Phase Ib study of talimogene laherparepvec in combination with atezolizumab in patients with triple negative breast cancer and colorectal cancer with liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), a first-in-class oncolytic viral immunotherapy, enhances tumor-specific immune activation. T-VEC combined with atezolizumab, which blocks inhibitor T-cell checkpoints, could provide greater benefit than either agent alone. Safety/efficacy of the combination was explored in patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) with liver metastases. METHODS: In this phase Ib, multicenter, open-label, parallel cohort study of adults with TNBC or CRC with liver metastases, T-VEC (106 then 108 PFU/ml; ≤4 ml) was administered into hepatic lesions via image-guided injection every 21 (±3) days. Atezolizumab 1200 mg was given on day 1 and every 21 (±3) days thereafter. Treatment continued until patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), had complete response, progressive disease, needed alternative anticancer treatment, or withdrew due to an adverse event (AE). The primary endpoint was DLT incidence, and secondary endpoints included efficacy and AEs. RESULTS: Between 19 March 2018 and 6 November 2020, 11 patients with TNBC were enrolled (safety analysis set: n = 10); between 19 March 2018 and 16 October 2019, 25 patients with CRC were enrolled (safety analysis set: n = 24). For the 5 patients in the TNBC DLT analysis set, no patient had DLT; for the 18 patients in the CRC DLT analysis set, 3 (17%) had DLT, all serious AEs. AEs were reported by 9 (90%) TNBC and 23 (96%) CRC patients, the majority with grade ≥3 [TNBC, 7 (70%); CRC, 13 (54%)], and 1 was fatal [CRC, 1 (4%)]. Evidence of efficacy was limited. Overall response rate was 10% (95% confidence interval 0.3-44.5) for TNBC; one (10%) patient had a partial response. For CRC, no patients had a response; 14 (58%) were unassessable. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile reflected known risks with T-VEC including risks of intrahepatic injection; no unexpected safety findings from addition of atezolizumab to T-VEC were observed. Limited evidence of antitumor activity was observed.

SNAI1-expressing fibroblasts and derived-extracellular matrix as mediators of drug resistance in colorectal cancer patients.

Resistance to antitumor treatments is one of the most important problems faced by clinicians in the management of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts (CAFs) are the main producers and remodelers of the extracellular matrix (ECM), which is directly involved in drug resistance mechanisms. Primary Normal Fibroblasts (NFs) and CAFs and cell lines (fibroblasts and tumor cells), were used to generate ECM and to identify its role in the oxaliplatin and cetuximab chemoresistance processes of CRC cells mediated by SNAI1-expressing fibroblasts. Matrices generated by Snai1 KO MEFs (Knockout Mouse Embryonic Fibroblasts) confer less resistance on oxaliplatin and cetuximab than wild-type MEF-derived matrices. Similarly, matrices derived from CAFs cause greater survival of colorectal cancer cells than NF-derived matrices, in a similar way to Snai1 expression levels. In addition, Snail1 expression in fibroblasts regulates drug resistance and metabolism gene expression in tumor cells mediated by ECM. Finally, a series of 531 patients (TCGA) with CRC was used to assess the role of SNAI1 expression in patients' prognosis indicating an association between tumor SNAI1 expression and overall survival in colon cancer patients but not in rectal cancer patients. SNAI1 expression in CRC cancer patients, together with in vitro experimentation, suggests the possible use of SNAI1 expression in tumor-associated fibroblasts as a predictive biomarker of response to oxaliplatin and cetuximab treatments in patients with CRC.

Clinical nutrition as part of the treatment pathway of pancreatic cancer patients: an expert consensus.

