Exploring the prognostic value of circular RNAs in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using genome-wide expression profiling.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Median survival of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is around eight months and new prognostic tools are needed. Circular RNAs (circRNAs) have gained interest in different types of cancer. However, only a few studies have evaluated their potential in PDAC. We aimed to identify the most differentially expressed circRNAs in PDAC compared to controls and to explore their potential as prognostic markers. METHODS: Using frozen specimens with PDAC and controls, we performed RNA sequencing and identified 20,440 unique circRNAs. A custom code set of capture- and reporter probes for NanoString nCounter analysis was designed to target 152 circRNAs, based on abundancy, differential expression and a literature study. Expression of these 152 circRNAs was examined in 108 formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded surgical PDAC specimens and controls. The spatial expression of one of the most promising candidates, ciRS-7 (hsa_circ_0001946), was evaluated by chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) using multi-punch tissue microarrays (TMAs) and digital imaging analysis. RESULTS: Based on circRNA expression profiles, we identified different PDAC subclusters. The 30 most differentially expressed circRNAs showed log2 fold changes from -3.43 to 0.94, where circNRIP1 (hsa_circ_0004771), circMBOAT2 (hsa_circ_0007334) and circRUNX1 (hsa_circ_0002360) held significant prognostic value in multivariate analysis. CiRS-7 was absent in PDAC cells but highly expressed in the tumor microenvironment. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several new circRNAs with biomarker potential in surgically treated PDAC, three of which showed an independent prognostic value. We also found that ciRS-7 is absent in cancer cells but abundant in tumor microenvironment and may hold potential as marker of activated stroma.

Detailed analysis of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who developed cardiotoxicity on another fluoropyrimidine and switched to S-1 treatment (subgroup analysis of the CardioSwitch-study).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The CardioSwitch-study demonstrated that patients with solid tumors who develop cardiotoxicity on capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) treatment can be safely switched to S-1, an alternative fluoropyrimidine (FP). In light of the European Medicines Agency approval of S-1 in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), this analysis provides more detailed safety and efficacy information, and data regarding metastasectomy and/or local ablative therapy (LAT), on the mCRC patients from the original study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at 12 European centers. The primary endpoint was recurrence of cardiotoxicity after switch. For this analysis, safety data are reported for 78 mCRC patients from the CardioSwitch cohort (N = 200). Detailed efficacy and outcomes data were available for 66 mCRC patients. RESULTS: Data for the safety of S-1 in mCRC patients were similar to the original CardioSwitch cohort and that expected for FP-based treatment, with no new concerns. Recurrent cardiotoxicity (all grade 1) with S-1-based treatment occurred in 4/78 (5%) mCRC patients; all were able to complete FP treatment. Median progression-free survival from initiation of S-1-based treatment was 9.0 months and median overall survival 26.7 months. Metastasectomy and/or LAT was performed in 33/66 (50%) patients, and S-1 was successfully used in recommended neoadjuvant/conversion or adjuvant-like combination regimens and schedules as for standard FPs. INTERPRETATION: S-1 is a safe and effective FP alternative when mCRC patients are forced to discontinue 5-FU or capecitabine due to cardiotoxicity and can be safely used in the standard recommended regimens, settings, and schedules.

European clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer (OMEC-4).

INTRODUCTION: The OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project aims to provide clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of esophagogastric oligometastatic disease (OMD). METHODS: Guidelines were developed according to AGREE II and GRADE principles. Guidelines were based on a systematic review (OMEC-1), clinical case discussions (OMEC-2), and a Delphi consensus study (OMEC-3) by 49 European expert centers for esophagogastric cancer. OMEC identified patients for whom the term OMD is considered or could be considered. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between primary tumor treatment and detection of OMD. RESULTS: Moderate to high quality of evidence was found (i.e. 1 randomized and 4 non-randomized phase II trials) resulting in moderate recommendations. OMD is considered in esophagogastric cancer patients with 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 involved extra-regional lymph node station. In addition, OMD continues to be considered in patients with OMD without progression in number of metastases after systemic therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is recommended for baseline staging and for restaging after systemic therapy when local treatment is considered. For patients with synchronous OMD or metachronous OMD and a DFI ≤ 2 years, recommended treatment consists of systemic therapy followed by restaging to assess suitability for local treatment. For patients with metachronous OMD and DFI > 2 years, upfront local treatment is additionally recommended. DISCUSSION: These multidisciplinary European clinical practice guidelines for the uniform definition, diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric OMD can be used to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials and to reduce variation in treatment.

