Platelet Transfusion before CVC Placement in Patients with Thrombocytopenia.

BACKGROUND: Transfusion guidelines regarding platelet-count thresholds before the placement of a central venous catheter (CVC) offer conflicting recommendations because of a lack of good-quality evidence. The routine use of ultrasound guidance has decreased CVC-related bleeding complications. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned patients with severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count, 10,000 to 50,000 per cubic millimeter) who were being treated on the hematology ward or in the intensive care unit to receive either one unit of prophylactic platelet transfusion or no platelet transfusion before ultrasound-guided CVC placement. The primary outcome was catheter-related bleeding of grade 2 to 4; a key secondary outcome was grade 3 or 4 bleeding. The noninferiority margin was an upper boundary of the 90% confidence interval of 3.5 for the relative risk. RESULTS: We included 373 episodes of CVC placement involving 338 patients in the per-protocol primary analysis. Catheter-related bleeding of grade 2 to 4 occurred in 9 of 188 patients (4.8%) in the transfusion group and in 22 of 185 patients (11.9%) in the no-transfusion group (relative risk, 2.45; 90% confidence interval [CI], 1.27 to 4.70). Catheter-related bleeding of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 4 of 188 patients (2.1%) in the transfusion group and in 9 of 185 patients (4.9%) in the no-transfusion group (relative risk, 2.43; 95% CI, 0.75 to 7.93). A total of 15 adverse events were observed; of these events, 13 (all grade 3 catheter-related bleeding [4 in the transfusion group and 9 in the no-transfusion group]) were categorized as serious. The net savings of withholding prophylactic platelet transfusion before CVC placement was $410 per catheter placement. CONCLUSIONS: The withholding of prophylactic platelet transfusion before CVC placement in patients with a platelet count of 10,000 to 50,000 per cubic millimeter did not meet the predefined margin for noninferiority and resulted in more CVC-related bleeding events than prophylactic platelet transfusion. (Funded by ZonMw; PACER Dutch Trial Register number, NL5534.).

First-line systemic treatment strategies in patients with initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases (CAIRO5): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study from the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group.

