302 (ClincalTrials.gov).

Impact of needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy on the therapeutic management of single pancreatic cystic lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The diagnosis and therapeutic management of large single pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) represent major issues for clinicians and essentially rely on endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) findings. Needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) has high diagnostic performance for PCLs. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of nCLE on the therapeutic management of patients with single PCLs. METHODS: Retrospective and comparative study. Five independent pancreatic disease experts from tertiary hospitals independently reviewed data from a prospective database of 206 patients with single PCL, larger than 2 cm and who underwent EUS-FNA and nCLE. Two evaluations were performed. The first one included the sequential review of clinical information, EUS report and FNA results. The second one included the same data + nCLE report. Participants had to propose a therapeutic management for each case. RESULTS: The addition of nCLE to EUS-FNA led to significant changes in therapeutic management for 28% of the patients (p < 0.001). nCLE significantly increased the interobserver agreement of 0.28 (p < 0.0001), from 0.36 (CI 95% 0.33-0.49) to 0.64 (CI 95% 0.61-0.67). nCLE improved the rates of full agreement among the five experts of 24% (p < 0.0001), from 30 to 54%. With nCLE, the surveillance rate of benign SCAs fell by 35%, from 40 (28/70) to 5% (4/76). CONCLUSION: The addition of nCLE to EUS-FNA significantly improves reliability of PCL diagnosis and could impact the therapeutic management of patients with single PCLs. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01563133.

Unmet Needs in High-Grade Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms (WHO G3).

Gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) are classified based on morphology and graded based on their proliferation rate as either well-differentiated low-grade (G1 to G2) neuroendocrine tumors (NET) or poorly differentiated high-grade (G3) neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC). Recently, a new subgroup of well-differentiated high-grade pancreatic tumors (NET G3) has been defined. The GEP NEN G3 group consisting of both NEC and NET G3 has recently been shown to be a quite heterogeneous patient group concerning prognosis and treatment benefit, depending on factors such as the primary tumor site, differentiation, proliferation rate, and molecular alterations. In this review we discuss the existing data on diagnostics, treatment, and biomarkers in this patient group, the unmet needs, and the future perspectives.

Sunitinib in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: update of safety data.

AIM: To describe the long-term safety of sunitinib in patients with progressive, well-differentiated, advanced/metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. PATIENTS & METHODS: Sunitinib- and placebo-treated patients from the Phase III study continued to receive sunitinib (37.5 mg on a continuous daily-dosing regimen) in two open-label extension studies. RESULTS: Median (range) treatment exposure: 30.2 (0.7-269.4) and 87.1 (3.9-319.4) weeks for medium-term (n = 41) and long-term-treated (n = 61) populations, respectively. All patients experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE); 47 (45.6%) reported serious AEs. Common all-causality AEs: diarrhea (63.1%); neutropenia (43.7%); abdominal pain (40.8%). Fifteen (14.6%) patients discontinued treatment due to treatment-related AEs. CONCLUSION: The safety of extended sunitinib treatment was consistent with the known safety profile of sunitinib in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

Determination of an optimal response cut-off able to predict progression-free survival in patients with well-differentiated advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours treated with sunitinib: an alternative to the current RECIST-defined response.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (pNET). Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-defined partial responses (PR; classically defined as ⩾30% size decrease from baseline) are infrequent. METHODS: Individual data of pNET patients from the phase II [NCT00056693] and pivotal phase III [NCT00428597] trials of sunitinib were analysed in this investigator-initiated, post hoc study. The primary objective was to determine the optimal RECIST (v.1.0) response cut-off value to identify patients who were progression-free at 11 months (median PFS in phase III trial); and the most informative time-point (highest area under the curve (AUC) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and logistic regression) for prediction of benefit (PFS) from sunitinib. RESULTS: Data for 237 patients (85 placebo; 152 sunitinib (n=66.50 mg '4-weeks on/2-weeks off' schedule; n=86 '37.5 mg continuous daily dosing (CDD)')) and 788 scans were analysed. The median PFS for sunitinib and placebo were 9.3 months (95% CI 7.6-12.2) and 5.4 months (95% CI 3.5-6.01), respectively (hazard ratio (HR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.29-0.62); P<0.001). A PR was seen in 19 patients (13%) on sunitinib; the median change in the sum of the lesions (vs baseline) was -12.8% (range -100 to +36.4). Month 7 was the most informative time-point (AUC 0.78 (95% CI 0.66-0.9); odds ratio 1.05 (95% CI 1.01-1.08), P=0.002). Reduction of 10% (vs baseline) achieved the highest sensitivity (50%) and specificity (82%), amongst cut-offs tested. A 10% reduction in marker lesions was associated with improved PFS in the whole sunitinib population (HR 0.55 (95 CI 0.3-0.9); P=0.04); mostly in patients on sunitinib CDD (HR 0.33 (95% CI 0.2-0.7); P=0.005). A 10% reduction in marker lesions (P=0.034) and sunitinib treatment (P=0.012) independently impacted on PFS (multivariable analysis). CONCLUSIONS: A 10% reduction within marker lesions identifies pNET patients benefiting from sunitinib treatment with implications for maintenance of dose intensity and future trial design.

