Search

Introduction: Predictive markers of LV5FU2 maintenance benefit after first-line induction with FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer are necessary to select patients who will not be harmed by this strategy., Patients and Methods: We focused on patients who received 12 cycles of FOLFIRINOX (arm A, N = 88) or 8 cycles of FOLFIRINOX followed by LV5FU2 maintenance in controlled patients (arm B, N = 91) from the PRODIGE-35 trial. Prognostic factors and predictors of efficiency were identified by using Cox regression. Median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and time to deterioration of quality of life (TTD-QoL) were evaluated., Results: Poor independent prognostic factors were primary tumor in place, age <65 years and the presence of liver metastases for PFS, a baseline neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥5 and CA19.9 ≥500 UI/L for OS, independent of the treatment arm. Patients with one metastatic site had a longer PFS in arm A, whereas patients with ≥2 metastatic sites had a longer PFS in arm B. We also identified predictors of OS and TTD-QoL in arm B but these differences were not statistically significant., Conclusion: Except for patients with one metastatic site who benefited more from 12 cycles of FOLFIRINOX, a maintenance strategy with LV5FU2 should be widely offered to mPC patients whose survival and QoL are preserved after 4 months of FOLFIRINOX. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02352337)., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objective: Glucagonoma is a very rare functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (PanNET). We aimed to provide data on the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of patients with glucagonoma., Design and Methods: In this retrospective national cohort, we included all patients with glucagonoma, defined by at least 1 major criterion (necrolytic migratory erythema [NME] and/or recent-onset diabetes, and/or weight loss ≥ 5 kg) associated with either glucagonemia > 2 × upper limit of normal or positive glucagon immunostaining. Antisecretory efficacy was defined as partial/complete resolution of glucagonoma symptoms. Antitumor efficacy was assessed according to the time to next treatment (TTNT)., Results: Thirty-eight patients were included with median age 58.7 yo, primary PanNET located in the tail (68.4%), synchronous metastases (63.2%). Median Ki-67 index was 3%. Most frequent glucagonoma symptoms at diagnosis were NME (86.8%), weight loss (68.4%), and diabetes (50%). Surgery of the primary PanNET was performed in 76.3% of cases, mainly with curative intent (61.5%). After surgery, complete resolution of NME was seen in 93.8% (n = 15/16). The secretory response rates were 85.7%, 85.7%, 75%, and 60% with surgery of metastases (n = 6/7), chemotherapy (n = 6/7), liver-directed therapy (n = 6/8), and somatostatin analogs (n = 6/10), respectively. All lines combined, longer TTNT was reported with chemotherapy (20.2 months). Median overall survival (OS) was 17.3 years. The Ki-67 index > 3% was associated with shorter OS (hazard ratio 5.27, 95% CI [1.11-24.96], P = .036)., Conclusion: Patients with glucagonoma had prolonged survival, even in the presence of metastases at diagnosis. Curative-intent surgery should always be considered. Chemotherapy, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy, or liver-directed therapy seems to provide both substantial antitumor and antisecretory efficacies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: C.L.: Novartis, Ipsen, AMGEN, and Deciphera; V.H.: AAA, Ipsen, Servier, Pierre Fabre, Deciphera, Amgen, and Merck; G.C.: AAA, Ipsen, Keocyt, and Esteve; T.W.: AAA Pharma, Inc., Ipsen, ESTEVE, MSD, Pierre Fabre, and TERUMO; L.d.M.: AAA, Esteve, Ipsen, and SIRTex. All other authors have no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Endocrinology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Following European guidelines, patients with aggressive metastatic or locally advanced, non-resectable, duodeno-pancreatic (DP) neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) should receive systemic combination chemotherapy until progression. Aggressive disease is defined as progressive and/or symptomatic metastases with or without significant hepatic invasion (&gt;30-50%), and/or bone metastases., Methods: This academic randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study aims to evaluate lanreotide autogel 120 mg (LAN) as maintenance treatment after at least 2 months of first-line treatment (L1) in aggressive G1-G2 DP-NET. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive LAN or placebo (PBO), every 28 days, until progression or toxicity. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months., Results: Among the 118 planned patients, 53 were included. Of these, 81.1% had a G2 tumour, and 90.6% had metastatic disease. L1 therapy consisted of chemotherapy (96.8%). Median duration of L1 was 4.6 months (range: 2.0-7.7). At the time of randomisation, 81.1% of patients had stable disease. Median follow-up was 27.0 months (95% CI: 19.5; 31.2). PFS at 6 months was 73.1% (90% CI: 55.3; 86.6) in LAN versus 54.2% (90% CI: 35.8; 71.8) in PBO. Median PFS was 19.4 months (95% CI: 7.6; 32.6) and 7.6 months (95% CI: 3.0; 9.0), respectively. Median overall survival was 41.9 months in PBO and was not reached in LAN. The toxicity profile was mainly grade 1-2 expected toxicities., Conclusions: The encouraging results of lanreotide autogel 120 mg as a maintenance treatment after L1 in aggressive G1/2 DP-NET should be confirmed., Trial Registration: NCT02288377 (clinicaltrials.gov)., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Côme Lepage worked as a member of the advisory board for Novartis, personal fees from Novartis, IPSEN, grants from Merck, IPSEN. Thomas Walter worked as a member of advisory boards for AAA, IPSEN, Keocyt and Novartis. Astrid Lièvre reports grants from Bayer Lilly, Merck and Novartis; personal fees from AAA, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, HalioDx, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and Servier; non-financial support from AAA, Amgen, Bayer, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Servier and Integragen. David Tougeron reports grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis; personal fees from Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers SquibbIpsen, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and Servier. Catherine Lombard-Bohas worked as a member of advisory boards for AAA, IPSEN, Keocyt, Novartis. Jean-Louis Legoux worked as a member of an advisory board for Novartis, reports personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer (clinical research), Novartis, Keocyt, Servier (courses, training), Merck, Servier, Keocyt (invitations to national or international congresses). All remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, few data are available on the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis and its impact on dose-intensity (DI), or the link between DI and progression-free survival (PFS). This study assessed the impact of G-CSF prophylaxis on the DI received by patients and the relationship between full DI and PFS according to chemotherapy regimens., Patients and Methods: Patients from three first-line randomized phase II clinical trials were included in this retrospective cohort. G-CSF prophylaxis groups were identified and balanced according to baseline characteristics using a propensity score. Patients were classified into 2 treatment groups (FOLFIRINOX vs FOLFIRI/nab-paclitaxel (NAB)). DI was a binary variable (full/reduced). Adverse events were defined using NCI-CTCAE v4.0., Results: Of the 498 patients, 154 (31%) were in "prophylaxis" group; 179 (36%) were treated by FOLFIRINOX and 319 (64%) by FOLFIRI/NAB. In FOLFIRINOX group, G-CSF prophylaxis was significantly associated with a higher rate of full DI (OR, 5.07; 95% CI, 1.52-16.90; P < .01) while in FOLFIRI/NAB group, it was significantly associated with a lower rate of full DI (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.83; P = .03). Full DI was associated with a non-significant increase in PFS (FOLFIRINOX group: HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.59-1.16; P = .27; FOLFIRI/NAB group: HR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63-1.11; P = .22)., Conclusion: Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was associated with a higher rate of full DI with FOLFIRINOX. Full DI was associated with a non-significant increase in PFS. These results need to be confirmed prospectively., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Introduction: Approval of sunitinib and everolimus for the treatment of progressive, unresectable or metastatic well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) was obtained in France in 2011 and 2012, respectively. OPALINE was set up as an observational study to evaluate the efficacy of sunitinib and everolimus compared to usual pNET treatments of chemotherapies and somatostatin analogues that had been previously recommended by the health authorities., Methods: The OPALINE study assessed the efficacy of everolimus and sunitinib in terms of survival, disease progression and tolerance. Patients (N = 144) were enrolled from May 2015 to September 2017, and their disease characteristics were analyzed from diagnosis to 2 years post-enrollment., Results: At inclusion most patients had comorbidities, and about 95% presented metastases. Patients received on average 3.2 lines of treatment from diagnosis to inclusion and two lines throughout the 2-year follow-up. Seventy-nine patients (59.0%) received at least one targeted therapy (TT) during their care path. For these patients, the overall survival (OS) was approximatively 176.5 months (95% CI: 97.2-not evaluable), with a 2-year survival rate estimated at 93.6% (SD 2.6%). Similar survival rates were observed whether the TTs were prescribed sooner or later in the treatment path. The main reasons for discontinuation of TTs were disease progression (54 patients) and adverse events (26 patients). Most patients receiving TTs did not change their dose during the follow-up reflecting the good treatment tolerability over time. No new safety alert was reported for everolimus and sunitinib during this study., Conclusion: Given their good tolerance and positive impact on estimated OS, the two TTs have an important role to play in the care path of patients with pNETs., Gov National Clinical Trial Number: NCT02264665., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Vasoactive intestinal peptide-secreting tumor (VIPoma) is a very rare, life-threatening, functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (pNET). The efficacy of antitumor therapies against functioning symptoms and tumor burden have been poorly described in VIPoma., Objective: Describe the impact of treatments on the secretory syndrome, tumor burden and survival in patients with VIPoma., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients with VIPoma treated in seven French expert centers between 1990 and 2016. Diagnostic of VIPoma was reassessed using strict criteria. We evaluated the antisecretory efficacy (>50 % decrease of daily bowel movements), and antitumor efficacy (RECIST 1.1) of all treatments received., Results: Twenty-two patients were included. pNETs were mostly metastatic (77 %) and classified as grade 2 (83 %). Median follow-up was 78.2 months. Surgical excision of nonmetastatic VIPoma effectively controlled the secretory syndrome. Although 4/5 patients had metastatic recurrences, all patients were alive after median post-operative follow-up of 171 months. Among the 87 treatments received for metastatic VIPoma, curative-intent surgery (n = 14), somatostatin analogs alone (n = 11), chemotherapy (n = 23), transarterial liver embolization (TALE) (n = 14), everolimus (n = 10) and sunitinib (n = 7) achieved, respectively, 100 %, 67 %, 83 %, 50 %, 20 % and 100 % antisecretory efficacy. The 5-year OS rate was 63.6 %, with pejorative impact of higher Ki-67 index (P = 0.045) and higher plasma VIP concentration (P = 0.025)., Conclusions: Surgical resection of localized VIPoma is effective but rarely curative. For metastatic VIPoma, curative-intent surgery, chemotherapy and sunitinib are the therapeutic options that best combined antitumor and antisecretory efficacies., (Copyright © 2021 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) still harbors a dismal prognosis. Our previous trial (PRODIGE 4-ACCORD 11) demonstrated the superiority of 6-month chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) over gemcitabine for overall survival. The high limiting oxaliplatin-related neurotoxicity supports the evaluation of an oxaliplatin stop-and-go strategy and a sequential strategy in mPC., Methods: In this phase II study, patients were randomly assigned to receive either 6 months of FOLFIRINOX (arm A), 4 months of FOLFIRINOX followed by leucovorin plus fluorouracil maintenance treatment for controlled patients (arm B), or a sequential treatment alternating gemcitabine and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan every 2 months (arm C). The primary end point was progression-free survival at 6 months., Results: Between January 2015 and November 2016, 276 patients (mean age: 63 years; range: 40-76 years) were enrolled (A: 91, B: 92, and C: 90). Grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity occurred in 10.2% of patients in arm A and 19.8% in arm B. The median ratio of received dose/targeted dose of oxaliplatin was 83% in arm A and 92% in arm B. The 6-month progression-free survival was 47.1% in A, 42.9% in B, and 34.1% in C. The median overall survival was 10.1 months in arm A, 11.2 in arm B, and 7.3 in arm C. Median survival without deterioration in quality-of-life scores was higher in the maintenance arm (11.4 months) than in arms A and C (7.2 and 7.5 months, respectively)., Conclusion: Maintenance with leucovorin plus fluorouracil appears to be feasible and effective in patients with mPC controlled after 4 months of induction chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX. Severe neurotoxicity was higher in the maintenance therapy arm, probably because of the higher cumulative dose of oxaliplatin., Competing Interests: Laetitia DahanHonoraria: Amgen, BMS, Servier, Oseus, Mylan Jean-Marc PhelipHonoraria: Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi, Amgen, Lilly, Servier, BayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Merck Serono, Amgen, Servier, Bayer, SanofiResearch Funding: Roche, Merck SeronoTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Merck Serono, Bayer, Servier, Sanofi, Amgen Jérôme DesrameExpert Testimony: RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Hospira Olivier BouchéConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Merck Serono, Bayer, MSD Oncology, Grünenthal Group, AstraZenecaSpeakers' Bureau: Pierre Fabre, Servier, Amgen, SanofiTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Merck Serono, Servier David MalkaHonoraria: Roche, Amgen, Bayer, Merck Serono, Servier, Sanofi, HalioDx, Pierre