ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To investigate in patients treated for a resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PA), the prognostic value of baseline CA19-9 and circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) for overall survival (OS), to improve death risk stratification, based on a planned ancillary study from PANACHE01-PRODIGE 48 trial. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Biological borderline situation that was first used by the MD Anderson, became a standard practice following the international consensus conference in 2016 to manage PA. Regarding the risk of systemic disease especially in the setting of "markedly elevated" CA19-9, neoadjuvant therapy is advised to avoid unnecessary surgery, with risk of early recurrence. To best define biological borderline situations, new biomarkers are needed. METHODS: Characteristics at diagnosis and OS were compared between patients with or without ctDNA status available. OS was estimated with Kaplan Meier method and compared with log-rank test. Restricted cubic spline approach was used to identify optimal threshold for biological parameters for death risk stratification. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were estimated to assess the association of ctDNA status and other parameters with OS. RESULTS: Among the 132 patients from the primary population for analysis in the PANACHE01 -PRODIGE 48 trial, 92(71%) were available for ctDNA status at diagnosis. No selection bias was identified between patients with or without ctDNA status. 14 patients (15%) were ctDNA+ and exhibited a higher risk for death (P=0,0188; HR95% CI: 2.28 (1.12-4.63). In the 92 patients with ctDNA status available among the others parameter analysed only CA19-9 was statically associated with OS in univariate analysis. Patients with log of CA19-9 equal or superior to 4.4 that corresponds to a CA19-9 of 80 UI/mL were identified at higher risk for death (P=0,0143; HR95% CI: 2.2 (1.15-4.19). In multivariate analysis CA19-19 remained independently associated with OS (p-value=0.0323). When combining the two biomarkers, median OS was of 19.4 (IC 95% 3.8-Not reached) months, 30.2 (IC 95% 17.1-NR) months and not reached (IC 95% 39.3-NR) for "CA19-9 high and ctDNA+ group", "CA19-9 high or ctDNA+ group", and "CA19-9 low and ctDNA- group", respectively (logrank P=0,0069). DISCUSSION: Progress in the management of potentially operable PA remains limited, relying solely on strategies to optimize the sequence of complete treatment, based on modern multidrug chemotherapy (FOLFIRINOX, GemNabPaclitaxel) and surgical resection. The identification of risk criteria, such as the existence of systemic disease, is an important issue, currently referred to as "biologic borderline disease". Few data, particularly from prospective studies, allow us to identify biomarkers other than CA19-9. CONCLUSION: Combining ctDNA to CA19-9 could be of interest to best define biological borderline situations in PA.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Significant progress has been made in the management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in recent years. In this population-based study, we aimed to compare incidence, therapeutic strategies, and survival outcomes of PDAC patients in France over a decade. METHODS: This study was performed using a nationwide French database. All patients receiving care for PDAC during years 2009, 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment modalities and survival outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 8143/8771/10494 patients were considered in 2009/2014/2018, respectively. Incidence increased mainly among patients aged >60 years. In localized PDAC, the proportion of patients receiving best supportive care (BSC) only decreased at 43.6/36.4/32.4 % and 27.8/29.1/34.3 % received chemo(radio)therapy alone. The rate of upfront surgery remained stable while 3/8/18 % of operated patients received neoadjuvant therapy. Median overall survival (OS) was 7.0/7.9/8.5 months in the overall population. Among treated patients, 1-year OS was 61.4/67.7/68.8 % and 30.3/36.3/38.8 % for localized and metastatic PDAC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the rising incidence of PDAC. Improved outcomes were seen in localized PDAC, with a wider use of chemotherapy and neoadjuvant strategies, and in treated metastatic patients. A modest survival gain was seen overall, hindered by the still high rate of patients receiving BSC only.
