Search

Cell viability analysis used for normalization of pH data

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Aggressive treatment regimens have not changed the disease course, and the median survival has just recently reached a year. Several mechanisms are proposed to play a role in PDAC therapeutic resistance, including hypoxia, which creates a more aggressive phenotype with increased metastatic potential and impaired therapeutic efficacy. AP Endonuclease-1/Redox Effector Factor 1 (APE1/Ref-1) is a multifunctional protein possessing a DNA repair function in base excision repair and the ability to reduce oxidized transcription factors, enabling them to bind to their DNA target sequences. APE1/Ref-1 regulates several transcription factors involved in survival mechanisms, tumor growth, and hypoxia signaling. Here, we explore the mechanisms underlying PDAC cell responses to hypoxia and modulation of APE1/Ref-1 redox signaling activity, which regulates the transcriptional activation of hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF1α). Carbonic anhydrase IX (CA9) is regulated by HIF1α and functions as a part of the cellular response to hypoxia to regulate intracellular pH, thereby promoting cell survival. We hypothesized that modulating APE1/Ref-1 function will block activation of downstream transcription factors, STAT3 and HIF1α, interfering with the hypoxia-induced gene expression. We demonstrate APE1/Ref-1 inhibition in patient-derived and established PDAC cells results in decreased HIF1α–mediated induction of CA9. Furthermore, an ex vivo three-dimensional tumor coculture model demonstrates dramatic enhancement of APE1/Ref-1–induced cell killing upon dual targeting of APE1/Ref-1 and CA9. Both APE1/Ref-1 and CA9 are under clinical development; therefore, these studies have the potential to direct novel PDAC therapeutic treatment. Mol Cancer Ther; 15(11); 2722–32. ©2016 AACR.

APE1 expression correlates with decreased survival in PDAC and CA9 is upregulated in PDAC

Additional methods including synthesis information for one of the inhibitors used and methods used for TCGA survival analysis found in supplemental figure 7.

CA9 protein levels are increased under hypoxia, but APE1 levels are not

APE1/Ref-1 protein expression affects CA9 mRNA levels in additional PDAC cell lines

Confirmation of HIF-1 deletion in MEF cells

APE1/Ref-1 interactions with STAT3 and NFκB are stimulated by IL-6 and TNFα (respectively) under normoxic conditions

APE1/Ref-1 interactions with HIF1α and STAT3 are stimulated by hypoxia in Cancer-Associated Fibroblast (CAF) cells

Figure Legends for Supplemental Figures

731 Background: The incidence of PDAC is on the rise and it is predicted to be the 2nd leading cause of cancer related mortality in the next decade. Most patients present with advanced disease at diagnoses with limited systemic treatment options. Fluoropyrimidines are active in PDAC. Lonsurf (L) is an orally administered combination of a thymidine-based nucleic acid analogue, trifluridine, and a thymidine phosphorylase inhibitor, tipiracil hydrochloride. Preclinical data demonstrate Lonsurf may have activity in 5-FU resistant malignancies. This phase I study combines Gem, nab-P, and L. Methods: Gem and nab-P are dosed on days 1 and 15 IV on a 28 day cycle. L (20-30mg/m2) is dosed twice daily on days 2-6 and 16-20 (table 1). Dose escalation is by 3+3 design. Key eligibility include pts with untreated locally advanced or metastatic PDAC, ECOG 0-1, and adequate hepatic and bone marrow function. Results: 14 pts (median age 62 yrs [range 43-74]) have been enrolled. Dose was initiated at DL1. The first 3 pts were treated without DLT. DL2 exceeded the MTD with 1 patient experiencing grade 3 infection (cholangitis). Dose expansion to 7 patients was completed at DL 1 with no further DLTs. The RP2D is Gem 800mg/m2, Nab-P 100mg/m2, and L 25mg/m2. Of the 10 patients with evaluable disease, 2 (20%) had PR and 7 (70%) had SD. Pts were on study a median of 14 months (range 4 -31+). Most common grade 3/4 AEs include fatigue (46%,) neutropenia (38%), anemia (31%) anorexia (15%), nausea (15%), vomiting (15%), abdominal pain (15%), hyperglycemia (15%). No grade 5 events occurred. Conclusions: The RP2D is Gem 800mg/m2, Nab-P 100mg/m2, and L 25mg/m2. This combination was well tolerated with expected toxicities of myelosuppression with prolonged responses seen. Clinical trial information: NCT04046887 . [Table: see text]

SummaryVantictumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits Wnt pathway signaling through binding FZD1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 receptors. This phase Ib study evaluated vantictumab in combination with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Patients received vantictumab at escalating doses in combination with standard dosing of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine according to a 3 + 3 design. A total of 31 patients were treated in 5 dosing cohorts. Fragility fractures attributed to vantictumab occurred in 2 patients in Cohort 2 (7 mg/kg every 2 weeks), and this maximum administered dose (MAD) on study was considered unsafe. The dosing schedule was revised to every 4 weeks for Cohorts 3 through 5, with additional bone safety parameters added. Sequential dosing of vantictumab followed by nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine was also explored. No fragility fractures attributed to vantictumab occurred in these cohorts; pathologic fracture not attributed to vantictumab was documented in 2 patients. The study was ultimately terminated due to concerns around bone-related safety, and thus the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination was not determined. The MAD of vantictumab according to the revised dosing schedule was 5 mg/kg (n = 16).

