External Validation of a Digital Pathology-based Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Architecture in the NRG/RTOG 9902 Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Accurate risk stratification is critical to guide management decisions in localized prostate cancer (PCa). Previously, we had developed and validated a multimodal artificial intelligence (MMAI) model generated from digital histopathology and clinical features. Here, we externally validate this model on men with high-risk or locally advanced PCa treated and followed as part of a phase 3 randomized control trial. OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the MMAI model on men with high-risk or locally advanced PCa treated and followed as part of a phase 3 randomized control trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Our validation cohort included 318 localized high-risk PCa patients from NRG/RTOG 9902 with available histopathology (337 [85%] of the 397 patients enrolled into the trial had available slides, of which 19 [5.6%] failed due to poor image quality). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Two previously locked prognostic MMAI models were validated for their intended endpoint: distant metastasis (DM) and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM). Individual clinical factors and the number of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk features served as comparators. Subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) was reported per standard deviation increase of the score with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using Fine-Gray or Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The DM and PCSM MMAI algorithms were significantly and independently associated with the risk of DM (sHR [95% CI] = 2.33 [1.60-3.38], p < 0.001) and PCSM, respectively (sHR [95% CI] = 3.54 [2.38-5.28], p < 0.001) when compared against other prognostic clinical factors and NCCN high-risk features. The lower 75% of patients by DM MMAI had estimated 5- and 10-yr DM rates of 4% and 7%, and the highest quartile had average 5- and 10-yr DM rates of 19% and 32%, respectively (p < 0.001). Similar results were observed for the PCSM MMAI algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: We externally validated the prognostic ability of MMAI models previously developed among men with localized high-risk disease. MMAI prognostic models further risk stratify beyond the clinical and pathological variables for DM and PCSM in a population of men already at a high risk for disease progression. This study provides evidence for consistent validation of our deep learning MMAI models to improve prognostication and enable more informed decision-making for patient care. PATIENT SUMMARY: This paper presents a novel approach using images from pathology slides along with clinical variables to validate artificial intelligence (computer-generated) prognostic models. When implemented, clinicians can offer a more personalized and tailored prognostic discussion for men with localized prostate cancer.

A Longitudinal Metagenomic Comparative Analysis of Oral Microbiome Shifts in Patients Receiving Proton Radiation versus Photon Radiation for Head and Neck Cancer.

Introduction: Due to the radiation-sparing effects on salivary gland acini, changes in the composition of the oral microbiome may be a driver for improved outcomes in patients receiving proton radiation, with potentially worse outcomes in patients exposed to photon radiation therapy. To date, a head-to-head comparison of oral microbiome changes at a metagenomic level with longitudinal sampling has yet to be performed in these patient cohorts. Methods and Materials: To comparatively analyze oral microbiome shifts during head and neck radiation therapy, a prospective pilot cohort study was performed at the Maryland Proton Treatment Center and the University of Maryland Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center. A longitudinal metagenomic comparative analysis of oral microbiome shifts was performed at three time points (pre-radiation, during radiation, and immediately post-radiation). Head and neck cancer patients receiving proton radiation (n = 4) were compared to photon radiation (n = 4). Additional control groups included healthy age- and sex-matched controls (n = 5), head and neck cancer patients who never received radiation therapy (n = 8), and patients with oral inflammatory disease (n = 3). Results: Photon therapy patients presented with lower microbial alpha diversity at all timepoints, and there was a trend towards reduced species richness as compared with proton therapy. Healthy controls and proton patients exhibited overall higher and similar diversity. A more dysbiotic state was observed in patients receiving photon therapy as compared to proton therapy, in which oral microbial homeostasis was maintained. Mucositis was observed in 3/4 photon patients and was not observed in any proton patients during radiation therapy. The bacterial de novo pyrimidine biosynthesis pathway and the nitrate reduction V pathway were comparatively higher following photon exposure. These functional changes in bacterial metabolism may suggest that photon exposure produces a more permissive environment for the proliferation of pathogenic bacteria. Conclusion: Oral microbiome dysbiosis in patients receiving photon radiation may be associated with increased mucositis occurrence. Proton radiation therapy for head and neck cancer demonstrates a safer side effect profile in terms of oral complications, oral microbiome dysbiosis, and functional metabolic status.

External Beam Radiation Therapy With or Without Brachytherapy Boost in Men With Very-High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Large Multicenter International Consortium Analysis.

