Translating knowledge into policy: Organizational model and minimum requirements for the implementation of a regional pancreas unit network.

Pancreatic and periampullary cancers pose significant challenges in oncological care due to their complexity and diagnostic difficulties. Global experiences underscore the crucial role of multidisciplinary collaboration and centralized care in improving patient outcomes in this context. Recognizing these challenges, Lombardy, Italy's most populous region, embarked on establishing pancreas units across its territory to enhance clinical outcomes and organizational efficiency. This initiative, driven by a multistakeholder approach involving the Lombardy Welfare Directorate, clinicians, and a patient association, emphasizes the centralization of complex care in high-volume hospitals, adopting a hub-and-spoke model and a multidisciplinary approach. This article outlines the process and criteria set forth for pancreas unit implementation, aiming to provide a structured framework for enhancing pancreatic cancer care. Central to this initiative is the establishment of structured criteria and minimal requirements, not only for surgery but also for other essential components of care, ensuring a comprehensive approach to pancreatic cancer management. The Lombardy model offers a structured framework for enhancing pancreatic cancer care, with potential applicability to other regions and countries seeking to improve their cancer care infrastructure.

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy or ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (CheckMate 648): 29-month follow-up from a randomized, open-label, phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab both demonstrated significant overall survival (OS) benefit versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the CheckMate 648 trial, leading to approvals of both nivolumab-containing regimens in many countries. We report longer-term follow-up data. METHODS: This open-label, phase III trial (NCT03143153) enrolled adults with previously untreated, unresectable, advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Hierarchical testing was performed first in patients with tumor cell programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of ≥1% and then in the overall population. RESULTS: A total of 970 patients were randomly assigned. After 29 months of minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate improvement in OS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.46-0.76]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.65-0.93]) and with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.48-0.80]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.65-0.92]). In patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated PFS benefit versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.51-0.89]); PFS benefit was not observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 1.04 [95% CI: 0.79-1.36]). Among all treated patients (n = 936), Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 151 (49%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy), 105 (32%, nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and 110 (36%, chemotherapy) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful OS benefit versus chemotherapy with no new safety signals identified with longer follow-up, further supporting use as first-line standard treatment options for patients with advanced ESCC.

A phase II/III randomized clinical trial of CisPlatin plUs Gemcitabine and Nabpaclitaxel (GAP) as pReoperative chemotherapy versus immediate resection in patIents with resecTable BiliarY Tract Cancers (BTC) at high risk for recurrence: PURITY study.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are rare and lethal cancers, with a 5-year survival inferior to 20%(1-3). The only potential curative treatment is surgical resection. However, despite complex surgical procedures that have a remarkable risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality, the 5-year survival rate after radical surgery (R0) is 20-40% and recurrence rates are up to ~ 75%(4-6). Up to ~ 40% of patients relapse within 12 months after resection, and half of these patient will recur systemically(4-6). There is no standard of care for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in resectable BTC, but retrospective reports suggest its potential benefit (7, 8). METHODS: PURITY is a no-profit, multicentre, randomized phase II/III trial aimed at evaluating the efficacy of the combination of gemcitabine, cisplatin and nabpaclitaxel (GAP) as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable BTC at high risk for recurrence. Primary objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of neoadjuvant GAP followed by surgery as compared to upfront surgery, in terms of 12-month progression-free survival for the phase II part and of progression free survival (PFS) for the phase III study. Key Secondary objectives are event free survival (EFS), relapse-free survival, (RFS), overall survival (OS), R0/R1/R2 resection rate, quality of life (QoL), overall response rate (ORR), resectability. Safety analyses will include toxicity rate and perioperative morbidity and mortality rate. Exploratory studies including Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) in archival tumor tissues and longitudinal ctDNA analysis are planned to identify potential biomarkers of primary resistance and prognosis. DISCUSSION: Considering the poor prognosis of resected BTC experiencing early tumor recurrence and the negative prognostic impact of R1/R2 resections, PURITY study is based on the rationale that NAC may improve R0 resection rates and ultimately patients' outcomes. Furthermore, NAC should allow early eradication of microscopic distant metastases, undetectable by imaging but already present at the time of diagnosis and avoid mortality and morbidity associated with resection for patients with rapid progression or worsening general condition during neoadjuvant therapy. The randomized PURITY study will evaluate whether patients affected by BTC at high risk from recurrence benefit from a neoadjuvant therapy with GAP regimen as compared to immediate surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PURITY is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06037980) and EuCT(2023-503295-25-00).

International consensus on the management of metastatic gastric cancer: step by step in the foggy landscape : Bertinoro Workshop, November 2022.

