Intraductal Pancreatic Mucinous Neoplasms: A Tumor-Biology Based Approach for Risk Stratification.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is one of the most lethal human cancers. Its precursor lesions include pancreatic intra-epithelial neoplasia, mucinous cystic neoplasm, and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). IPMNs usually present as an incidental finding at imaging in 2.6% of the population and, according to the degree of dysplasia, they are classified as low- or high-grade lesions. Since the risk of malignant transformation is not accurately predictable, the management of these lesions is based on morphological and clinical parameters, such as presence of mural nodule, main pancreatic duct dilation, presence of symptoms, or high-grade dysplasia. Although the main genetic alterations associated to IPMNs have been elucidated, they are still not helpful for disease risk stratification. The growing body of genomic and epigenomic studies along with the more recent development of organotypic cultures provide the opportunity to improve our understanding of the malignant transformation process, which will likely deliver biomarkers to help discriminate between low- and high-risk lesions. Recent insights on the topic are herein summarized.

Germline pathogenic variants of cancer predisposition genes in a multicentre Italian cohort of pancreatic cancer patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Germline BRCA1-2 test is routinely recommended in Pancreatic Cancer (PC) patients, due to its clinical-epidemiological relevance. Data on the prevalence of germline pathogenic variants (gPV) in other cancer predisposition and DNA Damage Repair (DDR) system-related genes in unselected PC cases are sparce in Italy. We assessed this prevalence in a multicentre cohort, to derive recommendations for PC patients. METHODS: Clinical data of 1200 consecutive PC patients, of any age and stage, tested with a multigene germline panel were collected. A descriptive analysis of gPV frequency and clinical variables was performed both in 1092 patients tested for an 18 genes core-panel (CP-18 cohort) and in 869 patients screened only for CDKN2A. RESULTS: 11.5 % (126/1092) of CP-18 cohort patients harbored a gPV in ≥ 1 gene. Highest gPV frequencies were detected in ATM (3.1 %), BRCA2 (2.9 %), BRCA1 (1.6 %), CHEK2 (1.1 %). Patients harboring any CP-18 gene and BRCA1-2 gPV were younger and with a higher rate of personal (PH) or family history (FH) of cancer when compared to no gPV patients. The risk of having a gPV was ≥ 7 % in all subgroups of patients, including those aged > 73, with tumor stage I-III and negative FH/PH. CDKN2A gPV were detected in 2.6 % (23/869) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: A remarkable prevalence of gPV in cancer predisposition and DDR genes is reported in this large multicentre cohort of consecutive and unselected PC patients. Therefore, we recommend multigene germline testing (at least including BRCA1-2, ATM, CDKN2A, PALB2) for all PC patients, irrespective of age, stage, PH/FH.

Immunogenic Cell Death: An Emerging Target in Gastrointestinal Cancers.

Immunogenic cell death (ICD) is a regulated form of cell death that induces the activation of both innate and adaptive immune responses through the release of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) and their subsequent recognition by pattern-recognition receptors (PRRs), generating specific CD8+ T lymphocytes. Thus, ICD inducers (such as certain chemotherapeutic agents, targeted therapies, radiation, and oncolytic viruses) could become a potential cancer treatment by providing antitumour immunity and cancer vaccination. Moreover, their combination with immunotherapy, especially with immune checkpoint inhibitors, could overcome the immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment that characterises certain cancers, including gastrointestinal cancers. This review will provide insights into the role of ICD induction in colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, and hepatocellular carcinomas. Specifically, we will discuss the main mechanisms involved in ICD, their potential application in gastrointestinal cancer treatment, and the latest clinical trial updates.

Multidrug regimens for treatment of older patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Older patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPDAC) are under-represented in clinical trials. METHODS: Our single-center, retrospective study enrolled MPDAC patients ≥ 70 treated with chemotherapy RESULTS: 105 patients were divided in groups based on the received treatments: 44 gemcitabine or capecitabine monotherapy (A), 34 nabpaclitaxel-gemcitabine (B) 27 4-drugs combinations (gemcitabine, cisplatin, capecitabine plus either nab-paclitaxel or epirubicin or docetaxel) (C). Group A: median age was 78 (70-87) and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥80 was found in 84% of patients; Group B: median age 77 (71-84) and KPS ≥ 80 in 88% of patients; Group C: median age 73 (70-78) and KPS ≥ 80 in 93% of patients. Median OS was 7.9, 11.7 and 14.2 months in group A, B and C respectively; 1 and 2-year OS were 27% and 8% in group A; 44% and 5% in group B; 52% and 22% in group C. When lung metastatic only patients were excluded, patients <75 and ≥ 75 had similar OS in group A (6.4 vs 5.6 months) and in group B (12.3 vs 11.1 months). In group B grade 3 thrombocytopenia, fatigue and peripheral neuropathy were more frequent in patients ≥ 75. CONCLUSIONS: In older patients, combination chemotherapy shows acceptable feasibility and promising efficacy.