Purpose: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a lethal cancer with lack of predictive biomarkers. We conducted a study to assess DNA damage repair (DDR) gene mutations as a predictive biomarker in PDAC patients treated with FOLFIRINOX. Experimental Design: Indiana University Simon Cancer Center pancreatic cancer database was used to identify patients with metastatic PDAC, treated with FOLFIRINOX and had tissue available for DNA sequencing. Baseline demographic, clinical, and pathologic information was gathered. DNA isolation and targeted sequencing was performed using the Ion AmpliSeq protocol. Overall survival (OS) analysis was conducted using Kaplan–Meier, logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard methods. Multivariate models were adjusted for age, gender, margin status, CA 19-9, adjuvant chemotherapy, tumor and nodal stage. Results: Overall, 36 patients were sequenced. DDR gene mutations were found in 12 patients. Mutations were seen in BRCA1 (N = 7), BRCA2 (N = 5), PALB2 (N = 3), MSH2 (N = 1), and FANCF (N = 1) of all the DDR genes sequenced. Median age was 65.5 years, 58% were male, 97.2% were Caucasian and 51.4% had any family history of cancer. The median OS was near significantly superior in those with DDR gene mutations present vs. absent [14 vs. 5 months; HR, 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.29–1.14; log-rank P = 0.08]. Multivariate logistic (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.04–2.06; P = 0.04) and Cox regression (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15–0.94; P = 0.04) showed presence of DDR gene mutations was associated with improved OS. Conclusions: In a single institution, retrospective study, we found that the presence of DDR gene mutations are associated with improved OS in PDAC patients treated with FOLFIRINOX.

Purpose Mutations or copy number abnormalities of genes involved in homologous recombination (HR) occur in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). DNA-based measures of HR deficiency (HRD) have been developed and may help identify tumors with better response to DNA-damaging agents. This study aimed to describe the HR pathway mutations and HRD status and determine their association with treatment response and outcome in patients with PDAC. Patients and Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of tumor samples from patients treated at Indiana University for locally advanced or metastatic PDAC. Patients were included if they received gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (control) or fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) and had adequate follow-up to assess survival and response to therapy. Tumor analysis generated a three-biomarker HRD score and mutation data for 44 genes. Results Ninety-one samples met inclusion criteria, and 78 samples (formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded, n = 15; fine-needle aspiration, n = 63) generated mutation data. HRD analysis was successful for 57 samples (HRD score: median, 18; range, 5 to 61); the primary cause of failure was low tumor cellularity. Six BRCA1/ 2 mutations were detected, four with HRD scores in the top decile ( P = .011). There was no statistically significant correlation between HRD score and radiographic response (odds ratio per interquartile range, 1.40; P = .32 adjusted for treatment) in either treatment group. In patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, HRD score dichotomized at the median was not associated with progression-free survival (median, 5.3 v 9.4 months for low v high HRD score, respectively; P = .083) or overall survival (median, 11.9 v 10.7 months for low v high HRD score, respectively; P = .76). Conclusion Mutations in DNA repair genes occur in PDAC, and HRD scores can be generated in the majority of patients. The HRD score was not significantly associated with higher response rate or prolonged survival in patients treated with FOLFIRINOX.

Simple Summary More than 80% of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) suffer cachexia, characterized by loss of muscle and fat. However, most cachexia studies were predominantly focused on muscle. Our clinical study showed adipose tissue loss as a prognosticator in PDAC cachexia. Our study aims to understand the concurrent muscle and adipose changes using transcriptome profiling. We identified tissue-specific gene expression profiles with changes in adipose being more dynamic. Pathway analysis suggests that muscle and adipose wasting may be mediated through independently targetable mechanisms which may have therapeutic implications. Many of the well-known and novel cachexia genes have been validated using an external muscle and adipose datasets. The study provides the groundwork for future studies to understand if fat wasting precedes muscle wasting in PDAC and if adipose can be targeted for therapeutic interventions. The study also shows that age related muscle loss has distinct mechanisms compared to cachexia. Abstract The vast majority of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) suffer cachexia. Although cachexia results from concurrent loss of adipose and muscle tissue, most studies focus on muscle alone. Emerging data demonstrate the prognostic value of fat loss in cachexia. Here we sought to identify the muscle and adipose gene profiles and pathways regulated in cachexia. Matched rectus abdominis muscle and subcutaneous adipose tissue were obtained at surgery from patients with benign conditions (n = 11) and patients with PDAC (n = 24). Self-reported weight loss and body composition measurements defined cachexia status. Gene profiling was done using ion proton sequencing. Results were queried against external datasets for validation. 961 DE genes were identified from muscle and 2000 from adipose tissue, demonstrating greater response of adipose than muscle. In addition to known cachexia genes such as FOXO1, novel genes from muscle, including PPP1R8 and AEN correlated with cancer weight loss. All the adipose correlated genes including SCGN and EDR17 are novel for PDAC cachexia. Pathway analysis demonstrated shared pathways but largely non-overlapping genes in both tissues. Age related muscle loss predominantly had a distinct gene profiles compared to cachexia. This analysis of matched, externally validate gene expression points to novel targets in cachexia.

