BACKGROUND & AIMS: Recent pancreatic cancer surveil-lance programs of high-risk individuals have reported improved outcomes. This study assessed to what extent outcomes of pancreatic ductal... Show moreBACKGROUND & AIMS: Recent pancreatic cancer surveil-lance programs of high-risk individuals have reported improved outcomes. This study assessed to what extent outcomes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients with a CDKN2A/p16 pathogenic variant diagnosed under surveillance are better as compared with patients with PDAC diagnosed outside surveillance.METHODS: In a pro-pensity score matched cohort using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, we compared resectability, stage, and survival between patients diagnosed under sur-veillance with non-surveillance patients with PDAC. Survival analyses were adjusted for potential effects of lead time.RESULTS: Between January 2000 and December 2020, 43,762 patients with PDAC were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Thirty-one patients with PDAC under surveillance were matched in a 1:5 ratio with 155 non surveillance patients based on age at diagnosis, sex, year diagnosis, and tumor location. Outside surveillance, 5.8% of the patients had stage I cancer, as compared with 38.7% of surveillance patients with PDAC (odds ratio [OR], 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.19). In total, 18.7% of non surveillance patients vs 71.0% of surveillance patients un- derwent a surgical resection (OR, 10.62; 95% CI, 4.56-26.63). Patients in surveillance had a better prognosis, reflected by 5-year survival of 32.4% and a median overall survival of 26.8 months vs 4.3% 5-year survival and 5.2 months median overall survival in non-surveillance patients (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% CI 0.19-0.50). For all adjusted lead times, survival remained significantly longer in surveillance patients than non-surveillance patients.CONCLUSION: Surveillance for PDAC in carriers of a CDKN2A/p16 pathogenic variant results in earlier detection, increased resectability, and improved survival as compared with non-surveillance patients with PDAC. Show less
PURPOSE: Pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals may lead to detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at an earlier stage and with improved survival. This study... Show morePURPOSE: Pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals may lead to detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at an earlier stage and with improved survival. This study evaluated the yield and outcomes of 20 years of prospective surveillance in a large cohort of individuals with germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in CDKN2A. METHODS: Prospectively collected data were analyzed from individuals participating in pancreatic cancer surveillance. Surveillance consisted of annual magnetic resonance imaging with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and optional endoscopic ultrasound. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-seven germline PV carriers participated in surveillance and were followed for a median of 5.6 (interquartile range 2.3-9.9) years. A total of 36 cases of PDAC were diagnosed in 31 (8.9%) patients at a median age of 60.4 (interquartile range 51.3-64.1) years. The cumulative incidence of primary PDAC was 20.7% by age 70 years. Five carriers (5 of 31; 16.1%) were diagnosed with a second primary PDAC. Thirty (83.3%) of 36 PDACs were considered resectable at the time of imaging. Twelve cases (12 of 36; 33.3%) presented with stage I disease. The median survival after diagnosis of primary PDAC was 26.8 months, and the 5-year survival rate was 32.4% (95% CI, 19.1 to 54.8). Individuals with primary PDAC who underwent resection (22 of 31; 71.0%) had an overall 5-year survival rate of 44.1% (95% CI, 27.2 to 71.3). Nine (2.6%; 9 of 347) individuals underwent surgery for a suspected malignant lesion, which proved to not be PDAC, and this included five lesions with low-grade dysplasia. CONCLUSION: This long-term surveillance study demonstrates a high incidence of PDAC in carriers of a PV in CDKN2A. This provides evidence that surveillance in such a high-risk population leads to detection of early-stage PDAC with improved resectability and survival. Show less
PURPOSEPancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals may lead to detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at an earlier stage and with improved survival. This study evaluated... Show morePURPOSEPancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals may lead to detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at an earlier stage and with improved survival. This study evaluated the yield and outcomes of 20 years of prospective surveillance in a large cohort of individuals with germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in CDKN2A.METHODSProspectively collected data were analyzed from individuals participating in pancreatic cancer surveillance. Surveillance consisted of annual magnetic resonance imaging with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and optional endoscopic ultrasound.RESULTSThree hundred forty-seven germline PV carriers participated in surveillance and were followed for a median of 5.6 (interquartile range 2.3-9.9) years. A total of 36 cases of PDAC were diagnosed in 31 (8.9%) patients at a median age of 60.4 (interquartile range 51.3-64.1) years. The cumulative incidence of primary PDAC was 20.7% by age 70 years. Five carriers (5 of 31; 16.1%) were diagnosed with a second primary PDAC. Thirty (83.3%) of 36 PDACs were considered resectable at the time of imaging. Twelve cases (12 of 36; 33.3%) presented with stage I disease. The median survival after diagnosis of primary PDAC was 26.8 months, and the 5-year survival rate was 32.4% (95% CI, 19.1 to 54.8). Individuals with primary PDAC who underwent resection (22 of 31; 71.0%) had an overall 5-year survival rate of 44.1% (95% CI, 27.2 to 71.3). Nine (2.6%; 9 of 347) individuals underwent surgery for a suspected malignant lesion, which proved to not be PDAC, and this included five lesions with low-grade dysplasia.CONCLUSIONThis long-term surveillance study demonstrates a high incidence of PDAC in carriers of a PV in CDKN2A. This provides evidence that surveillance in such a high-risk population leads to detection of early-stage PDAC with improved resectability and survival. Show less
Sijde, F. van der; Dik, W.A.; Mustafa, D.A.M.; Vietsch, E.E.; Besselink, M.G.; Debets, R.; ... ; Eijck, C.H.J. van 2022
BackgroundBiomarkers predicting treatment response may be used to stratify patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) for available therapies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the... Show moreBackgroundBiomarkers predicting treatment response may be used to stratify patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) for available therapies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of circulating cytokines with FOLFIRINOX response and with overall survival (OS). MethodsSerum samples were collected before start and after the first cycle of FOLFIRINOX from patients with PDAC (n=83) of all disease stages. Overall, 34 circulating cytokines were analyzed with a multiplex immunoassay. In addition, changes in peripheral blood immune cell counts were determined by flow cytometry to correlate with differences in cytokine levels. Chemotherapy response was determined by CT scans with the RECIST 1.1 criteria, as disease control (n=64) or progressive disease (n=19) within eight cycles of FOLFIRINOX. ResultsPatients with high serum IL-1RA concentrations after one cycle of chemotherapy were less likely to have tumor progression during FOLFIRINOX (OR 0.25, P=0.040). Increase of circulating IL-1RA concentrations correlated with increase of total, classical (CD14+CD16-), and non-classical monocytes (CD14-CD16+), and dendritic cells. In multivariable cox regression, including the variables chemotherapy response outcome and baseline CA19-9 level, serum concentrations of IL-7 (HR 2.14, P=0.010), IL-18 (HR 2.00, P=0.020), and MIP-1 beta (HR 0.51, P=0.025) after one cycle of FOLFIRINOX showed correlations with OS. ConclusionsCirculating IL-1RA, IL-7, IL-18, and MIP-1 beta concentrations are biomarkers associated with FOLFIRINOX response in PDAC patients, suggesting an important role for specific immune cells in chemotherapy response and PDAC progression. Cytokine-based treatment might improve patient outcome and should be evaluated in future studies. Show less
Background: The impact of pancreatic and periampullary cancer treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is unclear.Methods: This study merged data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry... Show moreBackground: The impact of pancreatic and periampullary cancer treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is unclear.Methods: This study merged data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry with EORTC QLQ-C30 and-PAN26 questionnaires at baseline and three-months follow-up of pancreatic and periampullary cancer patients (2015-2018). Propensity score matching (1:3) of group without to group with treatment was performed. Linear mixed model regression analyses were performed to investigate the association between cancer treatment and HRQoL at follow-up.Results: After matching, 247 of 629 available patients remained (68 (27.5%) no treatment, 179 (72.5%) treatment). Treatment consisted of resection (n = 68 (27.5%)), chemotherapy only (n = 111 (44.9%)), or both (n = 40 (16.2%)). At follow-up, cancer treatment was associated with better global health status (Beta-coefficient 4.8, 95% confidence-interval 0.0-9.5) and less constipation (Beta-coefficient -7.6, 95% confidence-interval -13.8-1.4) compared to no cancer treatment. Median overall survival was longer for the cancer treatment group compared to the no treatment group (15.4 vs. 6.2 months, p < 0.001).Conclusion: Patients undergoing treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer reported slight improvement in global HRQoL and less constipation at three months-follow up compared to patients without cancer treatment, while overall survival was also improved. Show less