BACKGROUND: Many gastric cancer patients in Western countries are diagnosed as metastatic with a median overall survival of less than twelve months using standard chemotherapy. Innovative treatments, like targeted therapy or immunotherapy, have recently proved to ameliorate prognosis, but a general agreement on managing oligometastatic disease has yet to be achieved. An international multi-disciplinary workshop was held in Bertinoro, Italy, in November 2022 to verify whether achieving a consensus on at least some topics was possible. METHODS: A two-round Delphi process was carried out, where participants were asked to answer 32 multiple-choice questions about CT, laparoscopic staging and biomarkers, systemic treatment for different localization, role and indication of palliative care. Consensus was established with at least a 67% agreement. RESULTS: The assembly agreed to define oligometastases as a "dynamic" disease which either regresses or remains stable in response to systemic treatment. In addition, the definition of oligometastases was restricted to the following sites: para-aortic nodal stations, liver, lung, and peritoneum, excluding bones. In detail, the following conditions should be considered as oligometastases: involvement of para-aortic stations, in particular 16a2 or 16b1; up to three technically resectable liver metastases; three unilateral or two bilateral lung metastases; peritoneal carcinomatosis with PCI ≤ 6. No consensus was achieved on how to classify positive cytology, which was considered as oligometastatic by 55% of participants only if converted to negative after chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: As assessed at the time of diagnosis, surgical treatment of oligometastases should aim at R0 curativity on the entire disease volume, including both the primary tumor and its metastases. Conversion surgery was defined as surgery on the residual volume of disease, which was initially not resectable for technical and/or oncological reasons but nevertheless responded to first-line treatment.

Rivoceranib, a VEGFR-2 inhibitor, monotherapy in previously treated patients with advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (ANGEL study): an international, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Rivoceranib is an oral, selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2. ANGEL (NCT03042611) was a global, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study evaluating rivoceranib as 3rd-line or ≥4th-line therapy in patients with advanced/metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. METHODS: Patients had failed ≥2 lines of chemotherapy and were randomized 2:1 to rivoceranib 700 mg once daily or placebo with best supportive care. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints: progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) by blinded independent central review (BICR). RESULTS: In total, 460 patients (rivoceranib n = 308, placebo n = 152) were enrolled. OS was not statistically different for rivoceranib versus placebo (median 5.78 vs. 5.13 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.74-1.15; p = 0.4724). PFS by BICR (median 2.83 vs. 1.77 months; HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47-0.71; p < 0.0001), ORR (6.5% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.0119), and DCR (40.3 vs. 13.2%; p < 0.0001) were improved with rivoceranib versus placebo. In patients receiving ≥4th-line therapy, OS (median 6.34 vs. 4.73 months; p = 0.0192) and PFS by BICR (median 3.52 vs. 1.71 months; p < 0.0001) were improved with rivoceranib versus placebo. The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events with rivoceranib were hypertension (17.9%), anemia (10.4%), aspartate aminotransferase increased (9.4%), asthenia (8.5%), and proteinuria (7.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not meet its primary OS endpoint. Compared to placebo, rivoceranib improved PFS, ORR, and DCR. Rivoceranib also improved OS in a prespecified patient subgroup receiving ≥4th-line therapy.

NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and Gemcitabine With Nab-Paclitaxel as First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NABP) as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Analyses comparing NALIRIFOX and GEM-NABP with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) have not yet been reported. Objective: To derive survival, response, and toxic effects data from phase 3 clinical trials and compare NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and GEM-NABP. Data Sources: After a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings' libraries, Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted from phase 3 clinical trials conducted from January 1, 2011, until September 12, 2023. Study Selection: Phase 3 clinical trials that tested NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, or GEM-NABP as first-line treatment of metastatic PDAC and reported overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were selected. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Individual Participant Data reporting guidelines. Data Extraction And Synthesis: Individual patient OS and PFS data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots of original trials via a graphic reconstructive algorithm. Overall response rates (ORRs) and grade 3 or higher toxic effects rates were also collected. A pooled analysis was conducted, and results were validated via a network meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was OS. Secondary outcomes included PFS, ORR, and toxic effects rates. Results: A total of 7 trials with data on 2581 patients were analyzed, including 383 patients treated with NALIRIFOX, 433 patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, and 1756 patients treated with GEM-NABP. Median PFS was longer in patients treated with NALIRIFOX (7.4 [95% CI, 6.1-7.7] months) or FOLFIRINOX (7.3 [95% CI, 6.5-7.9] months; [HR], 1.21 [95% CI, 0.86-1.70]; P = .28) compared with patients treated with GEM-NABP (5.7 [95% CI, 5.6-6.1] months; HR vs NALIRIFOX, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.22-1.73]; P < .001). Similarly, GEM-NABP was associated with poorer OS (10.4 [95% CI, 9.8-10.8]; months) compared with NALIRIFOX (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.39]; P = .05], while no difference was observed between FOLFIRINOX (11.7 [95% CI, 10.4-13.0] months) and NALIRIFOX (11.1 [95% CI, 10.1-12.3] months; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.81-1.39]; P = .65). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR among NALIRIFOX (41.8%), FOLFIRINOX (31.6%), and GEM-NABP (35.0%). NALIRIFOX was associated with lower incidence of grade 3 or higher hematological toxic effects (eg, platelet count decreased 1.6% vs 11.8% with FOLFIRINOX and 10.8% with GEM-NABP), but higher rates of severe diarrhea compared with GEM-NABP (20.3% vs 15.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX were associated with similar PFS and OS as first-line treatment of advanced PDAC, although NALIRIFOX was associated with a different toxicity profile. Careful patient selection, financial toxic effects consideration, and direct comparison between FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX are warranted.