Modified FOLFOX6 is an established therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a single-arm phase Ib study to address the hypothesis that addition of pembrolizumab to this regimen could safely and effectively improve patient outcomes (NCT02375672). The relationship between immune biomarkers and clinical response were assessed in an exploratory manner. Patients with mCRC received concurrent pembrolizumab and modified FOLFOX6. The study included safety run-in for the first six patients. The primary objective was median progression free survival (mPFS), with secondary objectives including median overall survival (mOS), safety, and exploratory assessment of immune changes. To assess immunological impact, peripheral blood was collected at baseline and during treatment. The levels of soluble factors were measured via bioplex, while a panel of checkpoint molecules and phenotypically-defined cell populations were assessed with flow cytometry and correlated with RECIST and mPFS. Due to incidences of grade 3 and grade 4 neutropenia in the safety lead-in, the dose of mFOLFOX6 was reduced in the expansion cohort. Median PFS was 8.8 months and median OS was not reached at data cutoff. Best responses of stable disease, partial response, and complete response were observed in 43.3%, 50.0%, and 6.7% of patients respectively. Several soluble and cellular immune biomarkers were associated with improved RECIST and mPFS. Immunosuppressive myeloid and T cell subsets that were analyzed were not associated with response. Primary endpoint was not superior to historic control. Biomarkers that were associated with improved response may be informative for future regimens combining chemotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

VEGF blockade does not uniformly result in clinical benefit. We evaluated safety, dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), recommended phase II dose (RP2D), antitumor efficacy, and exploratory biomarkers including pharmacogenomics and pharmacokinetics with sorafenib, bevacizumab, and paclitaxel in patients with refractory cancers. The study had a “3 + 3” design, using paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 every week for 3 weeks, in every 4 week cycles, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks, and sorafenib 200 or 400 mg twice a day, 5 or 7 days/week (5/7, 7/7). The MTD cohort was expanded. Twenty-seven patients enrolled in 3 cohorts: sorafenib 200 mg twice a day 5/7, 200 mg twice a day 7/7, and 400 mg twice a day 5/7. DLTs were grade 3 neutropenia >7 days (cohort 1, 1), grade 3 hypertension (cohort 2, 1), grade 3 hand–foot skin reaction (HFSR; cohort 3, 2). MTD was sorafenib 200 mg twice a day 7/7. Six DLTs occurred in cohort 2 expansion: grade 3 HFSR (2), grade 2 HFSR with sorafenib delay >7 days (2), grade 4 cerebrovascular accident (1), grade 3 neutropenia >7 days (1). RP2D was sorafenib 200 mg twice a day 5/7. Most patients (62%) dose reduced sorafenib to 200 mg daily 5/7 after a median 3 (range, 2–17) cycles. Response rates were 48% overall (27) and 64% for ovarian cancers (14). VEGF-A-1154AA and -7TT recessive homozygous genotypes conferred worse overall survival versus alternative genotypes (7 vs. 22 months). Intermittent, low-dose sorafenib (200 mg twice a day 5/7) combined with bevacizumab and paclitaxel was tolerable and had high antitumor efficacy in patients with refractory cancer (NCT00572078).

Purpose: The recombinant fusion protein ipafricept blocks Wnt signaling, and in combination with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel caused tumor regression in xenografts. This phase Ib study evaluated the combination of ipafricept with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine in patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). Patients and Methods: Dose escalation started with standard dose nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and ipafricept (3.5 mg/kg days 1, 15). Because of fragility fractures seen with different anti-Wnt agents, following cohorts had ≥6 patients treated with ipafricept 3 to 5 mg/kg on day 1, and included bone marker monitoring and prophylactic bisphosphonates as indicated. On the basis of preclinical data, sequential dosing was evaluated in cohort 4 (ipafricept day 1 followed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine day 3). Objectives included safety, MTD, recommended phase II dose, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy. Results: A total of 26 patients were enrolled, five in cohort 1 and seven each in cohorts 2–4. ipafricept-related adverse events (AEs) of any grade included fatigue, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, and pyrexia. ipafricept-related AEs grade ≥3 included two events of aspartate aminotransferase elevation, and one each of nausea, rash, vomiting, and leucopenia. No dose-limiting toxicities or fragility fractures were observed. Nine patients (34.6%) had partial response, 12 (46.2%) stable disease as best response, with clinical benefit rate of 81%. Median progression-free survival was 5.9 m [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.4–18.4], median overall survival was 9.7 m (95% CI, 7.0–14). The study was terminated by the sponsor due to bone-related toxicity within this therapeutic program and concerns for commercial viability. One patient remains on therapy under compassionate use. Conclusions: Ipafricept can be administered with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with reasonable tolerance. Wnt pathway remains a therapeutic target of interest in mPDAC.

