The efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy (NT) versus surgery first (SF) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial. A random-effects meta-analysis of only prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NT versus SF for potentially resectable (PR) or borderline resectable (BR) PDAC was performed. Among six RCTs including 850 patients, 411 (48.3%) received NT and 439 (51.6%) SF. In all included trials, NT was gemcitabine-based: four using chemoradiation and two chemotherapy alone. Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, NT resulted in improved overall survival (OS) compared to SF (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.86). This effect was independent of anatomic classification (PR: hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.91; BR: HR 0.51 95% CI 0.28-0.93) or NT type (chemoradiation: HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.98; chemotherapy alone: HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.87). Overall resection rate was similar (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.82-1.04, I 2 = 39.0%) but NT increased the likelihood of a margin-negative (R0) resection (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.18-1.93, I 2 = 0%) and having negative lymph nodes (RR 2.07, 95% CI 1.47-2.91, I 2 = 12.3%). In this meta-analysis of prospective RCTs, NT significantly improved OS in an intention-to-treat fashion, compared with SF for localized PDAC. Randomized controlled trials using contemporary multi-agent chemotherapy will be needed to confirm these findings and to define the optimal NT regimen.been associated with improved rates of margin-negative resection and a decreased incidence of lymph node metastases [10,11]. NT also offers several other theoretical benefits, including early treatment of presumed micro-metastatic disease, enhanced selection of patients with appropriate tumor biology for surgery, and the ability to histologically measure the response to therapy [12,13]. Evidence of improved survival has also been suggested based on data from cancer databases [10], meta-analyses of retrospective studies [14], and Markov decision models [15]. In turn, NT has become the preferred approach for borderline resectable (BR) PDAC, while guidelines support the use of either SF or NT for potentially resectable (PR) PDAC [16][17][18].Despite the theoretical and empirical advantages of NT, its use in the United States has remained relatively low [19,20], potentially driven by the lack of level I evidence for its efficacy. Until recently, only two small randomized controlled trials (RCTs) had been performed comparing SF to NT, and both were terminated early due to poor accrual [21,22]. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses that have purported a survival benefit with NT included non-randomized prospective and retrospective studies, which are limited due to their inherent selection biases [14,[23][24][25][26]. As several larger RCTs have recently been completed, albeit with older neoadjuvant regimens, the purpose of the current study was to perform a meta-analysis limited to only RCTs evaluating SF vs. NT for PDAC.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are a range of complications associated with the use of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Two major classes of ICIs widely used are Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Antigen 4 (CTLA4) and Programmed Cell death-1 (PD-1)/Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors. High-grade irAEs are life-threatening and often cause a severe decline in performance status in such that patients do not qualify for any further anticancer treatments. It is difficult to generalize the evidence in the current literature on risk factors or biomarkers for the entire class of ICIs as the studies so far are either disease-specific (e.g., lung cancer or melanoma) or ICI agent-specific (e.g., pembrolizumab, ipilimumab) or irAE-specific (e.g., pneumonitis or gastritis). In this review, risk factors and biomarkers to consider before initiating or monitoring ICI are listed with a practical purpose in day-to-day practice. Risk factors are grouped into demographics and social history, medical history, and medication history, tumor-specific and agent-specific risk factors. A higher risk of irAE is associated with age <60 years, high body mass index, women on CTLA4 and men on PD-1/PD-L1 agents, and chronic smokers. Patients with significant kidney (Stage IV-V), cardiac (heart failure, coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, hypertension), and lung (asthma, pulmonary fibrosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) are at a higher risk of respective organ-specific irAEs. Pre-existing autoimmune disease and chronic use of certain drugs (proton pump inhibitors, diuretics, anti-inflammatory drugs) also increase the irAE-risk. Biomarkers are categorized into circulating blood counts, cytokines, autoantibodies, HLA genotypes, microRNA, gene expression profiling, and serum proteins. The blood counts and certain protein markers (albumin and thyroid-stimulating hormone) are readily accessible in current practice. High neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, eosinophil/monocyte/lymphocyte counts; TSH and troponins at diagnosis and drop in the white count and lymphocyte count can predict irAE. Other biomarkers with limited evidence are cytokines, autoantibodies, HLA genotypes, microRNA, and gene expression profiling. With fast-expanding approvals for ICIs in various cancer types, knowledge on risk factors and biomarkers can help providers assess the irAE-risk of their patients. Prospective disease and agent-specific studies are needed to provide further insight on this essential aspect of ICI therapy.

