Tumor budding is a well-established adverse prognostic factor in colorectal cancer. However, the significance and diagnostic reproducibility of budding in pancreatic carcinoma requires further study. We aimed to assess the prognostic significance of tumor budding in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, determine its relationship with other clinicopathologic features, and assess interobserver variability in its diagnosis. Tumor budding was assessed in 192 archival cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) sections; tumor buds were defined as single cells or nonglandular clusters composed of <5 cells. The presence of budding was determined through assessment of all tumor-containing slides, and associations with clinicopathologic features and outcomes were analyzed. Six gastrointestinal pathologists participated in an interobserver variability study of 120 images of consecutive tumor slides stained with H&E and cytokeratin. Budding was present in 168 of 192 cases and was associated with decreased overall survival (P=0.001). On multivariable analysis, tumor budding was prognostically significantly independent of stage, grade, tumor size, nodal status, lymphovascular invasion, and perineural invasion. There was substantial agreement among pathologists in assessing the presence of tumor budding using both H&E (K=0.63) and cytokeratin (K=0.63) stains. The presence of tumor budding is an independent adverse prognostic factor in pancreatic ductal carcinoma. The assessment of budding with H&E is reliable and could be used to better risk stratify patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Due to differences in natural history and therapy, clinical trials of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have recently been subdivided into unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and metastatic disease. We aimed to evaluate prognostic factors in LAPC patients who were treated with first-line chemotherapy and describe patterns of disease progression. Patients with LAPC who initiated first-line palliative chemotherapy, 2001–2011 at the BC Cancer Agency were included. A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify clinicopathologic variables, treatment, and subsequent sites of metastasis. Kaplan–Meier and Cox-regression survival analyses were performed. A total of 244 patients were included in this study. For the majority of patients (94.3%), first-line therapy was single-agent gemcitabine. About 144 (59%) patients developed distant metastatic disease and the most frequent metastatic sites included peritoneum/omentum (42.3%), liver (41%), lungs (13.9%), and distant lymph nodes (9%). Median overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort was 11.7 months (95% CI, 10.6–12.8). Development of distant metastases was associated with significantly inferior survival (HR 3.56, 95% CI 2.57–4.93), as was ECOG 2/3 versus 0/1 (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.28–2.23), CA 19.9 > 1000 versus ≤1000 (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.19–2.14) and female gender, (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.19–2.08). In this population-based study, 41% of LAPC patients treated with first-line chemotherapy died without evidence of distant metastases. Prognostic factors for LAPC were baseline performance status, elevated CA 19.9, gender, and development of distant metastasis. Results highlight the heterogeneity of LAPC and the importance of locoregional tumor control.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication of cancer associated with morbidity, mortality, increased hospitalizations and higher health care costs. Cancer patients at increased risk for VTE can be identified using a validated risk assessment score, and the incidence of VTE can be reduced in high-risk settings using anticoagulation. Rivaroxaban is a potent, oral, direct, factor Xa inhibitor approved for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic events, including VTE. CASSINI is a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre study comparing rivaroxaban with placebo in adult ambulatory patients with various cancers who are initiating systemic cancer therapy and are at high risk of VTE (Khorana score ! 2). Patients with primary brain tumours or those at risk for bleeding are excluded. Approximately 700 patients will be randomized 1:1 to rivaroxaban

The majority of patients with MPC are not candidates to either NG or FOLFIRINOX due to restrictive eligibility requirements. Specific trials addressing the unmet needs of protocol ineligible patients are warranted.

Background: Incidental gallbladder cancer is defined as a cancer discovered by histological examination after cholecystectomy. It is a potentially curable disease. However, some questions related to their management remain controversial and a defined strategy is associated with better prognosis. Aim: To develop the first evidence-based consensus for management of patients with incidental gallbladder cancer in Brazil. Methods: Sixteen questions were selected, and 36 Brazilian and International members were included to the answer them. The statements were based on current evident literature. The final report was sent to the members of the panel for agreement assessment. Results: Intraoperative evaluation of the specimen, use of retrieval bags and routine histopathology is recommended. Complete preoperative evaluation is necessary and the reoperation should be performed once final staging is available. Evaluation of the cystic duct margin and routine 16b1 lymph node biopsy is recommended. Chemotherapy should be considered and chemoradiation therapy if microscopically positive surgical margins. Port site should be resected exceptionally. Staging laparoscopy before reoperation is recommended, but minimally invasive radical approach only in specialized minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary centers. The extent of liver resection is acceptable if R0 resection is achieved. Standard lymph node dissection is required for T2 tumors and above, but common bile duct resection is not recommended routinely. Conclusions: It was possible to prepare safe recommendations as guidance for incidental gallbladder carcinoma, addressing the most frequent topics of everyday work of digestive and general surgeons.

