Head-to-head comparison of treatment sequences in advanced pancreatic cancer-Real-world data from the prospective German TPK clinical cohort study.

There are no clear guidelines regarding the optimal treatment sequence for advanced pancreatic cancer, as head-to-head phase III randomised trials are missing. We assess real-world effectiveness of three common sequential treatment strategies by emulating a hypothetical randomised trial. This analysis included 1551 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer from the prospective, clinical cohort study Tumour Registry Pancreatic Cancer receiving FOLFIRINOX (n = 613) or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GEMNAB; n = 938) as palliative first-line treatment. We used marginal structural modelling to compare overall survival (OS) and time to deterioration (TTD) of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between three common first- to second-line treatment sequences, adjusting for time-varying potential confounding. The sequences were: FOLFIRINOX→GEMNAB, GEMNAB→FOLFOX/OFF and GEMNAB→nanoliposomal irinotecan (NALIRI) + 5-fluorouracil. Outcome was also calculated stratified by patients' prognostic risk according to the Pancreatic Cancer Score. Median OS and TTD of HRQoL independent of risk were 10.7 [8.9, 11.9] and 6.4 [4.8, 7.7] months for FOLFIRINOX→GEMNAB, 8.4 [7.4, 9.7] and 5.8 [4.6, 7.1] months for GEMNAB→FOLFOX/OFF and 8.9 [7.8, 10.4] and 4.6 [4.1, 6.1] months for GEMNAB→NALIRI+5-fluorouracil. Compared to FOLFIRINOX→GEMNAB, OS and TTD were worse for poor-risk patients with GEMNAB→FOLFOX/OFF (OS: HR 2.09 [1.47, 2.98]; TTD: HR 1.97 [1.19, 3.27]) and those with GEMNAB→NALIRI+5-fluorouracil (OS: HR 1.35, [0.76, 2.39]; TTD: HR 2.62 [1.56, 4.42]). Brackets denote 95%-confidence intervals. The estimated real-world effectiveness of the three treatment sequences evaluated were largely comparable. Poor-risk patients might benefit from intensified treatment with FOLFIRINOX→GEMNAB in terms of clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Future randomised trials on sequential treatments in advanced pancreatic cancer are warranted.

Total neoadjuvant therapy with mFOLFIRINOX versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: long-term results of the UNICANCER-PRODIGE 23 trial.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) results in an excellent local disease control but the metastasis rates remain high. PRODIGE 23 demonstrated improved disease-free survival (DFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) with total neoadjuvant therapy versus standard of care in this population. Long-term analysis of overall survival (OS) is reported here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study design, participants, and primary endpoint DFS have been reported for this multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial investigating the neoadjuvant chemotherapy with mFOLFIRINOX (6 cycles) followed by chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy (6 cycles), versus chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy (12 cycles) in patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma under peritoneal reflection on magnetic resonance imaging, and staged cT3/T4. Key secondary endpoints included OS, MFS, and local and metastatic recurrence rate. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 82.2 months, the 7-year DFS was 67.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 60.7% to 73.9%] and 62.5% (95% CI 55.6% to 68.6%) [restricted mean survival time (RMST) difference 5.73 months, 95% CI 0.05-11.41 months, P = 0.048] in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the standard-of-care groups, respectively. The 7-year MFS was 79.2% (95% CI 73.0% to 84.4%) in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and 72.3% (95% CI 65.8% to 77.8%) in the standard-of-care group (RMST difference 6.1 months, 95% CI 0.93-11.37 months, P = 0.021). The 7-year OS was 81.9% (95% CI 75.8% to 86.6%) in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and 76.1% (95% CI 69.7% to 81.2%) in the standard-of-care group (RMST difference 4.37 months, 95% CI 0.35-8.38 months, P = 0.033). The safety profile remained unchanged since the previous analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with mFOLFIRINOX followed by chemoradiotherapy improved OS, confirmed long-term DFS and MFS benefits in LARC patients, and should be considered as one of the best options of care for these patients.

