Genomic profiling of small bowel adenocarcinoma: a pooled analysis from 3 databases.

BACKGROUND: Small bowel adenocarcinoma is a rare disease. The genomic profiling tumours according to clinical characteristics and its impact on the prognosis remains unclear. METHODS: A pooled analysis of clinical data, genomic profiling and MisMatch Repair (MMR) status from three databases was performed. RESULTS: A total of 188 tumour samples were analysed. A predisposing disease was reported in 22.3%, mainly Lynch syndrome and Crohn's disease. The tumours were localized in 80.2% and metastatic in 18.8%. The most frequent mutations were KRAS (42.0%) among them 7/79 are G12C, TP53 (40.4%), APC (19.1%), PIK3CA (18.6%), SMAD4 (12.8%) and ERBB2 (9.6%). Mutation distribution differed according to predisposing disease for TP53, ERBB2, IDH1, FGFR3, FGFR1 and KDR. KRAS and SMAD4 mutations were more frequent in metastatic tumour, whereas ERBB2 mutations were absent in metastatic tumour. For localized tumour, APC mutation was independently associated with a poor overall survival (OS) (p = 0.0254). 31.8% of localized tumours and 11.3% of metastatic tumours were dMMR (29.8% of the entire cohort). A dMMR status was associated with a better OS (HR = 0.61 [0.39-0.96], p = 0.0316). CONCLUSIONS: There is a different genomic profile according to the stage and predisposing disease. dMMR and APC mutation in localized tumour predict a better prognosis.

French multi-institutional cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine alone as second-line treatment in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients.

Context: In France, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) is heterogeneously used in metastatic pancreatic cancer due to disparities in its financial accessibility in the institutions. Objectives: GEM-NAB conduct a French multi-institutional cost-effectiveness analysis of GEM-NAB versus gemcitabine alone (GEM) as second-line treatment in pancreatic cancer patients. Design: All the unresected metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) consecutive patients who received GEM-NAB (institution 1) or GEM alone (institutions 2 and 3) as second-line treatment after failure of a 5-fluorouracil based systemic chemotherapy regimen were screened. Methods: This study was conducted from the French national healthcare insurance perspective. The primary endpoint was the overall survival (OS) expressed in months, calculated from the date of the first second-line chemotherapy administration to death. Only direct (medical and non-medical) costs have been considered for this analysis. Data were collected retrospectively in one university hospital and two general hospitals. Results: The OS was significantly improved in patients receiving GEM-NAB (hazard ratio: 0.54, 95% confidence interval: 0.38-0.77, p = 0.001), with a median OS of 6.2 months (versus 4.1 months in patients receiving GEM alone). Taking into account the cost of GEM-NAB which was afforded by each institution, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €1,449,231 by year of life (€40,256 per patient). In both groups, most of the costs were attributable to readmissions and outpatient chemotherapy administration. Conclusion: The issues of the article is based on the trade-off between the benefit in terms of OS of patients treated with GEM-NAB, which is minor (a gain of 2 months of survival, with an accumulated rate of grade ⩾ 3 non-hematological adverse effects) and the additional institutional cost (€25k per year of life for each patient treated). The debate is complex and refers to an ethical component, which is the cost of human life when no other therapeutic alternative is offered to the patient.

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy combined with fluorouracil-cisplatin plus cetuximab in operable, locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: Results of a phase I-II trial (FFCD-0505/PRODIGE-3).

Background: Radiotherapy combined with fluorouracil (5FU) and cisplatin for locally advanced esophageal cancer is associated with a 20-25% pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. Cetuximab increases the efficacy of radiotherapy in patients with head and neck carcinomas. The aim of this phase I/II trial was to determine the optimal doses and the pCR rate with chemoradiotherapy (C-RT) plus cetuximab. Methods: A 45-Gy radiotherapy regimen was delivered over 5 weeks. The phase I study determined the dose-limiting toxicity and the maximum tolerated dose of 5FU-cisplatin plus cetuximab. The phase II trial aimed to exhibit a pCR rate > 20 % (25 % expected), requiring 33 patients (6 from phase I part plus 27 in phase II part). pCR was defined as ypT0Nx. Results: The phase I study established the following recommended doses: weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m2 one week before, and 250 mg/m2 during radiotherapy); 5FU (500 mg/m2/day, d1-d4) plus cisplatin (40 mg/m2, d1) during week 1 and 5. In the phase II part, 32 patients received C-RT before surgery, 31 patients underwent surgery, and resection was achieved in 27 patients. A pCR was achieved in five patients (18.5 %) out of 27. After a median follow-up of 19 months, the median progression-free survival was 13.7 months, and the median overall survival was not reached. Conclusions: Adding cetuximab to preoperative C-RT was toxic and did not achieve a pCR > 20 % as required. The recommended doses, determined during the phase I part, could explain these disappointing results due to a reduction in chemotherapy dose-intensity. Trial registration: This trial was registered with EudraCT number 2006-004770-27.