PURPOSE: The benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. Initial results of the PREOPANC trial failed to demonstrate a... Show morePURPOSE: The benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. Initial results of the PREOPANC trial failed to demonstrate a statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. The long-term results are reported. METHODS: In this multicenter, phase III trial, patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or upfront surgery in 16 Dutch centers. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy consisted of three cycles of gemcitabine combined with 36 Gy radiotherapy in 15 fractions during the second cycle. After restaging, patients underwent surgery followed by four cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine. Patients in the upfront surgery group underwent surgery followed by six cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine. The primary outcome was OS by intention-to-treat. No safety data were collected beyond the initial report of the trial. RESULTS: Between April 24, 2013, and July 25, 2017, 246 eligible patients were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n = 119) and upfront surgery (n = 127). At a median follow-up of 59 months, the OS was better in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group than in the upfront surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.96; P = .025). Although the difference in median survival was only 1.4 months (15.7 months v 14.3 months), the 5-year OS rate was 20.5% (95% CI, 14.2 to 29.8) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 6.5% (95% CI, 3.1 to 13.7) with upfront surgery. The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was consistent across the prespecified subgroups, including resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine improves OS compared with upfront surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Show less
PURPOSEThe benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. Initial results of the PREOPANC trial failed to demonstrate a... Show morePURPOSEThe benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. Initial results of the PREOPANC trial failed to demonstrate a statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit. The long-term results are reported.METHODSIn this multicenter, phase III trial, patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or upfront surgery in 16 Dutch centers. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy consisted of three cycles of gemcitabine combined with 36 Gy radiotherapy in 15 fractions during the second cycle. After restaging, patients underwent surgery followed by four cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine. Patients in the upfront surgery group underwent surgery followed by six cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine. The primary outcome was OS by intention-to-treat. No safety data were collected beyond the initial report of the trial.RESULTSBetween April 24, 2013, and July 25, 2017, 246 eligible patients were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n = 119) and upfront surgery (n = 127). At a median follow-up of 59 months, the OS was better in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group than in the upfront surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.96; P = .025). Although the difference in median survival was only 1.4 months (15.7 months v 14.3 months), the 5-year OS rate was 20.5% (95% CI, 14.2 to 29.8) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 6.5% (95% CI, 3.1 to 13.7) with upfront surgery. The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was consistent across the prespecified subgroups, including resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.CONCLUSIONNeoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine improves OS compared with upfront surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Show less