Development and validation of AI-assisted transcriptomic signatures to personalize adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: After surgical resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), patients are predominantly treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, commonly consisting of gemcitabine (GEM)-based regimens or the modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) regimen. While mFFX regimen has been shown to be more effective than GEM-based regimens, it is also associated with higher toxicity. Current treatment decisions are based on patient performance status rather than on the molecular characteristics of the tumor. To address this gap, the goal of this study was to develop drug-specific transcriptomic signatures for personalized chemotherapy treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used PDAC datasets from preclinical models, encompassing chemotherapy response profiles for the mFFX regimen components. From them we identified specific gene transcripts associated with chemotherapy response. Three transcriptomic artificial intelligence signatures were obtained by combining independent component analysis and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator-random forest approach. We integrated a previously developed GEM signature with three newly developed ones. The machine learning strategy employed to enhance these signatures incorporates transcriptomic features from the tumor microenvironment, leading to the development of the 'Pancreas-View' tool ultimately clinically validated in a cohort of 343 patients from the PRODIGE-24/CCTG PA6 trial. RESULTS: Patients who were predicted to be sensitive to the administered drugs (n = 164; 47.8%) had longer disease-free survival (DFS) than the other patients. The median DFS in the mFFX-sensitive group treated with mFFX was 50.0 months [stratified hazard ratio (HR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.44, P < 0.001] and 33.7 months (stratified HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.59, P < 0.001) in the GEM-sensitive group when treated with GEM. Comparatively patients with signature predictions unmatched with the treatments (n = 86; 25.1%) or those resistant to all drugs (n = 93; 27.1%) had shorter DFS (10.6 and 10.8 months, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a transcriptome-based tool that was developed using preclinical models and machine learning to accurately predict sensitivity to mFFX and GEM.

Adjuvant Gemcitabine Versus Neoadjuvant/Adjuvant FOLFIRINOX in Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: The Randomized Multicenter Phase II NEPAFOX Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although addition of adjuvant chemotherapy is the current standard, the prognosis of pancreatic cancers still remains poor. The NEPAFOX trial evaluated perioperative treatment with FOLFIRINOX in resectable pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter phase II trial randomized patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer without metastases into arm (A,) upfront surgery plus adjuvant gemcitabine, or arm (B,) perioperative FOLFIRINOX. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Owing to poor accrual, recruitment was prematurely stopped after randomization of 40 of the planned 126 patients (A: 21, B: 19). Overall, approximately three-quarters were classified as primarily resectable (A: 16, B: 15), and the remaining patients were classified as borderline resectable (A: 5, B: 4). Of the 12 evaluable patients, 3 achieved partial response under neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX. Of the 21 patients in arm A and 19 patients in arm B, 17 and 7 underwent curative surgery, and R0-resection was achieved in 77% and 71%, respectively. Perioperative morbidity occurred in 72% in arm A and 46% in arm B, whereas non-surgical toxicity was comparable in both arms. Median RFS/PFS was almost doubled in arm B (14.1 months) compared with arm A (8.4 months) in the population with surgical resection, whereas median OS was comparable between both arms. CONCLUSIONS: Although the analysis was only descriptive owing to small patient numbers, no safety issues regarding surgical complications were observed in the perioperative FOLFIRINOX arm. Thus, considering the small number of patients, perioperative treatment approach appears feasible and potentially effective in well-selected cohorts of patients. In pancreatic cancer, patient selection before initiation of neoadjuvant therapy appears to be critical.

Serum CEA as a Prognostic Marker for Overall Survival in Patients with Localized Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma and Non-Elevated CA19-9 Levels Treated with FOLFIRINOX as Initial Treatment: A TAPS Consortium Study.