Chemotherapy in elderly patients with pancreatic cancer: Efficacy, feasibility and future perspectives.

By 2030 70% of newly diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) will occur in older adults. Elderly patients, defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as people older than 65 years, represent a heterogeneous group with different biological and functional characteristics that need personalized anticancer treatments. Since older patients are under-represented in randomized phase III trials, their management is mostly extrapolated from studies performed in younger patients, without robust evidence-based recommendations. However, data from retrospective studies and case-control series show that elderly may benefit from chemotherapy in both the adjuvant and advanced disease settings. Although with discordant results, gemcitabine-based treatment and dose-adapted fluorouracil combination regimens seem to be effective and well tolerated in this subset of patients. A proper balance of potential treatment benefits and side effects represent the crucial point for managing elderly patients with PDAC. Therefore an appropriate patient selection is essential to maximize the therapeutic benefit in the older population: randomized studies aiming to better standardizing fitness parameters and implementing the routine use of comprehensive geriatric assessments are strongly warranted. In this light, the detection of molecular prognostic markers able to detect patients who may benefit more from oncological treatments should be a primary endpoint of age-focused clinical trials. Altogether, the field of geriatric oncology will expand in the next years, and the clinical management of elderly patients affected by PDAC will become a major public health issue.

Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine with or without capecitabine and cisplatin in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PACT-19): a randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Current treatment for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma includes combination chemotherapy, such as FOLFIRINOX or nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. We investigated the activity of a novel four-drug regimen, consisting of cisplatin, nab-paclitaxel, capecitabine, and gemcitabine, compared with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, in the PACT-19 trial. METHODS: This single-centre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial was done in San Raffaele Hospital in Italy. We enrolled patients aged 18-75 years with pathologically confirmed stage IV pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had received no previous chemotherapy and had Karnofsky performance status of at least 70. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer-generated permutated block randomisation (block size of four) stratified by baseline concentration of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 to PAXG (cisplatin 30 mg/m2, nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m2, and gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15 and oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 on days 1-28 every 4 weeks), or nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine alone (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were progression-free at 6 months, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Data cutoff was on March 31, 2018. The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01730222, and is now closed. FINDINGS: Between April 22, 2014, and May 30, 2016, we randomly assigned 83 patients to treatment: 42 patients to PAXG and 41 patients to nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. At 6 months, 31 (74%, 95% CI 58-86) of 42 patients in the PAXG group were alive and free from disease progression compared with 19 (46%, 31-63) of 41 patients in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group. The most frequent grade 3 adverse events were neutropenia (12 [29%] of 42 in the PAXG group vs 14 [34%] of 41 in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group), anaemia (nine [21%] vs nine [22%]), and fatigue (seven [17%] vs seven [17%]). The most common grade 4 adverse event was neutropenia (five [12%] in the PAXG group vs two [5%] in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group). Two (5%) treatment-related deaths occurred in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group compared with none in the PAXG group. INTERPRETATION: Despite the small sample size, our findings suggest that the PAXG regimen warrants further investigation in a phase 3 trial in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. FUNDING: Celgene.

A randomised phase 2 trial of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine with or without capecitabine and cisplatin in locally advanced or borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The current trial assessed whether the addition of cisplatin and capecitabine to the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine backbone is feasible and active against borderline and locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHOD: Fifty-four chemo-naive patients, aged between 18 and 75 years, with a pathological diagnosis of locally advanced or borderline resectable PDAC were randomised to receive either nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine, cisplatin and oral capecitabine (PAXG; arm A; N = 26) or nab-paclitaxel followed by gemcitabine (AG; arm B; N = 28). The primary end-point was the tumour resection rate. If at least four such resections were performed, the treatment was considered as active. The secondary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours response rate, Hartman's pathologic response, carbohydrate antigen 19.9 response rate and toxicity. RESULTS: Eight patients (31%) in the PAXG arm and nine (32%) in the AG arm underwent resection. PFS at 1-year was 58% in arm A and 39% in arm B. OS at 18-month was 69% in arm A and 54% in arm B. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase II study, the addition of cisplatin and capecitabine to the AG backbone was feasible and yielded promising results in terms of disease control without detrimental impact on tolerability. The approach warrants further investigation in a phase III study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01730222.

