Alterations in the Duodenal Fluid Microbiome of Patients With Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The tumor microbiome of patients with pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) includes bacteria normally present in the upper gastrointestinal tract. If the predominant source of intratumoral bacteria in patients with PDAC is retrograde migration from the duodenum, duodenal fluid could be a representative biospecimen for determining microbiome profiles of patients with PDAC or at risk of developing PDAC. METHODS: We performed a case-control study comparing bacterial and fungal (16S and 18S rRNA) profiles of secretin-stimulated duodenal fluid collections from 308 patients undergoing duodenal endoscopy including 134 normal pancreas control subjects, 98 patients with pancreatic cyst(s) and 74 patients with PDAC. RESULTS: Alterations in duodenal fluid microbiomes with diminished alpha diversity were significantly associated with age >70 and proton pump inhibitor use. Patients with PDAC had significantly decreased duodenal microbial alpha diversity compared with age-matched control subjects with normal pancreata and those with pancreatic cyst(s). There was evidence of enrichment of Bifidobacterium genera in the duodenal fluid of patients with PDAC compared with control subjects and those with pancreatic cyst(s). There were also enrichment of duodenal fluid Fusobacteria and Rothia bacteria among patients with PDAC with short-term survival. Duodenal fluid microbiome profiles were not significantly different between control subjects and patients with pancreatic cyst(s). CONCLUSION: Patients with PDAC have alterations in their duodenal fluid microbiome profiles compared with patients with pancreatic cysts and those with normal pancreata. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02000089.

Timeline of Development of Pancreatic Cancer and Implications for Successful Early Detection in High-Risk Individuals.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: To successfully implement imaging-based pancreatic cancer (PC) surveillance, understanding the timeline and morphologic features of neoplastic progression is key. We aimed to investigate the progression to neoplasia from serial prediagnostic pancreatic imaging tests in high-risk individuals and identify factors associated with successful early detection. METHODS: We retrospectively examined the development of pancreatic abnormalities in high-risk individuals who were diagnosed with PC or underwent pancreatic surgery, or both, in 16 international surveillance programs. RESULTS: Of 2552 high-risk individuals under surveillance, 28 (1%) developed neoplastic progression to PC or high-grade dysplasia during a median follow-up of 29 months after baseline (interquartile range [IQR], 40 months). Of these, 13 of 28 (46%) presented with a new lesion (median size, 15 mm; range 7-57 mm), a median of 11 months (IQR, 8; range 3-17 months) after a prior examination, by which time 10 of 13 (77%) had progressed beyond the pancreas. The remaining 15 of 28 (54%) had neoplastic progression in a previously detected lesion (12 originally cystic, 2 indeterminate, 1 solid), and 11 (73%) had PC progressed beyond the pancreas. The 12 patients with cysts had been monitored for 21 months (IQR, 15 months) and had a median growth of 5 mm/y (IQR, 8 mm/y). Successful early detection (as high-grade dysplasia or PC confined to the pancreas) was associated with resection of cystic lesions (vs solid or indeterminate lesions (odds ratio, 5.388; 95% confidence interval, 1.525-19.029) and small lesions (odds ratio, 0.890/mm; 95% confidence interval 0.812-0.976/mm). CONCLUSIONS: In nearly half of high-risk individuals developing high-grade dysplasia or PC, no prior lesions are detected by imaging, yet they present at an advanced stage. Progression can occur before the next scheduled annual examination. More sensitive diagnostic tools or a different management strategy for rapidly growing cysts are needed.

Guidelines on management of pancreatic cysts detected in high-risk individuals: An evaluation of the 2017 Fukuoka guidelines and the 2020 International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) consortium statements.

BACKGROUND: Objectives: Pancreatic cysts are frequently detected in high-risk individuals (HRI) undergoing surveillance for pancreatic cancer. The International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium developed consensus recommendations for surgical resection of pancreatic cysts in HRI that are similar to the Fukuoka guidelines used for the management of sporadic cysts. We compared the performance characteristics of CAPS criteria for pancreatic cyst management in HRI with the Fukuoka guidelines originally designed for the management of cysts in non-HRI. METHODS: Using prospectively collected data from CAPS studies, we determined for each patient with resected screen-detected cyst(s) whether Fukuoka guidelines or CAPS consensus statements would have recommended surgery. We compared sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and Receiver Operator Characteristics (ROC) curves of these guidelines at predicting the presence of high-grade dysplasia or invasive cancer in pancreatic cysts. RESULTS: 356/732 HRI had ≥ one pancreatic cyst detected; 24 had surgery for concerning cystic lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the Fukuoka criteria were 40%, 85%, 40%, and 85%, while those of the CAPS criteria were 60%, 85%, 50%, 89%, respectively. ROC curve analyses showed no significant difference between the Fukuoka and CAPS criteria. CONCLUSIONS: In HRI, the CAPS and Fukuoka criteria are moderately specific, but not sufficiently sensitive for detecting advanced neoplasia in cystic lesions. New approaches are needed to guide the surgical management of cystic lesions in HRI.