INTRODUCTION: About 25% of patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma have non-elevated serum carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 levels at baseline, hampering evaluation of response to preoperative treatment. Serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is a potential alternative. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study from five referral centers included consecutive patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma (2012-2019), treated with one or more cycles of (m)FOLFIRINOX, and non-elevated CA19-9 levels (i.e., < 37 U/mL) at baseline. Cox regression analyses were performed to assess prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), including CEA level at baseline, restaging, and dynamics. RESULTS: Overall, 277 patients were included in this study. CEA at baseline was elevated (≥5 ng/mL) in 53 patients (33%) and normalized following preoperative therapy in 14 patients (26%). In patients with elevated CEA at baseline, median OS in patients with CEA normalization following preoperative therapy was 33 months versus 19 months in patients without CEA normalization (p = 0.088). At time of baseline, only elevated CEA was independently associated with (worse) OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.98). At time of restaging, elevated CEA at baseline was still the only independent predictor for (worse) OS (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04-1.98), whereas elevated CEA at restaging (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.77-1.77) was not. CONCLUSIONS: Serum CEA was elevated in one-third of patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma having non-elevated CA19-9 at baseline. At both time of baseline and time of restaging, elevated serum CEA measured at baseline was the only predictor for (worse) OS. Therefore, serum CEA may be a useful tool for decision making at both initial staging and time of restaging in patients with non-elevated CA19-9.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma third line systemic treatments: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) primarily relies on FOLFIRINOX (LV5FU- irinotecan - Oxaliplatine) and Gemcitabine - Nab-Paclitaxel in the first-line setting. However, second-lines remain less well-defined and there is limited data regarding third-line treatments. The objective of our study was to determine the proportion of patients advancing to third line chemotherapy, to outline the various third-line chemotherapy regimens used in routine practice and to evaluate their respective efficacy. METHODS: A retrospective single-center cohort from 2010-2022 compiled baseline characteristics, treatment outcomes and survival of PDAC patients who received at least one chemotherapy line in a French tertiary-center. Overall survivals (OS) were analyzed using a Cox multivariable model. RESULTS: In total, 676 patients were included, with a median follow-up time of 69.4 months, (Interquartile Range (IQR) = 72.1). Of these, 251 patients (37%) that proceeded to 3rd-line chemotherapy. The median PFS in 3rd line was 2.03 months, [CI95%: 1.83, 2.36]. The median 3rd line overall survival was 5.5 months, [CI95%: 4.8, 6.3]. In multivariable analysis erlotinib-based chemotherapy was found to be deleterious (HR=2.38, [CI95%: 1.30, 4.34], p=0.005) compared to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in terms of 3rd line overall survival while gemcitabine monotherapy showed a tendency towards negative outcomes. First and 2nd line chemotherapies sequence didn't influence 3rd line outcome. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, one-third of treated patients proceeded to 3rd line chemotherapy resulting in a 5.5 months median 3rd line OS, consistent with treatments at advanced stage. Our results argue against the use of erlotinib and gemcitabine monotherapy.

Clinical significance of germline breast cancer susceptibility gene (gBRCA) testing and olaparib as maintenance therapy for patients with pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Germline breast cancer susceptibility gene (gBRCA) mutation in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) is not common in clinical practice. Therefore, factors that efficiently show gBRCA mutations and the real-world outcomes of olaparib maintenance therapy have not been fully established. In the present study, we clarified the indicators for the effective detection of gBRCA mutation and the efficacy and safety of olaparib as maintenance therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 84 patients with PC who underwent gBRCA testing (BRACAnalysis, Myriad Genetics, Salt Lake City, UT, USA) at our institute between January 2021 and March 2022. For each patient, clinical data were extracted from medical records. RESULTS: The median patient age was 64 y (29-85 y), and 41 patients (48.8%) were male. The gBRCA mutations were identified in 10 (11.9%) patients; two patients had BRCA1 mutation and eight had BRCA2 mutation. All patients with gBRCA mutation had a family history of any cancer, and eight of them had a family history of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer syndrome (HBOC)-related cancer. The gBRCA mutation rate was higher for patients with PC with a family history of HBOC-related cancer compared to that in patients with PC having a family history of other cancers and no family history of cancer (22.9% vs. 4.1%; P = 0.014). In our study, eight out of 10 patients with gBRCA-positive PC received olaparib after platinum-based chemotherapy. The best responses to platinum-based chemotherapy included a complete response in one patient (12.5%) and a partial response in seven patients (87.5%). The median duration of treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy plus olaparib was 17.5 months (8-87 months), and the duration of treatment with olaparib maintenance therapy was 11 months (1-30 months). During olaparib maintenance therapy, three patients showed no disease progression. One of these three patients underwent conversion surgery after receiving olaparib for 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The gBRCA testing should be considered proactively, especially in patients with PC with a family history of HBOC-related cancer.