Aim: To determine the safety, feasibility, pharmacokinetics, and cost of UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan.Patients and methods: In this prospective, multicentre, non-randomised study,... Show moreAim: To determine the safety, feasibility, pharmacokinetics, and cost of UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan.Patients and methods: In this prospective, multicentre, non-randomised study, patients intended for treatment with irinotecan were pre-therapeutically genotyped for UGT1A1*28 and UGT1A1)93. Homozygous variant carriers (UGT1A1 poor metabolisers; PMs) received an initial 30% dose reduction. The primary endpoint was incidence of febrile neutropenia in the first two cycles of treatment. Toxicity in UGT1A1 PMs was compared to a historical cohort of UGT1A1 PMs treated with full dose therapy, and to UGT1A1 non-PMs treated with full dose therapy in the current study. Secondary endpoints were pharmacokinetics, feasi- bility, and costs.Results: Of the 350 evaluable patients, 31 (8.9%) patients were UGT1A1 PM and received a median 30% dose reduction. The incidence of febrile neutropenia in this group was 6.5% compared to 24% in historical UGT1A1 PMs (P = 0.04) and was comparable to the incidence in UGT1A1 non-PMs treated with full dose therapy. Systemic exposure of SN-38 of reduced dosing in UGT1A1 PMs was still slightly higher compared to a standard-dosed irinotecan patient cohort (difference: thorn 32%). Cost analysis showed that genotype-guided dosing was cost-saving with a cost reduction of V183 per patient.Conclusion: UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing significantly reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia in UGT1A1 PM patients treated with irinotecan, results in a therapeutically effec- tive systemic drug exposure, and is cost-saving. Therefore, UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan should be considered standard of care in order to improve individual patient safety. (C) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Show less
Stoppelenburg, A.; Arslan, M.; Owusuaa, C.; Gunnink, N.; Linden, Y.M. van der; Luelmo, S.A.C.; ... ; Heide, A. van der 2022
Objective This prospective study aimed to evaluate the performance of the 'Surprise Question' (SQ) 'Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?' in predicting survival of 12, 6... Show moreObjective This prospective study aimed to evaluate the performance of the 'Surprise Question' (SQ) 'Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?' in predicting survival of 12, 6, 3 and 1 month(s), respectively, in hospitalised patients with cancer. Methods In three hospitals, physicians were asked to answer SQs for 12/6/3/1 month(s) for inpatients with cancer. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Results A total of 783 patients were included, of whom 51% died in the 12-month period after inclusion. Sensitivity of the SQ predicting death within 12 months was 0.79, specificity was 0.66, the positive predictive value was 0.71 and the negative predictive value was 0.75. When the SQ concerned a shorter survival period, sensitivities and positive predictive values decreased, whereas specificities and negative predictive values increased. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, the SQ was significantly associated with mortality (OR 3.93, 95% CI 2.70-5.71, p < 0.01). Conclusions The 12-month SQ predicts death in patients with cancer admitted to the hospital reasonably well. Shortening the timeframe decreases sensitivities and increases specificities. The four surprise questions may help to identify patients for whom palliative care is indicated. Show less
Simple Summary Patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis at time of diagnosis, with a 5-year survival rate of merely 10%. The only treatment with curative intent is surgical... Show moreSimple Summary Patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis at time of diagnosis, with a 5-year survival rate of merely 10%. The only treatment with curative intent is surgical resection of the tumor and adjacent tumor-containing lymph nodes. To improve surgical outcome and survival, additional (imaging) tools are needed that support complete surgical tumor resection. Firstly, more accurate monitoring of tumor response to neoadjuvant treatment and subsequent determination of resectability is needed. Secondly, an imaging tool is needed for intraoperative guidance allowing accurate identification, delineation, and complete resection of the tumor and suspected lymph nodes. Therefore, both tumor-targeted PET/CT before surgery and real time fluorescence-guidance during surgery could be helpful to improve patient outcome. This review focusses on literature considering tumor-targeted PET/CT and near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) imaging. Several tumor-targeted agents are under clinical evaluation, and several other promising agents are currently tested preclinically, both with promising results. Their additional diagnostic value and feasibility for future implementation in standard clinical care of PDAC has yet to be established in phase III clinical trials. Background: Despite recent advances in the multimodal treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), overall survival remains poor