PURPOSE: Malnutrition is a common problem among pancreatic cancer (PC) patients that negatively impacts on their quality of life (QoL) and clinical outcomes. The main objective of this consensus is to address the role of Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) into the comprehensive therapeutic management of PC patients. METHODS: A Spanish multidisciplinary group of specialists from the areas of Medical Oncology; Radiation Oncology; Endocrinology and Nutrition; and General Surgery agreed to assess the role of MNT as part of the best therapeutic management of PC patients. RESULTS: The panel established different recommendations focused on nutritional screening and nutritional screening tools, MNT strategies according to PC status, and MNT in palliative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There is an unmet need to integrate nutritional therapy as a crucial part of the multimodal care process in PC patients. Health authorities, health care professionals, cancer patients, and their families should be aware of the relevance of nutritional status and MNT on clinical outcomes and QoL of PC patients.

Gallbladder disease and pancreatic cancer risk: a multicentric case-control European study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The overall evidence on the association between gallbladder conditions (GBC: gallstones and cholecystectomy) and pancreatic cancer (PC) is inconsistent. To our knowledge, no previous investigations considered the role of tumour characteristics on this association. Thus, we aimed to assess the association between self-reported GBC and PC risk, by focussing on timing to PC diagnosis and tumour features (stage, location, and resection). METHODS: Data derived from a European case-control study conducted between 2009 and 2014 including 1431 PC cases and 1090 controls. We used unconditional logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for recognized confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 298 (20.8%) cases and 127 (11.6%) controls reported to have had GBC, corresponding to an OR of 1.70 (95% CI 1.33-2.16). The ORs were 4.84 (95% CI 2.96-7.89) for GBC diagnosed <3 years before PC and 1.06 (95% CI 0.79-1.41) for ≥3 years. The risk was slightly higher for stage I/II (OR = 1.71, 95% CI 1.15-2.55) vs. stage III/IV tumours (OR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.87-1.76); for tumours sited in the head of the pancreas (OR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.13-2.24) vs. tumours located at the body/tail (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.62-1.68); and for tumours surgically resected (OR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.14-2.51) vs. non-resected tumours (OR = 1.25, 95% CI 0.88-1.78). The corresponding ORs for GBC diagnosed ≥3 years prior PC were close to unity. CONCLUSION: Our study supports the association between GBC and PC. Given the time-risk pattern observed, however, this relationship may be non-causal and, partly or largely, due to diagnostic attention and/or reverse causation.

SEOM clinical guidelines for pancreatic and biliary tract cancer (2020)

Pancreatic cancer (PC) and biliary tract cancer (BTC) are both aggressive and highly fatal malignancies. Nowadays we have a profound knowledge about the molecular landscape of these neoplasms and this has allowed new therapeutic options. Surgery is the only potentially curative therapy in both cancers, but disease recurrence is frequent. In PC, adjuvant treatment with mFOLFIRINOX has improved overall survival (OS) and in BTC adjuvant treatment with capecitabine seems to improve OS and relapse-free survival. Concomitant radio-chemotherapy could also be considered following R1 surgery in both neoplasms. Neoadjuvant treatment represents the best option for achieving an R0 resection in borderline PC. Upfront systemic chemotherapy is the treatment of choice in unresectable locally advanced PC and BTC; then locoregional therapy could be considered after an initial period of at least 3–4 months of systemic chemotherapy. In metastatic PC, FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel have improved OS compared with gemcitabine alone. In metastatic BTC, cisplatin plus gemcitabine constitute the standard treatment. Progress in the knowledge of molecular biology has enabled the identification of new targets for therapy with encouraging results that could in the future improve the survival and quality of life of patients with PC and BTC (AU)

SEOM clinical guidelines for pancreatic and biliary tract cancer (2020).

Pancreatic cancer (PC) and biliary tract cancer (BTC) are both aggressive and highly fatal malignancies. Nowadays we have a profound knowledge about the molecular landscape of these neoplasms and this has allowed new therapeutic options. Surgery is the only potentially curative therapy in both cancers, but disease recurrence is frequent. In PC, adjuvant treatment with mFOLFIRINOX has improved overall survival (OS) and in BTC adjuvant treatment with capecitabine seems to improve OS and relapse-free survival. Concomitant radio-chemotherapy could also be considered following R1 surgery in both neoplasms. Neoadjuvant treatment represents the best option for achieving an R0 resection in borderline PC. Upfront systemic chemotherapy is the treatment of choice in unresectable locally advanced PC and BTC; then locoregional therapy could be considered after an initial period of at least 3-4 months of systemic chemotherapy. In metastatic PC, FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel have improved OS compared with gemcitabine alone. In metastatic BTC, cisplatin plus gemcitabine constitute the standard treatment. Progress in the knowledge of molecular biology has enabled the identification of new targets for therapy with encouraging results that could in the future improve the survival and quality of life of patients with PC and BTC.