Survival outcome of different treatment sequences in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite some therapeutic advances, improvement in survival rates of unresectable and/or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has been minimal over recent decade. We aimed to evaluate the impact of different treatment sequences on clinical outcomes of advanced PDAC at our academic institution. METHODS: In this single institution retrospective analysis, we assessed characteristics and survival rates of unresectable and/or metastatic pancreatic PDAC patients who started a systemic treatment between 01/2015 and 12/2021. Survival analyses were performed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The number of 285 patients received at least two lines of treatment, but only 137 patients were suitable for third-line treatment. Subgroup analysis showed that thirty-seven patients received A line (gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel combined therapy to FOLFIRINOX) therapy, 37 patients received B line (nab-paclitaxel combined therapy to gemcitabine combined therapy to FOLFIRINOX) therapy, 21 patients received C line (nab-paclitaxel combined therapy to gemcitabine combined therapy to oxaliplatin or irinotecan combined therapy) therapy. Survival rates for different treatment lines were significantly different and median overall survival (OS) was 14.00, 18.00, and 14.00 months, respectively (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study provides real-world evidence for the effectiveness of different treatment sequences and underscores the treatment sequences on survival outcome when considering the entire management in advanced PDAC.

A real-world analysis of second-line treatment option, gemcitabine plus anlotinib and anti-PD1, in advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the second-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer (APC), there is only one approved regimen based on the phase III NAPOLI-1 trial. However, for patients progressing after Nab-paclitaxel and Gemcitabine (Nab-P/Gem) or Nab-P combinations, second-line treatment were very limited. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center analysis of patients. Our aim was to determine the effectiveness and tolerability of a novel regimen, gemcitabine plus Anlotinib and anti-PD1, in APC patients and to compare it with oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FOLFIRINOX) in the second-line setting who have failed on the first-line Nab-P combinations. RESULTS: In total, twenty-three patients received Gemcitabine plus Anlotinib and anti-PD1 in the second-line, 28 patients were treated with FOLFORINOX. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) or progression free survival (PFS) for either of the two sequences (p > 0.05). Patients who received Gemcitabine plus Anlotinib and anti-PD1 had a median PFS of 4.0 months (95% CI: 1.1-6.9) versus 3.5 months (95% CI 1.8-5.2) in FOLFORINOX group (p = 0.953). The median OS of Gemcitabine plus Anlotinib and anti-PD1 was 9.0 months (95% CI: 4.0-13.7) and 8.0 months (95% CI: 5.5-10.5) in FOLFORINOX group (p = 0.373). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred for 13% of patients with Gemcitabine plus Anlotinib and anti-PD1 and 40% for FOLFORINOX. CONCLUSION: Our data confirms the effectiveness of Gemcitabine plus Anlotinib and anti-PD1 as a well-tolerated regimen in the second-line treatment of APC and extends available data on its use as a second-line treatment option when compared with FOLFIRINOX.

Early tumor shrinkage as a prognostic predictor in chemotherapy-naïve patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with modified FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel combination therapy: An exploratory analysis of JCOG1407.

BACKGROUND: Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) is a prognostic predictor for patients treated with chemotherapy in colorectal cancer, although scarce studies evaluated its potential in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). In this exploratory analysis of JCOG1407, a randomized phase II study comparing modified 5-fluorouracil, levofolinate, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP), we evaluated whether ETS can predict prognosis of patients with LAPC. METHODS: Of the 126 patients enrolled in JCOG1407, 112 with measurable lesions were included in this study. ETS was defined as a ≥20 % reduction in tumor diameter compared with baseline at the initial imaging assessment 6-10 weeks after initiating chemotherapy. Patients were divided into the ETS (achieved ETS) and non-ETS (failed to achieve ETS) groups based on their ETS status. The impact of ETS on overall survival (OS) was compared using multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen of 55 (25.5 %) and 24 of 57 (42.1 %) patients in the mFOLFIRINOX and GnP arms, respectively, achieved ETS. In the overall population, mFOLFIRINOX arm, and GnP arm, the median OS in the ETS and non-ETS groups was 27.1 and 20.4, 29.8 and 20.6, and 24.1 and 20.4, months, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios of OS for the ETS group in the overall population, mFOLFIRINOX arm, and GnP arm were 0.451 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.270-0.754), 0.371 (95 % CI: 0.149-0.926), and 0.508 (95 % CI: 0.255-1.004), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ETS may be a prognostic predictor in chemotherapy-naïve patients with LAPC treated with mFOLFIRINOX or GnP.