BACKGROUND: Patients with initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases might qualify for local treatment with curative intent after reducing the tumour size by induction systemic treatment. We aimed to compare the currently most active induction regimens. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 study (CAIRO5), patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, known RAS/BRAFV600E mutation status, WHO performance status of 0-1, and initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases were enrolled at 46 Dutch and one Belgian secondary and tertiary centres. Resectability or unresectability of colorectal cancer liver metastases was assessed centrally by an expert panel of liver surgeons and radiologists, at baseline and every 2 months thereafter by predefined criteria. Randomisation was done centrally with the minimisation technique via a masked web-based allocation procedure. Patients with right-sided primary tumour site or RAS or BRAFV600E mutated tumours were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (group A) or FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (group B). Patients with left-sided and RAS and BRAFV600E wild-type tumours were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (group C) or FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus panitumumab (group D), every 14 days for up to 12 cycles. Patients were stratified by resectability of colorectal cancer liver metastases, serum lactate dehydrogenase concentration, choice of irinotecan versus oxaliplatin, and BRAFV600E mutation status (for groups A and B). Bevacizumab was administered intravenously at 5 mg/kg. Panitumumab was administered intravenously at 6 mg/kg. FOLFIRI consisted of intravenous infusion of irinotecan at 180 mg/m2 with folinic acid at 400 mg/m2, followed by bolus fluorouracil at 400 mg/m2 intravenously, followed by continuous infusion of fluorouracil at 2400 mg/m2. FOLFOX consisted of oxaliplatin at 85 mg/m2 intravenously together with the same schedule of folinic acid and fluorouracil as in FOLFIRI. FOLFOXIRI consisted of irinotecan at 165 mg/m2 intravenously, followed by intravenous infusion of oxaliplatin at 85 mg/m2 with folinic acid at 400 mg/m2, followed by continuous infusion of fluorouracil at 3200 mg/m2. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was progression-free survival, analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis, excluding patients who withdrew consent before starting study treatment or violated major entry criteria (no metastatic colorectal cancer, or previous liver surgery for colorectal cancer liver metastases). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02162563, and accrual is complete. FINDINGS: Between Nov 13, 2014, and Jan 31, 2022, 530 patients (327 [62%] male and 203 [38%] female; median age 62 years [IQR 54-69]) were randomly assigned: 148 (28%) patients to group A, 146 (28%) patients to group B, 118 (22%) patients to group C, and 118 (22%) patients to group D. Groups C and D were prematurely closed for futility. 521 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (147 in group A, 144 in group B, 114 in group C, and 116 in group D). The median follow-up at the time of this analysis was 51·1 months (95% CI 47·7-53·1) in groups A and B and 49·9 months (44·5-52·5) in in groups C and D. Median progression-free survival was 9·0 months (95% CI 7·7-10·5) in group A versus 10·6 months (9·9-12·1) in group B (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·76 [95% CI 0·60-0·98]; p=0·032), and 10·8 months (95% CI 9·9-12·6) in group C versus 10·4 months (9·8-13·0) in group D (stratified HR 1·11 [95% CI 0·84-1·48]; p=0·46). The most frequent grade 3-4 events in groups A and B were neutropenia (19 [13%] patients in group A vs 57 [40%] in group B; p<0·0001), hypertension (21 [14%] vs 20 [14%]; p=1·00), and diarrhoea (five [3%] vs 28 [19%]; p<0·0001), and in groups C and D were neutropenia (29 [25%] vs 24 [21%]; p=0·44), skin toxicity (one [1%] vs 29 [25%]; p<0·0001), hypertension (20 [18%] vs eight [7%]; p=0·016), and diarrhoea (five [4%] vs 18 [16%]; p=0·0072). Serious adverse events occurred in 46 (31%) patients in group A, 75 (52%) patients in group B, 41 (36%) patients in group C, and 49 (42%) patients in group D. Seven treatment-related deaths were reported in group B (two due to multiorgan failure, and one each due to sepsis, pneumonia, portal vein thrombosis, septic shock and liver failure, and sudden death), one in group C (multiorgan failure), and three in group D (cardiac arrest, pulmonary embolism, and abdominal sepsis). INTERPRETATION: In patients with initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases, FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab was the preferred treatment in patients with a right-sided or RAS or BRAFV600E mutated primary tumour. In patients with a left-sided and RAS and BRAFV600E wild-type tumour, the addition of panitumumab to FOLFOX or FOLFIRI showed no clinical benefit over bevacizumab, but was associated with more toxicity. FUNDING: Roche and Amgen.

Efficacy, safety and biomarker analysis of durvalumab in patients with mismatch-repair deficient or microsatellite instability-high solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: In this study we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab across various mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumours in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP). This is a clinical study in which patients are treated with drugs outside their labeled indication, based on their tumour molecular profile. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours who had exhausted all standard of care options were eligible. Patients were treated with durvalumab. The primary endpoints were clinical benefit ((CB): objective response (OR) or stable disease ≥16 weeks) and safety. Patients were enrolled using a Simon like 2-stage model, with 8 patients in stage 1, up to 24 patients in stage 2 if at least 1/8 patients had CB in stage 1. At baseline, fresh frozen biopsies were obtained for biomarker analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with 10 different cancer types were included. Two patients (2/26, 8%) were considered as non-evaluable for the primary endpoint. CB was observed in 13 patients (13/26, 50%) with an OR in 7 patients (7/26, 27%). The remaining 11 patients (11/26, 42%) had progressive disease. Median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 5 months (95% CI, 2-not reached) and 14 months (95% CI, 5-not reached), respectively. No unexpected toxicity was observed. We found a significantly higher structural variant (SV) burden in patients without CB. Additionally, we observed a significant enrichment of JAK1 frameshift mutations and a significantly lower IFN-γ expression in patients without CB. CONCLUSION: Durvalumab was generally well-tolerated and provided durable responses in pre-treated patients with dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours. High SV burden, JAK1 frameshift mutations and low IFN-γ expression were associated with a lack of CB; this provides a rationale for larger studies to validate these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration: NCT02925234. First registration date: 05/10/2016.