Accuracy of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumour Grading by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration: Analysis of a Large Cohort and Perspectives for Improvement.

INTRODUCTION: Since the WHO Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System has been published in 2010, resected pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (pNETs) are graded as grade 1 (G1), grade 2 (G2) or grade 3 (G3) using the Ki67 labelling index (Ki67-LI). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is often used for diagnosis, but few studies have assessed its value for grading. AIMS: The aims of this study were to compare the Ki67-LI obtained by cytological grading (cG) with that obtained by histological grading (hG) and to assess (1) the influence of tumour size and the number of counted cells on FNA grading as well as (2) the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival based on cG. MATERIALS AND METHODS: EUS-FNA was performed for 102 pNETs (57 resected). cG (200 cells counted) was done on all FNAs. For 29 FNAs, >2,000 cells were counted (14 resected). A comparison was made between hG and cG for the 57 resected patients. Patients were followed up until June 2016. RESULTS: cG was consistent with hG in 39 of 57 patients with a concordance rate of 72% using a Ki67-LI cut-off of 5% for G1/G2. For Ki67-LI absolute values, the correlation was r = 0.443 and increased to r = 0.824 (p < 0.001) when only FNAs with >2,000 cells were counted. Twenty-one of 22 pNETs <2 cm had the same grading on cG and hG, whereas grading was discordant for 15 of 16 pNETs >2 cm. Thirty-eight patients died after 70.5 months of follow-up. OS for the whole cohort was 235 months and differed between cG1 (235 months), cG2 (36.3 months) and cG3 (10.9 months). CONCLUSION: cG of pNETs is more accurate when tumours measure <2 cm and more cells are counted on FNA. Discrepancies are seen between G2 tumours which are often considered G1 on FNA due to tumour heterogeneity. EUS-FNA is valuable to distinguish between patients with good (cG1) and poor (cG3) prognosis.

Efficacy and Safety of Sunitinib in Patients with Well-Differentiated Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours.

BACKGROUND: In a phase III study, sunitinib led to a significant increase in progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (panNETs). This study was a post-marketing commitment to support the phase III data. METHODS: In this ongoing, open-label, phase IV trial (NCT01525550), patients with progressive, advanced unresectable/metastatic, well-differentiated panNETs received continuous sunitinib 37.5 mg once daily. Eligibility criteria were similar to those of the phase III study. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours v1.0 (RECIST). Other endpoints included PFS per Choi criteria, overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Sixty-one treatment-naive and 45 previously treated patients received sunitinib. By March 19, 2016, 82 (77%) patients had discontinued treatment, mainly due to disease progression. Median treatment duration was 11.7 months. Investigator-assessed median PFS per RECIST (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 13.2 months (10.9-16.7): 13.2 (7.4-16.8) and 13.0 (9.2-20.4) in treatment-naive and previously treated patients, respectively. ORR (95% CI) per RECIST was 24.5% (16.7-33.8) in the total population: 21.3% (11.9-33.7) in treatment-naive and 28.9% (16.4-44.3) in previously treated patients. Median OS, although not yet mature, was 37.8 months (95% CI, 33.0-not estimable). The most common treatment-related AEs were neutropenia (53.8%), diarrhoea (46.2%), and leukopenia (43.4%). CONCLUSIONS: This phase IV trial confirms sunitinib as an efficacious and safe treatment option in patients with advanced/metastatic, well-differentiated, unresectable panNETs, and supports the phase III study outcomes. AEs were consistent with the known safety profile of sunitinib.

Liver and Pancreas: Do Similar Embryonic Development and Tissue Organization Lead to Similar Mechanisms of Tumorigenesis?