Clinical outcomes of second-line therapy following disease progression on first-line modified FOLFIRINOX for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX) is one of the standard first-line therapies in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) and locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer (LAPC). However, there is no globally accepted second-line therapy following progression on mFOLFIRINOX. METHODS: Patients with BRPC and LAPC (n = 647) treated with first-line mFOLFIRINOX between January 2017 and December 2020 were included in this retrospective analysis. The details of the treatment outcomes and patterns of subsequent therapy after mFOLFIRINOX were reviewed. RESULTS: With a median follow-up duration of 44.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 42.3-47.6), 322 patients exhibited disease progression on mFOLFIRINOX-locoregional progression only in 177 patients (55.0%) and distant metastasis in 145 patients (45.0%). The locoregional progression group demonstrated significantly longer post-progression survival (PPS) than that of the distant metastasis group (10.1 vs. 7.3 months, p = 0.002). In the locoregional progression group, survival outcomes did not differ between second-line chemoradiation/radiotherapy and systemic chemotherapy (progression-free survival with second-line therapy [PFS-2], 3.2 vs. 4.3 months; p = 0.649; PPS, 10.7 vs. 10.2 months; p = 0.791). In patients who received second-line systemic chemotherapy following progression on mFOLFIRINOX (n = 211), gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel was associated with better disease control rates (69.2% vs. 42.3%, p = 0.005) and PFS-2 (3.8 vs. 1.7 months, p = 0.035) than gemcitabine monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The current study showed the real-world practice pattern of subsequent therapy and clinical outcomes following progression on first-line mFOLFIRINOX in BRPC and LAPC. Further investigation is necessary to establish the optimal therapy after failure of mFOLFIRINOX.

The prognostic and predictive role of class III ß-Tubulin and hENT1 expression in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine-nabpaclitaxel (GnP) are standard first-line treatment regimens for advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, currently, there is a lack of predictive biomarkers to aid in the treatment selection. We aimed to explore the prognostic and predictive value of class III ß-Tubulin (TUBB3) and human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) expression, which have previously been shown to be associated with taxane and gemcitabine resistance in advanced PDAC. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 106 patients with advanced PDAC treated with GnP and/or FOLFIRINOX at our institution. TUBB3 and hENT1 immunohistochemical staining was performed on tumor specimens and subsequently evaluated based on the intensity and percentage of expression. RESULTS: In patients who received the GnP regimen, a high combined score (TUBB3low/hENT1high) was associated with a higher DCR and longer PFS compared to those with intermediate (TUBB3high/hENT1high or TUBB3low/hENT1low) and low score (TUBB3high/hENT1low). In the multivariate analysis, a high combined score was an independent predictor of higher DCR (OR:11.96; 95 % CI:2.61-54.82; p = 0.001) and longer PFS (HR:0.33; 95%CI:0.18-0.60; p < 0.001). However, there was no difference in response rates or PFS based on TUBB3 and hENT1 expression among patients receiving the FOLFIRINOX regimen. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that tumor TUBB3 and hENT1 expression may predict the efficacy of the GnP regimen, and low TUBB3 and high hENT1 expression (TUBB3low/hENT1high) are associated with a higher DCR and longer PFS in patients treated with GnP. Evaluating TUBB3 and hENT1 jointly can identify the patients most (as well as least) likely to benefit from GnP chemotherapy.