BackgroundMost patients with resectable locally advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma (AC) receive concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) followed by esophagectomy. The majority of patients do not achieve pathologic complete response (pCR) with neoadjuvant CRT, and the relapse rate is high among these patients.MethodsWe conducted a phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02639065) evaluating the efficacy and safety of PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab in patients with locally advanced esophageal and GEJ AC who have undergone neoadjuvant CRT followed by R0 resection with evidence of persistent residual disease in the surgical specimen. Patients received durvalumab 1500 mg IV every 4 weeks for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was 1-year relapse free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoint was safety and tolerability of durvalumab following trimodality therapy. Exploratory endpoints included correlation of RFS with PD-L1 expression, HER-2 expression, and tumor immune cell population.ResultsThirty-seven patients were enrolled. The majority (64.9%) had pathologically positive lymph nodes. The most common treatment related adverse events were fatigue (27%), diarrhea (18.9%), arthralgia (16.2%), nausea (16.2%), pruritus (16.2%), cough (10.8%), and increase in AST/ALT/bilirubin (10.8%). Three (8.1%) patients developed grade 3 immune mediated adverse events. One-year RFS was 73% (95% CI, 56–84%) with median RFS of 21 months (95% CI, 14–40.4 months). Patients with GEJ AC had a trend toward superior 1-year RFS compared to those with esophageal AC (83% vs. 63%, p = 0.1534). There was a numerical trend toward superior 1-year RFS among patients with PD-L1 positive disease compared to those with PD-L1 negative disease, using CPS of ≥10 (100% vs. 66.7%, p = 0.1551) and ≥1 (84.2% vs. 61.1%, p = 0.1510) cutoffs. A higher relative proportion of M2 macrophages and CD4 memory activated T cells was associated with improved RFS (HR = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05–0.59; p = 0.0053; and HR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15–0.93, p = 0.0351, respectively).ConclusionsAdjuvant durvalumab in patients with residual disease in the surgical specimen following trimodality therapy for locally advanced esophageal and GEJ AC led to clinically meaningful improvement in 1-year RFS compared to historical control rate. Higher PD-L1 expression may have a correlation with the efficacy of durvalumab in this setting. Higher proportion of M2 macrophages and CD4 memory activated T cells was associated with superior RFS.

We conducted an institutional study to compare the clinical and pathological efficacy between the neoadjuvant therapy (NAT)‐modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLF) vs nanoparticle albumin–bound paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab‐P/G) for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) and locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) patients who completed resection. The study retrospectively enrolled patients with pathologically confirmed BRPC or LAPC from 2010 to 2018 at our institution. The survival rates were determined by the Kaplan‐Meier method and log‐rank test was used to test differences. Cox's proportional hazard model was used to assess survival with respect to covariates. Seventy‐two patients who completed at least two cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical resection were included, with 52 (72.2%) patients receiving mFOLF and 20 (27.8%) receiving nab‐P/G. Patients treated with mFOLF had statistically higher rates of RECIST 1.1 partial or complete response (16/52 vs 1/20, P = .028). Additionally, mFOLF patients had greater pathological tumor size reduction, fewer positive lymph nodes, and higher treatment response grade compared to the nab‐P/G patients (all P < .05). The median overall survival was 33.3 months vs 27.1 months (P = .105), and distant metastasis‒free survival (DMFS) was 21.3 months vs 14.6 months (P = .042) in the mFOLF vs nab‐P/G groups, respectively. On multivariate analysis, mFOLF (hazard ratio, 0.428; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.186‐0.987) and abnormal postoperative CA 19‐9 (hazard ratio, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.06‐5.76) were associated with DMFS. Among patients with BRPC and LAPC who complete surgical resection, neoadjuvant mFOLF was associated with improved pathological and clinical outcomes compared with nab‐P/G.