The liver and pancreas are closely associated organs that share a common embryological origin. They display amphicrine properties and have similar exocrine organization with parenchymal cells, namely, hepatocytes and acinar cells, secreting bile and pancreatic juice into the duodenum via a converging network of bile ducts and pancreatic ducts. Here we compare and highlight the similarities of molecular mechanisms leading to liver and pancreatic cancer development. We suggest that unraveling tumor development in an organ may provide insight into our understanding of carcinogenesis in the other organ.

Effect of Chemoradiotherapy vs Chemotherapy on Survival in Patients With Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Controlled After 4 Months of Gemcitabine With or Without Erlotinib: The LAP07 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: In locally advanced pancreatic cancer, the role of chemoradiotherapy is controversial and the efficacy of erlotinib is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether chemoradiotherapy improves overall survival of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer controlled after 4 months of gemcitabine-based induction chemotherapy and to assess the effect of erlotinib on survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In LAP07, an international, open-label, phase 3 randomized trial, 449 patients were enrolled between 2008 and 2011. Follow-up ended in February 2013. INTERVENTIONS: In the first randomization, 223 patients received 1000 mg/m2 weekly of gemcitabine alone and 219 patients received 1000 mg/m2 of gemcitabine plus 100 mg/d of erlotinib. In the second randomization involving patients with progression-free disease after 4 months, 136 patients received 2 months of the same chemotherapy and 133 underwent chemoradiotherapy (54 Gy plus capecitabine). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was overall survival from the date of the first randomization. Secondary outcomes were the effect of erlotinib and quality assurance of radiotherapy on overall survival, progression-free survival of gemcitabine-erlotinib and erlotinib maintenance with gemcitabine alone at the second randomization, and toxic effects. RESULTS: A total of 442 of the 449 patients (232 men; median age, 63.3 years) enrolled underwent the first randomization. Of these, 269 underwent the second randomization. Interim analysis was performed when 221 patients died (109 in the chemoradiotherapy group and 112 in the chemotherapy group), reaching the early stopping boundaries for futility. With a median follow-up of 36.7 months, the median overall survival from the date of the first randomization was not significantly different between chemotherapy at 16.5 months (95% CI, 14.5-18.5 months) and chemoradiotherapy at 15.2 months (95% CI, 13.9-17.3 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.79-1.34; P = .83). Median overall survival from the date of the first randomization for the 223 patients receiving gemcitabine was 13.6 months (95% CI, 12.3-15.3 months) and was 11.9 months (95% CI, 10.4-13.5 months) for the 219 patients receiving gemcitabine plus erlotinib (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97-1.45; P = .09; 188 deaths vs 191 deaths). Chemoradiotherapy was associated with decreased local progression (32% vs 46%, P = .03) and no increase in grade 3 to 4 toxicity, except for nausea. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this open-label, randomized trial involving patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer with disease controlled after 4 months of induction chemotherapy, there was no significant difference in overall survival with chemoradiotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone and there was no significant difference in overall survival with gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine plus erlotinib used as maintenance therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00634725.

Tetrahydro Iso-Alpha Acids and Hexahydro Iso-Alpha Acids from Hops Inhibit Proliferation of Human Hepatocarcinoma Cell Lines and Reduce Diethylnitrosamine Induced Liver Tumor Formation in Rats.

Chronic inflammation plays important role in the pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). To date, no antiinflammatory approach has shown its efficacy in preventing HCC occurrence in humans. Because tetra- and hexahydro isoalpha acids (THIAA and HHIAA) from hops elicit antiinflammatory properties, we evaluated these compounds for antitumor effects in vitro in human HCC cell lines (HepG2, Hep3B, Huh7) and in vivo in diethylnitrosamine (DEN)-induced animal model of HCC. In human HCC cell lines, THIAA and HHIAA reduced cell proliferation and viability which was associated with the inhibition of the NF-κB-DNA binding and tumor necrosis factor α mRNA expression. Both compounds also inhibited phosphorylation of the mTOR effector p70S6 kinase without affecting ERK, AKT, JNK, and GSK3ß phosphorylation or activator protein-1 activation. In DEN-treated rats, administration of THIAA and HHIAA in food reduced the tumor numbers and the expression of the cellular transformation marker glutathione-S-transferase in the liver. In conclusion, THIAA and HHIAA show antitumor properties in vitro in human HCC cell lines as well as in vivo in a chemically induced animal model of HCC.