Survival of patients with deficient mismatch repair metastatic colorectal cancer in the pre-immunotherapy era.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic colorectal cancer patients with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR mCRC) benefit from immunotherapy. Interpretation of the single-arm immunotherapy trials is complicated by insignificant survival data during systemic non-immunotherapy. We present survival data on a large, comprehensive cohort of dMMR mCRC patients, treated with or without systemic non-immunotherapy. METHODS: Two hundred and eighty-one dMMR mCRC patients (n = 54 from three prospective Phase 3 CAIRO trials; n = 227 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry). Overall survival was analysed from diagnosis of mCRC (OS), from initiation of first-line (OS1) and second-line (OS2) systemic treatment. Cox regression analysis examined prognostic factors. As comparison for OS 2746 MMR proficient mCRC patients were identified. RESULTS: Of 281 dMMR patients, 62% received first-line and 26% second-line treatment. Median OS was 16.0 months (13.8-19.6) with antitumour therapy and 2.5 months (1.8-3.5) in untreated patients. OS1 was 12.8 months (10.7-15.2) and OS2 6.2 months (5.4-8.9) in treated dMMR patients. Treated dMMR patients had a 7.6-month shorter median OS than pMMR patients. CONCLUSION: Available data from immunotherapy trials lack a control arm with standard systemic treatment. Given the poor outcome compared to the immunotherapy results, our data strongly suggest a survival benefit of immunotherapy in dMMR mCRC patients.

MYD88 mutations identify a molecular subgroup of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with an unfavorable prognosis.

The 2016 World Health Organization classification defines diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) subtypes based on Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection and oncogenic rearrangements of MYC/BCL2/BCL6 as drivers of lymphomagenesis. A subset of DLBCL, however, is characterized by activating mutations in MYD88/CD79B We investigated whether MYD88/CD79B mutations could improve the classification and prognostication of DLBCL. In 250 primary DLBCL, MYD88/CD79B mutations were identified by allele-specific polymerase chain reaction or next-generation-sequencing, MYC/BCL2/BCL6 rearrangements were analyzed by fluorescence in situ hybridization, and EBV was studied by EBV-encoded RNA in situ hybridization. Associations of molecular features with clinicopathologic characteristics, outcome, and prognosis according to the International Prognostic Index (IPI) were investigated. MYD88 and CD79B mutations were identified in 29.6% and 12.3%, MYC, BCL2, and BCL6 rearrangements in 10.6%, 13.6%, and 20.3%, and EBV in 11.7% of DLBCL, respectively. Prominent mutual exclusivity between EBV positivity, rearrangements, and MYD88/CD79B mutations established the value of molecular markers for the recognition of biologically distinct DLBCL subtypes. MYD88-mutated DLBCL had a significantly inferior 5-year overall survival than wild-type MYD88 DLBCL (log-rank; P=0.019). DLBCL without any of the studied aberrations had superior overall survival compared to cases carrying ≥1 aberrancy (log-rank; P=0.010). MYD88 mutations retained their adverse prognostic impact upon adjustment for other genetic and clinical variables by multivariable analysis and improved the prognostic performance of the IPI. This study demonstrates the clinical utility of defining MYD88-mutated DLBCL as a distinct molecular subtype with adverse prognosis. Our data call for sequence analysis of MYD88 in routine diagnostics of DLBCL to optimize classification and prognostication, and to guide the development of improved treatment strategies.

