Management, Survival, and Costs of Pancreatic Cancer: Population-Based Observational Study in Catalonia.

AIM: Few published studies comprehensively describe the characteristics of patients with pancreatic cancer and their treatment in clinical practice. This study aimed to describe the current clinical practice for treating pancreatic cancer in Catalonia, along with the associated survival and treatment costs. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study in patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer from 2014 to 2018, using data from the healthcare records of the Public Health System of Catalonia, was conducted. Treatment patterns and costs were described by age groups from 2014 to 2018, with survival reported until December 2021. RESULTS: The proportion of patients receiving surgery with curative intent was low, especially in older patients (23% of patients <60 years and 9% of patients ≥80 years). The percentage of patients treated with drugs for unresectable disease also decreased with age (45% of patients <60 years and 8% of patients ≥80 years). Although age was associated with significant differences in survival after curative surgery, no differences attributable to age were observed in patients who received pharmacological treatment for unresectable disease. In patients under 60 years of age, the mean cost of the first year of treatment was EUR 17,730 (standard deviation [SD] 5754) in those receiving surgery and EUR 5398 (SD 9581) in those on pharmacological treatment for unresectable disease. In patients over 80, the mean costs were EUR 15,339 (SD 2634) and EUR 1845 (SD 3413), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Half of the patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer did not receive specific treatment. Surgery with curative intent was associated with longer survival, but only 18% of (mostly younger) patients received this treatment. Chemotherapy was also used less frequently in patients of advanced age, though survival in treated patients was comparable across all age groups, so careful oncogeriatric assessment is advisable to ensure the most appropriate indication for eligibility in older patients. In general, earlier diagnosis and more effective pharmacological treatments are necessary to treat frail patients with high comorbidity, a common profile in older patients.

Changes in Treatment Patterns and Costs for Lung Cancer Have Not Resulted in Relevant Improvements in Survival: A Population-Based Observational Study in Catalonia.

OBJECTIVE: Few published studies have described multidisciplinary therapeutic strategies for lung cancer. This study aims to describe the different approaches used for treating lung cancer in Catalonia in 2014 and 2018 and to assess the associated cost and impact on patient survival. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study using data of patients with lung cancer from health care registries in Catalonia was carried out. We analyzed change in treatment patterns, costs and survival according to the year of treatment initiation (2014 vs. 2018). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival, with the follow-up until 2021. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2018, the proportion of patients undergoing surgery increased and treatments for unresectable tumors decreased, mainly in younger patients. Immunotherapy increased by up to 9% by 2018. No differences in patient survival were observed within treatment patterns. The mean cost per patient in the first year of treatment increased from EUR 14,123 (standard deviation [SD] 4327) to EUR 14,550 (SD 3880) in surgical patients, from EUR 4655 (SD 3540) to EUR 5873 (SD 6455) in patients receiving curative radiotherapy and from EUR 4723 (SD 7003) to EUR 6458 (SD 10,116) in those treated for unresectable disease. CONCLUSIONS: From 2014 to 2018, surgical approaches increased in younger patients. The mean cost of treating patients increased, especially in pharmaceutical expenditure, mainly related to the use of several biomarker-targeted treatments. While no differences in overall patient survival were observed, it seems reasonable to expect improvements in this outcome in upcoming years as more patients receive innovative treatments.

KRAS phosphorylation regulates cell polarization and tumorigenic properties in colorectal cancer.

Oncogenic mutations of KRAS are found in the most aggressive human tumors, including colorectal cancer. It has been suggested that oncogenic KRAS phosphorylation at Ser181 modulates its activity and favors cell transformation. Using nonphosphorylatable (S181A), phosphomimetic (S181D), and phospho-/dephosphorylatable (S181) oncogenic KRAS mutants, we analyzed the role of this phosphorylation to the maintenance of tumorigenic properties of colorectal cancer cells. Our data show that the presence of phospho-/dephosphorylatable oncogenic KRAS is required for preserving the epithelial organization of colorectal cancer cells in 3D cultures, and for supporting subcutaneous tumor growth in mice. Interestingly, gene expression differed according to the phosphorylation status of KRAS. In DLD-1 cells, CTNNA1 was only expressed in phospho-/dephosphorylatable oncogenic KRAS-expressing cells, correlating with cell polarization. Moreover, lack of oncogenic KRAS phosphorylation leads to changes in expression of genes related to cell invasion, such as SERPINE1, PRSS1,2,3, and NEO1, and expression of phosphomimetic oncogenic KRAS resulted in diminished expression of genes involved in enterocyte differentiation, such as HNF4G. Finally, the analysis, in a public data set of human colorectal cancer, of the gene expression signatures associated with phosphomimetic and nonphosphorylatable oncogenic KRAS suggests that this post-translational modification regulates tumor progression in patients.