Colibactin-producing Escherichia coli enhance resistance to chemotherapeutic drugs by promoting epithelial to mesenchymal transition and cancer stem cell emergence.

Human colorectal cancers (CRCs) are readily colonized by colibactin-producing E. coli (CoPEC). CoPEC induces DNA double-strand breaks, DNA mutations, genomic instability, and cellular senescence. Infected cells produce a senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP), which is involved in the increase in tumorigenesis observed in CRC mouse models infected with CoPEC. This study investigated whether CoPEC, and the SASP derived from CoPEC-infected cells, impacted chemotherapeutic resistance. Human intestinal epithelial cells were infected with the CoPEC clinical 11G5 strain or with its isogenic mutant, which is unable to produce colibactin. Chemotherapeutic resistance was assessed in vitro and in a xenograft mouse model. Expressions of cancer stem cell (CSC) markers in infected cells were investigated. Data were validated using a CRC mouse model and human clinical samples. Both 11G5-infected cells, and uninfected cells incubated with the SASP produced by 11G5-infected cells exhibited an increased resistance to chemotherapeutic drugs in vitro and in vivo. This finding correlated with the induction of the epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT), which led to the emergence of cells exhibiting CSC features. They grew on ultra-low attachment plates, formed colonies in soft agar, and overexpressed several CSC markers (e.g. CD133, OCT-3/4, and NANOG). In agreement with these results, murine and human CRC biopsies colonized with CoPEC exhibited higher expression levels of OCT-3/4 and NANOG than biopsies devoid of CoPEC. Conclusion: CoPEC might aggravate CRCs by inducing the emergence of cancer stem cells that are highly resistant to chemotherapy.

Gemcitabine and Paclitaxel Versus Gemcitabine Alone After 5-Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin, and Irinotecan in Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Phase III PRODIGE 65-UCGI 36-GEMPAX UNICANCER Study.

PURPOSE: GEMPAX was an open-label, randomized phase III clinical trial designed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel versus gemcitabine alone as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) who previously received 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan. METHODS: Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed mPDAC were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive GEMPAX (paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2; IV; once at day (D) 1, D8, and D15/arm A) or gemcitabine (arm B) alone once at D1, D8, and D15 every 28 days until progression, toxicity, or patient's decision. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life, and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 211 patients (median age, 64 [30-86] years; 62% male) were included. After a median study follow-up for alive patients of 13.4 versus 13.8 months in arm A versus arm B, the median OS (95% CI) was 6.4 (5.2 to 7.4) versus 5.9 months (4.6 to 6.9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [0.63 to 1.20]; P = 0.4095), the median PFS was 3.1 (2.2 to 4.3) versus 2.0 months (1.9 to 2.3; HR, 0.64 [0.47 to 0.89]; P = 0.0067), and the ORR was 17.1% (11.3 to 24.4) versus 4.2% (0.9 to 11.9; P = 0.008) in arm A versus arm B, respectively. Overall, 16.7% of patients in arm A and 2.9% in arm B discontinued their treatment because of adverse events (AEs). One grade 5 AE associated with both gemcitabine and paclitaxel was reported in arm A (acute respiratory distress), and 58.0% versus 27.1% of patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs in arm A versus arm B, among which 15.2% versus 4.3% had anemia, 15.9% versus 15.7% had neutropenia, 19.6% versus 4.3% had thrombocytopenia, 10.1% versus 2.9% had asthenia and 12.3% versus 0.0% had neuropathy. CONCLUSION: While GEMPAX did not meet the primary end point of OS versus gemcitabine alone in patients with mPDAC in the second-line setting, both PFS and ORR were significantly improved.