Fabre, Viatris, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, LEO PharmaConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Sanofi, Merck Serono, MSD, Servier, Bayer, Incyte, Amgen, HalioDx, Agios, Bristol Myers SquibTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Bayer, Sanofi, Merck Serono, Amgen, Servier Thomas AparicioHonoraria: Roche, Amgen, Servier, AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD Oncology, Bioven, ServierTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche Yves RinaldiHonoraria: Viatris, Amgen Astellas BioPharma Anthony TurpinHonoraria: Amgen, Merck Serono, ServierConsulting or Advisory Role: AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck Anne-Laure BignonHonoraria: IpsenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Ipsen Jean-Baptiste BachetHonoraria: Amgen, Bayer, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Roche, Servier, AstraZeneca, Pierre FabreConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Bayer, Merck Serono, Servier, AstraZeneca, Pierre FabreTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Serono, Amgen, Roche, Servier Jean-François SeitzHonoraria: Lilly, Merck Serono, SanofiConsulting or Advisory Role: Servier, Pierre FabreTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Ipsen Come LepageHonoraria: Amgen, Bayer, Ipsen, Pierre FabreConsulting or Advisory Role: Advanced Accelerator Applications, NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Bayer, Sanofi/Aventis, Merck Serono, Ipsen Eric FrançoisHonoraria: Amgen, Servier, Novartis, Merck Sharp & DohmeConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Pierre FabreTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, ServierNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC) are rare diseases with a poor prognosis. Platinum-etoposide (PE) has been the recommended first-line treatment for decades. FOLFIRINEC (NCT04325425) is a national multicenter randomized phase II study which aims to challenge this standard regimen., Methods: The primary objective is to compare the median progression-free survival (PFS) under mFOLFIRINOX versus PE. The secondary objectives are to evaluate the objective response rates (ORR), median overall survival (OS), safety and quality of life. The associated real-time translational study will establish a molecular profile for each patient enrolled., Main Inclusion Criteria Are: NEC of gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) or unknown origin, metastatic and RECIST 1.1 evaluable disease, tumor sample available and no contraindication to chemotherapy. Patients will be randomized 1:1 between PE every 21 days for 6-8 cycles and mFOLFIRINOX every 14 days for up to 12 cycles and stratified according to center, performance status, Ki67 and pathological subtype. This trial will randomize 218 patients (24 months of follow-up) to have 80% power to detect an improvement of the median PFS from 5 months under PE to 7.5 months under mFOLFIRINOX (HR of 0.67, α =5%, two-sided). An intermediate analysis is planned at 50% of events. Recruitment started on October 20, 2020., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None, (Copyright © 2021 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chemotherapy is effective in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPA), but new approaches are still needed to improve patients' survival and quality of life. We have previously published good efficacy and tolerability results on a sequential treatment strategy of gemcitabine followed by an intensified FOLFIRI (5FU+irinotecan) regimen. In the present study, we evaluated the same sequence but replaced gemcitabine by the new gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel standard first-line combination., Patients and Methods: We randomised chemotherapy-naive patients with proven mPA, bilirubin levels ≤1.5 upper limit of normal values and performance status 0-2 to alternately receive gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel for 2 months then FOLFIRI.3 for 2 months in arm A, or gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel alone until progression in arm B. The primary objective was to increase the 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate from 40% (H 0 ) to 60% (H 1 ); using the binomial exact method, 124 patients were required. Analyses were carried out in preplanned modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations., Results: Between November 2015 and November 2016, 127 patients were enrolled. Main grade III-IV toxicities (% in arm A/B) were: diarrhoea (12.5/1.7), neutropenia (46.9/31, including febrile neutropenia: 1.6/0), skin toxicity (6.3/13.8), and peripheral neuropathy (6.3/8.6). No toxic deaths occurred. The objective response rate was 40.