PURPOSE: Very-high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PC) is an aggressive subgroup with high risk of distant disease progression. Systemic treatment intensification with abiraterone or docetaxel reduces PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and distant metastasis (DM) in men receiving external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether prostate-directed treatment intensification with the addition of brachytherapy (BT) boost to EBRT with ADT improves outcomes in this group is unclear. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This cohort study from 16 centers across 4 countries included men with VHR PC treated with either dose-escalated EBRT with ≥24 months of ADT or EBRT + BT boost with ≥12 months of ADT. VHR was defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria (clinical T3b-4, primary Gleason pattern 5, or ≥2 NCCN high-risk features), and results were corroborated in a subgroup of men who met Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) trials inclusion criteria (≥2 of the following: clinical T3-4, Gleason 8-10, or PSA ≥40 ng/mL). PCSM and DM between EBRT and EBRT + BT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression. RESULTS: Among the entire cohort, 270 underwent EBRT and 101 EBRT + BT. After a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 6.7% and 5.9% of men died of PC and 16.3% and 9.9% had DM after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. There was no significant difference in PCSM (sHR, 1.47 [95% CI, 0.57-3.75]; P = .42) or DM (sHR, 0.72, [95% CI, 0.30-1.71]; P = .45) between EBRT + BT and EBRT. Results were similar within the STAMPEDE-defined VHR subgroup (PCSM: sHR, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.48-5.81]; P = .42; DM: sHR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.15-2.04]; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: In this VHR PC cohort, no difference in clinically meaningful outcomes was observed between EBRT alone with ≥24 months of ADT compared with EBRT + BT with ≥12 months of ADT. Comparative analyses in men treated with intensified systemic therapy are warranted.

Comparison of Multimodal Therapies and Outcomes Among Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer With Adverse Clinicopathologic Features.

Importance: The optimal management strategy for high-risk prostate cancer and additional adverse clinicopathologic features remains unknown. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients with high-risk prostate cancer (as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) and at least 1 adverse clinicopathologic feature (defined as any primary Gleason pattern 5 on biopsy, clinical T3b-4 disease, ≥50% cores with biopsy results positive for prostate cancer, or NCCN ≥2 high-risk features) treated between 2000 and 2014 at 16 tertiary centers. Data were analyzed in November 2020. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (BT) with ADT. Guideline-concordant multimodal treatment was defined as RP with appropriate use of multimodal therapy (optimal RP), EBRT with at least 2 years of ADT (optimal EBRT), or EBRT with BT with at least 1 year ADT (optimal EBRT with BT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis was a secondary outcome. Differences were evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression models. Results: A total of 6004 men (median [interquartile range] age, 66.4 [60.9-71.8] years) with high-risk prostate cancer were analyzed, including 3175 patients (52.9%) who underwent RP, 1830 patients (30.5%) who underwent EBRT alone, and 999 patients (16.6%) who underwent EBRT with BT. Compared with RP, treatment with EBRT with BT (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.78, [95% CI, 0.63-0.97]; P = .03) or with EBRT alone (sHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.92]; P = .01) was associated with significantly improved prostate cancer-specific mortality; there was no difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between EBRT with BT and EBRT alone (sHR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.67-1.18]; P = .43). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality were found across treatment cohorts among 2940 patients who received guideline-concordant multimodality treatment (eg, optimal EBRT alone vs optimal RP: sHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.52-1.09]; P = .14). However, treatment with EBRT alone or EBRT with BT was consistently associated with lower rates of distant metastasis compared with treatment with RP (eg, EBRT vs RP: sHR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.44-0.58]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that among patients with high-risk prostate cancer and additional unfavorable clinicopathologic features receiving guideline-concordant multimodal therapy, prostate cancer-specific mortality outcomes were equivalent among those treated with RP, EBRT, and EBRT with BT, although distant metastasis outcomes were more favorable among patients treated with EBRT and EBRT with BT. Optimal multimodality treatment is critical for improving outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

What are survivorship care plans failing to tell men after prostate cancer treatment?