ABSTRACT
Background: Bacterial peritonitis (BP) in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer has been poorly described, and its prevalence is unknown. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate in patients with both GI cancer and ascites the prevalence of BP, associated features, mechanisms, prognosis, and the diagnostic performance of neutrophil count in ascites. Design: A retrospective, multicenter, observational study. Methods: All patients with GI cancer and ascites who underwent at least one paracentesis sample analyzed for bacteriology over a 1-year period were included. BP was defined by a positive ascites culture combined with clinical and/or biological signs compatible with infection. Secondary BP was defined as BP related to a direct intra-abdominal infectious source. Results: Five hundred fifty-seven ascites from 208 patients included were analyzed. Twenty-eight patients had at least one episode of BP and the annual prevalence rate of BP was 14%. Among the 28 patients with BP, 19 (65%) patients had proven secondary BP and 17 (59%) patients had multi-microbial BP, mainly due to Enterobacterales. A neutrophil count greater than 110/mm3 in ascites had negative and positive predictive values of 96% and 39%, respectively, for the diagnosis of BP. The median survival of patients with BP was 10 days (interquartile range 6-40) after the diagnosis. Conclusion: BP is not rare in patients with GI cancer and is associated with a poor short-term prognosis. When a patient with GI cancer is diagnosed with BP, a secondary cause should be sought. Further studies are needed to better define the best management of these patients.
Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms , Hepatectomy , Liver Neoplasms , Neoadjuvant Therapy , Humans , Liver Neoplasms/secondary , Liver Neoplasms/drug therapy , Liver Neoplasms/surgery , Liver Neoplasms/pathology , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Colorectal Neoplasms/drug therapy , Colorectal Neoplasms/surgery , Prognosis , Survival Rate , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Chemotherapy, AdjuvantABSTRACT
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Accumulating data has shown the rising incidence and poor prognosis of early-onset gastrointestinal cancers, but few data exist on biliary tract cancers (BTC). We aimed to analyse the clinico-pathological, molecular, therapeutic characteristics and prognosis of patients with early onset BTC (EOBTC, age ≤50 years at diagnosis), versus olders. METHODS: We analysed patients diagnosed with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and gallbladder adenocarcinoma between 1 January 2003 and 30 June 2021. Baseline characteristics and treatment were described in each group and compared. Progression-free survival, overall survival and disease-free survival were estimated in each group using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Overall, 1256 patients were included, 188 (15%) with EOBTC. Patients with EOBTC demonstrated fewer comorbidities (63.5% vs. 84.5%, p < .0001), higher tumour stage (cT3-4: 50.0% vs. 32.3%, p = .0162), bilobar liver involvement (47.8% vs. 32.1%, p = .0002), and metastatic disease (67.6% vs. 57.5%, p = .0097) compared to older. Patients with EOBTC received second-line therapy more frequently (89.5% vs. 81.0% non-EOBTC, p = .0224). For unresectable patients with BTC, median overall survival was 17.0 vs. 16.2 months (p = .0876), and median progression-free survival was 5.8 vs. 6.0 months (p = .8293), in EOBTC vs. older. In advanced stages, fewer actionable alterations were found in EOBTC (e.g., IDH1 mutations [7.8% vs. 16.6%]; FGFR2-fusion [11.7% vs. 8.9%]; p = .029). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with EOBTC have a more advanced disease at diagnosis, are treated more heavily at an advanced stage but show similar survival. A distinctive molecular profile enriched for FGRF2 fusions was found.