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 28.1-53.6) in arm A and 26.7% (95% CI: 16.1-39.7) in arm B. The primary end-point (6-month PFS rate) was 45.2% [one-sided 95% CI: 34.3-56.4] in arm A and 23.3% in arm B [one-sided 95% CI: 14.3-32.3] in the mITT population. In the PP population, median PFS and OS were 7.6 months and 6 months and 14.5 months and 12.2 months in arm A and B, respectively., Conclusions: The FIRGEMAX strategy with gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel alternating with FOLFIRI.3 every 2 months, appears feasible and effective, with manageable toxicities, in patients able to reach >2mo of treatment., Trial Registration Information: EudraCT: 2014-004449-28: NCT: 0282701., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement T.J. reported receiving honoraria from Merck, Roche, Amgen, Lilly, Sanofi, Samsung, MSD, Servier, Celgene, Pierre Fabre; has been a member of the consulting or advisory role for Roche, Merck KGaA, Amgen, Lilly, MSD, Servier, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Samsung; speakers' Bureau for Servier, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Merck, Lilly, Pierre Fabre. R.Y. reported receiving honoraria from Roche, Sanofi, Merck, Amgen, Bayer and Servier. B.J-.B reported receiving honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier. All the remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patients with gastroenteropancreatic (GEP), metastatic or locally advanced, non-resectable, grade 3 poorly-differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) are treated with cisplatin (or carboplatin)-etoposide in first-line palliative chemotherapy (CT1). However, nearly all patients will develop resistance and there is no standard second-line treatment., Aim: PRODIGE 41-BEVANEC is an academic randomized, phase II study designed to evaluate the efficacy of bevacizumab in combination with FOLFIRI after failure of CT1 in unknown primary NEC and GEP-NEC., Materials and Methods: The main eligibility criteria are age ≥18 years, metastatic (synchronous or metachronous) or locally advanced, non-resectable, grade 3 GEP-NEC, and documented progressive disease during or after CT1 therapy., Results: A total of 124 patients will be randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 5 mg/kg bevacizumab with FOLFIRI, or FOLFIRI alone, every 14 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The hypothesis is to demonstrate a 6-month overall survival for at least 50% of the patients in bevacizumab arm versus 35% in the control arm (FOLFIRI alone). Secondary endpoints are objective response, response duration, progression-free survival, toxicity, and biochemical response., Conclusion: The study is currently opened in France (NCT02820857). The first patient was randomized on September 6, 2017., (Copyright © 2017 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Actually, pancreatic cancer is a major challenge in digestive oncology. Its prognosis remains very poor with a five-year net survival less than 10%. Although if pancreatic cancer incidence was low, data from French digestive cancer registries show a dramatic increase in recent years, more marked in women (annual variation of +3.6% between 1982 and 2012) than in men (+2.3%). The currently recognized risk factors like tobacco or obesity cannot explain this evolving epidemiology. Moreover, progress in understanding pancreatic carcinogenesis is still insufficient. Except for familial aggregation, systematic screening couldn't be proposed., (Copyright © 2017 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Gastric neuro-endocrine tumours are rare. European guidelines for the management of neuro-endocrine tumours have been published in 2012. The aim of our survey was to study the management of gastric neuro-endocrine tumours registered in the national cohort. A prospective national cohort registers the Neuro-endocrine tumours in France since January 2003 (GTE network). We reviewed all the individual medical reports of gastric neuro-endocrine tumours in order to collect data on treatment., Results: One hundred and ninety seven gastric neuro-endocrine tumours diagnosed between 1964 and 2013 in 20 centres were registered. For 181 cases data were considered complete for our survey. Eighty four tumours were type 1 (46.4%); five types 2 (2.8%); 52 types 3 (28.7%) and 40 types 4 (22.1%). Types 1 and 2 were first endoscopically managed in 93 and 60% of cases, respectively, whereas surgery was first done in 45 and 42%, respectively, of types 3 and 4. Systemic treatment, chemotherapy and/or somatostatin analogue, was first administered exclusively for types 3 and 4. Near 3% of types 1 and 40% of types 2 received at a time somatostatin analogue treatment. Five-year survival rates were 98.3, 100, 63.2 and 31.8% for types 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively., Conclusion: The great majority of gastric neuro-endocrine tumours registered in this national cohort are treated in accordance with the current guidelines. The survival rates we reported must be interpreted with caution, because this cohort registered preferentially selected patients eligible for treatment. The registration of all the gastric neuro-endocrine tumours, in particular type 1 considered as benign and type 4 not eligible for specific anti-cancer treatment must be encouraged.