with a 5-year cumulative survival of approximately 10%. Neoadjuvant (chemo- and/or radio-) therapy is increasingly incorporated in treatment strategies for patients with (borderline) resectable and locally advanced disease. Neoadjuvant therapy aims to improve radical resection rates by reducing tumor mass and (partial) encasement of important vascular structures, as well as eradicating occult micrometastases. Results from recent multicenter clinical trials evaluating this approach demonstrate prolonged survival and increased complete surgical resection rates (R0). Currently, tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy is monitored using computed tomography (CT) following the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Accurate assessment of neoadjuvant treatment response and tumor resectability is considered a major challenge, as current conventional imaging modalities provide limited accuracy and specificity for discrimination between necrosis, fibrosis, and remaining vital tumor tissue. As a consequence, resections with tumor-positive margins and subsequent early locoregional tumor recurrences are observed in a substantial number of patients following surgical resection with curative intent. Of these patients, up to 80% are diagnosed with recurrent disease after a median disease-free interval of merely 8 months. These numbers underline the urgent need to improve imaging modalities for more accurate assessment of therapy response and subsequent re-staging of disease, thereby aiming to optimize individual patient's treatment strategy. In cases of curative intent resection, additional intra-operative real-time guidance could aid surgeons during complex procedures and potentially reduce the rate of incomplete resections and early (locoregional) tumor recurrences. In recent years intraoperative imaging in cancer has made a shift towards tumor-specific molecular targeting. Several important molecular targets have been identified that show overexpression in PDAC, for example: CA19.9, CEA, EGFR, VEGFR/VEGF-A, uPA/uPAR, and various integrins.Tumor-targeted PET/CT combined with intraoperative fluorescence imaging, could provide valuable information for tumor detection and staging, therapy response evaluation with re-staging of disease and intraoperative guidance during surgical resection of PDAC. Methods: A literature search in the PubMed database and (inter)national trial registers was conducted, focusing on studies published over the last 15 years. Data and information of eligible articles regarding PET/CT as well as fluorescence imaging in PDAC were reviewed. Areas covered: This review covers the current strategies, obstacles, challenges, and developments in targeted tumor imaging, focusing on the feasibility and value of PET/CT and fluorescence imaging for integration in the work-up and treatment of PDAC. An overview is given of identified targets and their characteristics, as well as the available literature of conducted and ongoing clinical and preclinical trials evaluating PDAC-targeted nuclear and fluorescent tracers. Show less
Introduction: Pancreatic cancer is associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, comprehensive data on incidence, timing and relevant determinants of VTE in this particular... Show moreIntroduction: Pancreatic cancer is associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, comprehensive data on incidence, timing and relevant determinants of VTE in this particular population are scarce. Current study assesses incidence, timing and predictors of VTE in pancreatic cancer through different phases of disease. Methods: All pancreatic cancer patients treated in our tertiary referral center between 2013 through 2017 were studied. Occurrence of VTE was evaluated from diagnosis through end of follow-up or death. Relevant de-terminants of VTE were identified in logistic regression models. Hazard ratios were calculated to evaluate impact of VTE on overall survival. Results: In total, 361 patients were followed for a median period of 43 months; 64 were diagnosed with VTE (18%). Most were tumor related thrombosis (59%), incidental (75%) and occurred after anti-cancer treatment had been stopped (80%), only 1.6% occurred during remission phase. Stage IV pancreatic cancer was a predictor for VTE (hazard ratio (HR) 2.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-6.8). Biliary drainage (HR 0.52, 95%CI 0.28-0.98) and tumor resection (HR 0.45, 95%CI 0.45-1.83) were protective factors. VTE was not associated with worse survival (HR 1.3; 95% CI 0.97-1.74). Conclusions: VTE in pancreatic cancer is disease-stage dependent, with 80% occurring in advanced phases of disease when patients no longer receive active treatment. We speculate that this is the main reason for the absence of a survival effect of VTE in our cohort. These practice-based findings should be taken into account when considering wide-spread introduction of primary thromboprophylaxis in patients with pancreatic cancer. Show less