Subject(s)
Biliary Tract Neoplasms , Cholangiocarcinoma , Humans , Male , Female , Retrospective Studies , Middle Aged , Cholangiocarcinoma/mortality , Cholangiocarcinoma/therapy , Cholangiocarcinoma/pathology , Adult , Biliary Tract Neoplasms/mortality , Biliary Tract Neoplasms/pathology , Biliary Tract Neoplasms/therapy , Aged , Gallbladder Neoplasms/mortality , Gallbladder Neoplasms/therapy , Gallbladder Neoplasms/pathology , Age of Onset , Adenocarcinoma/mortality , Adenocarcinoma/therapy , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Bile Duct Neoplasms/mortality , Bile Duct Neoplasms/therapy , Bile Duct Neoplasms/pathology , Prognosis , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Progression-Free SurvivalABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Optimal management of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) is based on a combination of chemotherapy and surgical resection. The tumor regression grade (TRG) score is a histological scoring system to evaluate response to chemotherapy. The prognosis of a heterogeneous response in cases of multiple metastases has not been evaluated according to the TRG score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent liver resection for multiple CRLM after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in two tertiary centers from January 2015 to April 2019 were retrospectively included. Oncological characteristics and outcome between TRG 1-2-3 (good response group), TRG 4-5 (poor response group) and heterogeneous TRG (good and poor TRG among different lesions within the same patient) groups were compared. RESULTS: Among the 327 patients included, 134 (41.0%) had good response (TRG 1-2-3), 120 (36.7%) had poor response (TRG 4-5), and 73 (22.3%) had heterogeneous response. The type and number of cycles of chemotherapy, k-Ras mutational status, and tumor number or size did not differ between the three groups. Use of irinotecan-based and anti-VEGF neoadjuvant therapy was associated with better TRG response [irinotecan-based: hazard ratio (OR) = 1.744; p = 0.045; anti-VEGF neoadjuvant therapy: 2.054; p = 0.005). Overall survival (OS) was higher in the 1-2-3 TRG group than in the heterogeneous TRG group (2-year OS = 81.3% vs. 60.3%, respectively; p = 0.003) and the 4-5 TRG group (2-year OS = 81.3% vs. 55.0%, respectively; p = 0.012) and similar between the heterogeneous and 4-5 TRG groups. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of heterogeneous pathological response according to TRG is 22.3%, and the prognosis is comparable to that of poor pathological response.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols , Colorectal Neoplasms , Hepatectomy , Liver Neoplasms , Neoadjuvant Therapy , Humans , Liver Neoplasms/secondary , Liver Neoplasms/drug therapy , Liver Neoplasms/surgery , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Colorectal Neoplasms/drug therapy , Male , Female , Retrospective Studies , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Survival Rate , Aged , Follow-Up Studies , Irinotecan/administration & dosage , Chemotherapy, AdjuvantABSTRACT
A major advance has been made in the management of rectal cancer, with the emergence in 2021 of total neoadjuvant treatment. The main publications from the RAPIDO and PRODIGE-23 trials reported a significant improvement in progression-free survival and the pathological complete response rate. The aim of this review is to synthesize recent data on neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer, to explain the long-term results of the RAPIDO and PRODIGE-23 trials, and to put them into perspective, considering current advances in de-escalation strategies. The update of the 5-year survival data from the RAPIDO trial highlights an increased risk of loco-regional relapse, with 11.7% of relapses in the experimental group and 8.1% in the control group, while the update of the PRODIGE-23 trial confirms the benefits of this treatment regimen, with a significant improvement in overall survival. In addition, the results of the OPRA and PROPSPECT trials confirm the benefit of total neoadjuvant treatment with induction chemotherapy, as well as the possibility of surgical de-escalation in the OPRA trial and radiotherapy in the PROSPECT trial. The challenge for the future is to identify patients who require total neoadjuvant treatment with the aim of curative surgery to obtain a cure without local or distant relapse, and those for whom therapeutic de-escalation can be envisaged.
Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Neoadjuvant Therapy , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local , Rectal Neoplasms , Humans , Rectal Neoplasms/therapy , Rectal Neoplasms/pathology , Rectal Neoplasms/mortality , Adenocarcinoma/therapy , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Adenocarcinoma/mortality , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/therapy , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Induction Chemotherapy , Progression-Free Survival , Fluorouracil/administration & dosage , Fluorouracil/therapeutic use , Capecitabine/administration & dosage , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Leucovorin/administration & dosage , Leucovorin/therapeutic use , Organoplatinum Compounds/administration & dosage , Organoplatinum Compounds/therapeutic useABSTRACT
Adjuvant chemotherapy benefits patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), but the compromised physical state of post-operative patients can hinder compliance. Biomarkers that identify candidates for prompt adjuvant therapy are needed. In this prospective observational study, 1,171 patients with PDAC who underwent pancreatectomy were enrolled and extensively followed-up. Proteomic profiling of 191 patient samples unveiled clinically relevant functional protein modules. A proteomics-level prognostic risk model was established for PDAC, with its utility further validated using a publicly available external cohort. More importantly, through an interaction effect regression analysis leveraging both clinical and proteomic datasets, we discovered two biomarkers (NDUFB8 and CEMIP2), indicative of the overall sensitivity of patients with PDAC to adjuvant chemotherapy. The biomarkers were validated through immunohistochemistry on an internal cohort of 386 patients. Rigorous validation extended to two external multicentic cohorts-a French multicentric cohort (230 patients) and a cohort from two grade-A tertiary hospitals in China (466 patients)-enhancing the robustness and generalizability of our findings. Moreover, experimental validation through functional assays was conducted on PDAC cell lines and patient-derived organoids. In summary, our cohort-scale integration of clinical and proteomic data demonstrates the potential of proteomics-guided prognosis and biomarker-aided adjuvant chemotherapy for PDAC.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal , Pancreatic Neoplasms , Humans , Proteomics , Biomarkers, Tumor/metabolism , Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal/drug therapy , Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal/genetics , Pancreatic Neoplasms/drug therapy , Pancreatic Neoplasms/genetics , Pancreatic Neoplasms/metabolism , Prospective StudiesSubject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Hepatectomy , Liver Neoplasms , Pancreatic Neoplasms , Humans , Pancreatic Neoplasms/surgery , Pancreatic Neoplasms/pathology , Pancreatic Neoplasms/secondary , Liver Neoplasms/secondary , Liver Neoplasms/surgery , Adenocarcinoma/surgery , Adenocarcinoma/secondary , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Hepatectomy/methodsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: GEMPAX was an open-label, randomized phase III clinical trial designed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel versus gemcitabine alone as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) who previously received 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan. METHODS: Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed mPDAC were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive GEMPAX (paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2; IV; once at day (D) 1, D8, and D15/arm A) or gemcitabine (arm B) alone once at D1, D8, and D15 every 28 days until progression, toxicity, or patient's decision. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life, and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 211 patients (median age, 64 [30-86] years; 62% male) were included. After a median study follow-up for alive patients of 13.4 versus 13.8 months in arm A versus arm B, the median OS (95% CI) was 6.4 (5.2 to 7.4) versus 5.9 months (4.6 to 6.9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [0.63 to 1.20]; P = 0.4095), the median PFS was 3.1 (2.2 to 4.3) versus 2.0 months (1.9 to 2.3; HR, 0.64 [0.47 to 0.89]; P = 0.0067), and the ORR was 17.1% (11.3 to 24.4) versus 4.2% (0.9 to 11.9; P = 0.008) in arm A versus arm B, respectively. Overall, 16.7% of patients in arm A and 2.9% in arm B discontinued their treatment because of adverse events (AEs). One grade 5 AE associated with both gemcitabine and paclitaxel was reported in arm A (acute respiratory distress), and 58.0% versus 27.1% of patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs in arm A versus arm B, among which 15.2% versus 4.3% had anemia, 15.9% versus 15.7% had neutropenia, 19.6% versus 4.3% had thrombocytopenia, 10.1% versus 2.9% had asthenia and 12.3% versus 0.0% had neuropathy. CONCLUSION: While GEMPAX did not meet the primary end point of OS versus gemcitabine alone in patients with mPDAC in the second-line setting, both PFS and ORR were significantly improved.