Search

Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare group of tumors that involve the hepatic biliary tree. Prognosis for patients with cholangiocarcinoma remains dismal. Herein, we present survival trends over a long time period spanning almost 20 years in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma receiving systemic chemotherapy. We retrospectively analyzed a large multicenter dataset of cholangiocarcinoma outpatients evaluated in 14 centers within the Cholangiocarcinoma Italian Group Onlus (Gruppo Italiano Colangiocarcinoma Onlus, G.I.C.O.) between 2000 and 2017 (first-line), and 2002 and 2017 (second-line). Three time periods were considered: 2000-2009, 2010-2013, and 2014-2017. A total of 922 patients (51.19% male) with cholangiocarcinoma undergoing first-line therapy were evaluated. The median durations of follow-up for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 37 and 57 months, respectively. PFS at 12 months in the three periods of starting first-line therapy was similar, ranging from 11.71% to 15.25%. OS at 12 months progressively improved (38.30%, 44.61% and 49.52%, respectively), although the differences were not statistically significant after adjusting for age, disease status, and primary tumor site. A total of 410 patients (48.5% male) underwent second-line chemotherapy. The median durations of follow-up for PFS and OS were 47.6 and 41.90 months, respectively. An OS of 24.3%, 32.3%, and 33.1% was observed in 2002-2009, 2010-2013, and 2014-2017, respectively. Despite incremental benefits across years, our clinical experience confirms that modest overall advances have been achieved with first- and second-line chemotherapy in advanced cholangiocarcinoma. Efforts should focus on the identification of patients who derive the greatest benefit from treatment., Competing Interests: FL: Advisory board participation for Merck Serono, Servier, Amgen, BMS, AstraZeneca. LFo: Advisory board participation and consulting for AstraZeneca, MSD, Tahio Oncology, BMS, EliLilly, Servier, Daiichi Sankyo. GB: Advisory board participation, consulting, or research funding from Incyte, Tahio, Ipsen, and Incyte. MS: Advisory board participation or research funding MERCK, MSD, Amgen, Servier, Eisai, GSK, Astra-Zeneca, Sanofi. NS: Advisory board participation for Servier, Lilly, Roche, Eisai. SL: Advisory board participation, consulting, or research funding (institutional) from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Hutchinson, Incyte, Lilly, Merck Serono, Nirati, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Servier. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Casadei-Gardini, Leone, Brandi, Scartozzi, Silvestris, Santini, Faloppi, Aglietta, Satolli, Rizzo, Lonardi, Aprile and Fornaro.)

Aim: The aim of the current study is to investigate the impact of primary compared to secondary chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimens., Study Design and Methods: Clinical data of patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, treated with an oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimen as neo/adjuvant or advanced-line treatment, and who received NK1-RA as primary (from the first cycle of treatment) or secondary (after the onset of CINV with a previous regimen with 5HT3-RA and dexamethasone) prophylaxis for CINV, were retrospectively collected in an observational study involving 16 Italian centers. A propensity score matching was performed by taking into account the following stratification factors: sex (male vs. female), age (< vs. ≥70 years old), overweight (body mass index, BMI < vs. ≥25), underweight (BMI < vs. ≥19), disease spread (early vs. advanced/metastatic), tumor type (esophagogastric cancer vs. the rest, hepatobiliary tumor vs. the rest, colorectal cancer vs. the rest), type of NK1-RA used as primary/secondary prophylaxis (netupitant-palonosetron vs. fosaprepitant/aprepitant), concomitant use of opioids (yes vs. no), concomitant use of antidepressant/antipsychotic drugs (yes vs. no), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at the start of NK1-RA treatment (0 vs. 1-2), and intensity of chemotherapy regimen (doublet vs. triplet)., Results: Among 409 patients included from January 2015 to January 2022 and eligible for analysis, 284 (69%) and 125 (31%) were treated with NK1-RA as primary and secondary antiemetic prophylaxis, respectively. After matching, primary NK1-RA use was not associated with higher rates of protection from emesis regardless the emesis phase (acute phase, p = 0.34; delayed phase, p = 0.14; overall phase, p = 0.80). On the other hand, a lower rate of relevant nausea (p = 0.02) and need for rescue antiemetic therapy (p = 0.000007) in the overall phase was found in primary NK1-RA users. Furthermore, a higher rate of both complete antiemetic response (p = 0.00001) and complete antiemetic protection (p = 0.00007) in the overall phase was more frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users. Finally, chemotherapy delays (p = 0.000009) and chemotherapy dose reductions (p = 0.0000006) were less frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users., Conclusion: In patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, a primary CINV prophylaxis with NK1-RA, 5HT3-RA, and dexamethasone might be appropriate, particularly in those situations at higher risk of emesis and in which it is important to avoid dose delays and/or dose reductions, keeping a proper dose intensity of chemotherapy drugs., Competing Interests: APa reported receiving advisory board fees from GSK, Servier, Pharmamar. RG reported receiving fees from Amgen and Servier and advisory board fees from Amgen, Servier, Bayer and Merck-Serono. LS reported receiving fees from Pierre-Fabre, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Servier, Merck, Amgen. APe reported receiving fees from Eli-Lilly, MSD, BMS, Merck, Servier. BD has received fees from Ipsen, Eisai, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, Bayer, Roche, and Amgen; and has received non-financial support from Ipsen, BMS. MG reported receiving fees by Amgen, Merck, Eli-Lilly, Servier, Italfarmaco. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Parisi, Giampieri, Mammarella, Felicetti, Salvatore, Bensi, Maratta, Strippoli, Filippi, Satolli, Petrillo, Daniele, De Tursi, Di Marino, Giordano, Landriscina, Vitale, Zurlo, Dell’Aquila, Tomao, Depetris, Di Pietro, Zoratto, Ciardiello, Pensieri, Garrone, Galassi, Ferri, Berardi and Ghidini.)

Background: Most of the patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDA) are not eligible for a curative surgical resection. For this reason there is an urgent need for personalized therapies. PDA is the result of complex interactions between tumor molecular profile and metabolites produced by its microenvironment. Despite recent studies identified PDA molecular subtypes, its metabolic classification is still lacking. Methods: We applied an integrative analysis on transcriptomic and genomic data of glycolytic genes in PDA. Data were collected from public datasets and molecular glycolytic subtypes were defined using hierarchical clustering. The grade of purity of the cancer samples was assessed estimating the different amount of stromal and immunological infiltrate among the identified PDA subtypes. Analyses of metabolomic data from a subset of PDA cell lines allowed us to identify the different metabolites produced by the metabolic subtypes. Sera of a cohort of 31 PDA patients were analyzed using Q-TOF mass spectrometer to measure the amount of metabolic circulating proteins present before and after chemotherapy. Results: Our integrative analysis of glycolytic genes identified two glycolytic and two non-glycolytic metabolic PDA subtypes. Glycolytic patients develop disease earlier, have poor prognosis, low immune-infiltrated tumors, and are characterized by a gain in chr12p13 genomic region. This gain results in the over-expression of GAPDH, TPI1 , and FOXM1 . PDA cell lines with the gain of chr12p13 are characterized by an higher lipid uptake and sensitivity to drug targeting the fatty acid metabolism. Our sera proteomic analysis confirms that TPI1 serum levels increase in poor prognosis gemcitabine-treated patients. Conclusions: We identify four metabolic PDA subtypes with different prognosis outcomes which may have pivotal role in setting personalized treatments. Moreover, our data suggest TPI1 as putative prognostic PDA biomarker.