Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus upfront surgery for resectable pancreatic head cancer (NORPACT-1): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing resection for pancreatic cancer, adjuvant modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) improves overall survival compared with alternative chemotherapy regimens. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX with the standard strategy of upfront surgery in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: NORPACT-1 was a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial done in 12 hospitals in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and had a resectable tumour of the pancreatic head radiologically strongly suspected to be pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (3:2 before October, 2018, and 1:1 after) to the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group or upfront surgery group. Patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group received four neoadjuvant cycles of FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus then 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle), followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients in the upfront surgery group underwent surgery and then received adjuvant chemotherapy. Initially, adjuvant chemotherapy was gemcitabine plus capecitabine (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 over 30 min on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle and capecitabine 830 mg/m2 twice daily for 3 weeks with 1 week of rest in each 28-day cycle; four cycles in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group, six cycles in the upfront surgery group). A protocol amendment was subsequently made to permit use of adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle; eight cycles in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group, 12 cycles in the upfront surgery group). Randomisation was performed with a computerised algorithm that stratified for each participating centre and used a concealed block size of two to six. Patients, investigators, and study team members were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 18 months. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol populations. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one cycle of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02919787, and EudraCT, 2015-001635-21, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2017, and April 21, 2021, 77 patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and 63 to undergo upfront surgery. All patients were included in the ITT analysis. For the per-protocol analysis, 17 (22%) patients were excluded from the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group (ten did not receive neoadjuvant therapy, four did not have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and three received another neoadjuvant regimen), and eight (13%) were excluded from the upfront surgery group (seven did not have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and one did not undergo surgical exploration). 61 (79%) of 77 patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group received neoadjuvant therapy. The proportion of patients alive at 18 months by ITT was 60% (95% CI 49-71) in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group versus 73% (62-84) in the upfront surgery group (p=0·032), and median overall survival by ITT was 25·1 months (95% CI 17·2-34·9) versus 38·5 months (27·6-not reached; hazard ratio [HR] 1·52 [95% CI 1·00-2·33], log-rank p=0·050). The proportion of patients alive at 18 months in per-protocol analysis was 57% (95% CI 46-67) in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group versus 70% (55-83) in the upfront surgery group (p=0·14), and median overall survival in per-protocol population was 23·0 months (95% CI 16·2-34·9) versus 34·4 months (19·4-not reached; HR 1·46 [95% CI 0·99-2·17], log-rank p=0·058). In the safety population, 42 (58%) of 73 patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 19 (40%) of 47 patients in the upfront surgery group had at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event. 63 (82%) of 77 patients in the neoadjuvant group and 56 (89%) of 63 patients in the upfront surgery group had resection (p=0·24). One sudden death of unknown cause and one COVID-19-related death occurred after the first cycle of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX. Adjuvant chemotherapy was initiated in 51 (86%) of 59 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 44 (90%) of 49 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the upfront surgery group (p=0·56). Adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX was given to 13 (25%) patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 19 (43%) patients in the upfront surgery group. During adjuvant chemotherapy, neutropenia (11 [22%] patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and five [11%] in the upfront surgery group) was the most common grade 3 or worse adverse event. INTERPRETATION: This phase 2 trial did not show a survival benefit from neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma compared with upfront surgery. Implementation of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX was challenging. Future trials on treatment sequencing in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma should be biomarker driven. FUNDING: Norwegian Cancer Society, South Eastern Norwegian Health Authority, The Sjöberg Foundation, and Helsinki University Hospital Research Grants.

SOULMATE: the Swedish study of liver transplantation for isolated colorectal cancer liver metastases not suitable for operation or ablation, compared to best established treatment-a randomized controlled multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Around one fourth of patients with colorectal cancer present themselves with distant metastases at the time of diagnosis, and one additional one fifth of the patients will develop distant metastases during the disease, most commonly in the liver. Surgical treatment such as liver resection or ablation, often combined with chemotherapy and targeted therapy, is the only treatment option with curative potential, but only about 20% of the patients with liver metastases are candidates for surgical intervention. Standard treatment for unresectable patients is palliative oncological therapy; however, less than 10% of these patients will achieve a 5-year survival. Non-randomized studies indicate that liver transplantation could be an option for selected patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), which are not suitable for operation or ablation due to surgical technical reasons such as massive tumor burden and small future liver remnant, or oncological reasons, for example, early relapse after liver surgery. Since there is a shortage of donated liver grafts, it is important to select the patient group that benefit most from the treatment. Although some studies present positive results from liver transplantation of CRLM, the results must be validated in a randomized controlled trial before this new indication for liver transplantation can be introduced as a clinical routine. METHODS: The SOULMATE study is a randomized study evaluating if liver transplantation with liver grafts, primarily from extended criteria donors, increases overall survival in patients with CRLM, not suitable for resection or ablation, in comparison with best established treatment. Patients will be randomized to liver transplantation (LT)+ best established treatment (BET) or to best established treatment only. In the SOULMATE trial, we will evaluate the use of livers from extended criteria donors to decrease the risk of prolonging waiting time for patients on the waiting list for LT. DISCUSSION: The SOULMATE study has the possibility to confirm the positive results of previous studies in a randomized setting. The use of extended criteria donors will make the results transferable globally, as most countries are struggling with organ shortage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial number: NCT04161092 registered 13 November 2019.

The dynamics of cell proliferation.

The article provides a mathematical description based on the theory of differential equations, for the proliferation of malignant cells (cancer). A model is developed which enables us to describe and predict the dynamics of cell proliferation much better than by using ordinary curve fitting procedures. By using differential equations the ability to foresee the dynamics of cell proliferation is in general much better than by using polynomial extrapolations. Complex time relations can be revealed. The mass of each living cell and the number of living cells are described as functions of time, accounting for each living cell's age since cell-birth. The linkage between micro-dynamics and the population dynamics is furnished by coupling the mass increase of each living cell up against the mitosis rate. A comparison is made by in vitro experiments with cancer cells exposed to digitoxin, a new promising anti-cancer drug. Theoretical results for the total number of cells (living or dead) is found to be in good agreement with experiments for the cell line considered, assuming different concentrations of digitoxin. It is shown that for the chosen cell line, the proliferation is halted by an increased time from birth to mitosis of the cells. The delay is probably connected with changes in the Ca concentration inside the cell. The enhanced time between the birth and mitosis of a cell leads effectively to smaller mitosis rates and thereby smaller proliferation rates. This mechanism is different from the earlier results on digitoxin for different cell lines where an increased rate of apoptosis was reported. But we find it reasonable that cell lines can react differently to digitoxin. A development from enhanced time between birth and mitosis to apoptosis can be furnished, dependent of the sensitivity of the cell lines. This mechanism is in general very different from the mechanism appealed to by standard chemotherapy and radiotherapy where the death ratios of the cells are mainly affected. Thus the analysis supports the view that a quite different mechanism is invoked when using digitoxin. This is important, since by appealing to different types of mechanism in parallel during cancer treatment, more selectivity in the targeting of benign versus malignant cells can be invoked. This increases the probability of successful treatment. The critical digitoxin level concentration, i.e. the concentration level where the number of living cells is not increasing, is approximately 50 ng/ml for the cell line we investigated in this article. Therapeutic plasma concentration of digitoxin when treating cardiac congestion is about 15-33 ng/ml, but individual tolerances are large. The effect of digitoxin during cancer treatment is therefore very promising. The dynamic model constitutes a new powerful tool, supported by empirics, describing the mechanism or process by which the number of malignant cells during anti-cancer treatment can be studied and reduced.