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans contain important information for patients and primary care physicians regarding appropriate care for cancer survivors after treatment. We describe the completeness of prostate cancer survivorship care plans and evaluate the concordance of follow-up recommendations with guidelines. METHODS: We analyzed 119 prostate cancer survivorship care plans from one academic and one community cancer center, abstracting demographics, cancer/treatment details, and follow-up recommendations. Follow-up recommendations were compared with the American Cancer Society (ACS), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. RESULTS: Content in >90% of plans included cancer TNM stage; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at diagnosis; radiation treatment details (98% of men received radiation); and PSA monitoring recommendations. Potential treatment-specific side effects were listed for 82% of men who had surgery, 86% who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and 97% who underwent radiation. The presence of posttreatment symptoms was noted in 71% of plans. Regarding surveillance follow-up, all guidelines recommend an annual digital rectal exam (DRE). No plans specified DRE. However, all 71 plans at the community site recommended at least annual follow-up visits with urology, radiation oncology, and primary care. Only 2/48 plans at the academic site specified follow-up visits. All guidelines recommend PSA testing every 6-12 months for 5 years, then annually. For the first 5 years, 90% of plans were guideline-concordant, 8% suggested oversurveillance, and 2% were incomplete. In men receiving ADT, ACS and ASCO recommend bone density imaging and NCCN recommends testosterone levels. Of 77 men on ADT, 1% were recommended bone density imaging and 16% testosterone level testing. CONCLUSIONS: While care plan content is more complete for demographic and treatment summary information, both sites had gaps in reporting posttreatment symptoms and ADT-related testing recommendations. These findings highlight the need to improve the quality of information in care plans, which are important in communicating appropriate follow-up recommendations to patients and primary care physicians.

Development and Validation of a Clinical Prognostic Stage Group System for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using Disease-Specific Mortality Results From the International Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate.

Importance: In 2016, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) established criteria to evaluate prediction models for staging. No localized prostate cancer models were endorsed by the Precision Medicine Core committee, and 8th edition staging was based on expert consensus. Objective: To develop and validate a pretreatment clinical prognostic stage group system for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multinational cohort study included 7 centers from the United States, Canada, and Europe, the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) Veterans Affairs Medical Centers collaborative (5 centers), and the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry (43 centers) (the STAR-CAP cohort). Patients with cT1-4N0-1M0 prostate adenocarcinoma treated from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2013 (follow-up completed December 31, 2017). The STAR-CAP cohort was randomly divided into training and validation data sets; statisticians were blinded to the validation data until the model was locked. A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cohort was used as a second validation set. Analysis was performed from January 1, 2018, to November 30, 2019. Exposures: Curative intent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Based on a competing-risk regression model, a points-based Score staging system was developed. Model discrimination (C index), calibration, and overall performance were assessed in the validation cohorts. Results: Of 19 684 patients included in the analysis (median age, 64.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 59.0-70.0] years), 12 421 were treated with RP and 7263 with radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 71.8 (IQR, 34.3-124.3) months; 4078 (20.7%) were followed up for at least 10 years. Age, T category, N category, Gleason grade, pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen level, and the percentage of positive core biopsy results among biopsies performed were included as variables. In the validation set, predicted 10-year PCSM for the 9 Score groups ranged from 0.3% to 40.0%. The 10-year C index (0.796; 95% CI, 0.760-0.828) exceeded that of the AJCC 8th edition (0.757; 95% CI, 0.719-0.792), which was improved across age, race, and treatment modality and within the SEER validation cohort. The Score system performed similarly to individualized random survival forest and interaction models and outperformed National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) risk grouping 3- and 4-tier classification systems (10-year C index for NCCN 3-tier, 0.729; for NCCN 4-tier, 0.746; for Score, 0.794) as well as CAPRA (10-year C index for CAPRA, 0.760; for Score, 0.782). Conclusions and Relevance: Using a large, diverse international cohort treated with standard curative treatment options, a proposed AJCC-compliant clinical prognostic stage group system for prostate cancer has been developed. This system may allow consistency of reporting and interpretation of results and clinical trial design.

Very High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Outcomes Following Definitive Radiation.