Management and perception of therapeutic adherence of breakthrough cancer pain by oncologists in Spain / Manejo y percepción de la adherencia al tratamiento del dolor irruptivo oncológico por oncólogos españoles

Objectives:The objective of this study was to evaluate the perception of oncologists on adherence to opioid treatment for breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) in current clinical practice. Our study also included an assessment of other aspects of the management of BTcP, such as the reasons for non-adherence, the adequacy of the treatment, or the possible interventions required to improve adherence.Methods:This observational, multicentric study was carried out in 84 hospitals throughout Spain. Oncologists were surveyed by means of an online questionnaire on their management of background cancer pain and BTcP, and their perception of adherence to the treatments.Results:Oncologists (N = 97) reported that their first choice for BTcP was fentanyl (various formulations), with high perceived tolerance (> 76 % of patients). Most oncologists (96.8 %) evaluated adherence in their patients but only 69. 1% always prescribed medication to prevent adverse effects of opioids and only 74.2 % always titrated the minimum dose. Most oncologists (51.0 %) perceived that 25-50 % of the patients did not adhere to the treatment for BTcP. Adherence to background pain treatments was high, although many oncologists considered that patients usually stopped taking the medication when feeling better. The main reported reasons for non-adherence were the self-perceived feeling that treatment was unnecessary, perceived inefficacy of the treatment, concerns about potential adverse effects, and lack of family support.Conclusions:Oncologists perceived that adherenceto BTcP treatment can be improved and recommended treatment of adverse effects, better education about pain management to patients and relatives, written prescription instructions, and simplification of drug regimens.(AU)

Introducción:El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la percepción de los oncólogos sobre la adherencia al tratamiento con opioides para el dolor irruptivo oncológico (DIO) en la práctica clínica real. El estudio también incluyó una evaluación de otros aspectos del manejo del DIO, como las razones de la no adherencia, la adecuación del tratamiento, o las posibles intervenciones necesarias para mejorar la adherencia.Métodos:Este estudio observacional multicéntrico se realizó en 84 hospitales de toda España. Los oncólogos fueron encuestados por medio de un cuestionario online sobre su manejo del dolor oncológico basal y del DIO, y su percepción de la adherencia a los tratamientos.Resultados:Los oncólogos (n = 97) indicaron que su primera opción para el DIO fue el fentanilo (varias formulaciones), con alta tolerancia (> 76 % de los pacientes). La mayoría de los oncólogos (96,8 %) evaluaron la adherencia en sus pacientes, pero solo el 69,1 % siempre prescribió medicamentos para prevenir los efectos adversos de los opioides, y solo el 74,2 % siempre tituló la dosis mínima. La mayoría de los oncólogos (51 %) percibieron que el 25-50 % de los pacientes no mostraban buena adherencia al tratamiento para DIO. La adherencia a los tratamientos de dolor basal fue alta, aunque muchos oncólogos consideraron que los pacientes generalmente dejaban de tomar el medicamento cuando se sentían mejor. Las principales razones para la no adherencia fueron la sensación de que el tratamiento era innecesario, la ineficacia percibida del tratamiento, la preocupación por los posibles efectos adversos y la falta de apoyo familiar.Conclusiones:Los oncólogos percibieron que la adherencia al tratamiento para el DIO puede mejorarse y recomendaron el tratamiento de los efectos adversos de la medicación, una mejor educación sobre el manejo del dolor a los pacientes y familiares, instrucciones escritas de prescripción y simplificación de los regímenes de medicamentos.(AU)

