Role of molecular biology in the management of pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presents significant challenges in patient management due to a dismal prognosis, increasing incidence, and limited treatment options. In this regard, precision medicine, which personalizes treatments based on tumour molecular characteristics, has gained great interest. However, its widespread implementation is not fully endorsed in current recommendations. This review explores key molecular alterations in PDAC, while emphasizing differences between KRAS-mutated and KRAS-wild-type tumours. It assesses the practical application of precision medicine in clinical settings and outlines potential future directions with respect to PDAC. Actionable molecular targets are examined with the aim of enhancing our understanding of PDAC molecular biology. Insights from this analysis may contribute to a more refined and personalized approach to pancreatic cancer treatment, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

Long term survival in adult osteosarcoma patients treated with a two-drug regimen: Final results of the OSAD93 phase II study of the FSG-GETO.

RATIONALE: We report a phase II trial (OSAD93) testing CDDP with ifosfamide (IFO), without doxorubicin in neoadjuvant phase, in adult osteosarcoma with a 25 years follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a multicentric phase II study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with IFO and CDDP in localized high-grade osteosarcoma of patients. Patients received 4 pre-operative courses of IFO 9 g/m2 and CDDP 100 mg/m2 on day 4 (SHOC regimen), followed by local treatment. Doxorubicin was added post-operatively (HOCA regimen) in patients with > 10 % residual tumor cells. A Good Histological Response (GHR), ie ≤ 10 % residual tumor cells in > 30 % of patients, was the primary objective. Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity were secondary objectives. RESULTS: From Jan 1994 to Jun 1998, 60 patients were included. Median age was 27 (range: 16-63). Primary tumor sites were limbs (76 %), trunk, head or neck (24 %). After neoadjuvant SHOC, grade 3-4 and febrile neutropenia, thrombopenia, and re-hospitalization occurred in 58 %, 17 %, 17 % and 22 % of SHOC courses and in 76 %, 28 %, 47 %, 47 % of HOCA courses, respectively. GHR was obtained in 16/60 (27.5 %) patients. With a median follow-up of 322 months, the DFS and OS were 51.8 % and 64.4 % at 5 years. At 10 years, DFS and OS were 49.9 % and 64.4 %. At 25 years, DFS and OS were 47.8 % and 55.9 %. No long-term cardiac toxicity was observed. Three patients developed a second malignancy (one fatal) after 300 months. CONCLUSION: Though the primary endpoint of OSAD93 was not met, this pre-operative doxorubicin-free regimen led to excellent long-term survival with limited toxicity in localized osteosarcoma.

Impact of Positive Resection Margins on Recurrence and Survival Following Resection and Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer: Results of the PRODIGE 24-CCTG PA-6 Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the correlation between positive resection margins and outcomes in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy according to the pivotal trial PRODIGE 24-CCTG PA-6. BACKGROUND: The primary focus is on elucidating the prognostic significance of specific resection margins, including those associated with the superior-mesenteric vein (SMV), medial, and posterior pancreas. METHODS: The analysis involved 400 patients across multiple centers in France and Canada. Surgical resection and subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy were core interventions. This study assessed the prognostic impact of resection margins, highlighting the significance of standardized pathology assessments. Additionally, the influence of chemotherapy regimen choice, comparing gemcitabine to mFOLFIRINOX, on the implications of positive resection margins was examined. RESULTS: Only three margins, SMV (HR=1.48 95% CI [1.11;1.96], P<.001), medial (HR=1.92 95% CI [1.36;2.73], P<.001) and posterior (HR=1.65 95% CI [1.21;2.24], P=.002), had a significant prognostic impact on disease-free survival and were sufficient compared with the seven recommended margins (Kappa=0.90 95% CI [0.87; 0.94]). R1 status was significant independent prognostic factor for poorer survival in gemcitabine-treasted patients (HR=1.97 95% CI [1.23;3.16], P=.005) but lost its significance with mFOLFIRINOX (HR=1.46 95% CI [0.91;2.35], P=.114). CONCLUSIONS: All efforts should be made to evaluate the three margins of the highest prognostic value, with the others being secondary. A key finding of this study is the likely effect of mFOLFIRINOX on local invasion in operated patients, which seems to correct the impairment related to margin involvement, probably explaining the improvements in DFS and OS.