No abstract

Aim: This study sought to understand the association between liposomal irinotecan dose reductions (DRs) and clinical outcomes among patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Materials & methods: A retrospective study of adult patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma treated with liposomal irinotecan in the Flatiron Health database was conducted to assess treatment and clinical outcomes. Results: DRs occurred in 28.4% of the 320 patients in the study. Patients with DRs had longer overall survival (7.7 [95% CI: 6.2–10.2]) vs 3.6 [3.2–4.1] months) and time to discontinuation (4.2 [3.0–4.9] vs 1.4 [1.0–1.5] months) than patients without DRs. Results were consistent in a validation analysis requiring three cycles of treatment. Conclusion: Liposomal irinotecan DRs were associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with patients without DRs.

Mucin-5AC (MUC5AC) is a heavily glycosylated gel-forming secreted mucin with a reliable prognostic value when detected in multiple malignancies. It is highly prevalent (70%) in PDA and is nonexistent in normal pancreatic tissues. Retrospective studies on PDA tumor tissue (detected by immunohistochemistry or IHC)) have investigated the prognostic value of MUC5AC expression but were equivocal. Some studies associated it with poor outcomes (survival or pathological features such as lymph node disease, vascular/neural invasion in resected tumors), while others have concluded that it is a good prognostic marker. The examination of expression level threshold (5%, 10%, or 25%) and the detected region (apical vs. cytoplasmic) were variable among the studies. The maturation stage and glycoform of MUC5AC detected also differed with the Monoclonal antibody (Mab) employed for IHC. CLH2 detects less mature/less glycosylated versions while 45M1 or 21-1 detect mature/more glycosylated forms. Interestingly, aberrantly glycosylated variants of MUC5AC were detected using lectin assays (Wheat Germ Agglutinin-MUC5AC), and Mabs such as NPC-1C and PAM4 have are more specific to malignant pancreatic tissues. NPC-1C and PAM4 antibody reactive epitopes on MUC5AC are immunogenic and could represent specific changes on the native MUC5AC glycoprotein linked to carcinogenesis. It was never studied to predict treatment response.

5 Background: The standard of care for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma(LA-EAC) is concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) followed by esophagectomy. Approximately 30% of patients (pts) achieve complete pathologic response (pCR) with this approach. The risk of relapse in the remaining 70% of pts is high, with 1-yr relapse free survival (RFS) of 50%. No adjuvant therapies have been shown to improve survival. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have activity in metastatic PD-L1 positive EAC. Preclinical studies have shown upregulation of PD-1 pathway with radiation +/- chemotherapy. Methods: We conducted a phase II study evaluating safety and efficacy of durvalumab (durva), a monoclonal antibody against PD-L1, in pts with LA-EAC and GE junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma who do not achieve pCR after neoadjuvant CRT and R0 resection. Pts received durva 1500mg IV every 4 weeks for up to 1 yr after surgery. Primary objective was 1-yr RFS. Secondary objectives were incidence and severity of treatment related adverse events (AEs). Results: Twenty-four pts were enrolled from Apr 2016 to Jan 2018 (median age: 60yrs (range, 43-74)). Fourteen pts had GEJ adenocarcinoma and 10 had distal EAC. Eighteen received carboplatin/paclitaxel and six received cisplatin/5-FU concurrently with 50-50.4Gy radiation. Nineteen pts (79%) had positive lymph nodes at the time of surgery after neoadjuvant CRT, including three (12.5%) with N3, nine (37.5%) with N2, and seven (29%) with N1 disease. Among N0 pts, two had T3N0, one had T2N0, and two had T1N0 disease. At median follow-up of 11.7 mo (range 1.7-23.9 mo), seven pts (29%) have relapsed (five alive, two died); 17(67%) are disease free (six on treatment, seven completed treatment, three off-treatment); 1-yr and projected 26 mo RFS are 78.6% and 62.9%, respectively. Five pts (20.8%) developed grade 3 AEs: diarrhea (n = 1), hepatitis (n = 1), encephalopathy (n = 1), hyperglycemia (n = 1), hypoglycemia (n = 1). Most common grade 1 and 2 AEs were fatigue (33.3%), nausea (25.0%), and cough (20.8%). Conclusions: Adjuvant durva in pts with residual disease following trimodality therapy for EAC and GEJ adenocarcinoma is safe and feasible with 1-yr RFS of 78.6% compared to historical rate of 50%. Clinical trial information: NCT02639065.