TRIFLURIDINE/TIPIRACIL (FTD/TPI) with or without bevacizumab in previously treated patients with esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma, a randomised phase III trial.

Background: Trifluridine-tipiracil has shown a survival benefit compared with placebo in patients with chemorefractory metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy of trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab vs trifluridine-tipiracil monotherapy in pre-treated patients with metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma. Methods: This investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized trial enrolled patients with metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma. The main inclusion criteria were patients with pre-treated metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma, and WHO performance status 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral trifluridine-tipiracil (35 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 every 28 days) alone or combined with bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient decision to withdraw. Randomisation was stratified by sex and treatment line. The primary endpoint was investigator-evaluated progression-free survival. All analyses were based on intention to treat. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2018-004845-18. Findings: From Oct 1, 2019, to Sept 30, 2021, 103 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to trifluridine-tipiracil (n = 53) or trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab (n = 50). The clinical cut-off date was March 1st, 2023, after a median follow-up of 36.6 months. Median progression-free survival was 3.1 months (95% CI 2.0-4.3) in the trifluridine-tipiracil group vs 3.9 months (3.0-6.3) in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.46-1.02; p = 0.058). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse event was neutropenia, observed in 26 (49%) patients in the trifluridine-tipiracil group vs 23 patients (46%) in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group. At least one hospitalization was observed in 21 patients (40%) in the trifluridine-tipiracil group and 22 patients (44%) in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group. No deaths were deemed treatment related. Interpretation: In patients with pre-treated metastatic esophago-gastric cancer, trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab, compared to trifluridine-tipiracil monotherapy, did not significantly prolong progression-free survival. The combination of trifluridine-tipiracil with bevacizumab was well tolerated without increase in severe neutropenia and no new safety signals. Funding: Servier, Roche.

Geriatric screening and frailty intervention in older patients with cancer.

Frailty in older patients with cancer increases the risk of treatment related toxicity, mortality, physical decline, and quality of life. This review summarises various screening tools. Screening tools identifying frailty serve multiple purposes, providing awareness of health issues impacting oncologic treatment and prognosis and facilitating the delivery of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). CGA is an overall health assessment and treatment targeting frailty. Providing CGA to older patients with cancer reduces the risk of toxicity and functional decline, increases treatment completion, and prevents loss of quality of life.

Palliative medical cancer treatment of the elderly.

Due to demographic changes the incidence of older patients with cancer will increase. The complexity of systemic treatment of cancer is also evolving. Older patients with cancer are underrepresented in clinical trials and do often not represent the older population treated in real-world setting. Knowledge on how to treat older patients with cancer is sparse and mostly based on pooled analyses from larger trials including older fit patients. Only few randomised trials include older patients with frailty. Clinical trials dedicated to older or frail patients with cancer are still an unmet need, as argued in this review.

Prognostic value of margin clearance in total and distal pancreatectomy specimens with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in a Danish population-based nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic role of resection margin status following total (TP) and distal (DP) pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is insufficiently evaluated. In Denmark, pancreatic surgery, including the postoperative pathological examination of the resection specimens, is confined to four centres, all reporting to the Danish Pancreatic Cancer Database (DPCD). In this Danish population-based nationwide study on TP and DP for PDAC from 2015-2019, based on data from DPCD, we evaluated whether there is a prognostically relevant minimum margin clearance definition and whether certain margins hold independent prognostic information. METHODS: Clinical and pathological data were retrieved from DPCD and supplemented by review of pathology reports and re-microscopy, if needed. One of the study pathologists performed all re-microscopy. The prognostic significance of margin status was evaluated by dichotomisation of the TP cohort (n = 101) and the DP cohort (n = 90) into involved and uninvolved groups, using different clearance definitions (0.5 - ≥3.0 mm). RESULTS: Following TP, direct involvement of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) margin had independent prognostic value. When using a clearance definition of ≥ 0.5 or ≥ 1.5 mm for SMA, median survival for R0 versus R1 was 19 (95% CI 14-26) versus 10 (95% CI 5-20) months (p = 0.010), and 21 (95% CI 15-30) versus 10 (95% CI 8-19) months (p = 0.011), respectively. Overall margin status was not of significant prognostic importance following neither DP nor TP. CONCLUSION: In this Danish population-based nationwide study, SMA margin involvement was a significant isolated prognostic factor following TP, whereas combined assessment of all circumferential margins did not hold statistically significant prognostic information. Following DP, resection margin status did not affect survival.

Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus upfront surgery for resectable pancreatic head cancer (NORPACT-1): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing resection for pancreatic cancer, adjuvant modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) improves overall survival compared with alternative chemotherapy regimens. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX with the standard strategy of upfront surgery in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: NORPACT-1 was a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial done in 12 hospitals in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and had a resectable tumour of the pancreatic head radiologically strongly suspected to be pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (3:2 before October, 2018, and 1:1 after) to the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group or upfront surgery group. Patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group received four neoadjuvant cycles of FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus then 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle), followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients in the upfront surgery group underwent surgery and then received adjuvant chemotherapy. Initially, adjuvant chemotherapy was gemcitabine plus capecitabine (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 over 30 min on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle and capecitabine 830 mg/m2 twice daily for 3 weeks with 1 week of rest in each 28-day cycle; four cycles in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group, six cycles in the upfront surgery group). A protocol amendment was subsequently made to permit use of adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle; eight cycles in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group, 12 cycles in the upfront surgery group). Randomisation was performed with a computerised algorithm that stratified for each participating centre and used a concealed block size of two to six. Patients, investigators, and study team members were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 18 months. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol populations. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one cycle of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02919787, and EudraCT, 2015-001635-21, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2017, and April 21, 2021, 77 patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and 63 to undergo upfront surgery. All patients were included in the ITT analysis. For the per-protocol analysis, 17 (22%) patients were excluded from the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group (ten did not receive neoadjuvant therapy, four did not have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and three received another neoadjuvant regimen), and eight (13%) were excluded from the upfront surgery group (seven did not have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and one did not undergo surgical exploration). 61 (79%) of 77 patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group received neoadjuvant therapy. The proportion of patients alive at 18 months by ITT was 60% (95% CI 49-71) in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group versus 73% (62-84) in the upfront surgery group (p=0·032), and median overall survival by ITT was 25·1 months (95% CI 17·2-34·9) versus 38·5 months (27·6-not reached; hazard ratio [HR] 1·52 [95% CI 1·00-2·33], log-rank p=0·050). The proportion of patients alive at 18 months in per-protocol analysis was 57% (95% CI 46-67) in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group versus 70% (55-83) in the upfront surgery group (p=0·14), and median overall survival in per-protocol population was 23·0 months (95% CI 16·2-34·9) versus 34·4 months (19·4-not reached; HR 1·46 [95% CI 0·99-2·17], log-rank p=0·058). In the safety population, 42 (58%) of 73 patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 19 (40%) of 47 patients in the upfront surgery group had at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event. 63 (82%) of 77 patients in the neoadjuvant group and 56 (89%) of 63 patients in the upfront surgery group had resection (p=0·24). One sudden death of unknown cause and one COVID-19-related death occurred after the first cycle of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX. Adjuvant chemotherapy was initiated in 51 (86%) of 59 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 44 (90%) of 49 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the upfront surgery group (p=0·56). Adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX was given to 13 (25%) patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 19 (43%) patients in the upfront surgery group. During adjuvant chemotherapy, neutropenia (11 [22%] patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and five [11%] in the upfront surgery group) was the most common grade 3 or worse adverse event. INTERPRETATION: This phase 2 trial did not show a survival benefit from neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma compared with upfront surgery. Implementation of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX was challenging. Future trials on treatment sequencing in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma should be biomarker driven. FUNDING: Norwegian Cancer Society, South Eastern Norwegian Health Authority, The Sjöberg Foundation, and Helsinki University Hospital Research Grants.

External validation and diagnostic value of the Elderly Functional Index version 2.0 for assessing functional status and frailty in older Danish patients with gastrointestinal cancer receiving chemotherapy: A prospective, clinical study.