Did the COVID-19 pandemic delay treatment for localized breast cancer patients? A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Longer times between diagnosis and treatments of cancer patients have been estimated as effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, relatively few studies attempted to estimate actual delay to treatment at the patient level. OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in delays to first treatment and surgery among newly diagnosed patients with localized breast cancer (BC) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used data from the PAPESCO-19 multicenter cohort study, which included patients from 4 French comprehensive cancer centers. We measured the delay to first treatment as the number of days between diagnosis and the first treatment regardless of whether this was neoadjuvant chemotherapy or surgery. COVID-19 pandemic exposure was estimated with a composite index that considered both the severity of the pandemic and the level of lockdown restrictions. We ran generalized linear models with a log link function and a gamma distribution to model the association between delay and the pandemic. RESULTS: Of the 187 patients included in the analysis, the median delay to first treatment was 42 (IQR:32-54) days for patients diagnosed before and after the start of the 1st lockdown (N = 99 and 88, respectively). After adjusting for age and centers of inclusion, a higher composite pandemic index (> = 50 V.S. <50) had only a small, non-significant effect on times to treatment. Longer delays were associated with factors other than the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: We found evidence of no direct impact of the pandemic on the actual delay to treatment among patients with localized BC.

Acceptability and usefulness of the EORTC 'Write In three Symptoms/Problems' (WISP): a brief open-ended instrument for symptom assessment in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of open-ended questions supplementing static questionnaires with closed questions may facilitate the recognition of symptoms and toxicities. The open-ended 'Write In three Symptoms/Problems (WISP)' instrument permits patients to report additional symptoms/problems not covered by selected EORTC questionnaires. We evaluated the acceptability and usefulness of WISP with cancer patients receiving active and palliative care/treatment in Austria, Chile, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on validated instruments for cancer patients including open-ended questions and analyzing their responses. WISP was translated into eight languages and pilot tested. WISP translations were pre-tested together with EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-C15-PAL and relevant modules, followed by patient interviews to evaluate their understanding about WISP. Proportions were used to summarize patient responses obtained from interviews and WISP. RESULTS: From the seven instruments identified in the literature, only the free text collected from the PRO-CTAE has been analyzed previously. In our study, 161 cancer patients participated in the pre-testing and interviews (50% in active treatment). Qualitative interviews showed high acceptability of WISP. Among the 295 symptoms/problems reported using WISP, skin problems, sore mouth and bleeding were more prevalent in patients in active treatment, whereas numbness/tingling, dry mouth and existential problems were more prevalent in patients in palliative care/treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The EORTC WISP instrument was found to be acceptable and useful for symptom assessment in cancer patients. WISP improves the identification of symptoms/problems not assessed by cancer-generic questionnaires and therefore, we recommend its use alongside the EORTC questionnaires.

Prediction of Adjuvant Gemcitabine Sensitivity in Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Using the GemPred RNA Signature: An Ancillary Study of the PRODIGE-24/CCTG PA6 Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: GemPred, a transcriptomic signature predictive of the efficacy of adjuvant gemcitabine (GEM), was developed from cell lines and organoids and validated retrospectively. The phase III PRODIGE-24/CCTG PA6 trial has demonstrated the superiority of modified folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX) over GEM as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at the expense of higher toxicity. We evaluated the potential predictive value of GemPred in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Routine formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded surgical specimens of 350 patients were retrieved for RNA sequencing and GemPred prediction (167 in the GEM arm and 183 in the mFOLFIRINOX [mFFX] arm). Survival analyses were stratified by resection margins, lymph node status, and cancer antigen 19-9 level. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients' tumors (25.5%) were GemPred+ and were thus predicted to be gemcitabine-sensitive. In the GEM arm, GemPred+ patients (n = 50, 30%) had a significantly longer disease-free survival (DFS) than GemPred- patients (n = 117, 70%; median 27.3 v 10.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.43 [95% CI, 0.29 to 0.65]; P < .001) and cancer-specific survival (CSS; median 68.4 v 28.6 months, HR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.27 to 0.66]; P < .001). GemPred had no prognostic value in the mFFX arm. DFS and CSS were similar in GemPred+ patients who received adjuvant GEM and mFFX (median 27.3 v 24.0 months, and 68.4 v 51.4 months, respectively). The statistical interaction between GEM and GemPred+ status was significant for DFS (P = .008) and CSS (P = .004). GemPred+ patients had significantly more adverse events of grade ≥3 in the mFFX arm (76%) compared with those in the GEM arm (40%; P = .001). CONCLUSION: This ancillary study of a phase III randomized trial demonstrates that among the quarter of patients with a GemPred-positive transcriptomic signature, survival was comparable with that of mFOLFIRINOX, whereas those receiving adjuvant gemcitabine had fewer adverse events.