PURPOSE: Existing definitions of high-risk prostate cancer consist of men who experience significant heterogeneity in outcomes. As such, criteria that identify a subpopulation of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk prostate cancer patients who are at very high risk (VHR) for poor survival outcomes following prostatectomy were recently developed at our institution and include the presence of any of the following disease characteristics: multiple NCCN high-risk factors, primary Gleason pattern 5 disease and/or ≥5 biopsy cores with Gleason sums of 8 to 10. Whether these criteria also apply to men undergoing definitive radiation is unclear, as is the optimal treatment regimen in these patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All men consecutively treated with definitive radiation by a single provider from 1993 to 2006 and who fulfilled criteria for NCCN high-risk disease were identified (n=288), including 99 patients (34%) with VHR disease. Multivariate-adjusted competing risk regression models were constructed to assess associations between the VHR definition and biochemical failure (BF), distant metastasis (DM), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Multivariate-adjusted Cox regression analysis assessed the association of the VHR definition with overall mortality (OM). Cumulative incidences of failure endpoints were compared between VHR men and other NCCN high-risk men. RESULTS: Men with VHR disease compared to other NCCN high-risk men experienced a higher 10-year incidence of BF (54.0% vs 35.4%, respectively, P<.001), DM (34.9% vs 13.4%, respectively, P<.001), PCSM (18.5% vs 5.9%, respectively, P<.001), and OM (36.4% vs 27.0%, respectively, P=.04). VHR men with a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration at the end of radiation (EOR) remained at high risk of 10-year PCSM compared to VHR men with an undetectable EOR PSA (31.0% vs 13.7%, respectively, P=.05). CONCLUSIONS: NCCN high-risk prostate cancer patients who meet VHR criteria experience distinctly worse outcomes following definitive radiation and long-term androgen deprivation therapy, particularly if an EOR PSA is detectable. Optimal use of local therapies for VHR patients should be explored further, as should novel agents.

Genomic instability in human cancer: Molecular insights and opportunities for therapeutic attack and prevention through diet and nutrition.

Genomic instability can initiate cancer, augment progression, and influence the overall prognosis of the affected patient. Genomic instability arises from many different pathways, such as telomere damage, centrosome amplification, epigenetic modifications, and DNA damage from endogenous and exogenous sources, and can be perpetuating, or limiting, through the induction of mutations or aneuploidy, both enabling and catastrophic. Many cancer treatments induce DNA damage to impair cell division on a global scale but it is accepted that personalized treatments, those that are tailored to the particular patient and type of cancer, must also be developed. In this review, we detail the mechanisms from which genomic instability arises and can lead to cancer, as well as treatments and measures that prevent genomic instability or take advantage of the cellular defects caused by genomic instability. In particular, we identify and discuss five priority targets against genomic instability: (1) prevention of DNA damage; (2) enhancement of DNA repair; (3) targeting deficient DNA repair; (4) impairing centrosome clustering; and, (5) inhibition of telomerase activity. Moreover, we highlight vitamin D and B, selenium, carotenoids, PARP inhibitors, resveratrol, and isothiocyanates as priority approaches against genomic instability. The prioritized target sites and approaches were cross validated to identify potential synergistic effects on a number of important areas of cancer biology.

Identification of men with the highest risk of early disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Men destined to have early biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy (RP) may be optimal candidates for multimodal treatment. Here we identified pre-operative predictors of early BCR within a surgical cohort who recurred. METHODS: An institutional prostate cancer (PCa) database containing over 20,000 patients was queried to identify 1,471 men who had BCR after RP, and pre-operative predictors of early versus late BCR were assessed. Early BCR was defined as recurrence within 1 year after RP. Within the recurrence cohort, those with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk features were more likely to experience early BCR. Therefore, in all NCCN high-risk men in the database, we abstracted detailed pathologic biopsy data. Among 753 high-risk men, 41 alternate multivariable criteria were assessed for their ability to predict early BCR in crude and adjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: The criteria that best identified those likely to experience early BCR are primary Gleason pattern 5 on biopsy or ≥4 cores containing pattern 4 (odds ratio 3.17, P < 0.001). These criteria included 26.7% of NCCN high-risk men. Additionally, these criteria selected for men within the high-risk classification who were at significantly higher risk of subsequent metastasis (adjusted hazard ratio 3.04, P < 0.001) and cancer-specific death (adjusted hazard ratio 3.27, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In men with PCa who present with high-risk features, pre-operative criteria have the ability to discriminate the subgroup most likely to experience early BCR after RP. Men at risk for early disease recurrence may be the most suitable candidates for multimodal therapy.

Molecularly targeted agents as radiosensitizers in cancer therapy--focus on prostate cancer.

