Search

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430 ). METHODS We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.

Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is an effective therapeutic option in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumor (NET). However, PRRT fails in about 15–30% of cases. Identification of biomarkers predicting the response to PRRT is essential for treatment tailoring. We aimed to evaluate the predictive and prognostic role of semiquantitative and volumetric parameters obtained from the 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT before therapy (bPET) and after two cycles of PRRT (iPET). A total of 46 patients were included in this retrospective analysis. The primary tumor was 78% gastroenteropancreatic (GEP), 13% broncho-pulmonary and 9% of unknown origin. 35 patients (76.1%) with stable disease or partial response after PRRT were classified as responders and 11 (23.9%) as non-responders. Logistic regression analysis identified that baseline total volume (bTV) was associated with therapy outcome (OR 1.17; 95%CI 1.02–1.32; p = 0.02). No significant association with PRRT response was observed for other variables. High bTV was confirmed as the only variable independently associated with OS (HR 12.76, 95%CI 1.53–107, p = 0.01). In conclusion, high bTV is a negative predictor for PRRT response and is associated with worse OS rates. Early iPET during PRRT apparently does not provide information useful to change the management of NET patients.

Background: There is evidence that early integration of palliative care improves quality of life, lowers spending and helps clarify preferences and goals for advanced cancer patients. Little is known about the feasibility and acceptability of early integration. Aim: Assessing feasibility of early integration of palliative care, and exploring concerns perceived and problems encountered by patients, relatives and oncologists. Design: A phase 2 mixed-methods study ( ClinicalTrials.Gov :NCT02078700). Methods: Oncologists of two outpatient clinics offered a specialised palliative care intervention integrated with standard oncological care to all consecutive newly diagnosed metastatic respiratory/gastrointestinal cancer patients. We interviewed samples of patients, relatives and oncologists to explore strengths and weaknesses of the intervention. Results: The intervention was proposed to 44/54 eligible patients (81.5%), 40 (90.1%) accepted, 38 (95.0%) attended the first palliative care visit. The intervention was completed for 32 patients (80.0%). It did not start for three (7.5%) and was interrupted for three patients who refused (7.5%). The Palliative Care Unit performed 274 visits in 38 patients (median per patient 4.5), and 24 family meetings with relatives of 16 patients. All patients and most relatives referred to the usefulness of the intervention, specifically for symptoms management, information and support to strategies for coping. Oncologists highlighted their difficulties in informing patients on palliative intervention, sharing information and coordinating patient’s care with the palliative care team. Conclusion: Early integration of palliative care in oncological setting seems feasible and well accepted by patients, relatives and, to a lesser extent, oncologists. Some difficulties emerged concerning patient information and inter-professional communication.

Although lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) serum levels, indirect markers of angiogenesis, are associated with a worse outcome in several tumours, their prognostic value is not defined in pancreatic cancer. Moreover, high levels are associated even with a lack of efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, contributing to explain negative results in clinical trials. We assessed the role of LDH in advanced pancreatic cancer receiving sorafenib. Seventy-one of 114 patients included in the randomised phase II trial MAPS (chemotherapy plus or not sorafenib) and with available serum LDH levels, were included in this analysis. Patients were categorized according to serum LDH levels (LDH ≤ vs.> upper normal rate). A significant difference was found in progression free survival (PFS) and in overall survival (OS) between patients with LDH values under or above the cut-off (PFS: 5.2 vs. 2.7 months, p = 0.0287; OS: 10.7 vs. 5.9 months, p = 0.0021). After stratification according to LDH serum levels and sorafenib treatment, patients with low LDH serum levels treated with sorafenib showed an advantage in PFS (p = 0.05) and OS (p = 0.0012). LDH appears to be a reliable parameter to assess the prognosis of advanced pancreatic cancer patients, and it may be a predictive parameter to select patients candidate to receive sorafenib.

Aim: To assess the role of Notch activation in predicting bevacizumab efficacy in colorectal cancer (CRC). Materials & methods: Notch activation was evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC) on 65 CRC enrolled within randomized clinical trials assessing first-line bevacizumab-based chemotherapy and on 21 CRC treated with chemotherapy alone. Results: Strong Notch (IHC 3+) activation was negatively associated with response (18 vs 62% in low Notch cases [IHC 0, 1, 2+]; p = 0.016), progression-free survival (4.9 vs 12.1 months; p = 0.002) and overall survival (19.3 vs 30.4 months; p = 0.039). No correlation was found between Notch activation and clinical outcome in CRC treated with chemotherapy alone. Conclusion: A potential role of Notch activation in the antitumor activity of bevacizumab could be hypothesized.

Background Sorafenib has shown survival benefits in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child-Pugh (CP) class A liver function. There are few prospective data on sorafenib in patients with HCC and CP class B. Patients and methods A consecutive prospective series of 300 patients with CP class A or B HCC were enrolled in a dual-phase trial to determine survival and safety data according to liver function (class A or B) in patients receiving oral sorafenib 800 mg daily. [Results of this study were presented in part at the ASCO 2012 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, 19–21 January 2012. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl 4): abstract 306.] Results Overall progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were 3.9, 4.1 and 9.1 months, respectively. For patients with CP class A versus B status, PFS was 4.3 versus 2.1 months, TTP was 4.2 versus 3.8 months and OS was 10.0 versus 3. 8 months. Extrahepatic spread was associated with worse outcomes but taken together with CP class, liver function played a greater role in reducing survival. Adverse events for the two CP groups were similar. Conclusion Although patients with HCC and CP class B liver function have poorer outcomes than those with CP class A function, data suggest that patients with CP class B liver function can tolerate treatment and may still benefit from sorafenib.