SummaryBackgroundIn the UK, chemotherapy is the standard treatment for inoperable, locally advanced, non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. Chemoradiotherapy is also an acceptable treatment option, for which gemcitabine, fluorouracil, or capecitabine can be used as concurrent chemotherapy agents. We aimed to assess the activity, safety, and feasibility of both gemcitabine-based and capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy after induction chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.MethodsIn this open-label, randomised, two-arm, phase 2 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with histologically proven, locally advanced pancreatic cancer (with a tumour diameter of 7 cm or less) were recruited from 28 UK centres between Dec 24, 2009 and Oct 25, 2011. After 12 weeks of induction gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy (three cycles of gemcitabine [1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle] and capecitabine [830 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle]), patients with stable or responding disease, tumour diameter of 6 cm or less, and WHO performance status 0–1 were randomly assigned to receive a further cycle of gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy followed by either gemcitabine (300 mg/m2 once per week) or capecitabine (830 mg/m2 twice daily, Monday to Friday only), both in combination with radiation (50·4 Gy in 28 fractions). Randomisation (1:1) was done via a central computerised system and used stratified minimisation. The primary endpoint was 9-month progression-free survival, analysed by intention to treat including only those patients with valid CT assessments. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 96169987.Findings114 patients were registered and 74 were randomly allocated (38 to the gemcitabine group and 36 to the capecitabine group). After 9 months, 22 of 35 assessable patients (62·9%, 80% CI 50·6–73·9) in the capecitabine group and 18 of 35 assessable patients (51·4%, 39·4–63·4) in the gemcitabine group had not progressed. Median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·9–19·2) in the capecitabine group and 13·4 months (95% CI 11·0–15·7) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·39, 95% CI 0·18–0·81; p=0·012). 12-month overall survival was 79·2% (95% CI 61·1–89·5) in the capecitabine group and 64·2 (95% CI 46·4–77·5) in the gemcitabine group. Median progression-free survival was 12·0 months (95% CI 10·2–14·6) in the capecitabine group and 10·4 months (95% CI 8·9–12·5) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·32–1·12; p=0·11). Eight patients in the capecitabine group had an objective response at 26 weeks, as did seven in the gemcitabine group. More patients in the gemcitabine group than in the capecitabine group had grade 3–4 haematological toxic effects (seven [18%] vs none, p=0·008) and non-haematological toxic effects (ten [26%] vs four [12%], p=0·12) during chemoradiation treatment; the most frequent events were leucopenia, neutropenia, and fatigue. Two patients in the capecitabine group progressed during the fourth cycle of induction ch...

No abstract

Risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major hemorrhage in cancer-associated incidental pulmonary embolism among treated and untreated patients: a pooled analysis of 926 patients EssentialsWe performed a pooled analysis of 926 patients with cancer-associated incidental pulmonary embolism (IPE). Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) are associated with a higher risk of major hemorrhage. Recurrence risk is comparable after subsegmental and more proximally localized IPE. Our results support low molecular weight heparins over VKA and similar management of subsegmental IPE.Summary. Background: Incidental pulmonary embolism (IPE) is defined as pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed on computed tomography scanning not performed for suspected PE. IPE has been estimated to occur in 3.1% of all cancer patients and is a growing challenge for clinicians and patients. Nevertheless, knowledge about the treatment and prognosis of cancer-associated IPE is scarce. We aimed to provide the best available evidence on IPE management. Methods: Incidence rates of symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), major hemorrhage, and mortality during 6-month follow-up were pooled using individual patient data from studies identified by a systematic literature search. Subgroup analyses based on cancer stage, thrombus localization, and management were performed. Results: In 926 cancer patients with IPE from 11 cohorts, weighted pooled 6-month risks of recurrent VTE, major hemorrhage and mortality were 5.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7-8.3%), 4.7% (95% CI 3.0-6.8%), and 37% (95% CI 28-47%). VTE recurrence risk was comparable under low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) and vitamin K