PURPOSE: The present study examined the degree to which loneliness mediated the influence of negative (social constraints) and positive (emotional support) relationship qualities on the global mental health of advanced gastrointestinal (GI) cancer patients and their family caregivers. METHODS: Fifty patient-caregiver dyads completed measures assessing social constraints (e.g., avoidance, criticism) from the other dyad member, emotional support from others, loneliness, and global mental health. Structural equation modeling was used to examine individual models, and Actor-Partner Interdependence Mediation Modeling was used to examine dyadic associations. RESULTS: Individual path analyses for patients and caregivers demonstrated that emotional support had a significant indirect effect on mental health through loneliness (Bs=.32 and .30, respectively), but no associations were found between social constraints and mental health. In dyadic analyses, participants’ loneliness and mental health were not significantly related to their partner’s emotional support, loneliness, or mental health (Bs=−.18 to .18). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that for advanced GI cancer patients and caregivers, emotional support from others alleviates feelings of loneliness, which may lead to better mental health. However, the benefits of emotional support appear to be primarily intrapersonal rather than interpersonal in nature. Additionally, participants endorsed low levels of social constraints, which might explain their lack of relation to loneliness and mental health. Continued examination of interdependence in social processes between cancer patients and caregivers will inform intervention development.

Author(s): Kays, Joshua K; Shahda, Safi; Stanley, Melissa; Bell, Teresa M; O'Neill, Bert H; Kohli, Marc D; Couch, Marion E; Koniaris, Leonidas G; Zimmers, Teresa A | Abstract: BackgroundBy the traditional definition of unintended weight loss, cachexia develops in ~80% of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Here, we measure the longitudinal body composition changes in patients with advanced PDAC undergoing 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin therapy.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of 53 patients with advanced PDAC on 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin as first line therapy at Indiana University Hospital from July 2010 to August 2015. Demographic, clinical, and survival data were collected. Body composition measurement by computed tomography (CT), trend, univariate, and multivariate analysis were performed.ResultsAmong all patients, three cachexia phenotypes were identified. The majority of patients, 64%, had Muscle and Fat Wasting (MFW), while 17% had Fat-Only Wasting (FW) and 19% had No Wasting (NW). NW had significantly improved overall median survival (OMS) of 22.6 months vs. 13.0 months for FW and 12.2 months for MFW (P = 0.02). FW (HR = 5.2; 95% confidence interval = 1.5-17.3) and MFW (HR = 1.8; 95% confidence interval = 1.1-2.9) were associated with an increased risk of mortality compared with NW. OMS and risk of mortality did not differ between FW and MFW. Progression of disease, sarcopenic obesity at diagnosis, and primary tail tumours were also associated with decreased OMS. On multivariate analysis, cachexia phenotype and chemotherapy response were independently associated with survival. Notably, CT-based body composition analysis detected tissue loss of g5% in 81% of patients, while the traditional definition of g5% body weight loss identified 56.6%.ConclusionsDistinct cachexia phenotypes were observed in this homogeneous population of patients with equivalent stage, diagnosis, and first-line treatment. This suggests cellular, molecular, or genetic heterogeneity of host or tumour. Survival among patients with FW was as poor as for MFW, indicating adipose tissue plays a crucial role in cachexia and PDAC mortality. Adipose tissue should be studied for its mechanistic contributions to cachexia.