Sijde, F. van der; Homs, M.Y.V.; Bekkum, M.L. van; Bosch, T.P.P. van den; Bosscha, K.; Besselink, M.G.; ... ; Dutch Pancreatic Canc Grp 2021
In this study, we explored the predictive value of serum microRNA (miRNA) expression for early tumor progression during FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy and its association with overall survival (OS) in... Show moreIn this study, we explored the predictive value of serum microRNA (miRNA) expression for early tumor progression during FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy and its association with overall survival (OS) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). A total of 132 PDAC patients of all disease stages were included in this study, of whom 25% showed progressive disease during FOLFIRINOX according to the RECIST criteria. MiRNA expression was analyzed in serum collected before the start and after one cycle of chemotherapy. In the discovery cohort (n = 12), a 352-miRNA RT-qPCR panel was used. In the validation cohorts (total n = 120), miRNA expression was detected using individual RT-qPCR miRNA primers. Before the start of FOLFIRINOX, serum miR-373-3p expression was higher in patients with progressive disease compared to patients with disease control after FOLFIRINOX (Log2 fold difference (FD) 0.88, p = 0.006). MiR-194-5p expression after one cycle of FOLFIRINOX was lower in patients with progressive disease (Log2 FD -0.29, p = 0.044). Both miRNAs were predictors of early tumor progression in a multivariable model including disease stage and baseline CA19-9 level (miR-373-3p odds ratio (OR) 3.99, 95% CI 1.10-14.49; miR-194-5p OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83-0.99). MiR-373-3p and miR-194-5p did not show an association with OS after adjustment for disease stage, baseline CA19-9, and chemotherapy response. In conclusion, high serum miR-373-3p before the start and low serum miR-194-5p after one cycle are associated with early tumor progression during FOLFIRINOX. Show less
Sijde, F. van der; Azmani, Z.; Besselink, M.G.; Bonsing, B.A.; Groot, J.W.B. de; Koerkamp, B.G.; ... ; Eijck, C.H.J. van 2021
Background: Biomarkers predicting treatment response may be used to stratify pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients for therapy. The aim of this study was to identify circulating tumor... Show moreBackground: Biomarkers predicting treatment response may be used to stratify pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients for therapy. The aim of this study was to identify circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) mutations that associate with tumor progression during FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy, and overall survival (OS). Methods: Circulating cell-free DNA was analyzed with a 57 gene next-generation sequencing panel using plasma samples of 48 PDAC patients of all disease stages. Patients received FOLFIRINOX as initial treatment. Chemotherapy response was determined on CT scans as disease control (n = 30) or progressive disease (n = 18) within eight cycles of FOLFIRINOX, based on RECIST 1.1 criteria. Results: Detection of a TP53 ctDNA mutation before start of FOLFIRINOX [odds ratio (OR) 10.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40-79.14] and the presence of a homozygous TP53 Pro72Arg germline variant (OR 6.98, 95% CI 1.31-37.30) were predictors of early tumor progression during FOLFIRINOX in multivariable analysis. Five patients presented with the combination of a TP53 ctDNA mutation before start of FOLFIRINOX and the homozygous Pro72Arg variant. All five patients showed progression during FOLFIRINOX. The combination of the TP53 mutation and TP53 germline variant was associated with shorter survival (median OS 4.4 months, 95% CI 2.6-6.2 months) compared with patients without any TP53 alterations (median OS 13.0 months, 95% CI 8.6-17.4 months). Conclusion: The combination of a TP53 ctDNA mutation before start of FOLFIRINOX and a homozygous TP53 Pro72Arg variant is a promising biomarker, associated with early tumor progression during FOLFIRINOX and poor OS. The results of this exploratory study need to be validated in an independent cohort. Show less
Stap, L. van der; Nijs, E.J.M. de; Oomes, M.; Juffermans, C.C.M.; Ravensbergen, W.M.; Luelmo, S.A.C.; ... ; Linden, Y.M. van der 2021