BackgroundOxaliplatin-capecitabine (OxCap) and carboplatin-paclitaxel (CarPac) based neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) have shown promising activity in localised, resectable oesophageal cancer.Patients and methodsA non-blinded, randomised (1:1 via a centralised computer system), ‘pick a winner’ phase II trial. Patients with resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma ≥ cT3 and/or ≥ cN1 were randomised to OxCapRT (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 day 1, 15, 29; capecitabine 625 mg/m2 bd on days of radiotherapy) or CarPacRT (carboplatin AUC2; paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 day 1, 8, 15, 22, 29). Radiotherapy dose was 45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks. Both arms received induction OxCap chemotherapy (2 × 3 week cycles of oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 bd days 1–21). Surgery was performed 6–8 weeks after nCRT. Primary end-point was pathological complete response (pCR). Secondary end-points included toxicity, surgical morbidity/mortality, resection rate and overall survival.StatisticsBased on pCR ≤ 15% not warranting future investigation, but pCR ≥ 35% would, 76 patients (38/arm) gave 90% power (one-sided alpha 10%), implying that arm(s) having ≥10 pCR out of first 38 patients could be considered for phase III trials. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01843829. Funder: Cancer Research UK (C44694/A14614).ResultsEighty five patients were randomised between October 2013 and February 2015 from 17 UK centres. Three of 85 (3.5%) died during induction chemotherapy. Seventy-seven patients (OxCapRT = 36; CarPacRT = 41) underwent surgery. The 30-d post-operative mortality was 2/77 (2.6%). Grade III/IV toxicity was comparable between arms, although neutropenia was higher in the CarPacRT arm (21.4% versus 2.6%, p = 0.01). Twelve of 41 (29.3%) (10 of first 38 patients) and 4/36 (11.1%) achieved pCR in the CarPacRT and OxcapRT arms, respectively. Corresponding R0 resection rates were 33/41 (80.5%) and 26/36 (72.2%), respectively.ConclusionBoth regimens were well tolerated. Only CarPacRT passed the predefined pCR criteria for further investigation.

Investigation of the hydraulic characteristics of prepared porous media indicate that a ten per cent increase in air content of media voids is capable of producing a 15 pct reduction in ‘effective porosity,’ a 35 pct decrease in permeability, and about 50 pct reduction in hydraulic dispersion. The location of bubbles in large or small pores affects the uniformity of pore sizes and determines the amount of water saturated void volume which is isolated by air bubbles. The shape of the chloride tracer ‘breakthrough’ curve is greatly modified by changes in uniformity of pore size. An appreciation of the effects of gas accumulation is essential to a proper interpretation of the hydraulic behavior of natural formations.

BackgroundBoth oxaliplatin/capecitabine-based chemoradiation (OXCAP-RT) and carboplatin-paclitaxel based radiation (CarPac-RT) are active regimens in oesophageal adenocarcinoma, but no randomised study has compared their efficacy and toxicity. This randomised phase II “pick a winner” trial will identify the optimum regimen to take forward to a future phase III trial against neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, the current standard in the UK.Methods/DesignPatients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or Siewert Type 1–2 gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ), ≥T3 and/or ≥ N1 are eligible for the study. Following two cycles of induction OXCAP chemotherapy (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 D1, Cape 625 mg/m2 D1-21, q 3 wk), patients are randomised 1:1 to OXCAP-RT (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 Day 1,15,29; capecitabine 625 mg/m2 twice daily on days of RT; RT-45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks) or CarPac-RT (Carboplatin AUC2 and paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 Day 1,8,15,22,29; RT-45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks). Restaging CT/PET-CT is performed 4–6 weeks after CRT, and a two-phase oesophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy is performed six to eight weeks after CRT. The primary end-point is pathological complete response rate (pCR) at resection and will include central review. Secondary endpoints include: recruitment rate, toxicity, 30-day surgical morbidity/mortality, resection margin positivity rate and overall survival (median, 3- and 5-yr OS. 76 patients (38/arm) gives 90% power and one-sided type 1 error of 10% if patients on one novel treatment have a response rate of 35% while the second treatment has a response rate of 15%. A detailed RT Quality Assurance (RTQA) programme includes a detailed RT protocol and guidance document, pre-accrual RT workshop, outlining exercise, and central evaluation of contouring and planning. This trial has been funded by Cancer Research UK (C44694/A14614), sponsored by Velindre NHS Trust and conducted through the Wales Cancer Trials Unit at Cardiff University on behalf of the NCRI Upper GI CSG.DiscussionFollowing encouraging results from previous trials, there is an interest in neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and CRT containing regimens for treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. NEOSCOPE will first establish the efficacy, safety and feasibility of two different neo-adjuvant CRT regimens prior to a potential phase III trial.Trial registrationEudract No: 2012-000640-10. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01843829.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic epicentre has moved to the USA and Europe, where it is placing unprecedented demands on healthcare resources and staff availability. These service constraints, coupled with concerns relating to an increased incidence and severity of COVID-19 among patients with cancer, should lead to re-consideration of the risk–benefit balance for standard treatment pathways. This is of particular importance to pancreatic cancer, given that standard diagnostic modalities such as endoscopy may be restricted, and that disease biology precludes significant delays in treatment. In light of this, we sought consensus from UK clinicians with an interest in pancreatic cancer for management approaches that would minimise patient risk and accommodate for healthcare service restrictions. The outcomes are described here and include recommendations for treatment prioritisation, strategies to bridge to later surgical resection in resectable disease and factors that modify the risk–benefit balance for treatment in the resectable through to the metastatic settings. Priority is given to strategies that limit hospital visits, including through the use of hypofractionated precision radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy treatment approaches.

No abstract