Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by David Cunningham
Based on 26 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, D. Cunningham wrote the following 26 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2
1 Review International Association of Pancreatology (IAP)/European Pancreatic Club (EPC) consensus review of guidelines for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. 2016

Takaori, Kyoichi / Bassi, Claudio / Biankin, Andrew / Brunner, Thomas B / Cataldo, Ivana / Campbell, Fiona / Cunningham, David / Falconi, Massimo / Frampton, Adam E / Furuse, Junji / Giovannini, Marc / Jackson, Richard / Nakamura, Akira / Nealon, William / Neoptolemos, John P / Real, Francisco X / Scarpa, Aldo / Sclafani, Francesco / Windsor, John A / Yamaguchi, Koji / Wolfgang, Christopher / Johnson, Colin D / Anonymous480853. ·Department of Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan. Electronic address: takaori@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp. · Department of Surgery and Oncology, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Academic Unit of Surgery, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom. · Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Freiburg, Germany. · Department of Pathology and Diagnostics, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. · Department of Pathology, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom. · Department of Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London and Surrey, United Kingdom. · Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Università Vita e Salute, Milano, Italy. · HPB Surgical Unit, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, Hammersmith Hospital, London, United Kingdom. · Department of Medical Oncology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. · Endoscopic Unit, Paoli-Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France. · NIHR Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom. · Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan. · Division of General Surgery, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States of America. · Epithelial Carcinogenesis Group, CNIO-Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Madrid, Spain. · Department of Surgery, University of Auckland, HBP/Upper GI Unit, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. · Department of Advanced Treatment of Pancreatic Disease, School of Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan. · Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States of America. · University Surgical Unit, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom. ·Pancreatology · Pubmed #26699808.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is one of the most devastating diseases with an extremely high mortality. Medical organizations and scientific societies have published a number of guidelines to address active treatment of pancreatic cancer. The aim of this consensus review was to identify where there is agreement or disagreement among the existing guidelines and to help define the gaps for future studies. METHODS: A panel of expert pancreatologists gathered at the 46th European Pancreatic Club Meeting combined with the 18th International Association of Pancreatology Meeting and collaborated on critical reviews of eight English language guidelines for the clinical management of pancreatic cancer. Clinical questions (CQs) of interest were proposed by specialists in each of nine areas. The recommendations for the CQs in existing guidelines, as well as the evidence on which these were based, were reviewed and compared. The evidence was graded as sufficient, mediocre or poor/absent. RESULTS: Only 4 of the 36 CQs, had sufficient evidence for agreement. There was also agreement in five additional CQs despite the lack of sufficient evidence. In 22 CQs, there was disagreement regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. There were five CQs that were not addressed adequately by existing guidelines. CONCLUSION: The existing guidelines provide both evidence- and consensus-based recommendations. There is also considerable disagreement about the recommendations in part due to the lack of high level evidence. Improving the clinical management of patients with pancreatic cancer, will require continuing efforts to undertake research that will provide sufficient evidence to allow agreement.

2 Review Management of metastatic pancreatic cancer: Current treatment options and potential new therapeutic targets. 2015

Sclafani, Francesco / Iyer, Ridhima / Cunningham, David / Starling, Naureen. ·The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London and Surrey, UK. · The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London and Surrey, UK. Electronic address: naureen.starling@rmh.nhs.uk. ·Crit Rev Oncol Hematol · Pubmed #25921418.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is a malignancy with a poor prognosis, with the majority of patients diagnosed with advanced disease on presentation. Treatment options remain limited with little progress over the last 40 years. This review will focus on the current management of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, with a discussion of new and future treatment strategies based on an improved understanding of tumour biology and mechanisms of pathogenesis.

3 Review Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a review. 2015

Young, Kate / Iyer, Ridhima / Morganstein, Daniel / Chau, Ian / Cunningham, David / Starling, Naureen. ·The Gastrointestinal Unit, The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Fulham Road, London, SW3 6JJ, UK. ·Future Oncol · Pubmed #25757686.

ABSTRACT: Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a rare and heterogeneous group of tumors with widely varying morphologies and behaviors. Due to their rarity and heterogeneity, progress in improving their treatment has been slow. However, in recent years there have been advances both in their characterization and in the available treatment options. This review will attempt to address these, with particular reference to pancreatic NETs. Pancreatic NETs are a subset of NETs, previously known as islet cell tumors, which appear to be a distinct biological entity, responding differently to systemic treatments compared with NETs arising elsewhere in the GI tract.