Background: Diagnosis and management of poorly differentiated gastro-entero-pancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) remain challenging. Recent studies suggest prognostic heterogeneity. We designed within the French Group of Endocrine Tumours a prospective cohort to gain insight in the prognostic stratification and treatment of GEP-NEC., Patients and Methods: All patients with a diagnosis of GEP-NEC between 1st January 2010 and 31st December 2013 could be included in this national cohort. Adenoneuroendocrine tumours were excluded., Results: 253 patients from 49 centres were included. Median age was 66 years. Main primary locations were pancreas (21%), colorectal (27%), oesophagus-stomach (18%); primary location was unknown in 20%. Tumours were metastatic at diagnosis in 78% of cases. Performance status (PS) at diagnosis was 0-1 in 79% of patients. Among the 147 (58%) cases reviewed by an expert pathological network, 39% were classified as small cell NEC and 61% as large cell NEC. Median Ki67 index was 75% (range, 20-100). Median overall survival was 15.6 (13.6-17.0) months. Significant adverse prognostic factors in univariate analysis were PS > 1 (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.5), metastatic disease (HR = 1.6), NSE>2 upper limit of normal [ULN]; HR = 3.2), CgA>2 ULN (HR = 1.7) and lactate dehydrogenase >2 ULN (HR = 2.1). After first-line palliative chemotherapy (CT1) with platinum-etoposide (n = 152), objective response, progression-free survival and overall survival were 50%, 6.2 and 11.6 months; they were 24%, 2.9 and 5.9, respectively, after post-CT1 FOLFIRI regimen (n = 72)., Conclusions: We report a large prospective series of GEP-NEC which show the predominance of large cell type and advanced stage at diagnosis. Prognosis was found more homogeneous than previously reported, mainly impacted by PS and tumour burden., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patients with metastatic or locally advanced, non-resectable, grade 1 or 2 well-differentiated duodeno-pancreatic (WDDP) NETs are treated following European guidelines. Patients (Pts) with aggressive disease, i.e. progressive and/or symptomatic metastases and/or with significant hepatic invasion (>30-50%), and/or bone metastases, anti-tumour therapy should receive systemic combination of chemotherapy once disease control is obtained., Aim(s): The aim is to stop chemotherapy until progression. REMINET is an academic randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II/III study designed to evaluate lanreotide (LAN) as maintenance treatment after L1 chemotherapy in G1-G2 WDDP NET., Materials and Methods: Main eligibility criteria: adults pts with a metastatic (synchronous or metachronous) or locally advanced, non-resectable, grade 1 or 2 WDDP NETs and documented control disease after L1 therapy at least 4 weeks prior to randomization., Results: 222 patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 120mg LAN or placebo, every 28 days, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The aim of the phase II part is to demonstrate a 6-months PFS >45% in LAN arm. Secondary endpoints are PFS according to central review, overall survival, safety and quality of life. A bio-bank of frozen blood will be constituted., Conclusion: The study is currently open in France, Germany, Belgium, United Kingdom and Ireland. A total of 25 patients are randomized (NCT02288377)., (Copyright © 2017 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Many changes have recently occurred in the practice of neuroendocrine tumour (NET) pathology. We therefore aimed to evaluate how pathologists have adapted their daily practice to the most recent international guidelines for diagnostic and prognostic evaluation., Procedures: A 12-month prospective study (PRONET) was carried out among French pathologists between August 2010 and July 2011. Data were collected using an anonymous electronic case report form., Observations: Five hundred laboratories were invited, 149 accepted to participate, 80 were active and 59 provided eligible cases. A total of 1,340 cases were collected. The primary tumour was gastroenteropancreatic in 58.1% of cases and thoracic in 18.1%; it was from another site in 9.7%; 12.3% of cases were metastases of unknown origin. Pathological diagnosis was made from the examination of surgical samples in 58.1% of cases, biopsy specimens in 33.5%, endoscopic resections in 3.1% and cytological preparations in 4.2%. For the demonstration of the neuroendocrine nature of the tumour, chromogranin A and synaptophysin were tested in, respectively, 97.1 and 82.8% of cases. The differentiation status was definitely provided in 95.7% of cases. Mitotic count was attempted in 80.1% of cases and Ki67 index in 80.7%. In gastroenteropancreatic (GEP)-NETs, histological grading was available in 95.9% of the cases. WHO classification was available or feasible in 94.1% of GEP-NETs and 93.8% of thoracic NETs. TNM staging was performed according to International Union against Cancer in 74.8% of GEP-NETs and according to European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society in 55.6%., Conclusions: The PRONET study shows that the current recommendations and diagnostic procedures are satisfactorily