Prognostic parameters for response to enzalutamide after docetaxel and abiraterone treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients; a possible time relation.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone Acetate (AA) and Enzalutamide (Enz) are effective hormonal treatments in mCRPC patients. Retrospective studies suggested clinical cross-resistance between Enz and AA. However, 12.8-39.1% of patients previously treated with docetaxel (Doc) and AA do respond to Enz. These responders have not been characterized. METHODS: 102 Enz treated mCRPC patients after AA and Doc treatment were included in this study. Differences in patient characteristics and previous treatment outcomes between PSA responders and non-responders on Enz were evaluated. RESULTS: Median Progression-Free Survival was 12.2 weeks (95%CI 11.7-14.3) and Overall Survival 43.5 weeks (95%CI 37.4-61.2). There were 26 (25%) Enz-responders and 76 (75%) non-responders. Significant higher percentages of Gleason scores ≥ 8 and PSA doubling times (PSA-DT) <3 months were found in Enz responders than in non-responders. The interval between end of AA and start of Enz treatment (IAE) for responders was 24.6 weeks (IQR 4.0-48.1) and 8.9 weeks for non-responders (IQR 3.7-25.9) (P = 0.08). In an IAE <40 days subgroup (34 patients), Enz responses were related to AA non-responsiveness, while univariate and logistic regression analysis of baseline criteria of a subgroup of patients with an IAE ≥ 40 (68 patients) revealed significant differences in baseline PSA levels, PSA-DT <3 months, Gleason scores ≥ 8 and IAE's between Enz responders and non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: PSA response to Enz after previous AA and Doc treatment was associated with a longer IAE, a higher Gleason score and a PSA-DT <3 months. Identification of these patients might be of value for sequencing of treatment options.

Enzalutamide as a Fourth- or Fifth-Line Treatment Option for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of enzalutamide (Enz) as fourth- or fifth-line treatment in men with metastasized castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), by analyzing a retrospective cohort of heavily pretreated patients. METHODS: We evaluated toxicity, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression data from 47 CRPC patients treated with fourth- or fifth-line Enz. RESULTS: All patients were treated with docetaxel and abiraterone acetate and 42 patients (89%) with cabazitaxel. The median age of the patients was 69 years (IQR, 63-73.5), 79% had bone metastases, 55% had lymph node metastases, and 17% had visceral metastases. The median duration of Enz treatment was 12.0 weeks (IQR, 8.3-20.4), and 11 patients (23%) responded to Enz (maximum PSA decline ≥50%). In general, Enz was well tolerated, with the most frequently reported adverse events being fatigue and nausea. The median OS was 40.1 weeks (95% CI, 25.4-61.4), the median PFS was 12.1 weeks (95% CI, 9.9-14.0) and the median time to PSA progression was 15.7 weeks (95% CI, 14.0-28.7). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of this retrospective cohort suggests that Enz is well tolerated and that there is a 23% response rate in heavily pretreated CRPC patients, which is comparable with third-line treatment outcomes.

Clinical activity and tolerability of enzalutamide (MDV3100) in patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer who progress after docetaxel and abiraterone treatment.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide (Enz) and abiraterone acetate (AA) are hormone treatments that have a proven survival advantage in patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer who previously received docetaxel (Doc). Recently, limited activity of AA after Enz and of Enz after AA was demonstrated in small cohort studies. Here, the authors present the activity and tolerability of Enz in patients who previously received AA and Doc in the largest cohort to date. METHODS: The efficacy and tolerability of Enz were investigated in men with progressive, metastatic, castrate-resistant prostate cancer who previously received Doc and AA. Toxicity, progression-free survival, time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, and overall survival were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were included in the analysis. The median age was 69 years (interquartile range [IQR], 64-74 years), 57 patients (93%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status from 0 to 2, 48 patients (79%) had bone metastases, 33 patients (54%) had lymph node metastases, and 13 patients (21%) had visceral metastases. The median duration of Enz treatment was 14.9 weeks (IQR, 11.1-20.0 weeks), and 13 patients (21%) had a maximum PSA decline ≥50%. The median progression-free survival was 12.0 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.1-16.0 weeks), the median time to PSA progression was 17.4 weeks (95% CI, >16.0 weeks), and the median overall survival was 31.6 weeks (95% CI, >28.7 weeks). Enz was well tolerated, and fatigue and musculoskeletal pain were the most frequent grade ≥2 adverse events. The PSA response to Doc and AA did not predict the PSA response to Enz. CONCLUSIONS: Enz has modest clinical activity in patients with metastatic, castrate-resistant prostate cancer who previously received Doc and AA. PSA response to Doc and AA does not predict for PSA response to ENz.