The role of total neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: a survey of specialists attending the All-Ireland Colorectal Cancer Conference 2022 including lead investigators of OPRA, PRODIGE-23 and RAPIDO.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has evolved following recent landmark trials of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT)-the delivery of preoperative chemotherapy sequenced with radiation. AIM: To assess the preferences of colorectal surgery (CRS), radiation oncology (RO) and medical oncology (MO) specialists attending the All-Ireland Colorectal Cancer Conference (AICCC) 2022 regarding the neoadjuvant management of LARC. METHODS: A live electronic survey explored the preferred treatment approach and TNT regimen for early-, intermediate-, bad-, and advanced-risk categories of rectal cancer according to the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines. The survey was preceded by an update from lead investigators of TNT trials (OPRA, PRODIGE-23 and RAPIDO), who then participated in a multidisciplinary panel discussion. RESULTS: Ten CRS, 7 RO and 15 MO (32 of 45 specialists) participated fully in the survey resulting in a response rate of 71%. Ninety-four percent, 76% and 53% of specialists preferred a TNT approach for patients with advanced, bad, and intermediate-risk rectal cancer, respectively. A consolidation TNT regimen of long-course chemoradiotherapy followed by chemotherapy was the most preferred regimen. Upfront surgery was preferred by 77% for early-risk disease. CONCLUSION: This survey illustrated the general acceptance of TNT by rectal cancer specialists attending the AICCC as a valuable treatment strategy for higher-risk category LARC. Whilst the treatment of LARC changes, it remains best practice to individualize care, incorporating the selective use of TNT as discussed by an MDT and in keeping with the patient's goals of care.

Effect of Adapted Physical Activity in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: The APACaP GERCOR Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of adapted physical activity (APA) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (aPDAC) is unknown. This study evaluated whether APA in addition to standard care improved HRQoL in patients who have aPDAC who are receiving first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced/metastatic PDAC and an ECOG performance status of 0 to 2 were randomized (1:1) to receive standard care (standard arm) or standard care plus a home-based 16-week APA program (APA arm). The primary objective was the effect of the APA program on 3 dimensions of the EORTC QLQ-C30: global health status, physical function, and fatigue at week 16 (W16), with a one-sided type I error of 0.017 for each dimension. The primary HRQoL analysis was performed in patients with available baseline and W16 scores for the dimensions (ie, the modified intention-to-treat population 1 [mITT1]), and secondary longitudinal HRQoL analyses using the mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) and time until definitive deterioration (TUDD) methods were performed in the mITT1 population and in patients with baseline and at least one follow-up questionnaire (mITT2 population). A difference of ≥5 points was considered to be clinically relevant. RESULTS: Of 326 included patients, 313 were randomized to the standard (n=157) or APA (n=156) arms. In the mITT1 population (n=172), the mean differences in global health status, physical function, and fatigue at W16 adjusted from baseline were -0.98 (SD, 23.9; P=.39), -2.08 (SD, 21.3; P=.26), and 4.16 (SD, 29.2; P=.17), respectively, showing a non-statistically significant benefit with APA. In the mITT2 population (n=259), APA was associated with statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement in 5 and 8 dimensions of the HRQoL in the longitudinal MMRM and TUDD analyses, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: APA improved several dimensions of HRQoL in patients with aPDAC receiving first-line chemotherapy and standard care.

COVID-19 Infection despite Previous Vaccination in Cancer Patients and Healthcare Workers: Results from a French Prospective Multicenter Cohort (PAPESCO-19).

In a multicenter prospective cohort of cancer patients (CP; n = 840) and healthcare workers (HCWs; n = 935) vaccinated against COVID-19, we noticed the following: i/after vaccination, 4.4% of HCWs and 5.8% of CP were infected; ii/no characteristic was associated with post-vaccine COVID-19 infections among HCWs; iii/CP who developed infections were younger, more frequently women (NS), more frequently had gastrointestinal, gynecological, or breast cancer and a localized cancer stage; iv/CP vaccinated while receiving chemotherapy or targeted therapy had (NS) more breakthrough infections after vaccination than those vaccinated after these treatments; the opposite was noted with radiotherapy, immunotherapy, or hormonotherapy; v/most COVID-19 infections occurred either during the Alpha wave (11/41 HCW, 20/49 CP), early after the first vaccination campaign started, or during the Omicron wave (21/41 HCW, 20/49 CP), more than 3 months after the second dose; vi/risk of infection was not associated with values of antibody titers; vii/the outcome of these COVID-19 infections after vaccination was not severe in all cases. To conclude, around 5% of our CPs or HCWs developed a COVID-19 infection despite previous vaccination. The outcome of these infections was not severe.