Detection of Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer Using Digital Next-Generation Sequencing.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) measurements can be used to estimate tumor burden, but avoiding false-positive results is challenging. Herein, digital next-generation sequencing (NGS) is evaluated as a ctDNA detection method. Plasma KRAS and GNAS hotspot mutation levels were measured in 140 subjects, including 67 with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and 73 healthy and disease controls. To limit chemical modifications of DNA that yield false-positive mutation calls, plasma DNA was enzymatically pretreated, after which DNA was aliquoted for digital detection of mutations (up to 384 aliquots/sample) by PCR and NGS. A digital NGS score of two SDs above the mean in controls was considered positive. Thirty-seven percent of patients with pancreatic cancer, including 31% of patients with stages I/II disease, had positive KRAS codon 12 ctDNA scores; only one patient had a positive GNAS mutation score. Two disease control patients had positive ctDNA scores. Low-normal-range digital NGS scores at mutation hotspots were found at similar levels in healthy and disease controls, usually at sites of cytosine deamination, and were likely the result of chemical modification of plasma DNA and NGS error rather than true mutations. Digital NGS detects mutated ctDNA in patients with pancreatic cancer with similar yield to other methods. Detection of low-level, true-positive ctDNA is limited by frequent low-level detection of false-positive mutation calls in plasma DNA from controls.

Gene Variants That Affect Levels of Circulating Tumor Markers Increase Identification of Patients With Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), and cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) in blood are used as markers to determine the response of patients with cancer to therapy, but are not used to identify patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We obtained blood samples from 504 patients undergoing pancreatic surveillance from 2002 through 2018 who did not develop pancreatic cancer and measured levels of the tumor markers CA19-9, CEA, CA-125, and thrombospondin-2. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in FUT3, FUT2, ABO, and GAL3ST2 that have been associated with levels of tumor markers were used to establish SNP-defined ranges for each tumor marker. We also tested the association between additional SNPs (in FUT6, MUC16, B3GNT3, FAM3B, and THBS2) with levels of tumor markers. To calculate the diagnostic specificity of each SNP-defined range, we assigned the patients under surveillance into training and validation sets. After determining the SNP-defined ranges, we determined the sensitivity of SNP-adjusted tests for the tumor markers, measuring levels in blood samples from 245 patients who underwent resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) from 2010 through 2017. RESULTS: A level of CA19-9 that identified patients with PDAC with 99% specificity had 52.7% sensitivity. When we set the cut-off levels of CA19-9 based on each SNP, the test for CA19-9 identified patients with PDAC with 60.8% sensitivity and 98.8% specificity. Among patients with FUT3 alleles that encode a functional protein, levels of CA19-9 greater than the SNP-determined cut-off values identified 66.4% of patients with PDAC, with 99.3% specificity. In the validation set, levels of CEA varied among patients with vs without SNP in FUT2, by blood group, and among smokers vs nonsmokers; levels of CA-125 varied among patients with vs without the SNP in GAL3ST2. The use of the SNPs to define the ranges of CEA and CA-125 did not significantly increase the diagnostic accuracy of the assays for these proteins. Combining data on levels of CA19-9 and CEA, CA19-9 and CA-125, or CA19-9 and thrombospondin-2 increased the sensitivity of detection of PDAC, but slightly reduced specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Including information on SNPs associated with levels of CA19-9, CEA, and CA-125 can improve the diagnostic accuracy of assays for these tumor markers in the identification of patients with PDAC. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT02000089.

Deleterious Germline Mutations Are a Risk Factor for Neoplastic Progression Among High-Risk Individuals Undergoing Pancreatic Surveillance.

PURPOSE: To compare the risk of neoplastic progression by germline mutation status versus family history without a known germline mutation (familial risk) among individuals with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer who are undergoing surveillance. METHODS: Of 464 high-risk individuals in the Cancer of the Pancreas Screening program at Johns Hopkins Hospital who were undergoing pancreatic surveillance, 119 had a known deleterious germline mutation in a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene; 345 met family history criteria for pancreatic surveillance but were not known to harbor a germline mutation. We used next-generation sequencing to identify previously unrecognized germline mutations among these 345 individuals. We compared the development of pancreatic cancer, high-grade dysplasia, or clinically worrisome features, adjusting for competing mortality, among all germline mutation carriers with the risk of progression in a cohort without a known germline mutation. RESULTS: Fifteen (4.3%) of 345 individuals classified as having familial risk had a previously unrecognized pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene mutation (nine that involved ATM, two BRCA2, one BRCA1, one PALB2, one TP53, and one CPA1). The cumulative incidence of pancreatic cancer, high-grade dysplasia, or worrisome features on pancreatic imaging was significantly higher in the germline mutation risk group (n = 134) than in the familial risk group (n = 330 [for pancreatic cancer, hazard ratio, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.0 to 8.18; P = .05]). CONCLUSION: The cumulative incidence of pancreatic cancer is significantly higher among individuals with an identifiable deleterious germline mutation in a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene than it is among individuals with a strong family history but no identified mutation. Gene testing of individuals who meet criteria for pancreatic surveillance on the basis of their family history may better define those most at risk for neoplastic progression.