Scoring of tumour response after neoadjuvant therapy in resected pancreatic cancer: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative chemo(radio)therapy is used increasingly in pancreatic cancer. Histological evaluation of the tumour response provides information on the efficacy of preoperative treatment and is used to determine prognosis and guide decisions on adjuvant treatment. This systematic review aimed to provide an overview of the current evidence on tumour response scoring systems in pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Studies reporting on the assessment of resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma following neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy were searched using PubMed and EMBASE. All original studies reporting on histological tumour response in relation to clinical outcome (survival, recurrence-free survival) or interobserver agreement were eligible for inclusion. This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1453 studies of which 25 met the eligibility criteria, revealing 13 unique scoring systems. The most frequently investigated tumour response scoring systems were the College of American Pathologists system, Evans scoring system, and MD Anderson Cancer Center system, investigated 11, 9 and 5 times respectively. Although six studies reported a survival difference between the different grades of these three systems, the reported outcomes were often inconsistent. In addition, 12 of the 25 studies did not report on crucial aspects of pathological examination, such as the method of dissection, sampling approach, and amount of sampling. CONCLUSION: Numerous scoring systems for the evaluation of tumour response after preoperative chemo(radio)therapy in pancreatic cancer exist, but comparative studies are lacking. More comparative data are needed on the interobserver variability and prognostic significance of the various scoring systems before best practice can be established.

Expression of integrin ανß6 differentiates perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) from benign disease mimicking PHC.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 15% of patients undergoing resection for presumed perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) have benign disease at final pathological assessment. Molecular imaging targeting tumor-specific biomarkers could serve as a novel diagnostic tool to reduce these futile surgeries. Imaging agents have been developed, selectively binding integrin ανß6, a cell receptor upregulated in pancreatobiliary malignancies, for both (preoperative) PET and (intraoperative) fluorescent imaging. Here, expression of integrin ανß6 is evaluated in PHC, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and benign disease mimicking PHC using immunohistochemistry. MATERIALS & METHODS: Three tissue microarrays (TMA) including 103 PHC tumor cores and sixty tissue samples were selected from resection specimens of pathologically proven PHC (n = 20), ICC (n = 10), HCC (n = 10), metastatic PHC lymph nodes (n = 10) and benign disease (presumed PHC with benign disease at pathological assessment, n = 10). These samples were stained for integrin ανß6 and quantified using the H-score. RESULTS: Immunohistochemical staining for integrin ανß6 showed membranous expression in all twenty PHC whole mount slides (100%) and 93 out of 103 (92%) PHC tumor cores. Mean H-score of PHC samples was 195 ± 71, compared to a mean H-score of 126 ± 57 in benign samples (p = 0.013). In both benign and PHC samples, inflammatory infiltrates and pre-existent peribiliary glands showed integrin ανß6 expression. The mean H-score across ten ICC was 33 ± 53, which was significantly lower compared to PHC (p < 0.001) but too weak to consistently discriminate ICC from HCC (H-score 0)(p = 0.062). CONCLUSION: Integrin ανß6 is abundantly expressed in PHC and associated metastatic lymph nodes. Expression is significantly higher in PHC as compared to benign disease mimicking PHC, ICC and HCC, emphasizing its potential as a target for tumor-specific molecular imaging.

Crossing borders: A systematic review with quantitative analysis of genetic mutations of carcinomas of the biliary tract.

Biliary tract carcinoma (BTC) comprises gallbladder and intra-/extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (GBC, ICC, EHC), which are currently classified by anatomical origin. Better understanding of the mutational profile of BTCs might refine classification and improve treatment. We performed a systematic review of studies reporting on mutational profiling of BTC. We included articles reporting on whole-exome/whole-genome-sequencing (WES/WGS) and targeted sequencing (TS) of BTC, published between 2000-2017. Pooled mutation proportions were calculated, stratified by anatomical region and sequencing technique. A total of 25 studies with 1806 patients were included. Overall, TP53 was the most commonly mutated gene in BTC. GBC was associated with mutations in PFKFB3, PLXN2 and PGAP1. Mutations in IDH1, IDH2 and FGFR fusions almost exclusively occurred in ICC patients. Mutations in APC, GNAS and TGFBR2 occurred exclusively in EHC patients. In conclusion, subtypes of BTCs exhibit minor differences in mutational profile, which is likely influenced by the cell of origin.

Clinical value of ctDNA in upper-GI cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The recent expanding technical possibilities to detect tumor derived mutations in blood, so-called circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), has rapidly increased the interest in liquid biopsies. This review and meta-analysis explores the clinical value of ctDNA in malignancies of the upper gastro-intestinal tract. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched to identify studies reporting the diagnostic, prognostic or predictive value of ctDNA in patients with esophageal, gastric and pancreatic cancer, until January 2017. The diagnostic accuracy and, using random-effect pair-wise meta-analyses, the prognostic value of ctDNA was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria. For esophageal and gastric cancer, amplification of oncogenes in blood, such as HER2 and MYC, can be relevant for diagnostic purposes, and to predict treatment response in certain patient subpopulations. Given the limited number of studies assessing the role of ctDNA in esophageal and gastric cancer, the meta-analysis estimated the diagnostic accuracy and predictive value of ctDNA in pancreatic cancer only (n=10). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ctDNA as a diagnostic tool in pancreatic cancer were 28% and 95%, respectively. Patients with pancreatic cancer and detectable ctDNA demonstrated a worse overall survival compared to patients with undetectable ctDNA (HR 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15-3.22, p=0.01). CONCLUSION: The presence of ctDNA is significantly associated with a poor prognosis in patients with pancreatic cancer. The use of ctDNA in clinical practice is promising, although standardization of sequencing techniques and further development of high-sensitive detection methods is needed.