Adjuvant and neoadjuvant approaches in pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pancreatic cancer treatment remains a challenging problem for surgeons and oncologists. This review aims to summarize the current advances on adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment approaches for resectable pancreatic cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent phase III randomized trials of adjuvant therapy showed improvement of overall survival in both experimental and control groups. Effectiveness of adjuvant therapy in specific subgroups as elderly patients, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, stage I, and DNA damage repair gene germline variants has been reported. Completion of all cycles of planned adjuvant chemotherapy is confirmed as an independent prognostic factor. Adjuvant chemotherapy remains underutilized, mainly because of early recurrence, prolonged recovery, or older age older than 75 years. So, neoadjuvant treatment is a logical approach to administer systemic treatment to more patients. Meta-analysis did not demonstrate an overall survival benefit of neoadjuvant treatments in resectable pancreatic cancer, and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn from available randomized controlled trials. Upfront surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy should still be considered a standard approach in resectable pancreatic cancer. SUMMARY: Adjuvant chemotherapy with mFOLFIRINOX remains the standard of care in fit patients with resected pancreatic cancer, and limited high-level evidence support the use of neoadjuvant therapy in upfront resectable pancreatic cancer.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX and preoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (UNICANCER PRODIGE 23): Health-related quality of life longitudinal analysis.

BACKGROUND: Results from the phase 3 PRODIGE 23 study showed that neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) with mFOLFIRINOX and preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved disease-free survival compared with preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. We aimed to assess the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes from this study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 461 patients (231 versus 230 patients) from 35 French hospitals were randomly assigned to either NAC with FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h intravenously every 2 weeks for 6 cycles) followed by preoperative chemoradiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy only. HRQOL was assessed at baseline, during treatments and at 2-year follow-up using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires. RESULTS: Compared to baseline, HRQOL scores during NAC were better for tumour symptoms but worse for global health status, functional domains, fatigue, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. During follow-up, improved emotional functioning was observed, but deterioration of body image, increased urinary incontinence, and lower male sexual function were observed. Linear mixed model exhibited a treatment-by-time interaction effect for nausea/vomiting and insomnia symptoms showing a greater deterioration in the standard-of-care group. Only treatment arm and baseline physical functioning were independent significant favourable prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: NAC improved tumour-related symptoms and transitorily reduced most functional scores. Adding NAC before chemoradiotherapy and increased physical functioning at baseline were independent significant prognostic factors for longer disease-free survival.

When a joint model should be preferred over a linear mixed model for analysis of longitudinal health-related quality of life data in cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are increasingly used as endpoints in randomized cancer clinical trials. However, the patients often drop out so that observation of the HRQoL longitudinal outcome ends prematurely, leading to monotone missing data. The patients may drop out for various reasons including occurrence of toxicities, disease progression, or may die. In case of informative dropout, the usual linear mixed model analysis will produce biased estimates. Unbiased estimates cannot be obtained unless the dropout is jointly modeled with the longitudinal outcome, for instance by using a joint model composed of a linear mixed (sub)model linked to a survival (sub)model. Our objective was to investigate in a clinical trial context the consequences of using the most frequently used linear mixed model, the random intercept and slope model, rather than its corresponding joint model. METHODS: We first illustrate and compare the models on data of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. We then perform a more formal comparison through a simulation study. RESULTS: From the application, we derived hypotheses on the situations in which biases arise and on their nature. Through the simulation study, we confirmed and complemented these hypotheses and provided general explanations of the bias mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: In particular, this article reveals how the linear mixed model fails in the typical situation where poor HRQoL is associated with an increased risk of dropout and the experimental treatment improves survival. Unlike the joint model, in this situation the linear mixed model will overestimate the HRQoL in both arms, but not equally, misestimating the difference between the HRQoL trajectories of the two arms to the disadvantage of the experimental arm.

Flexible modeling of longitudinal health-related quality of life data accounting for informative dropout in a cancer clinical trial.