Background: Within the generalist-plus-specialist palliative care model, palliative care is mainly provided by nurses and physicians of hospital primary care teams. Palliative care consultation... Show moreBackground: Within the generalist-plus-specialist palliative care model, palliative care is mainly provided by nurses and physicians of hospital primary care teams. Palliative care consultation teams (PCCTs) support these clinicians in adequately caring for patients with advanced illnesses. Our team started in 2012. The aim of this study was to assess the self-perceived barriers, educational needs and awareness of available palliative care support options among our hospital primary care teams. In addition, palliative care referral patterns were evaluated.Methods: Single-center mixed methods study. Outcomes of two surveys of primary care team clinicians (2012 and 2016) on barriers to palliative care, educational needs and awareness of palliative care support options were compared ( chi-square, Mann-Whitney U tests, qualitative analysis). Palliative care referral characteristics were evaluated [2012- 2017], including referral timing (survival since referral) (descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier methodology). Predictions of survival at referral were analyzed (weighted Kappa).Results: In 2012 and 2016, the most frequently reported barrier was the late initiation of the palliative care approach. Clinicians reported a need for education on physical symptom management and basic palliative care principles. Awareness of support options increased from 2012 to 2016, including improved familiarity with the PCCT (56% vs. 85%, P<0.001) and positive appraisal of the team (8% vs. 40% gave an 'excellent' rating, P<0.001). The use of national symptom management guidelines also improved (23% vs. 53%, P<0.001). Of 1,404 referrals, 86% were for cancer patients. Referrals increased by 28% (mean) per year. Medical oncology clinicians referred most frequently (27%) and increasingly early in the disease trajectory (survival >= 3 months after referral) (P=0.016). Median survival after referral was 0.9 (range, 0-83.3) months. Referring physicians overestimated survival in 44% of patients (kappa 0.36, 95% CI: 0.30-0.42).Conclusions: Primary care team clinicians persistently reported needing support with basic palliative care skills. PCCTs should continuously focus on educating primary care teams and promoting the use of guidelines. Because physicians tend to overestimate survival and usually referred patients late for specialist palliative care, consultation teams should support primary care teams to identify, treat and refer patients with palliative care needs in a timely manner. Show less
Simple SummaryTesticular cancer is the most common malignancy in young males affecting the ability to father children. It's important that effects on fertility are discussed before starting... Show moreSimple SummaryTesticular cancer is the most common malignancy in young males affecting the ability to father children. It's important that effects on fertility are discussed before starting treatment so patients are aware of the risks and their options. The objective of our study was to evaluate the manner in which men with testicular cancer are counselled about implications on fertility and the possibility of semen preservation. Furthermore, we aimed to evaluate satisfaction with provided information and to identify reproductive concerns. In a sample of 201 patients, one out of ten patients reported not to be informed about the risk of subfertility. Sperm banking was performed by 41.3%, of which 13 men made use of preserved sperm, resulting in paternity for 7 men. The subjects fertility and semen preservation need to be broached promptly after diagnosis of testicular cancer because they cause dissatisfaction with care and grief if fertility problems occur afterwards.Men with testicular cancer (TC) risk impaired fertility. Fertility is a major concern for TC patients due to diagnosis in almost always reproductive ages and high overall survival. This study assessed counselling in regards to the risk of impaired fertility and sperm cryopreservation. A cross-sectional survey was performed on 566 TC patients diagnosed between 1995-2015. Of the 566 survivors, 201 questionnaires were completed (35.5%). Eighty-eight percent was informed about possible impaired fertility, 9.5% was not informed. The majority (47.3%) preferred the urologist to provide information. Collecting sperm was troublesome but successful for 25.6%, 4.8% did not succeed in collecting sperm. The reasons were high pressure due to disease, pain after surgery and uncomfortable setting. Due to impaired fertility, 19% of the respondents reported grief and 9.3% stated as being less satisfied in life. Sperm cryopreservation was performed by 41.3% (n = 83). One third (n = 63, 31.3%) had children after treatment, of which 11.1% made use of preserved sperm (n = 7). The results of this survey indicate the importance of timely discussion of fertility issues with TC patients. While being discussed with most men, dissatisfaction and grief may occur as a result of impaired fertility and a lack of counselling. Overall, 6.5% made use of cryopreserved sperm (n = 13). Men prefer their urologist providing counselling on fertility. Show less