Treatment patterns for metastatic colorectal cancer in Spain.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this retrospective study was to describe the treatment patterns according to the type of treatment received by patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Spain. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, multicenter study performed by 33 sites throughout Spain that included consecutive patients aged 18 years or older who had received or were receiving treatment for mCRC. RESULTS: At the time of inclusion, of the 873 evaluable patients, 507 (58%) had received two lines, 235 (27%) had received three lines, 106 (12%) had received four lines, and the remaining patients had received up to ten lines. The most frequent chemotherapy schemes were the FOLFOX or CAPOX regimens (66%) for first-line treatment, FOLFOX, CAPOX or FOLFIRI (70%) for second-line treatment, and FOLFOX, FOLFIRI or other fluoropyrimidine-based regimens for third- and fourth-line (over 60%) treatment. Sixty percent of patients received targeted therapy as part of their first-line treatment, and this proportion increased up to approximately 70% of patients as part of the second-line of treatment. A relevant proportion of patients were treated with unknown KRAS, and especially the BRAF, mutation statuses. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals inconsistencies regarding adherence to the recommendations of the ESMO guidelines for the management of mCRC in Spain. Improved adherence to the standard practice described in such guidelines for the determination of RAS and BRAF mutation statuses and the use of targeted therapies in first-line treatment should be considered to guarantee that patients can benefit from the best therapeutic approaches available.

Survey of treatment recommendations for elderly patients with glioblastoma.

INTRODUCTION: Glioblastoma, which is the most commonly diagnosed primary CNS neoplasm, is more frequent in individuals aged 65 years or more. Our purpose is to identify how glioblastoma diagnosed in elderly population is treated by Spanish oncologists. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A survey was emailed to all members of Spanish Group for Neuro-oncology Research (GEINO). RESULTS: Twenty-six neuro-oncologists from 26 hospitals completed the survey. The answers were different depending on the age, performance status, and MGMT methylation status. Patients between 65 and 70 years of age are mainly treated with Stupp treatment. For patients between ages of 70 and 80 years, 46.2% made recommendations for Perry regimen, for both methylated and non-methylated patients. For patients older than 80  years, monotherapy treatment is considered more frequently. In cases of non-MGMT promoter methylation, systemic therapy with temozolomide is still recommended in many hospitals. CONCLUSION: Our research demonstrates there is no uniform approach to the management of elderly patients with glioblastoma among academic neuro-oncologists.

First-line single-agent regorafenib in frail patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a pilot phase II study of the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours (TTD).

BACKGROUND: Treatment of frail patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) is controversial. This pilot phase II trial aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib when administered in first-line to frail patients with advanced CRC. METHODS: Frail patients without prior advanced colorectal cancer treatment were included in the study. Definition of frailty was defined per protocol based on dependency criteria, presence of chronic comorbid pathologies and/or geriatric features. MAIN OBJECTIVE: to assess progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months. Treatment consisted of 28-day cycles of orally administered regorafenib 160 mg/day (3 weeks followed by 1 week rest). RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were included in the study. Median age was 81 years (range 63-89). Frailty criteria: dependency was observed in 26 patients (55%), comorbidities in 27 (57%) and geriatric features in 18 (38%). PFS rate at 6 months was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI] 30-60]. Median PFS was 5.6 months (95%CI 2.7-8.4). Median overall survival (OS) was 16 months (95%CI 7.8-24). Complete response, partial response and stable disease were observed in one, two and 21 patients respectively (objective response rate 6.4%; disease control rate 51%). Thirty-nine patients (83%) experienced grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs). The most common grade 3-4 AEs were hypertension (15 patients; 32%), asthenia (14; 30%), hypophosphatemia (6; 13%); diarrhea (4; 8%), hand-foot-skin reaction (4; 8%). There were two toxic deaths (4.2%) (grade 5 rectal bleeding and death not further specified). Dose reduction was required in 26 patients (55%) and dose-delays in 13 patients (28%). CONCLUSIONS: The study did not meet the pre-specified boundary of 55% PFS rate at 6 months. Toxicity observed (83% patients experienced grade 3 and 4 AEs) preclude its current use in clinical practice on this setting. Disease control rate and overall survival results are interesting and might warrant further investigation to identify those who benefit from this approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered at EudraCT ( 2013-000236-94 ). Date of trial registration: April 9th, 2013.