Background: Covalent Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitors (BTKi) have transformed the management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), but these treatments are not curative and the majority of patients will require additional treatment. The MURANO study established the time-limited combination of 2 years venetoclax plus rituximab as a clinically important regimen for patients with R/R CLL/SLL. However, that trial almost exclusively enrolled patients who were never treated with a covalent BTKi, a population less relevant in the context of today's standard of care. Pirtobrutinib is a highly selective, non-covalent BTKi that inhibits both wild type (WT) and C481-mutated BTK with equal low nM potency. In a phase 1/2 BRUIN trial, pirtobrutinib achieved pharmacokinetic exposures that exceeded its BTK IC96 at trough, was well tolerated, and demonstrated promising efficacy in CLL/SLL patients regardless of prior therapy, number of prior lines of therapy, or BTK C481 mutation status (Mato et al. Lancet 2021;397,10277:892-901). Therefore, adding fixed duration pirtobrutinib to the time-limited MURANO regimen may allow for even deeper and more prolonged disease control, and generate a clinically relevant dataset in a BTK-pretreated CLL/SLL population. Study Design and Methods: BRUIN CLL-322 is a randomized, open-label, global phase 3 study comparing fixed duration pirtobrutinib plus venetoclax and rituximab (PVR) versus venetoclax and rituximab (VR) in patients with CLL/SLL who have received prior therapy. To ensure relevance in the modern therapy context, a minimum of 80% of patients must have had a prior covalent BTKi. Approximately 600 patients will be randomized 1:1. Randomization will be stratified by 17p deletion (yes/no) and prior BTKi experience (discontinuation due to progressive disease vs due to other reasons vs no prior BTKi exposure). Eligible patients are adults with a diagnosis of CLL/SLL and requirement for therapy per iwCLL 2018 criteria who have received prior therapy that may or may not include a covalent BTKi. Unlimited number of lines of prior therapy are allowed. Key exclusion criteria include CNS involvement by CLL/SLL, Richter transformation at any time pre-enrollment, history of allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT) or autologous SCT or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy within 60 days and prior therapy with a BCL2 inhibitor or non-covalent BTKi. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) per iwCLL assessed by an independent review committee (IRC). Secondary endpoints include overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), time to next treatment (TTNT), event-free survival (EFS), safety and tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes. This global study is currently enrolling patients (NCT04965493). Disclosures Mato: MSKCC: Current Employment; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Nurix: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wierda: GSK/Novartis: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Loxo Oncology, Inc.: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; KITE Pharma: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Genzyme Corporation: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Pagel: Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Incyte/MorphoSys: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Davids: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding. Zinzani: ROCHE: Other, Speakers Bureau; KYOWA KIRIN: Other, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; SERVIER: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; VERASTEM: Consultancy, Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; SANDOZ: Other: Advisory board; NOVARTIS: Consultancy, Other, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Other, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therap.: Other; MSD: Consultancy, Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; JANSSEN-CILAG: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; TAKEDA: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; EUSAPHARMA: Consultancy, Other, Speakers Bureau; GILEAD: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Other, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; CELLTRION: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau. Lu: Eli Lilly and Company: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment; AstraZeneca: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Shahda: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Leow: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Tam: Beigene: Honoraria; Loxo: Honoraria; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Woyach: AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc, AstraZeneca, Beigene: Other: Advisory Committee; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Janssen Biotech Inc, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company,: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences Inc: Other: Data & Safety. Eyre: Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background: Covalent Bruton Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitors (BTKi) have transformed the management of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), but these treatments are not curative and many patients will require additional treatment. Covalent BTKi share pharmacologic liabilities (e.g. low oral bioavailability, short half-life) that collectively may lead to suboptimal BTK target coverage especially in rapidly proliferating tumors with high BTK protein turnover such as accelerating CLL/SLL, ultimately manifesting as acquired resistance in some patients. To address these limitations, pirtobrutinib, a highly selective, non-covalent BTKi that inhibits both wild type (WT) and C481-mutated BTK with equal low nM potency was developed. In the phase 1/2 BRUIN study, pirtobrutinib achieved pharmacokinetic exposures that exceeded its BTK IC96 at trough, was well tolerated and demonstrated promising efficacy in CLL/SLL patients regardless of prior therapy, number of prior lines of therapy, or BTK C481 mutation status (Mato et al. Lancet 2021;397,10277:892-901). The purpose of this randomized phase 3 study is to demonstrate the superiority of continued BTK pathway inhibition with pirtobrutinib compared to other available therapies in patients with BTKi-treated CLL/SLL. Study Design and Methods: BRUIN CLL-321 is a randomized, open-label, global phase 3 study comparing pirtobrutinib monotherapy versus investigator's choice of idelalisib plus rituximab or bendamustine plus rituximab in patients with CLL/SLL who have been treated with a prior covalent BTKi. Prior therapy with venetoclax is permitted. Approximately 250 patients will be randomized 1:1. Randomization will be stratified by 17p deletion (yes/no) and prior venetoclax (yes/no). Patients receiving investigator's choice are eligible to crossover to pirtobrutinib monotherapy if they experience progressive disease per iwCLL 2018 (determined by IRC). Eligible patients are adults aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of CLL/SLL who require therapy per iwCLL 2018 criteria and who have received prior covalent BTKi. Unlimited number of lines of prior therapy are allowed. Key exclusion criteria include CNS involvement by CLL/SLL, Richter transformation any time pre-enrollment, a major bleeding event on prior covalent BTKi and history of allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT) or autologous SCT or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy within 60 days of randomization. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) per iwCLL assessed by an independent review committee (IRC). Secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), safety and tolerability, and patient reported outcomes. The global study is currently enrolling patients (NCT04666038). Disclosures Sharman: BeiGene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Centessa: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy. Jurczak: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Celtrion, Celgene, Debbiopharm, Epizyme, Incyte, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Merck, Mei Pharma, Morphosys, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Sandoz, Roche,: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coombs: LOXO: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria. Hill: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment. Wang: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment. Ku: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Guntur: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shahda: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Leow: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ghia: Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Juno/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; ArQule/MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Research Funding. Mato: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; MSKCC: Current Employment; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genmab: Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: Covalent Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitors (BTKi) have transformed the management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), but these treatments are not curative and the majority of patients will require additional treatment. Covalent BTKi share pharmacologic liabilities (e.g. low oral bioavailability, short half-life) that collectively may lead to suboptimal BTK target coverage, for example in rapidly proliferating tumors with high BTK protein turnover such as accelerating CLL/SLL, ultimately manifesting as acquired resistance in some patients. To address these limitations, pirtobrutinib, a highly selective, non-covalent BTKi that inhibits both wild type (WT) and C481-mutated BTK with equal low nM potency was developed. In a phase 1/2 BRUIN study, pirtobrutinib achieved pharmacokinetic exposures that exceeded its BTK IC96 at trough, was well tolerated, and demonstrated promising efficacy in CLL/SLL patients regardless of prior therapy, number of prior lines of therapy, or BTK C481 mutation status (Mato et al. Lancet 2021;397, 10277:892-901). Study Design and Methods: BRUIN CLL-313 is a randomized, open-label, global phase 3 study comparing pirtobrutinib monotherapy versus bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in treatment naïve CLL/SLL patients with retained 17p. Approximately 250 patients will be randomized 1:1. Randomization will be stratified by IGHV mutation status (mutated vs unmutated), and Rai stage (low/intermediate vs high). Patients in the BR arm are eligible to crossover to pirtobrutinib monotherapy if they experience progressive disease per iwCLL 2018 and confirmed by an independent review committee (IRC). Eligible patients are adults with confirmed diagnosis of CLL/SLL and who require therapy per iwCLL 2018 criteria. Key exclusion criteria include CNS involvement by CLL/SLL, Richter transformation to DLBCL, prolymphocytic leukemia or Hodgkin lymphoma any time pre-enrollment, presence of 17p deletion, prior systemic therapy for CLL/SLL, and significant cardiovascular disease. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) per iwCLL assessed by an IRC. Secondary endpoints include investigator-assessed PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), safety and tolerability, and patient reported outcomes. The global study is currently enrolling patients. Disclosures Jurczak: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Celtrion, Celgene, Debbiopharm, Epizyme, Incyte, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Merck, Mei Pharma, Morphosys, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Sandoz, Roche,: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dartigeas: Astra-Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants/Congress; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants/Congress; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants/Congress. Coscia: Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other; Janssen: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Wang: Eli Lilly and Company: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bao: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment; Genentech: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Leow: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shahda: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zinzani: Eusapharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celtrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