Trastuzumab plus pertuzumab for HER2-amplified advanced colorectal cancer: Results from the drug rediscovery protocol (DRUP).

BACKGROUND: In 2-5% of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) is amplified or overexpressed. Despite prior evidence that anti-HER2 therapy confers clinical benefit (CB) in one-third of these patients, it is not approved for this indication in Europe. In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), patients are treated with off-label drugs based on their molecular profile. Here, we present the results of the cohort 'trastuzumab/pertuzumab for treatment-refractory patients with RAS/BRAF-wild-type HER2amplified metastatic CRC (HER2+mCRC)'. METHODS: Patients with progressive treatment-refractory RAS/BRAF-wild-type HER2+mCRC with measurable disease were included for trastuzumab plus pertuzumab treatment. Primary endpoints of DRUP are CB (defined as confirmed objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) ≥ 16 weeks) and safety. Patients were enrolled using a Simon-like 2-stage model, with 8 patients in stage 1 and 24 patients in stage 2 if at least 1/8 patients had CB. To identify biomarkers for response, whole genome sequencing (WGS) was performed on pre-treatment biopsies. RESULTS: CB was observed in 11/24 evaluable patients (46%) with HER2+mCRC, seven patients achieved an OR (29%). Median duration of response was 8.4 months. Patients had undergone a median of 3 prior treatment lines. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.3 months (95% CI 1.9-10.3) and 8.2 months (95% CI 7.2-14.7), respectively. No unexpected toxicities were observed. WGS provided potential explanations for resistance in 3/10 patients without CB, for whom WGS was available. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study confirm a clinically significant benefit of trastuzumab plus pertuzumab treatment in patients with HER2+mCRC.

Patients with Rare Cancers in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP) Benefit from Genomics-Guided Treatment.

PURPOSE: Patients with rare cancers (incidence less than 6 cases per 100,000 persons per year) commonly have less treatment opportunities and are understudied at the level of genomic targets. We hypothesized that patients with rare cancer benefit from approved anticancer drugs outside their label similar to common cancers. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), patients with therapy-refractory metastatic cancers harboring an actionable molecular profile are matched to FDA/European Medicines Agency-approved targeted therapy or immunotherapy. Patients are enrolled in parallel cohorts based on the histologic tumor type, molecular profile and study drug. Primary endpoint is clinical benefit (complete response, partial response, stable disease ≥ 16 weeks). RESULTS: Of 1,145 submitted cases, 500 patients, including 164 patients with rare cancers, started one of the 25 available drugs and were evaluable for treatment outcome. The overall clinical benefit rate was 33% in both the rare cancer and nonrare cancer subgroup. Inactivating alterations of CDKN2A and activating BRAF aberrations were overrepresented in patients with rare cancer compared with nonrare cancers, resulting in more matches to CDK4/6 inhibitors (14% vs. 4%; P ≤ 0.001) or BRAF inhibitors (9% vs. 1%; P ≤ 0.001). Patients with rare cancer treated with small-molecule inhibitors targeting BRAF experienced higher rates of clinical benefit (75%) than the nonrare cancer subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive molecular testing in patients with rare cancers may identify treatment opportunities and clinical benefit similar to patients with common cancers. Our findings highlight the importance of access to broad molecular diagnostics to ensure equal treatment opportunities for all patients with cancer.

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus Upfront Surgery for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Long-Term Results of the Dutch Randomized PREOPANC Trial.