PURPOSE: A joint modeling approach is recommended for analysis of longitudinal health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in the presence of potentially informative dropouts. However, the linear mixed model modeling the longitudinal HRQoL outcome in a joint model often assumes a linear trajectory over time, an oversimplification that can lead to incorrect results. Our aim was to demonstrate that a more flexible model gives more reliable and complete results without complicating their interpretation. METHODS: Five dimensions of HRQoL in patients with esophageal cancer from the randomized clinical trial PRODIGE 5/ACCORD 17 were analyzed. Joint models assuming linear or spline-based HRQoL trajectories were applied and compared in terms of interpretation of results, graphical representation, and goodness of fit. RESULTS: Spline-based models allowed arm-by-time interaction effects to be highlighted and led to a more precise and consistent representation of the HRQoL over time; this was supported by the martingale residuals and the Akaike information criterion. CONCLUSION: Linear relationships between continuous outcomes (such as HRQoL scores) and time are usually the default choice. However, the functional form turns out to be important by affecting both the validity of the model and the statistical significance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00861094.

[Examining the use of palliative systemic treatments near end-of-life for patients with metastatic cancer at a French cancer institute]. / Évaluation des pratiques dans un centre de lutte contre le cancer concernant l'utilisation des traitements systémiques en fin de vie chez les patients atteints d'un cancer métastatique.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Appropriate use of palliative systemic treatments near end-of-life is crucial to reduce aggressiveness of cancer care. The study's objective is to evaluate cancer quality-of-care near end-of-life in our cancer institute. METHODS: From a retrospective cohort, we included all adults with metastatic solid cancers who died in 2019. The use of palliative systemic treatments close to death was measured from quality-of-care indicators described by Earle and al. The integration of supportive care into standard oncology care was also evaluated. All the information were collected from electronic records. RESULTS: Of the 452 patients, 6.2% received systemic treatment in the last 14 days of life and 8.4% started a new systemic treatment in the last 30 days of life. Eighty six percent met a supportive care physician. This intervention was significantly less frequent in the TS≤14 group than in the TS>30 group (71.4 % vs 89.5 % p=0.021). The main reasons for first contact were pain (35 %), early palliative care (29 %) and then exclusive palliative care (17.5 %). CONCLUSION: Our institute offers a good quality of end-of-life care for patients with metastatic solid cancers. However, improvements should be done regarding prognostic estimation and integration of palliative care.

Tumor Growth Rate Informs Treatment Efficacy in Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Application of a Growth and Regression Model to Pivotal Trial and Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND: Methods for screening agents earlier in development and strategies for conducting smaller randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed. METHODS: We retrospectively applied a tumor growth model to estimate the rates of growth of pancreatic cancer using radiographic tumor measurements or serum CA 19-9 values from 3033 patients with stages III-IV PDAC who were enrolled in 8 clinical trials or were included in 2 large real-world data sets. RESULTS: g correlated inversely with OS and was consistently lower in the experimental arms than in the control arms of RCTs. At the individual patient level, g was significantly faster for lesions metastatic to the liver relative to those localized to the pancreas. Regardless of regimen, g increased toward the end of therapy, often by over 3-fold. CONCLUSIONS: Growth rates of PDAC can be determined using radiographic tumor measurement and CA 19-9 values. g is inversely associated with OS and can differentiate therapies within the same trial and across trials. g can also be used to characterize changes in the behavior of an individual's PDAC, such as differences in the growth rate of lesions based on metastatic site, and the emergence of chemoresistance. We provide examples of how g can be used to benchmark phase II and III clinical data to a virtual reference arm to inform go/no go decisions and consider novel trial designs to optimize and accelerate drug development.

COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign in Cancer Patients and Healthcare Workers-Results from a French Prospective Multicenter Cohort (PAPESCO-19).

In this prospective, real-life cohort study, we followed 523 cancer patients (CP) and 579 healthcare workers (HCW) from two cancer centers to evaluate the biological and clinical results of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Seventy percent of the CP and 90% of the HCW received an mRNA vaccine or the AZD1222 vaccine. Seropositivity was high after the first vaccine among HCW and poor among CP. The second dose resulted in almost 100% seropositivity in both cohorts. Antibody response was higher after the second injection than the first in both populations. Despite at least two doses, 8 CP (1.5%) and 14 HCW (2.4%) were infected, corresponding either to a weak level of antibody or a new strain of virus (particularly the Omicron variant of concern). Sixteen CP and three HCW were hospitalized but none of them died from COVID-19. To conclude, this study showed that two doses of COVID-19 vaccines were crucially necessary to attain sufficient seropositivity. However, the post-vaccination antibody level declines in individuals from the two cohorts and could not totally prevent new SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Development of a Clinical-Biological Model to Assess Tumor Progression in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Post Hoc Analysis of the PRODIGE4/ACCORD11 Trial.