Macrophages reprogramming driven by cancer-associated fibroblasts under FOLFIRINOX treatment correlates with shorter survival in pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a clinically challenging cancer, mainly due to limited therapeutic options and the presence of a highly prominent tumor microenvironment (TME), facilitating tumor progression. The TME is predominated by heterogeneous populations of cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) and tumor associated macrophages (TAMs), in constant communication with each other and with tumor cells, influencing many tumoral abilities such as therapeutic resistance. However how the crosstalk between CAFs and macrophages evolves following chemotherapeutic treatment remains poorly understood, limiting our capacity to halt therapeutic resistance. METHODS: We combined biological characterization of macrophages indirectly cocultured with human PDAC CAFs, under FOLFIRINOX treatment, with mRNAseq analyses of such macrophages and evaluated the relevance of the specific gene expression signature in a large series of primary PDAC patients to search for correlation with overall survival (OS) after FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy. RESULTS: Firstly, we demonstrated that CAFs polarize naïve and M1 macrophages towards an M2-like phenotype with a specific increase of CD200R and CD209 M2 markers. Then, we demonstrated that CAFs counteract the pro-inflammatory phenotype induced by the FOLFIRINOX on Macrophages. Indeed, we highlighted that, under FOLFIRINOX, CAFs limit the FOLFIRINOX-induced cell death of macrophages and further reinforce their M2 phenotype as well as their immunosuppressive impact through specific chemokines production. Finally, we revealed that under FOLFIRINOX CAFs drive a specific macrophage gene expression signature involving SELENOP and GOS2 that correlates with shortened OS in FOLFIRINOX-treated PDAC patients. CONCLUSION: Our study provides insight into the complex interactions between TME cells under FOLFIRINOX treatment. It suggests potential novel candidates that could be used as therapeutic targets in combination with FOLFIRINOX to prevent and alleviate TME influx on therapeutic resistance as well as biomarkers to predict FOLFIRINOX response in PDAC patients. Video Abstract.

Omission of 5-Fluorouracil Bolus From Multidrug Regimens for Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is a major component of gastrointestinal cancer treatments. In multidrug regimens such as FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and FOLFIRINOX, 5-FU is commonly administered as a bolus followed by an infusion. However, the pharmacologic rationale for incorporating the 5-FU bolus in these regimens is unclear, and there are other effective regimens for gastrointestinal cancers that do not include the bolus. The purpose of this study was to determine whether omission of the 5-FU bolus was associated with a difference in survival and toxicity. METHODS: A real-world database from Flatiron Health was queried for patients with advanced colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers who received first-line FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and FOLFIRINOX regimens. Cox proportional hazards and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to compare survival outcomes between patients who received the 5-FU bolus and those who did not. Inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) analysis was performed to adjust for treatment selection bias. RESULTS: This study included 11,765 patients with advanced colorectal (n=8,670), gastroesophageal (n=1,481), and pancreatic (n=1,614) cancers. Among all first-line 5-FU multidrug regimens, 10,148 (86.3%) patients received a 5-FU bolus and 1,617 (13.7%) did not. After IPTW analysis, we found that omitting the bolus was not associated with a decrease in overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.07; P=.74). However, omitting the bolus was associated with reductions in neutropenia (10.7% vs 22.7%; P<.01), thrombocytopenia (11.2% vs 16.1%; P<.01), and use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors after treatment (19.6% vs 29.1%; P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for baseline clinical factors, we found that omission of the 5-FU bolus from FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and FOLFIRINOX regimens was not associated with decreased survival, but resulted in decreased toxicity and possible health care savings.

Current diagnostic and treatment options for pancreatic cancer in 2024.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is a cancer disease with a very poor prognosis, which poses the third-leading cause of cancer-related deaths and whose incidence and mortality have been predicted to increase significantly in the upcoming years. Almost 80% of patients are diagnosed with advanced unresectable disease and therefore rely on palliative anticancer treatment with limited efficacy. However, even in case of 10-20 % of patients who have successfully undergone radical surgical resection of the localized disease and subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy, the vast majority will relapse within 2-3 years of surgery. The reasons can be found in late diagnosis due to the prolonged clinically asymptomatic course of the disease, complicated anatomical localization, significant tumor heterogeneity, which makes it difficult to test new drugs and, last but not least, in the presence of dense tumor stroma, that complicates the access of cytostatics and targeted drugs into the tumor tissue. Here we present a summary of current treatment options of localized and advanced pancreatic cancer, including molecular diagnostics and targeted treatment of small patients subgroups.

FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A novel validated prognostic score to facilitate treatment decision-making in real-world.