Ultra-selection of metastatic colorectal cancer patients using next-generation sequencing to improve clinical efficacy of anti-EGFR therapy.

BACKGROUND: Extended RAS analysis is mandatory in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. The optimal threshold of RAS mutated subclones to identify patients most likely to benefit from antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy is controversial. Our aim was to assess the clinical impact of detecting mutations in RAS, BRAF, PIK3CA and EGFRS492R in basal tissue tumour samples by using a highly sensitive next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology in mCRC patients treated with chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five hundred and eighty-one tumour samples from untreated mCRC patients from 7 clinical studies were collected. Mutational analysis was carried out by standard-of-care (therascreen pyro) with a sensitivity detection of 5% mutant allele fraction (MAF), and compared with NGS technology using 454GS Junior platform (Roche Applied Science, Germany) with a sensitivity of 1%. Molecular results were correlated with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: After quality assessment, 380 samples were evaluable for molecular analysis. Standard-of-care mutational analysis detected RAS, BRAFV600E or PIK3CA mutations in 56.05% of samples compared with 69.21% by NGS (P = 0.00018). NGS identified coexistence of multiple low-frequency mutant alleles in 96 of the 263 mutated cases (36.5%; range 2-7). Response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were increasingly improved in patients with RAS wild-type, RAS/BRAF wild-type or quadruple (KRAS/NRAS/BRAF/PIK3CA) wild-type tumours treated with anti-EGFR, assessed by standard-of-care. No additional benefit in RR, PFS or OS was observed by increasing the detection threshold to 1% by NGS. An inverse correlation between the MAF of the most prevalent mutation detected by NGS and anti-EGFR response was observed (P = 0.039). EGFRS492Rmutation was not detected in untreated samples. CONCLUSIONS: No improvement in the selection of patients for anti-EGFR therapy was obtained by adjusting the mutation detection threshold in tissue samples from 5% to 1% MAF. Response to anti-EGFR was significantly better in patients with quadruple wild-type tumours.

Management and supportive treatment of frail patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Data regarding management of frail patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma practice is currently very scarce. Randomized clinical trials usually exclude these subgroup of patients and the majority of the publications only consider chronological age and ECOG performance status for their classification. Therefore, the current available data do not reflect daily clinical practice. Only data from a phase two study (FRAGANCE study), designed to select a tolerable dose-schedule of nab-placitaxel + gemcitabine (Phase one) and to evaluate the efficacy of the selected regimen (Phase two) in patients with ECOG-2 and previously untreated advanced PDAC, are currently available. Management of these particular patients is exceedingly complex and requires collaboration of multidisciplinary teams and intensive support treatment. This article reviews the literature available regarding the management of the so-called frail patients and provide guidance for chemotherapy as well as supportive care treatments.

Management of hyperbilirubinaemia in pancreatic cancer patients.

Development of hyperbilirubinaemia is common in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, both at diagnosis as well throughout disease evolution. For this reason, hyperbilirubinaemia determines chemotherapy treatment selection, and therefore it should be considered one of the most relevant conditions. There is very little evidence for the use of chemotherapy in this setting. This article summarises the main causes of hyperbilirubinaemia, how to treat them as well as their differential diagnosis. The current clinical evidence of the available drugs as well as the recommendations of use different combinations in the context of hyperbilirubinaemia are also reviewed.

Risk of pancreatic cancer associated with family history of cancer and other medical conditions by accounting for smoking among relatives.