A significant minority of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients experience clinically meaningful distress that may warrant intervention. The goal of this systematic review was to assess the impact of psychosocial interventions on quality-of-life and psychosocial outcomes for CRC patients.A systematic search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES was undertaken to obtain relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through October 2016.Fourteen RCTs of psychosocial interventions for CRC patients were identified. Only three of these RCTs showed significant intervention effects on multiple mental health outcomes. These interventions included written and verbal emotional expression, progressive muscle relaxation training, and a self-efficacy enhancing intervention. Eight of the 14 trials, testing a range of psychoeducational and supportive care interventions, produced little to no effects on study outcomes. An evaluation of RCT quality highlighted the need for greater rigor in study methods and reporting.A limited evidence base supports the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for CRC patients. Large-scale trials are needed before drawing definitive conclusions regarding intervention impact.

In this article, we review our multidisciplinary approach for patients with pancreatic cancer. Specifically, we review the epidemiology, diagnosis and staging, biliary drainage techniques, selection of patients for surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and discuss other palliative interventions. The areas of active research investigation and where our knowledge is limited are emphasized.

This study assessed positive changes in patients with advanced colorectal cancer and their family caregivers following diagnosis. We compared self-reported positive changes within patient-caregiver dyads as well as self-reports and patient reports of positive changes in caregivers.Individual, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 23 patients with advanced colorectal cancer and 23 caregivers. A theoretical thematic analysis of interview transcripts was framed by posttraumatic growth theory.Patients and caregivers described five positive changes: closer relationships with others, greater appreciation of life, clarifying life priorities, increased faith, and more empathy for others. Additionally, only caregivers reported better health habits following the cancer diagnosis, and a minority of patients and caregivers reported no positive changes. In about half of cases, patients reported at least one positive change that was identical to that of their caregiver. However, in most cases, patient and caregiver reports of the caregiver's positive change were discrepant.Findings suggest that positive changes are a shared experience for many patient-caregiver dyads and obtaining both patient and caregiver reports of caregiver positive changes provides a more comprehensive understanding of their experience. Interventions may capitalise on positive changes to promote meaningful living in the context of advanced cancer.

Background Only a few patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) recurring after curative resection and peri-operative (neoadjuvant and adjuvant) therapy are included in clinical trials of metastatic PDAC. As such, there is a paucity of data to guide treatment after relapse, and patients are treated similarly to those with de novo metastatic PDAC (mPDAC). We evaluated the patterns of chemotherapy use and over-all survival (OS) in patients with recurrent PDAC (rPDAC) following curative therapy. Methods In this retrospective study, the Indiana University pancreatic cancer database was used to identify patients with PDAC who underwent curative resection and subsequently developed recurrence. Demographics, tumor and treatment characteristics were collected. Patients were broadly divided into those who received chemotherapy for rPDAC and those who did not. Patients in the former category were further subdivided into those who received single agent therapy, any standard combination therapy (5-fluorouracil/irinotecan/oxaliplatin combination or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel) and those who received non-standard combinations. Survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank tests were used to determine differences in survival between treated rPDAC patients and those not treated. Cox regression analysis was employed to evaluate factors associated with OS. Results We identified 435 patients with resected PDAC treated between 2008 and 2014. Two hundred and twenty-three patients (51.2%) were diagnosed with rPDAC. Of these, 140 patients (63%) received chemotherapy whereas 71 patients (32%) did not receive chemotherapy. The 74 patients (53%) who received any standard, approved multiagent combination regimen had a median OS of 14 months compared to 8 months for the 47 patents (34%) who received other non-standard combinations and the 19 (13%) who received single agent therapy (P = 0.029). Multivariate cox regression analysis showed that margin negative resection, peri-operative therapy, radiotherapy and the use of any chemotherapy for rPDAC were associated with improved OS. Conclusion Our findings support the use of standard approved multi-agent therapy in rPDAC. Patients derive significant benefit from these standard combination therapies with median OS that is comparable to what is observed with treatment for de novo mPDAC. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5630-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Table S1. Univariate logistic regression of factors associated with not using chemotherapy for rPDAC Variables with a P value