There is no prospective, randomised head-to-head trial comparing first-line FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in advanced pancreatic cancer. We assess real-world effectiveness and quality of life (QoL) of both regimens using a new prognostic score. This analysis includes 1540 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer from the prospective, clinical cohort study Tumour Registry Pancreatic Cancer separated into learning (n = 1027) and validation sample (n = 513). The Pancreatic Cancer Score (PCS) was developed using multivariate Cox regression. We compared overall survival (OS) and time to deterioration (TTD) for longitudinal QoL between first-line FOLFIRINOX (n = 407) and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (n = 655) according to patients' prognostic risk, after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) by propensity score analysis. The PCS includes nine independent prognostic factors for survival: female sex, BMI ≥24/unknown, ECOG performance status ≥1, Charlson comorbidity index ≥1, tumour staging IV/unknown at primary diagnosis, liver metastases, bilirubin >1.5× upper limit of normal (ULN), leukocytes >ULN and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio ≥4. Median OS of the validation sample was 11.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.4-14.4), 8.5 (95% CI: 6.8-9.6) and 5.9 months (95% CI: 4.0-7.4) for favourable- (0-3 risk factors), intermediate- (4-5 factors) and poor-risk group (6-9 factors), respectively. After IPTW, only poor-risk patients had significantly longer median OS and TTD of overall QoL with FOLFIRINOX (OS: 6.9 months, 95% CI: 3.9-13.3; TTD: 10.6 months, 95% CI: 2.0-14.1) vs gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (OS: 4.0 months, 95% CI: 2.8-4.8; TTD: 4.1 months, 95% CI: 2.4-4.5). Our novel PCS may facilitate treatment decisions in clinical routine of advanced pancreatic cancer, since only poor-risk, but not favourable-risk patients, seem to benefit from intensified treatment with FOLFIRINOX.

A prospective multicenter phase II study of FOLFIRINOX as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced and recurrent biliary tract cancer.

Given the promising activity and tolerability of FOLFIRINOX as a second-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), it can be an attractive first-line treatment option as well. This is a single-arm, open-label, multicenter phase II study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of FOLFIRINOX as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced BTC. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), tumor response and safety. This study defined primary endpoint might be met when the lower limit value of 80% confidence interval [CI] of the median PFS ≥ 6.0 months. Between June 2016 and March 2020, 35 BTC patients (21 intrahepatic, 10 extrahepatic, 2 gallbladder, 2 ampulla) including 26 unresectable and 9 recurrent disease were enrolled. After a median follow-up of 13.9 months, the median PFS and OS were 7.4 (80% CI, 5.5-7.5) and 14.7 (80% CI, 11.8-15.7) months, respectively. Complete response was achieved in 1 (2.9%) and partial response in 10 (28.6%), giving an objective response rate of 31.4% and disease control rate of 74.3%. Major grade 3-4 adverse events included neutropenia (54.3%), leukopenia (34.4%), febrile neutropenia (17.1%), thrombocytopenia (8.6%), cholangitis (8.6%), anemia, nausea, diarrhea, and peripheral sensory neuropathy (2.9% each). FOLFIRINOX was well tolerable in patients with advanced BTC, however, this study did not meet the primary endpoint to conduct a phase III trial. Thus, further explorations are required to find a subset of patients and/or certain clinical scenario which might be beneficial from FOLFIRINOX.

Multicenter Retrospective Analysis of Original versus Modified FOLFIRINOX in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Results of the NAPOLEON Study.

INTRODUCTION: Original FOLFIRINOX (oFFX) is more toxic than other regimens for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC); therefore, a modified FFX (mFFX) regimen with a reduced dosage has been used in Japanese clinical practice. However, very few studies have compared these two regimens. METHODS: This study was conducted as part of a multicenter retrospective study of 318 patients with mPC across 14 centers in Japan (NAPOLEON study). To control for potential bias and confounders, we conducted a propensity score-adjusted analysis of patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: oFFX and mFFX were administered to 48 and 54 patients. More patients with younger age and poorer performance status were included in the oFFX group. The overall survival (OS; median, 11.6 vs. 11.3 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-1.40; p = 0.67), progression-free survival (PFS) (median, 6.3 vs. 5.7 months; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.56-1.28; p = 0.44), and overall response rate (29 vs. 26%, p = 0.71) were not significantly different for the oFFX and mFFX groups. Thrombopenia and liver dysfunction were significantly more frequent with oFFX than with mFFX. The median received dose intensity of CPT-11 was higher with oFFX than with mFFX (299 vs. 270 mg/m2/week, p < 0.01). The propensity score-adjusted analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in OS and PFS between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In our data, there was no significant difference in efficacy between mFFX and oFFX, and mFFX has fewer adverse events.