No abstract

343 Background: Retrospective studies have demonstrated high response rates among patients with advanced PNETs treated with CapTem while responses are infrequently seen among non-PNETs. The objective of the study was to describe progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among sequential NET patients treated with CapTem and to identify factors associated with response. Methods: Patients who initiated therapy with CapTem between 2009 and 2013 for advanced NETs and referred to one of 6 provincial cancer treatment centers were included. Patients received Cap 2000 mg/m2 day 1-14 and TMZ 200 mg/m2 on days 10-14 every 28 days. Their characteristics and outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. Results: In our cohort, 29 patients (16 male) with a median age of 59 (range 26 – 76) received palliative CapTem, 15 of them as first-line chemotherapy and 14 as subsequent lines. Primary tumors included pancreas (48.3%), small bowel (20.7%), lung (10.3%), unknown (10.3), rectum (6.9%) and appendix (3.4%). Median number of cycles was 3. For the entire cohort, median PFS and OS were 4.7 and 20.2 months, respectively. Although pancreatic NETs (PNETs) had shorter OS (18.8 months versus not reached, p=0.37), their PFS was longer than non-PNETs (4.9 versus 2.8 months, p=0.178). There was no difference in PFS between first or subsequent lines of therapy. Patients with Ki67 above 10% had a shorter PFS when compared to lower Ki67 (3.1 versus 5.5 months, p = 0.028). Three patients had to discontinue CapTem due to poor tolerance (2 intractable nauseas and 1 myocardial infarction). There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: CapTem showed good activity among NETs, especially for PNETS, who derived the greatest benefit. Effectiveness was not exclusive to first-line therapy and seems better for well-differentiated tumors.

Deficiencies in DNA mismatch repair have been associated with inferior response to 5-FU in colorectal cancer. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is similarly treated with pyrimidine analogs, yet the predictive value of mismatch repair status for response to these agents has not been examined in this malignancy. A tissue microarray with associated clinical outcome, comprising 254 resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients was stained for four mismatch repair proteins (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2). Mismatch repair deficiency and proficiency was determined by the absence or presence of uniform nuclear staining in tumor cells, respectively. Cases identified as mismatch repair deficient on the tissue microarray were confirmed by immunohistochemistry on whole slide sections. Of the 265 cases, 78 (29%) received adjuvant treatment with a pyrimidine analog and 41 (15%) showed a mismatch repair-deficient immunoprofile. Multivariable diseasespecific survival in the mismatch repair-proficient cohort demonstrated that adjuvant chemotherapy, regional lymph-node status, gender, and the presence of tumor budding were significant independent prognostic variables (P ≤ 0.04); however, none of the eight clinico-pathologic covariates examined in the mismatch repairdeficient cohort were of independent prognostic significance. Univariable assessment of disease-specific survival revealed an almost identical survival profile for both treated and untreated patients with a mismatch repair-deficient profile, while treatment in the mismatch repair-proficient cohort conferred a greater than 10-month median disease-specific survival advantage over their untreated counterparts (P = 0.0018). In this cohort, adjuvant chemotherapy with a pyrimidine analog conferred no survival advantage to mismatch repairdeficient pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients. Mismatch repair immunoprofiling is a feasible predictive marker in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients, and further prospective evaluation of this finding is Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is among the deadliest solid cancers, with little improvement in overall survival achieved in the past few decades. 1-3 Lack of effective screening modalities and late presentation with advanced stage disease result in fewer than 20% of patients being eligible for surgical resection. 4 Even in surgically-treated patients, the 5-year survival rate is lower than 20%, 5 highlighting the need for more effective and personalized systemic therapeutic approaches. Adjuvant chemotherapy is considered the standard of care for patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. 6,7 Pyrimidine analogs (gemcitabine or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)) are the most commonly used agents, with gemcitabine demonstrating an improved survival compared with no treatment in 7 and an improved toxicity profile compared with 5-FU in ESPAC-3. 8 Molecular studies have shown that pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas contain a high number of