Patient involvement in reflective multicriteria decision analysis to assist decision making in oncology.

OBJECTIVES: Patient involvement in drug evaluation decision making is increasing. The aim of the current study was to develop a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework that would enable the inclusion of the patient perspective in the selection of appropriate criteria for MCDAs being used in the value assessments of oncologic drugs. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to identify and define criteria used in drug assessments from patient perspectives. The Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making methodology was used to develop a MCDA framework. Identified criteria were discussed by a sample of oncology patient association representatives who decided which criteria were important from patient perspectives. Selected criteria were rated by importance. The preliminary MCDA framework was tested through the assessment of a hypothetical oncology treatment. A discussion was carried out to agree on a final pilot MCDA framework. RESULTS: Twenty-two criteria were extracted from the literature review. After criteria discussion, sixteen criteria remained. The most important criteria were comparative patient reported outcomes (PRO), comparative efficacy and disease severity. After the discussion generated by the scoring of the hypothetical oncology treatment, the final pilot MCDA framework included seven quantitative criteria ("disease severity", "unmet needs", "comparative efficacy / effectiveness", "comparative safety / tolerability", "comparative PROs", "contribution of oncological innovation") and one contextual criterion ("population priorities and access"). CONCLUSIONS: The present study developed a pilot reflective MCDA framework that could increase patient's capability to participate in the decision-making process by providing systematic drug assessments from the patient perspective.

Phosphorylation at Ser-181 of oncogenic KRAS is required for tumor growth.

KRAS phosphorylation has been reported recently to modulate the activity of mutant KRAS protein in vitro. In this study, we defined S181 as a specific phosphorylation site required to license the oncogenic function of mutant KRAS in vivo. The phosphomutant S181A failed to induce tumors in mice, whereas the phosphomimetic mutant S181D exhibited an enhanced tumor formation capacity, compared with the wild-type KRAS protein. Reduced growth of tumors composed of cells expressing the nonphosphorylatable KRAS S181A mutant was correlated with increased apoptosis. Conversely, increased growth of tumors composed of cells expressing the phosphomimetic KRAS S181D mutant was correlated with increased activation of AKT and ERK, two major downstream effectors of KRAS. Pharmacologic treatment with PKC inhibitors impaired tumor growth associated with reduced levels of phosphorylated KRAS and reduced effector activation. In a panel of human tumor cell lines expressing various KRAS isoforms, we showed that KRAS phosphorylation was essential for survival and tumorigenic activity. Furthermore, we identified phosphorylated KRAS in a panel of primary human pancreatic tumors. Taken together, our findings establish that KRAS requires S181 phosphorylation to manifest its oncogenic properties, implying that its inhibition represents a relevant target to attack KRAS-driven tumors.

Oncogenic K-ras segregates at spatially distinct plasma membrane signaling platforms according to its phosphorylation status.

Activating mutations in the K-Ras small GTPase are extensively found in human tumors. Although these mutations induce the generation of a constitutively GTP-loaded, active form of K-Ras, phosphorylation at Ser181 within the C-terminal hypervariable region can modulate oncogenic K-Ras function without affecting the in vitro affinity for its effector Raf-1. In striking contrast, K-Ras phosphorylated at Ser181 shows increased interaction in cells with the active form of Raf-1 and with p110α, the catalytic subunit of PI 3-kinase. Because the majority of phosphorylated K-Ras is located at the plasma membrane, different localization within this membrane according to the phosphorylation status was explored. Density-gradient fractionation of the plasma membrane in the absence of detergents showed segregation of K-Ras mutants that carry a phosphomimetic or unphosphorylatable serine residue (S181D or S181A, respectively). Moreover, statistical analysis of immunoelectron microscopy showed that both phosphorylation mutants form distinct nanoclusters that do not overlap. Finally, induction of oncogenic K-Ras phosphorylation - by activation of protein kinase C (PKC) - increased its co-clustering with the phosphomimetic K-Ras mutant, whereas (when PKC is inhibited) non-phosphorylated oncogenic K-Ras clusters with the non-phosphorylatable K-Ras mutant. Most interestingly, PI 3-kinase (p110α) was found in phosphorylated K-Ras nanoclusters but not in non-phosphorylated K-Ras nanoclusters. In conclusion, our data provide - for the first time - evidence that PKC-dependent phosphorylation of oncogenic K-Ras induced its segregation in spatially distinct nanoclusters at the plasma membrane that, in turn, favor activation of Raf-1 and PI 3-kinase.