Background: Family history (FH) of pancreatic cancer (PC) has been associated with an increased risk of PC, but little is known regarding the role of inherited/environmental factors or that of FH of other comorbidities in PC risk. We aimed to address these issues using multiple methodological approaches. Methods: Case-control study including 1431 PC cases and 1090 controls and a reconstructed-cohort study (N = 16 747) made up of their first-degree relatives (FDR). Logistic regression was used to evaluate PC risk associated with FH of cancer, diabetes, allergies, asthma, cystic fibrosis and chronic pancreatitis by relative type and number of affected relatives, by smoking status and other potential effect modifiers, and by tumour stage and location. Familial aggregation of cancer was assessed within the cohort using Cox proportional hazard regression. Results: FH of PC was associated with an increased PC risk [odds ratio (OR) = 2.68; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.27-4.06] when compared with cancer-free FH, the risk being greater when ≥ 2 FDRs suffered PC (OR = 3.88; 95% CI: 2.96-9.73) and among current smokers (OR = 3.16; 95% CI: 2.56-5.78, interaction FHPC*smoking P-value = 0.04). PC cumulative risk by age 75 was 2.2% among FDRs of cases and 0.7% in those of controls [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.42; 95% CI: 2.16-2.71]. PC risk was significantly associated with FH of cancer (OR = 1.30; 95% CI: 1.13-1.54) and diabetes (OR = 1.24; 95% CI: 1.01-1.52), but not with FH of other diseases. Conclusions: The concordant findings using both approaches strengthen the notion that FH of cancer, PC or diabetes confers a higher PC risk. Smoking notably increases PC risk associated with FH of PC. Further evaluation of these associations should be undertaken to guide PC prevention strategies.

Genotype-based selection of treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer (SETICC): a pharmacogenetic-based randomized phase II trial.

Background: There has been little progress toward personalized therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). TYMS-3' untranslated region (UTR) 6 bp ins/del and ERCC1-118C/T polymorphisms were previously reported to facilitate selecting patients for fluoropyrimidine-based treatment in combination with oxaliplatin as first-line therapy. We assessed the utility of these markers in selecting therapy for patients with mCRC. Patients and methods: This randomized, open-label phase II trial compared bevacizumab plus XELOX (control) versus treatment tailored according to TYMS-3'UTR 6 bp ins/del and ERCC1-118C/T polymorphisms. Patients randomized to the experimental treatment received bevacizumab plus FUOX, FUIRI, XELIRI, or XELOX depending on their combination of favorable polymorphisms for FUOX treatment (TYMS-3'UTR ins/del or del/del; ERCC1-118T/T). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. Results: Overall, 195 patients were randomized (control n = 65; experimental n = 130). The primary objective was not met: median PFS was 9.4 months in the control group and 10.1 months in the experimental group (P = 0.745). Median overall survival was similar in both groups (16.5 versus 19.1 months, respectively; P = 0.797). Patients in the experimental group had a significantly higher overall response rate (ORR; 65% versus 47% in the control group; P = 0.042) and R0 resection rate (86% versus 44%, respectively; P = 0.018). Neuropathy, hand-foot syndrome, thrombocytopenia, and dysesthesia were significantly less common in the experimental group. Conclusions: This study did not show survival benefits after treatment personalization based on polymorphisms in mCRC. However, the improved ORR and R0 resection rate and fewer disabling toxicities suggest that tailoring therapy by TYMS-3'UTR and ERCC1-118 polymorphisms warrants further investigation in patients with mCRC. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01071655.

Biomarkers in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is currently the third most frequent form of malignancy. The role of biomarkers in the diagnostic and therapeutic strategy of cancer is constantly expanding. Translational research is already changing paradigms in tumours encompassing from early diagnosis to precision medicine in advanced disease. Nomenclature for molecular subtypes of tumours is gradually gaining acceptance and there are growing expectations it will further go from the bench to the bedside. However, the clinical relevance of biomarkers in PDAC is still far behind the relevance of biomarkers in other solid tumours. This article is part of a wider project (GALLgo) involving over forty specialists devoted to the multidisciplinary management of PDAC which concluded in recommendations based on scientific evidence. The aim of the present article is to review the diagnostic, prognostic and predictive biomarkers, either in localised or advanced disease, which have been lately subjected to study and analysis and others currently available for PDAC in order to give strength-graded recommendations linked to quality of evidence that can be used as guidelines in routine clinical practice (AU)