Background: The follow-up of pancreatic cancer (PC) is based on computed tomography (CT) assessment; however, there is no consensus on the use of clinical and biological criteria in tumor progression. We aimed to establish a clinical−biological model to highlight the progression of metastatic PC during first-line treatment. Methods: The patients treated with first-line chemotherapy in the phase 2/3 PRODIGE4/ACCORD11 clinical trial were evaluated retrospectively. Clinical and biological markers were evaluated at the time of CT scans and during treatment to determine tumor progression. Results: In total, 196 patients were analyzed, with 355 available tumor assessments. The clinical and biological factors associated with tumor progression in multivariate analysis included gemcitabine, global health status ≤ 33 (OR = 3.38, 95%CI [1.15; 9.91], p = 0.028), quality of life score between 34 and 66 (OR = 2.65, 95%CI [1.06; 6.59], p = 0.037), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) ≥ 3 times the standard value without any increase in the CEA level from inclusion (OR = 2.22, 95%CI [1.01; 4.89], p = 0.048) and with an increase in the CEA level from inclusion (OR = 6.56, 95%CI [2.73; 15.78], p < 0.001), and an increase in the carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level from inclusion (OR = 2.59, 95%CI [1.25; 5.36], p = 0.016). Conclusions: The self-assessment of patients' general health status alongside tumor markers is an interesting approach to the diagnosis of the tumor progression of metastatic pancreatic cancer patients during first-line treatment.

Five-Year Outcomes of FOLFIRINOX vs Gemcitabine as Adjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Early results at 3 years from the PRODIGE 24/Canadian Cancer Trials Group PA6 randomized clinical trial showed survival benefits with adjuvant treatment with modified FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; mature data are now available. Objective: To report 5-year outcomes and explore prognostic factors for overall survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial was conducted at 77 hospitals in France and Canada and included patients aged 18 to 79 years with histologically confirmed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had undergone complete macroscopic (R0/R1) resection within 3 to 12 weeks before randomization. Patients were included from April 16, 2012, through October 3, 2016. The cutoff date for this analysis was June 28, 2021. Interventions: A total of 493 patients were randomized (1:1) to receive treatment with modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, 85 mg/m2 of body surface area; irinotecan, 150-180 mg/m2; leucovorin, 400 mg/m2; and fluorouracil, 2400 mg/m2, every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2, days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks) as adjuvant therapy for 24 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, metastasis-free survival, and cancer-specific survival. Prognostic factors for overall survival were determined. Results: Of the 493 patients, 216 (43.8%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 62.0 (8.9) years. At a median of 69.7 months' follow-up, 367 disease-free survival events were observed. In patients receiving chemotherapy with modified FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine, median disease-free survival was 21.4 months (95% CI, 17.5-26.7) vs 12.8 months (95% CI, 11.6-15.2) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.82; P < .001) and 5-year disease-free survival was 26.1% vs 19.0%; median overall survival was 53.5 months (95% CI, 43.5-58.4) vs 35.5 months (95% CI, 30.1-40.3) (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.85; P = .001), and 5-year overall survival was 43.2% vs 31.4%; median metastasis-free survival was 29.4 months (95% CI, 21.4-40.1) vs 17.7 months (95% CI, 14.0-21.2) (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.80; P < .001); and median cancer-specific survival was 54.7 months (95% CI, 45.8-68.4) vs 36.3 months (95% CI, 30.5-43.9) (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.82; P < .001). Multivariable analysis identified modified FOLFIRINOX, age, tumor grade, tumor staging, and larger-volume center as significant favorable prognostic factors for overall survival. Shorter relapse delay was an adverse prognostic factor. Conclusions and Relevance: The final 5-year results from the PRODIGE 24/Canadian Cancer Trials Group PA6 randomized clinical trial indicate that adjuvant treatment with modified FOLFIRINOX yields significantly longer survival than gemcitabine in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Trial Registration: EudraCT: 2011-002026-52; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01526135.