INTRODUCTION: Patient perspectives on functioning are often overlooked in oncology practice. This study externally validates the ELderly Functional Index (ELFI), a patient-reported measure for assessing multidimensional functioning, in older patients with gastrointestinal cancer receiving chemotherapy. The study compares ELFI scoring methods, evaluates its diagnostic value with geriatric oncology tools, and proposes a cut-off point for clinical use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Danish patients aged ≥70 years with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing chemotherapy from a prospective, observational study were included. Two ELFI scoring methods, item-based and domain-based, were compared. Internal consistency reliability, validity, and correlations between ELFI, its component scales, and measures of functioning/frailty (including Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status [ECOG-PS], Geriatric-8 [G8], Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 [VES-13], Timed-Up-and-Go [TUG], and 30-s chair stand test [30CST]) were investigated. Sensitivity and specificity analyses evaluated the ability of ELFI to predict frailty outcomes and identified frailty thresholds. Receiver operating characteristic analyses assessed the diagnostic ability of ELFI, alongside other measures, for oncological outcomes and frailty differentiation. Equipercentile equating methods enabled ECOG-PS, ELFI, and G8 mapping. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four patients (median age 73.5 years, range 70-85) undergoing curative- or palliative-intent chemotherapy (49%) were included. ELFI demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.82) and acceptable convergent, structural, and discriminant validity. ELFI showed moderate to very strong correlations with its component scales (r = 0.40-0.93), and weaker correlations with frailty measures (r = 0.02-0.60). ELFI score < 80 indicated frailty risk, with almost fivefold risk of ECOG-PS 2 at follow-up (odds ratio[OR] = 4.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-15.9), and predicted G8, VES-13, TUG, and 30CST frailty at follow-up, not completing planned chemotherapy (OR = 3.1; 95%CI 1.5-6.2), mono-therapy (OR = 3.5; 95%CI 1.5-8.1), initial dose reduction (OR = 4.9; 95%CI 2.0-12.1), and shorter overall survival (hazard ratio = 2.0, 95%CI 1.4-3.0). A preliminary crosswalk between ECOG-PS, ELFI, and G8 was established. DISCUSSION: ELFI was validated as a concise patient-reported measure of functional status in older patients with cancer and its relationship to frailty. ELFI demonstrated comparable predictive ability to other tools for oncological outcomes. Both scoring methods yielded similar results, with the domain-based method (ELFI v2.0) endorsed for consistency. ELFI v2.0 score of 80 was suggested as the frailty threshold in this population, supporting its clinical utility.

Cetuximab every 2 weeks versus standard weekly dosing administration schedule.

Cetuximab every 2 weeks (Q2W) dosing schedule is approved by the US FDA and by the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Phase II trials have found comparable efficacy and safety for the weekly (Q1W) and Q2W schedules, and real-world studies have shown noninferiority of the Q2W compared with the Q1W schedule. Several guidelines recommend cetuximab Q2W administration as an alternative to the Q1W dosing schedule. Cetuximab Q2W can be administered with a Q2W dose of chemotherapy, making it a more convenient option to the Q1W schedule, potentially resulting in reduced costs for administration, increased flexibility for clinical staff and improved patient adherence.

Cetuximab is a drug for patients with colorectal cancer or cancer of the head and neck. It is usually administered once a week. However, studies have shown that cetuximab given once every 2 weeks instead has similar clinical benefits and side effects. Based on this evidence, the every 2 weeks dosing schedule has been approved for use in USA and Japan. The every 2 weeks dosing schedule is a convenient alternative to the weekly schedule. It may result in fewer hospital visits, improved patient quality of life, reduced healthcare costs and more flexibility for medical staff. This review summarizes the current evidence and benefits for the every 2 weeks dosing schedule.

Prognostic importance of margin clearance in ampullary adenocarcinoma following pancreaticoduodenectomy in a Danish population-based nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: In this Danish nationwide population-based study, we evaluated the prognostically relevant minimum tumour-free margin width following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC) and evaluated whether certain margins hold independent prognostic information. METHODS: We included 128 patients who underwent PD for AAC from 2015 to 2019. Clinical and pathological data including well-known prognostic factors were retrieved from the Danish Pancreatic Cancer Database. Missing data were obtained by review of pathology reports and re-microscopy of resection specimens. All PD specimens were examined using a standardised pathological protocol including multicolour inking, axial slicing and exact reporting of margin widths. The cohort was dichotomised into involved and uninvolved groups, using different margin clearance definitions (0.5-≥3.0 mm). RESULTS: Following PD for AAC, margin clearance of ≥1 mm was independently associated with improved chance of survival compared with <1 mm (HR: 0.30, 95 % CI: 0.14-0.64 (p = 0.002)). Posterior and anterior margin widths were narrower compared with superior mesenteric artery and vein margins. Posterior margin and anterior surface had isolated prognostic significance in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Following PD for AAC, margin clearance of at least 1 mm is independently associated with improved survival. Our data further indicate that anterior surface and posterior margin hold particular prognostic value.