No disponible

Supportive care in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the cancers with poorest prognosis and represents the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Western countries. Despite advances in diagnostic procedures and treatment, diagnosis is made in most cases when the disease is locally advanced or metastatic. Supportive care aims to improve symptoms, reduce hospital admission rates, and preserve quality of life. Proper symptomatic management is critical to allow administration of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Symptomatic management should be accomplished in a multidisciplinary fashion. Its primary aims include relief of biliary or duodenal obstruction, prevention and/or treatment of thromboembolic disease, and control cancer-related pain. Nutritional support and optimal replacement therapy in patients with endocrine and/or exocrine insufficiency, is mandatory. This manuscript highlights the most significant problems faced when caring for patients with advanced PDAC and provides an evidence-based approach to symptomatic management (AU)

No disponible

Surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Surgical resection is the only potentially curative option in the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Preoperative radiological imaging allows to rule out the presence of metastases. Three resectability categories are established based on the radiological findings depending on the degree of contact between the tumor and the blood vessels. Histological confirmation of malignancy is only required in cases of borderline or non-resectable tumors, prior to neoadjuvant treatment initiation. Diagnostic laparoscopy is recommended in the presence of large tumors of the body or tail and in borderline tumors to explore the possibility of resection and to apply treatment with curative intent, as well as in those cases with high level of biomarkers to rule out peritoneal involvement. Prior to surgery preoperative nutritional measures as well as endoscopic biliary drainage can be applied to optimize patient’s conditions. Cephalic pancreaticoduodenectomy is the recommended surgical technique in tumors located in the head of the pancreas. The benefits from pyloric preservation, type or reconstruction (one vs. two loops), type of anastomosis (pancreaticojejunostomy vs. pancreaticogastrostomy), intraoperative biopsy of the pancreatic resection margin or the use of intraperitoneal drainages are inconclusive. Total pancreatectomy and/or portal resection should only be performed in particular cases; however, arterial resections have shown no benefits. Radical antegrade modular pancreaticosplenectomy, that can be performed laparoscopically, is the technique used for those tumors located in the pancreatic body-tail (AU)

No disponible

Diagnosis and staging of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

The management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a major public health concern worldwide. Currently, most PDAC patients are diagnosed in advanced stages. The signs and symptoms of the disease, except for jaundice, are non-specific. Thus, the current challenge is to identify earlier those individuals for whom specific screening tools and specific treatments would be beneficial. On the basis of the recommendations of the group of experts of multiple medical specialties of the GALLgo Project, the patients with PDAC should be managed by a multidisciplinary team to assess the personal and family history, the best diagnostic and staging procedures and consider all important aspects for treatment decisions. In this article, the group of experts proposes strategies to shorten the diagnosis times in PDAC patients (AU)

No disponible

Surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Surgical resection is the only potentially curative option in the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Preoperative radiological imaging allows to rule out the presence of metastases. Three resectability categories are established based on the radiological findings depending on the degree of contact between the tumor and the blood vessels. Histological confirmation of malignancy is only required in cases of borderline or non-resectable tumors, prior to neoadjuvant treatment initiation. Diagnostic laparoscopy is recommended in the presence of large tumors of the body or tail and in borderline tumors to explore the possibility of resection and to apply treatment with curative intent, as well as in those cases with high level of biomarkers to rule out peritoneal involvement. Prior to surgery preoperative nutritional measures as well as endoscopic biliary drainage can be applied to optimize patient's conditions. Cephalic pancreaticoduodenectomy is the recommended surgical technique in tumors located in the head of the pancreas. The benefits from pyloric preservation, type or reconstruction (one vs. two loops), type of anastomosis (pancreaticojejunostomy vs. pancreaticogastrostomy), intraoperative biopsy of the pancreatic resection margin or the use of intraperitoneal drainages are inconclusive. Total pancreatectomy and/or portal resection should only be performed in particular cases; however, arterial resections have shown no benefits. Radical antegrade modular pancreaticosplenectomy, that can be performed laparoscopically, is the technique used for those tumors located in the pancreatic body-tail.