respected by most pathologists in daily practice., (© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose: Because cytidine deaminase (CDA) is the key enzyme in gemcitabine metabolism, numerous studies have attempted to investigate impact of CDA status (i.e. genotype or phenotype) on clinical outcome. To date, data are still controversial because none of these studies has fully investigated genotype-phenotype CDA status, pharmacokinetics and clinical outcome relationships in gemcitabine-treated patients. Besides, most patients were treated with gemcitabine associated with other drugs, thus adding a confounding factor. We performed a multicenter prospective clinical trial in gemcitabine-treated patients which aimed at investigating the link between CDA deficiency on the occurrence of severe toxicities and on pharmacokinetics, and studying CDA genotype-phenotype relationships., Experimental Design: One hundred twenty patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma eligible for adjuvant gemcitabine monotherapy were enrolled in this study promoted and managed by the Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive. Toxicities were graded according to National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4. They were considered severe for grade ≥ 3, and early when occurring during the first eight weeks of treatment. CDA status was evaluated using a double approach: genotyping for 79A>C and functional testing. Therapeutic drug monitoring of gemcitabine and its metabolite were performed on the first course of gemcitabine., Results: Five patients out of 120 (i.e., 4.6%) were found to be CDA deficient (i.e., CDA activity <1.3 U/mg), and only one among them experienced early severe hematological toxicity. There was no statistically significant difference in CDA activity between patients experiencing hematological severe toxicities (28.44%) and patients who tolerated the treatment (71.56%). CDA genetic analysis failed in evidencing an impact in terms of toxicities or in CDA activity. Regarding pharmacokinetics, a wide inter-individual variability has been observed in patients., Conclusion: This study, which included only 4.6% of CDA-deficient patients, failed in identifying CDA status as a predictive marker of toxicities with gemcitabine. A lack of statistical power because of smoothing effect of CDA variability as compared with real life conditions could explain this absence of impact., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01416662.

Objectives: Time trends in the incidence of pancreatic cancer vary considerably between countries. The aim of this study was to provide time trends in incidence during a 25-year period in a well-defined French population., Methods: The cancer registry in Burgundy (France) was used to study time trends between 1981 and 2005 by sex, age, subsite, and histology. They were analyzed using an age-period cohort model., Results: Age-standardized incidence rates increased from 5.7 (1981-1985) to 7.9 per 100,000 (2001-2005) in men and from 2.6 to 4.6 in women. The mean percentage of variation by the 5-year period was +9.9% (P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval, 6.2%-13.6%) and +13.4% (P = 0.004, 95% confidence interval, 9.4%-17.5%), respectively. The increase in incidence was higher for cancers of the tail and corpus than for cancers of the head of pancreas and for malignant pancreatic endocrine tumors than for adenocarcinomas. The cumulative risk of developing a pancreatic cancer rose from 0.51% for men born in 1900 to 1.13% for those born in 1950. It was 0.34% and 0.55% for women, respectively., Conclusions: The incidence of pancreatic cancer has increased sharply in France both by period and by birth cohort. Etiological studies are required to explain the increase in the incidence.

Background: The aim of this study was to report on changes in the diagnostic assessment, patterns of care and survival over time for pancreatic cancers., Methods: A total of 2986 cases of pancreatic cancer from the Digestive Cancer Registry of Burgundy (France) over a 30-year period (1976-2005) were considered. Non-conditional logistic regressions were carried out to identify the factors associated with resection for cure and with the use of chemotherapy. A multivariate relative survival analysis was carried out., Results: Diagnostic procedures have changed. Ultrasonography and computed tomography progressively have become the major diagnostic procedures. There was a slight improvement in stage: the proportion of stage I-II was 2.8% in the 1976-1980 period and 8.8% in the 2001-2005 period (P<0.001). There was a similar trend in the proportion of cases resected for cure, the corresponding percentages being 4.5 and 11.3%, respectively (P<0.001). The 5-year relative survival increased from 2.0 to 4.2% (P<0.001). In the multivariate relative survival analysis, the period remained a significant prognostic factor. Stage, sex, age and histology were independent prognostic factors., Conclusion: Over a 30-year period, there were minor changes in the stage at diagnosis, resection for cure and prognosis of pancreatic cancers, although there were improvements in the diagnostic modalities. Pancreatic cancer still represents a major challenge in oncology.