Effects of comprehensive geriatric assessment-guided interventions on physical performance and quality of life in older patients with advanced cancer: A randomized controlled trial (PROGNOSIS-RCT).

INTRODUCTION: Older patients with frailty starting oncological treatment are at higher risk of experiencing declining physical performance, loss of independence, and quality of life (QoL). This study examines whether comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA)-guided interventions added to standard oncological care can prevent declining physical performance and QoL in older patients with frailty initiating palliative treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥70 years, with a Geriatric-8 score of ≤14, initiating palliative oncological treatment were enrolled in an open label randomized controlled trial and randomized 1:1 to receive either CGA-guided interventions in addition to oncological standard care or oncological care alone. Baseline characteristics, physical performance measures, and QoL questionnaires were retrieved before group allocation. CGA was performed using a fixed set of domains and validated tests by a geriatrician-led team. The primary endpoint, physical performance, was measured by the 30-s chair stand test (30s-CST) at three months. Additional outcomes included 30s-CST at six months, handgrip strength test, and QoL. Outcomes were analyzed using linear mixed regression models. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.org (NCT04686851). RESULTS: From November 1, 2020 to May 31, 2022, 181 patients were included; 88 in the interventional arm and 93 in the control arm. Median age was 77 (interquartile range [IQR] 73-81) years, 69% were male, median Geriatric-8 score was 12 (IQR 10-13), 69% had a Performance Status of 0-1, and the median 30s-CST was 9 (IQR 5-11) repetitions. The between-group difference in 30s-CST at three months was 0.67 (95%CI: -0.94 - 2.29) and 1.57 (95%CI: -0.20 - 3.34) at six months, which were not statistically significant. Subgroup analysis including participants with a baseline Geriatric-8 of 12-14 found borderline significant between-group differences in 30s-CST scores at three and six months of 2.04 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.07 - 4.2, P = 0.06) and 2.25 (95%CI: 0.01-4.5, P = 0.05), respectively. No within-group or between-group differences in the summary score or the Elderly Functional Index score (measuring QoL) were found. DISCUSSION: This study did not find significant between-group differences in the 30s-CST in older patients receiving palliative care. However, a tendency towards improved physical performance was seen in the least frail. These patients may represent a target group wherein CGA interventions provide particular benefit.

Atypical (non-V600E) BRAF mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer in population and real-world cohorts.

BRAF-V600E mutation (mt) is a strong negative prognostic and predictive biomarker in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Non-V600Emt, designated atypical BRAFmt (aBRAFmt) are rare, and little is known about their frequency, co-mutations and prognostic and predictive role. These were compared between mutational groups of mCRC patients collected from three Nordic population-based or real-world cohorts. Pathology of aBRAFmt was studied. The study included 1449 mCRC patients with 51 (3%) aBRAFmt, 182 (13%) BRAF-V600Emt, 456 (31%) RAS&BRAF wild-type (wt) and 760 (52%) RASmt tumours. aBRAFmt were seen in 2% of real-world and 4% of population-based cohorts. Twenty-six different aBRAFmt were detected, 11 (22%) class 2 (serrated adenocarcinoma in 2/9 tested), 32 (64%) class 3 (serrated in 15/25) and 4 (8%) unclassified. aBRAFmt patients were predominantly male, had more rectal primaries, less peritoneal metastases, deficient mismatch repair in one (2%), and better survival after metastasectomy (89% 5-year overall survival [OS]-rate) compared with BRAF-V600Emt. aBRAFmt and BRAF-V600Emt had poorer performance status and received fewer treatment lines than RAS&BRAFwt and RASmt. OS among aBRAFmt (median 14.4 months) was longer than for BRAF-V600Emt (11.2 months), but shorter than for RAS&BRAFwt (30.5 months) and RASmt (23.4 months). Addition of bevacizumab trended for better OS for the aBRAFmt. Nine patients with aBRAFmt received cetuximab/panitumumab without response. aBRAFmt represents a distinct subgroup differing from other RAS/BRAF groups, with serrated adenocarcinoma in only half. OS for patients with aBRAFmt tumours was slightly better than for BRAF-V600Emt, but worse than for RASmt and RAS&BRAFwt. aBRAFmt should not be a contraindication for metastasectomy.