Background Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a particularly lethal malignancy partly due to frequent, severe cachexia. Serum activin correlates with cachexia and mortality, while exogenous activin causes cachexia in mice. Methods Isoform‐specific activin expression and activities were queried in human and murine tumours and PDAC models. Activin inhibition was by administration of soluble activin type IIB receptor (ACVR2B/Fc) and by use of skeletal muscle specific dominant negative ACVR2B expressing transgenic mice. Feed‐forward activin expression and muscle wasting activity were tested in vivo and in vitro on myotubes. Results Murine PDAC tumour‐derived cell lines expressed activin‐βA but not activin‐βB. Cachexia severity increased with activin expression. Orthotopic PDAC tumours expressed activins, induced activin expression by distant organs, and produced elevated serum activins. Soluble factors from PDAC elicited activin because conditioned medium from PDAC cells induced activin expression, activation of p38 MAP kinase, and atrophy of myotubes. The activin trap ACVR2B/Fc reduced tumour growth, prevented weight loss and muscle wasting, and prolonged survival in mice with orthotopic tumours made from activin‐low cell lines. ACVR2B/Fc also reduced cachexia in mice with activin‐high tumours. Activin inhibition did not affect activin expression in organs. Hypermuscular mice expressing dominant negative ACVR2B in muscle were protected for weight loss but not mortality when implanted with orthotopic tumours. Human tumours displayed staining for activin, and expression of the gene encoding activin‐βA (INHBA) correlated with mortality in patients with PDAC, while INHBB and other related factors did not. Conclusions Pancreatic adenocarcinoma tumours are a source of activin and elicit a systemic activin response in hosts. Human tumours express activins and related factors, while mortality correlates with tumour activin A expression. PDAC tumours also choreograph a systemic activin response that induces organ‐specific and gene‐specific expression of activin isoforms and muscle wasting. Systemic blockade of activin signalling could preserve muscle and prolong survival, while skeletal muscle‐specific activin blockade was only protective for weight loss. Our findings suggest the potential and need for gene‐specific and organ‐specific interventions. Finally, development of more effective cancer cachexia therapy might require identifying agents that effectively and/or selectively inhibit autocrine vs. paracrine activin signalling.

// Milan Radovich 1,2,* , Patrick J. Kiel 1,2,* , Stacy M. Nance 1 , Erin E. Niland 1 , Megan E. Parsley 1 , Meagan E. Ferguson 1 , Guanglong Jiang 2 , Natraj R. Ammakkanavar 2 , Lawrence H. Einhorn 2 , Liang Cheng 2 , Mehdi Nassiri 2 , Darrell D. Davidson 2 , Daniel A. Rushing 2 , Patrick J. Loehrer 2 , Roberto Pili 2 , Nasser Hanna 2 , J. Thomas Callaghan 2 , Todd C. Skaar 2 , Paul R. Helft 2 , Safi Shahda 2 , Bert H. O’Neil 2 and Bryan P. Schneider 1,2 1 Indiana University Health Precision Genomics Program, Indianapolis, IN, USA 2 Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA * These authors have contributed equally to this work Correspondence to: Bryan P. Schneider, email: // Keywords : precision medicine, personalized medicine, genomics, next-generation sequencing Received : June 07, 2016 Accepted : June 09, 2016 Published : July 15, 2016 Abstract Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic solid tumors who had progressed on at least one line of standard of care therapy were referred to the Indiana University Health Precision Genomics Program. Tumor samples were submitted for DNA & RNA next-generation sequencing, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and immunohistochemistry for actionable targets. A multi-disciplinary tumor board reviewed all results. For each patient, the ratio of progression-free survival (PFS) of the genomically guided line of therapy divided by the PFS of their prior line was calculated. Patients whose PFS ratio was ≥ 1.3 were deemed to have a meaningful improvement in PFS. Results: From April 2014–October 2015, 168 patients were evaluated and 101 patients achieved adequate clinical follow-up for analysis. 19 of 44 (43.2%) patients treated with genomically guided therapy attained a PFS ratio ≥ 1.3 vs . 3 of 57 (5.3%) treated with non-genomically guided therapy ( p < 0.0001). Similarly, overall PFS ratios (irrespective of cutoff) were higher for patients with genomically guided therapy vs non-genomically guided therapy ( p = 0.05). Further, patients treated with genomically guided therapy had a superior median PFS compared to those treated with non-genomically guided therapy (86 days vs . 49 days, p = 0.005, H.R. = 0.55, 95% C.I.:0.37-0.84). Conclusion: Patients with refractory metastatic cancer who receive genomically guided therapy have improved PFS ratios and longer median PFS compared to patients who do not receive genomically guided therapy.