PURPOSE Preoperative chemoradiotherapy may improve the radical resection rate for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, but the overall benefit is unproven.PATIENTS AND METHODS In... Show morePURPOSE Preoperative chemoradiotherapy may improve the radical resection rate for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, but the overall benefit is unproven.PATIENTS AND METHODS In this randomized phase III trial in 16 centers, patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned to receive preoperative chemoradiotherapy, which consisted of 3 courses of gemcitabine, the second combined with 15 x 2.4 Gy radiotherapy, followed by surgery and 4 courses of adjuvant gemcitabine or to immediate surgery and 6 courses of adjuvant gemcitabine. The primary end point was overall survival by intention to treat.RESULTS Between April 2013 and July 2017, 246 eligible patients were randomly assigned; 119 were assigned to preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 127 to immediate surgery. Median overall survival by intention to treat was 16.0 months with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 14.3 months with immediate surgery (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.05; P = .096). The resection rate was 61% and 72% (P = .058). The R0 resection rate was 71% (51 of 72) in patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 40% (37 of 92) in patients assigned to immediate surgery (P < .001). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was associated with significantly better disease-free survival and locoregional failure-free interval as well as with significantly lower rates of pathologic lymph nodes, perineural invasion, and venous invasion. Survival analysis of patients who underwent tumor resection and started adjuvant chemotherapy showed improved survival with preoperative chemoradiotherapy (35.2 v 19.8 months; P = .029). The proportion of patients who suffered serious adverse events was 52% versus 41% (P = .096).CONCLUSION Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer did not show a significant overall survival benefit. Although the outcomes of the secondary end points and predefined subgroup analyses suggest an advantage of the neoadjuvant approach, additional evidence is required. Show less
BackgroundPancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis. Best practices for the use of chemotherapy, enzyme replacement therapy, and biliary drainage have been identified but their implementation in... Show moreBackgroundPancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis. Best practices for the use of chemotherapy, enzyme replacement therapy, and biliary drainage have been identified but their implementation in daily clinical practice is often suboptimal. We hypothesized that a nationwide program to enhance implementation of these best practices in pancreatic cancer care would improve survival and quality of life.Methods/designPACAP-1 is a nationwide multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled superiority trial. In a per-center stepwise and randomized manner, best practices in pancreatic cancer care regarding the use of (neo)adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, and metal biliary stents are implemented in all 17 Dutch pancreatic centers and their regional referral networks during a 6-week initiation period. Per pancreatic center, one multidisciplinary team functions as reference for the other centers in the network. Key best practices were identified from the literature, 3 years of data from existing nationwide registries within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP), and national expert meetings. The best practices follow the Dutch guideline on pancreatic cancer and the current state of the literature, and can be executed within daily clinical practice. The implementation process includes monitoring, return visits, and provider feedback in combination with education and reminders. Patient outcomes and compliance are monitored within the PACAP registries. Primary outcome is 1-year overall survival (for all disease stages). Secondary outcomes include quality of life, 3- and 5-year overall survival, and guideline compliance. An improvement of 10% in 1-year overall survival is considered clinically relevant. A 25-month study duration was chosen, which provides 80% statistical power for a mortality reduction of 10.0% in the 17 pancreatic cancer centers, with a required sample size of 2142 patients, corresponding to a 6.6% mortality reduction and 4769 patients nationwide.DiscussionThe PACAP-1 trial is designed to evaluate whether a nationwide program for enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care can improve 1-year overall survival and quality of life.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03513705. Trial opened for accrual on 22th May 2018. Show less