Preoperative treatment with mFOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine/Nab-paclitaxel +/- isotoxic high-dose stereotactic body Radiation Therapy (iHD-SBRT) for borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (the STEREOPAC trial): study protocol for a randomised comparative multicenter phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), surgical resection remains the only potentially curative treatment. Surgery is generally followed by postoperative chemotherapy associated with improved survival, yet neoadjuvant therapy is a rapidly emerging concept requiring to be explored and validated in terms of treatment options and oncological outcomes. In this context, stereotactic body radiation (SBRT) appears feasible and can be safely integrated into a neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen of modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) with promising benefits in terms of R0 resection, local control and survival. However, the optimal therapeutic sequence is still not known, especially for borderline resectable PDAC, and the role of adding SBRT to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting needs to be evaluated in randomised controlled trials. The aim of the STEREOPAC trial is to assess the impact and efficacy of adding isotoxic high-dose SBRT (iHD-SBRT) to neoadjuvant mFFX or Gemcitabine/Nab-Paclitaxel (Gem/Nab-P) in patients with borderline resectable PDAC. METHODS: This is a randomised comparative multicentre phase II trial, planning to enrol patients (n = 256) diagnosed with a borderline resectable biopsy-confirmed PDAC. Patients will receive 4 cycles of mFFX (or 6 doses of Gem/Nab-P). After full disease restaging, non-progressive patients will be randomised for receiving either 4 additional mFFX cycles (or 6 doses of Gem/Nab-P) (Arm A), or 2 mFFX cycles (or 3 doses of Gem/Nab-P) + iHD-SBRT (35 to 55 Gy in 5 fractions) + 2 mFFX cycles (or 3 doses of Gem/Nab-P) (Arm B). Then curative surgery will be performed followed by adjuvant chemotherapy according to patient's condition. The co-primary endpoints are R0 resection and disease-free survival after the complete sequence strategy. The secondary endpoints include resection rate, overall survival, locoregional failure / distant metastasis free interval, pathologic complete response, toxicity, postoperative complications and quality of life assessment. DISCUSSION: This trial will help define the best neoadjuvant treatment sequence for borderline resectable PDAC and aims to evaluate if a total neoadjuvant treatment integrating iHD-SBRT improves the patients' oncological outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at ClinicalTrails.gov (NCT05083247) on October 19th, 2021, and in the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) EU CT database (2022-501181-22-01) on July 2022.

"Conversion surgery" for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: A position paper by the study group at the joint meeting of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) & Japan Pancreas Society (JPS) 2022.

Locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), which progresses locally and surrounds major vessels, has historically been deemed unresectable. Surgery alone failed to provide curative resection and improve overall survival. With the advancements in treatment, reports have shown favorable results in LAPC after undergoing successful chemotherapy therapy or chemoradiation therapy followed by surgical resection, so-called "conversion surgery", at experienced high-volume centers. However, recognizing significant regional and institutional disparities in the management of LAPC, an international consensus meeting on conversion surgery for LAPC was held during the Joint Congress of the 26th Meeting of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) and the 53rd Annual Meeting of Japan Pancreas Society (JPS) in Kyoto in July 2022. During the meeting, presenters reported the current best multidisciplinary practices for LAPC, including preoperative modalities, best systemic treatment regimens and durations, procedures of conversion surgery with or without vascular resections, biomarkers, and genetic studies. It was unanimously agreed among the experts in this meeting that "cancer biology is surpassing locoregional anatomical resectability" in the era of effective multiagent treatment. The biology of pancreatic cancer has yet to be further elucidated, and we believe it is essential to improve the treatment outcomes of LAPC patients through continued efforts from each institution and more international collaboration. This article summarizes the agreement during the discussion amongst the experts in the meeting. We hope that this will serve as a foundation for future international collaboration and recommendations for future guidelines.