As our understanding of the molecular pathways driving tumorigenesis improves and more druggable targets are identified, we have witnessed a concomitant increase in the development and production of novel molecularly targeted agents. Radiotherapy is commonly used in the treatment of various malignancies with a prominent role in the care of prostate cancer patients, and efforts to improve the therapeutic ratio of radiation by technologic and pharmacologic means have led to important advances in cancer care. One promising approach is to combine molecularly targeted systemic agents with radiotherapy to improve tumor response rates and likelihood of durable control. This review first explores the limitations of preclinical studies as well as barriers to successful implementation of clinical trials with radiosensitizers. Special considerations related to and recommendations for the design of preclinical studies and clinical trials involving molecularly targeted agents combined with radiotherapy are provided. We then apply these concepts by reviewing a representative set of targeted therapies that show promise as radiosensitizers in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Concurrent versus sequential sorafenib therapy in combination with radiation for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Sorafenib (SOR) is the only systemic agent known to improve survival for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, SOR prolongs survival by less than 3 months and does not alter symptomatic progression. To improve outcomes, several phase I-II trials are currently examining SOR with radiation (RT) for HCC utilizing heterogeneous concurrent and sequential treatment regimens. Our study provides preclinical data characterizing the effects of concurrent versus sequential RT-SOR on HCC cells both in vitro and in vivo. Concurrent and sequential RT-SOR regimens were tested for efficacy among 4 HCC cell lines in vitro by assessment of clonogenic survival, apoptosis, cell cycle distribution, and γ-H2AX foci formation. Results were confirmed in vivo by evaluating tumor growth delay and performing immunofluorescence staining in a hind-flank xenograft model. In vitro, concurrent RT-SOR produced radioprotection in 3 of 4 cell lines, whereas sequential RT-SOR produced decreased colony formation among all 4. Sequential RT-SOR increased apoptosis compared to RT alone, while concurrent RT-SOR did not. Sorafenib induced reassortment into less radiosensitive phases of the cell cycle through G1-S delay and cell cycle slowing. More double-strand breaks (DSBs) persisted 24 h post-irradiation for RT alone versus concurrent RT-SOR. In vivo, sequential RT-SOR produced the greatest tumor growth delay, while concurrent RT-SOR was similar to RT alone. More persistent DSBs were observed in xenografts treated with sequential RT-SOR or RT alone versus concurrent RT-SOR. Sequential RT-SOR additionally produced a greater reduction in xenograft tumor vascularity and mitotic index than either concurrent RT-SOR or RT alone. In conclusion, sequential RT-SOR demonstrates greater efficacy against HCC than concurrent RT-SOR both in vitro and in vivo. These results may have implications for clinical decision-making and prospective trial design.

Randomized phase III multi-institutional study of TNFerade biologic with fluorouracil and radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: final results.

PURPOSE: TNFerade biologic is a novel means of delivering tumor necrosis factor alpha to tumor cells by gene transfer. We herein report final results of the largest randomized phase III trial performed to date among patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and the first to test gene transfer against this malignancy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 304 patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to standard of care plus TNFerade (SOC + TNFerade) versus standard of care alone (SOC). SOC consisted of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with concurrent fluorouracil (200 mg/m(2) per day continuous infusion). TNFerade was injected intratumorally before the first fraction of radiotherapy each week at a dose of 4 × 10(11) particle units by using either a percutaneous transabdominal or an endoscopic ultrasound approach. Four weeks after chemoradiotherapy, patients began gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) intravenously) with or without erlotinib (100 to 150 mg per day orally) until progression or toxicity. RESULTS: The analysis included 187 patients randomly assigned to SOC + TNFerade and 90 to SOC by using a modified intention-to-treat approach. Median follow-up was 9.1 months (range, 0.1 to 50.5 months). Median survival was 10.0 months for patients in both the SOC + TNFerade and SOC arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.22; P = .26). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months for SOC + TNFerade versus 7.0 months for SOC (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.32; P = .51). Among patients treated on the SOC + TNFerade arm, multivariate analysis showed that TNFerade injection by an endoscopic ultrasound-guided transgastric/transduodenal approach rather than a percutaneous transabdominal approach was a risk factor for inferior PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.06 to 4.06; P = .032). The patients in the SOC + TNFerade arm experienced more grade 1 to 2 fever and chills than those in the SOC arm (P < .001) but both arms had similar rates of grade 3 to 4 toxicities (all P > .05). CONCLUSION: SOC + TNFerade is safe but not effective for prolonging survival in patients with LAPC.