The management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) is a major challenge. Although new drugs are available for the treatment of metastatic disease, the optimal treatment of non-metastatic cases remains controversial. The role of neoadjuvant therapy is still a question of debate in this setting. The aim of the study was to prospectively collect and analyse data on efficacy and safety of a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen in LAPC patients treated in a single institution. Another major objective was to assess the capability of FOLFIRINOX to render primary non-resectable cancer to resectable. No bolus fluorouracil was given and a 20% dose reduction of oxaliplatin and irinotecan was applied. Primary G-CSF prophylaxis was applied to prevent febrile neutropenia. Thirty-two patients (mean age 60.2 years, range: 40-77 years) have been enrolled into the study. All patients had ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Best response to therapy was stable disease (SD) or partial regression (PR) in 18 (56.2%) and 6 (18.8%) cases. Two patients (6.3%) underwent surgical resection (100% R0). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events were nausea (18.8%), fatigue (12.5%) and diarrhea (12.5%). The incidence of severe neutropenia was 28.1%, with only one documented case of febrile neutropenia. The probability of disease progression was 25% and 50% after 75 and 160 days with 88.4% of possibility of disease progression after 500 days. OS probability was 92.1, 71.5% and 49.5% at 180-, 365 and 540 days. Our data does not support the capability of FOLFIRINOX to render primary non-resectable cancer to resectable. However, due to the high disease control rate observed, FOLFRINOX might be recommended as first line option for the palliative treatment of LAPC. Despite reduced chemotherapy doses significant toxicity has been seen.
Genes carrying high‐penetrance germline mutations may also be associated with cancer susceptibility through common low‐penetrance genetic variants. To increase the knowledge on genetic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) aetiology, the common genetic variability of PDAC familial genes was analysed in our study. We conducted a multiphase study analysing 7745 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from 29 genes reported to harbour a high‐penetrance PDAC‐associated mutation in at least one published study. To assess the effect of the SNPs on PDAC risk, a total of 14 666 PDAC cases and 221 897 controls across five different studies were analysed. The T allele of the rs1412832 polymorphism, that is situated in the CDKN2B‐AS1/ANRIL, showed a genome‐wide significant association with increased risk of developing PDAC (OR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.07‐1.15, P = 5.25 × 10−9). CDKN2B‐AS1/ANRIL is a long noncoding RNA, situated in 9p21.3, and regulates many target genes, among which CDKN2A (p16) that frequently shows deleterious somatic and germline mutations and deregulation in PDAC. Our results strongly support the role of the genetic variability of the 9p21.3 region in PDAC aetiopathogenesis and highlight the importance of secondary analysis as a tool for discovering new risk loci in complex human diseases.
BackgroundDespite being highly preventable and treatable if diagnosed early, colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second leading cause of cancer-related death in Europe. Limited information is available from the patient perspective on the persisting unmet needs of the journey of the patient with CRC.ObjectiveTo capture European metastatic CRC (mCRC) patients’ insights during the patient journey (prediagnosis; diagnosis; postdiagnosis) through a patient survey.MethodsIn total, 883 patients from 15 European countries participated. Participants were divided into four groups from Hungary, Poland, Serbia and ‘other European countries’ (n=103, 163, 170 and 447 patients, respectively).ResultsGeneral awareness of CRC and its symptoms prediagnosis varied among groups, with patients from Poland recording the lowest levels. Screening practices and attitudes also varied; while more patients from Serbia had been invited to CRC screening (~15%) compared with the other groups, the ones not invited claimed mostly (~20%) that would not have attended if they had been invited. Whereas most patients were diagnosed within a month after the first consultation/positive screening, the percentages varied substantially being lowest among patients in Poland (~30%) and Serbia (~25%). Although CRC-related information provision varied, with most informed patients from Hungary (~90%) and least from Serbia (~50%), all groups requested an easier-to-understand language by the healthcare team. Approximately 50% of patients from Eastern Europe had to wait longer than a month to receive treatment, in contrast to ~30% from other European countries. All groups emphasised the unmet need for support from psychologists and other patients.ConclusionsOur survey reveals the key aspects of the journey of the patient with mCRC and highlights the areas of similarities and differences between patients with mCRC from Eastern Europe versus those from other European countries as well as among patients from different Eastern European countries, calling for improvement particularly around awareness, screening, treatment availability, communication and support networks.
Neuroendocrine tumours are heterogeneous and rare malignancies arising from endocrine cells located in various anatomical locations. Neuroendocrine tumours can be functional and may produce a wide variety of mediators, however, the majority of neuroendocrine tumours do not produce biologically active hormones (non-functioning tumours). On the basis of their pathological and biological characteristics they can be well differentiated as low malignant and poorly differentiated highly malignant tumours. In the case of the advanced low malignant tumours the application of somatostatin analogues not only may control symptoms but they also have direct anti-tumour effect. The use of higher doses of somatostatin analogues or new subtype selective agonists, and chimeric or pan-somatostatin analogues will probably improve the clinical management of the patients who fail to respond to standard somatostatin analogue treatment. Data show that somatostatin analogues and interferon have a synergistic effect. The currently used chemotherapy in progressive neuroendocrine tumors is mainly devoted to poorly differentiated tumours, but also to well differentiated carcinomas which are either not eligible or resistant to other therapies. However, the new anti-tumoural agents, could eventually replace these old recipes in the near future. Clinical trials show that telozomide with capecitabine result in more favorable toxic profile and higher and longer response rate in the case of well-differentiated tumours. Targeted therapy became a new possibility in neuroendocrine tumours too. The monoclonal antibody bevacizumab, which affects the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, has beneficial effects both in monotherapies and in combination with somatostatin analogues or with oxaliplatine and capecitabine. Recently, the low molecular multikinase inhibitor, sunitinib has demonstrated efficacy in pancreas neuroendocrine tumors, which was proven in a phase 3 trial. The mammalian target of the rapamycin inhibitor everolimus, currently investigated in phase 3 trials, was also efficient in the same subtype. Further trials are needed to determine that in the case of other types of neuroendocrine tumours which targeted therapy could be efficient. Radioisotope-labeled peptide receptor therapy with ¹³¹I-MIBG, ⁹⁰Y-DOTA-TOC or ¹⁷⁷Lu-DOTA-TOC may offer a highly effective option for patients with progressive and advanced stage of neuroendocrine tumours. The purpose of this review is to review and analyze data available regarding contemporary chemotherapeutic management of neuroendocrine tumours in order to determine which therapy should be applied in the therapeutic arsenal.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.