PURPOSE: The benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. Initial results of the PREOPANC trial failed to demonstrate a statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. The long-term results are reported. METHODS: In this multicenter, phase III trial, patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or upfront surgery in 16 Dutch centers. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy consisted of three cycles of gemcitabine combined with 36 Gy radiotherapy in 15 fractions during the second cycle. After restaging, patients underwent surgery followed by four cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine. Patients in the upfront surgery group underwent surgery followed by six cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine. The primary outcome was OS by intention-to-treat. No safety data were collected beyond the initial report of the trial. RESULTS: Between April 24, 2013, and July 25, 2017, 246 eligible patients were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n = 119) and upfront surgery (n = 127). At a median follow-up of 59 months, the OS was better in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group than in the upfront surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.96; P = .025). Although the difference in median survival was only 1.4 months (15.7 months v 14.3 months), the 5-year OS rate was 20.5% (95% CI, 14.2 to 29.8) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 6.5% (95% CI, 3.1 to 13.7) with upfront surgery. The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was consistent across the prespecified subgroups, including resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine improves OS compared with upfront surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

Treatment strategies and clinical outcomes in consecutive patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer: A multicenter prospective cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Since current studies on locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) mainly report from single, high-volume centers, it is unclear if outcomes can be translated to daily clinical practice. This study provides treatment strategies and clinical outcomes within a multicenter cohort of unselected patients with LAPC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with LAPC according to Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group criteria, were prospectively included in 14 centers from April 2015 until December 2017. A centralized expert panel reviewed response according to RECIST v1.1 and potential surgical resectability. Primary outcome was median overall survival (mOS), stratified for primary treatment strategy. RESULTS: Overall, 422 patients were included, of whom 77% (n = 326) received chemotherapy. The majority started with FOLFIRINOX (77%, 252/326) with a median of six cycles (IQR 4-10). Gemcitabine monotherapy was given to 13% (41/326) of patients and nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine to 10% (33/326), with a median of two (IQR 3-5) and three (IQR 3-5) cycles respectively. The mOS of the entire cohort was 10 months (95%CI 9-11). In patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine monotherapy, or nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine, mOS was 14 (95%CI 13-15), 9 (95%CI 8-10), and 9 months (95%CI 8-10), respectively. A resection was performed in 13% (32/252) of patients after FOLFIRINOX, resulting in a mOS of 23 months (95%CI 12-34). CONCLUSION: This multicenter unselected cohort of patients with LAPC resulted in a 14 month mOS and a 13% resection rate after FOLFIRINOX. These data put previous results in perspective, enable us to inform patients with more accurate survival numbers and will support decision-making in clinical practice.

Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy Versus Immediate Surgery for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Results of the Dutch Randomized Phase III PREOPANC Trial.

PURPOSE: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy may improve the radical resection rate for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, but the overall benefit is unproven. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized phase III trial in 16 centers, patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned to receive preoperative chemoradiotherapy, which consisted of 3 courses of gemcitabine, the second combined with 15 × 2.4 Gy radiotherapy, followed by surgery and 4 courses of adjuvant gemcitabine or to immediate surgery and 6 courses of adjuvant gemcitabine. The primary end point was overall survival by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between April 2013 and July 2017, 246 eligible patients were randomly assigned; 119 were assigned to preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 127 to immediate surgery. Median overall survival by intention to treat was 16.0 months with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 14.3 months with immediate surgery (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.05; P = .096). The resection rate was 61% and 72% (P = .058). The R0 resection rate was 71% (51 of 72) in patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 40% (37 of 92) in patients assigned to immediate surgery (P < .001). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was associated with significantly better disease-free survival and locoregional failure-free interval as well as with significantly lower rates of pathologic lymph nodes, perineural invasion, and venous invasion. Survival analysis of patients who underwent tumor resection and started adjuvant chemotherapy showed improved survival with preoperative chemoradiotherapy (35.2 v 19.8 months; P = .029). The proportion of patients who suffered serious adverse events was 52% versus 41% (P = .096). CONCLUSION: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer did not show a significant overall survival benefit. Although the outcomes of the secondary end points and predefined subgroup analyses suggest an advantage of the neoadjuvant approach, additional evidence is required.