The role of immunotherapy in the treatment of colorectal cancer.

In Denmark, around 4,500 people are diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) annually. This review investigates that while the efficacy of immunotherapy in CRC is still being studied, immunotherapy is currently only indicated in the treatment of mismatch-repair deficient (dMMR) metastatic CRC, which accounts for 10-15% of patients. Recent studies indicate high rates of pathologic response in dMMR CRC treated with pre-operative immunotherapy while large-scale studies on novel immunotherapy combinations are ongoing.

What is long-term survival in patients with peritoneal metastasis from gastric, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer? A study of patients treated with systemic chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

Objectives: A definition of long-term survival (LTS) in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from gastric cancer (GC), pancreatic cancer (PC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with systemic chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is lacking. We aimed to define LTS and investigate characteristics and treatment response in patients who reached LTS in data from two prospective trials. Methods: Retrospective study of patients with GC-, PC-, or CRC-PM from the prospective PIPAC-OPC1 and PIPAC-OPC2 studies. The definition of LTS was based on published systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. LTS was defined at the time point where 25 % of the patients were alive in these studies. Histology based response was evaluated by the mean Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) using biopsies obtained prior to PIPAC 3, and defined by a mean PRGS of ≤2.0 or a decrease of mean PRGS of ≥1, compared to baseline. Results: LTS was defined at 21 (GC), 15 (PC), and 24 (CRC) months. Fifty-one (47.2 %) patients (nine GC, 17 PC, 25 CRC) reached LTS calculated from the date of PM diagnosis. All but one received palliative chemotherapy before PIPAC, and 37 % received bidirectional treatment. More than 90 % of the LTS patients had response according to PRGS. The mOS from PIPAC 1 was 23.3, 12.4, and 28.5 months for GC, PC, and CRC LTS patients. Conclusions: Patients with PM from GC, PC, and CRC treated with systemic chemotherapy and PIPAC can reach LTS and most show histological response. Causality must be further investigated.

High overall copy number variation burden by genome-wide methylation profiling holds negative prognostic value in surgically treated pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive type of cancer with an overall 5-year survival of around 10 %. New prognostic tools to stratify patients are needed. Our main aim was to evaluate the prognostic value of overall copy number variation (CNV) burden in surgically treated PDAC. DNA extracted from 108 surgical PDAC specimens was examined to collect data on the genome-wide DNA methylation status of >850,000 CpG sites in promoter, gene body, and enhancer regions (Illumina Infinium Methylation EPIC BeadChip Kit). CNV profiles were obtained and all PDACs were stratified into one of three groups: Low, moderate, or high overall CNV burden. Tumors histologically showing a dominant conventional and/or tubulopapillary pattern in 60 %-100 % and 0-59 % were categorized as Group A and Group B as per Kalimuthu. We also performed targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) and immunohistochemistry. High overall CNV burden held independent negative prognostic value with poor survival (HR 4.01 (95%CI 1.96-8.19), p = 0.00014) and was more frequent in Group B (p = 0.0003). Most frequent chromosomal arm-level aberrations were gains of 8q (29 %) and 1q (19 %) and losses of 17p (55 %), 18q (43 %), 6q (37 %), 9p (36 %), 6p (26 %), 19p (26 %), and 8p (25 %). Most frequent mutations found were in KRAS (95 %), TP53 (62 %), CDKN2A (24 %), SMAD4 (23 %), ATM (9 %), ARID1A (7 %), RNF43 (7 %), GNAS (6 %), and KDM6A (6 %). Group A PDACs showed more frequently KRAS variants other than Gly12Val and Gly12Asp (p = 0.012). Our data indicate that overall CNV burden using genome-wide methylation profiling may be a useful prognostic tool in surgically treated PDAC. Importantly, our approach, using data from genome-wide methylation profiling for analysis of overall CNV burden, can be performed on formalin-fixed and paraffin embedded PDAC tissues. Future studies should examine the prognostic value of overall CNV burden in unresectable PDAC.

Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma-A Critical Review of Randomised Trials.

Pancreatic cancer is rising as one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Patients often present with advanced disease, limiting curative treatment options and therefore making management of the disease difficult. Systemic chemotherapy has been an established part of the standard treatment in patients with both locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. In contrast, the use of radiotherapy has no clear defined role in the treatment of these patients. With the evolving imaging and radiation techniques, radiation could become a plausible intervention. In this review, we give an overview over the available data regarding radiotherapy, chemoradiation, and stereotactic body radiation therapy. We performed a systematic search of Embase and the PubMed database, focusing on studies involving locally advanced pancreatic cancer (or non-resectable pancreatic cancer) and radiotherapy without any limitation for the time of publication. We included randomised controlled trials involving patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer, including radiotherapy, chemoradiation, or stereotactic body radiation therapy. The included articles represented mainly small patient groups and had a high heterogeneity regarding radiation delivery and modality. This review presents conflicting results concerning the addition of radiation and modality in the treatment regimen. Further research is needed to improve outcomes and define the role of radiation therapy in pancreatic cancer.

A randomized phase II study of full dose gemcitabine versus reduced dose gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in vulnerable patients with non-resectable pancreatic cancer (DPCG-01).

BACKGROUND: According to current evidence, the best treatment for fit patients with non-resectable pancreatic cancer (PC) is combination chemotherapy, whereas frail patients are recommended gemcitabine (Gem) monotherapy. Randomized controlled trials in colorectal cancer and a post-hoc analysis of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GemNab) in PC suggest, however, that reduced dose of combination chemotherapy may be feasible and more efficient compared to monotherapy in frail patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether reduced dose GemNab is superior to full dose Gem in patients with resectable PC, who are not candidates for full dose combination chemotherapy in first line. METHODS: The Danish Pancreas Cancer Group (DPCG)-01 trial is a national multicenter prospective randomized phase II trial. A total of 100 patients in ECOG performance status 0-2 with non-resectable PC, not candidate for full dose combination chemotherapy in first line, but eligible for full dose Gem, will be included. Patients are randomized 1:1 to either full dose Gem or GemNab in 80% of recommended dose. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints are overall survival, overall response rate, quality of life, toxicity and rate of hospitalizations during treatment. The correlation between blood inflammatory markers, including YKL-40 and IL-6, circulating tumor DNA, and tissue biomarkers of resistance to chemotherapy and outcome will be explored. Finally, the study will include measures of frailty (G8, modified G8, and chair-stand-test) to assess whether scoring would enable a personalized allocation to different treatments or indicates a possibility for interventions. DISCUSSION: Single-drug treatment with Gem has for frail patients with non-resectable PC been the main treatment option for more than thirty years, but the impact on outcome is modest. If improved results and sustained tolerability with reduced dose combination chemotherapy can be shown, this could change the future practice for this increasing group of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05841420. Secondary Identifying No: N-20210068. EudraCT No: 2021-005067-52. PROTOCOL VERSION: 1.5, 16-MAY-2023.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with stage I-III MMR-deficient colon cancer: a national, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, phase II study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Within the last two decades, major advances have been made in the surgical approach for patients with colorectal cancer. However, to this day we face considerable challenges in reducing surgery-related complications and improving long-term oncological outcomes. Unprecedented response rates have been achieved in studies investigating immunotherapy in patients with mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) colorectal cancer. This has raised the question of whether neoadjuvant immunotherapy may change the standard of care for localised dMMR colon cancer and pave the way for organ-sparing treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, phase II study in patients with stage I-III dMMR colon cancer scheduled for intended curative surgery. Eighty-five patients will be treated with one dose of pembrolizumab (4 mg/kg) and within 5 weeks will undergo a re-evaluation with an endoscopy and a CT scan-to assess tumour response-before standard resection of the tumour. The primary endpoint is the number of patients with pathological complete response, and secondary endpoints include safety (number and severity of adverse events) and postoperative surgical complications. In addition, we aspire to identify predictive biomarkers that can point out patients that achieve pathological complete response. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Regional Committee for Health Research and Ethics and the Danish Medicines Agency have approved this study. The study will be performed according to the Helsinki II declaration. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The results of the study will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication and presented at international congresses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05662527.