Family caregivers of advanced colorectal cancer patients may be at increased risk for psychological distress. Yet their key challenges in coping with the patient's illness are not well understood. Soliciting both patient and caregiver perspectives on these challenges would broaden our understanding of the caregiving experience. Thus, the purpose of this research was to identify caregivers' key challenges in coping with their family member's advanced colorectal cancer from the perspective of patients and caregivers.Individual, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 23 advanced colorectal cancer patients and 23 primary family caregivers. Interview data were analyzed via thematic analysis.In nearly all cases, patient and caregiver reports of the caregiver's key challenge were discrepant. Across patient and caregiver reports, caregivers' key challenges included processing emotions surrounding the patient's initial diagnosis or recurrence and addressing the patient's practical and emotional needs. Other challenges included coping with continual uncertainty regarding the patient's potential functional decline and prognosis and observing the patient suffer from various physical symptoms.Findings suggest that eliciting the perspectives of both patients and caregivers regarding caregivers' challenges provides a more comprehensive understanding of their experience. Results also point to the need to assist caregivers with the emotional and practical aspects of caregiving.

e16764 Background: Both EGFR and the c-MET receptors are overexpressed in a majority of PDACs. Inhibition of both receptors simultaneously may be required for anti-tumor activity. Erlotinib, an EGFR inhibitor, has modest activity in metastatic PDAC and is approved by the FDA in combination with gemcitabine. Cabozantinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting AXL, FLT-3, KIT, MER, MET, RET, ROS1, TIE-2, TRKB, TYRO3, and VEGFR-1, -2, and -3. Preclinical data suggests that the addition of cabozantinib to erlotinib leads to tumor shrinkage and improvement in survival in a KPC PDAC mouse model compared to gemcitabine alone. This phase II study tests this hypothesis in patients with metastatic PDAC that co-express c-MET and EGFR. Methods: Key eligibility includes patients (pts) with metastatic PDAC with EGFR and c-MET overexpression (as determined by centrally tested IHC of 2+ or greater) that have progression on one prior chemotherapy regimen. Patients were treated with cabozantinib (40mg daily) and erlotinib (100mg daily) continuously. This dosing is based on previous combination data in NSCLC. This is a single arm two-stage phase II study with a primary endpoint of overall response rate. Secondary endpoints include of PFS, DCR and OS. Results: From October 2017 to October 2019, 43 pts were screened with 7 pts (median age 62 [range 51-76)] enrolled and treated on study. Pts had a median of 1 line of prior systemic chemotherapy. Most common reason for screen failure was due to lack of co-expression of c-MET and EGFR. EGFR IHC expression was +2 in 4 pts, +3 in 3 pts; c-MET IHC expression was +2 in 5 pts and +3 in 2 pts. Most common any-grade adverse events attributable to cabozantinib and erlotinib include: diarrhea (71%), AST increase (43%), fatigue (43%), nausea (43%), and rash (43%). Only one grade 3 event of fatigue occurred. All pts had clinical and/or radiographic progression within 1-2 months after initiating study therapy. Conclusions: The combination of cabozantinib and erlotinib was well tolerated with manageable toxicity. Due to lack of clinical responses, this study has been terminated due to futility. Clinical trial information: NCT03213626 .

Background and Aims Locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) has a poor prognosis. There are limited data describing the use of photodynamic therapy (PDT) for pancreatic cancer in humans. We hypothesized that EUS-guided PDT for LAPC is safe, technically feasible, and produces a dose- and time-dependent increasing degree of image-defined tumor necrosis. Methods In a single-center, prospective, dose-escalation phase 1 study, patients with treatment-naive LAPC received intravenous porfimer sodium (Concordia Laboratories Inc, St Michael, Barbados) followed 2 days later by EUS-PDT. EUS-PDT was performed by puncture with a 19-gauge needle and insertion of a 1.0-cm light diffuser (Pioneer Optics, Bloomfield, Conn) and illumination with a 630-nm light (Diomed Inc, Andover, Mass). A CT scan 18 days after PDT was done to assess for change in pancreatic necrosis. Nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/ m2 intravenously) and gemcitabine (1000 mg /m2 intravenously) were initiated 7 days after CT and given weekly for 3 of 4 weeks (1 cycle) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results Twelve patients (mean age, 67 ± 6 years; 8 male) with tumors (mean diameter, 45.2 ± 12.9 mm) in the head and/or neck (8) or body and/or tail (4) underwent EUS-PDT. Compared with baseline imaging, increased volume and percentage of tumor necrosis were observed in 6 of 12 patients (50%) after EUS-PDT. The mean overall increases in volume and percentage necrosis were 10 ± 26 cm3 (P = .20) and 18% ± 22% (P = .016), respectively. After a median follow-up of 10.5 months (range, 1.0-37.4 months), median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 2.6 months (95% confidence interval, 0.7, not estimable) and 11.5 months (95% confidence interval, 1.1, 16.9), respectively. Surgical resection was attempted in 2 patients, and pathology showed a complete response (n = 1) and residual 2-mm tumor (n = 1). There were 8 serious adverse events and none related to EUS or EUS-PDT. Conclusion EUS-PDT for LAPC appears to be safe and produces measurable imaged-defined tumor necrosis. Phase 2 studies are warranted. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01770132 .)