Safety and efficacy of preoperative or postoperative chemotherapy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PACT-15): a randomised, open-label, phase 2-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma are known to metastasise early and a rationale exists for the investigation of preoperative chemotherapy in patients with resectable disease. We aimed to assess the role of combination chemotherapy in this setting in the PACT-15 trial. METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2-3 trial in ten hospitals in Italy. We report the phase 2 part here. Patients aged 18-75 years who were previously untreated for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, with Karnofsky performance status of more than 60, and pathologically confirmed stage I-II resectable disease were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), with a minimisation algorithm that stratified treatment allocation by centre and concentrations of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9 ≤5 × upper limit of normal [ULN] vs >5 × ULN), to receive surgery followed by adjuvant gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 every 4 weeks for six cycles (arm A), surgery followed by six cycles of adjuvant PEXG (cisplatin 30 mg/m2, epirubicin 30 mg/m2, and gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15 every 4 weeks and capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 on days 1-28; arm B), or three cycles of PEXG before and three cycles after surgery (arm C). Patients and investigators who gave treatments or assessed outcomes were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were event-free at 1 year. The primary endpoint was analysed in the per-protocol population. Safety analysis was done for all patients receiving at least one dose of study treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01150630. FINDINGS: Between Oct 5, 2010, and May 30, 2015, 93 patients were randomly allocated to treatment. One centre was found to be non-compliant with the protocol, and all five patients at this centre were excluded from the study. Thus, 88 patients were included in the final study population: 26 in group A, 30 in group B, and 32 in group C. In the per-protocol population, six (23%, 95% CI 7-39) of 30 patients in group A were event-free at 1 year, as were 15 (50%, 32-68) of 30 in group B and 19 (66%, 49-83) of 29 in group C. The main grade 3 toxicities were neutropenia (five [28%] of 18 in group A, eight [38%] of 21 in group B, eight [28%] of 29 in group C before surgery, and ten [48%] of 21 in group C after surgery), anaemia (one [6%] in group A, four [19%] in group B, eight [28%] in group C before surgery, and five [24%] in group C after surgery), and fatigue (one [6%] in group A, three [14%] in group B, two [7%] in group C before surgery, and one [5%] in group C after surgery). The main grade 4 toxicity reported was neutropenia (two [11%] in group A, four [19%] in group B, none in group C). Febrile neutropenia was observed in one patient (3%) before surgery in group C. No treatment-related deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: Our results provide evidence of the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Since the trial began, the standard of care for adjuvant therapy has altered, and other chemotherapy regimens developed. Thus, we decided to not continue with the phase 3 part of the PACT-15. We are planning a phase 3 trial of this approach with different chemotherapy regimens. FUNDING: PERLAVITA ONLUS and MyEverest ONLUS.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: State-of-the-art 2017 and new therapeutic strategies.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a fatal malignancy with an overall 5-year survival of 8% for all stages combined. The majority of patients present with stage IV disease at diagnosis and these patients have an overall 5-year survival of 3%. Currently, the standard of care for metastatic pancreas adenocarcinoma is combination cytotoxic therapy, namely FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel for good performance status patients. Given the challenges and the rising incidence of PDAC expected to become the second leading cause of cancer-related death by 2030, there is a major unmet need to develop more effective therapies. In this setting, the molecular and genomic characterization of PDAC have underpinned the use of targeted therapies. To date, the results from targeted agent evaluation have been disappointing with some exceptions. Novel promising strategies depend on biomarker identification and patient selection e.g. germline mutations in DNA repair or mismatch repair genes, where the addition of a platinum agent or checkpoint inhibitor can have a positive impact on survival. This article will review the state-of-the-art treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer with an emphasis on novel promising therapeutic strategies and an overview on emerging biomarkers.