4 Review Insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor targeted therapeutics: novel compounds and novel treatment strategies for cancer medicine. 2009

Hewish, Madeleine / Chau, Ian / Cunningham, David. ·Department of Medicine, Royal Marsden Hospital, London and Surrey, UK. ·Recent Pat Anticancer Drug Discov · Pubmed #19149688.

ABSTRACT: The insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R) and its associated signalling system has provoked considerable interest over recent years as a novel therapeutic target in cancer. A brief outline of the IGF-1R signalling system and the rationale for its use in cancer medicine is given. This is followed by a discussion of the different possible targets within the IGF-1R system, and drugs developed to interact at each target. A systems-based approach is then used to review the in vitro and in vivo data in the published literature of the following compounds targeting IGF-1R components using specific examples: growth hormone releasing hormone antagonists (e.g. JV-1-38), growth hormone receptor antagonists (e.g. pegvisomant), IGF-1R antibodies (e.g. CP-751,871, AVE1642/EM164, IMC-A12, SCH-717454, BIIB022, AMG 479, MK-0646/h7C10), and IGF-1R tyrosine kinase inhibitors (e.g. BMS-536942, BMS-554417, NVP-AEW541, NVP-ADW742, AG1024, potent quinolinyl-derived imidazo (1,5-a)pyrazine PQIP, picropodophyllin PPP, Nordihydroguaiaretic acid Insm-18/NDGA). The following tumour types are specifically discussed: lung, breast, colorectal, pancreatic, NETs, sarcoma, prostate, leukaemia, multiple myeloma. Other tumour types are mentioned briefly: squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, melanoma, glioblastoma, ovary, gastric and mesothelioma. Results of early stage clinical trials, involving recently patented drugs. are included where appropriate. We then outline the current understanding of toxicity related to IGF-1R targeted therapy, and finally outline areas for further research.

5 Clinical Trial Vandetanib plus gemcitabine versus placebo plus gemcitabine in locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic carcinoma (ViP): a prospective, randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 2 trial. 2017

Middleton, Gary / Palmer, Daniel H / Greenhalf, William / Ghaneh, Paula / Jackson, Richard / Cox, Trevor / Evans, Anthony / Shaw, Victoria E / Wadsley, Jonathan / Valle, Juan W / Propper, David / Wasan, Harpreet / Falk, Stephen / Cunningham, David / Coxon, Fareeda / Ross, Paul / Madhusudan, Srinivasan / Wadd, Nick / Corrie, Pippa / Hickish, Tamas / Costello, Eithne / Campbell, Fiona / Rawcliffe, Charlotte / Neoptolemos, John P. ·University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK. · Liverpool Cancer Research UK Cancer Trials Unit and LCTU-GCPLabs, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Wirral, UK. · Liverpool Cancer Research UK Cancer Trials Unit and LCTU-GCPLabs, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK. · Division of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. · Centre for Cancer and Inflammation, Barts Cancer Institute, London, UK. · Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK. · Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK. · Royal Marsden, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Northern Centre for Cancer Care, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. · Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. · James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesborough, UK. · Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK. · Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK. · Liverpool Cancer Research UK Cancer Trials Unit and LCTU-GCPLabs, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. Electronic address: j.p.neoptolemos@liverpool.ac.uk. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #28259610.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Erlotinib is an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has shown a significant but only marginally improved median overall survival when combined with gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. Vandetanib is a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR2, RET, and EGFR, all of which are in involved in the pathogenesis of pancreatic cancer. We investigated the clinical efficacy of vandetanib when used in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: The Vandetanib in Pancreatic Cancer (ViP) trial was a phase 2 double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial in previously untreated adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas confirmed by cytology or histology. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0-2 and a documented life expectancy of at least 3 months. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vandetanib plus gemcitabine (vandetanib group) or placebo plus gemcitabine (placebo group) according to pre-generated sequences produced on the principle of randomly permuted blocks with variable block sizes of two and four. Patients were stratified at randomisation by disease stage and ECOG performance status. All patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m FINDINGS: Patients were screened and enrolled between Oct 24, 2011, and Oct 7, 2013. Of 381 patients screened, 142 eligible patients were randomly assigned to treatment (72 to the vandetanib group and 70 to the placebo group). At database lock on July 15, 2015, at a median follow-up of 24·9 months (IQR 24·3 to not attainable), 131 patients had died: 70 (97%) of 72 in the vandetanib group and 61 (87%) of 70 in the placebo group. The median overall survival was 8·83 months (95% CI 7·11-11·58) in the vandetanib group and 8·95 months (6·55-11·74) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·21, 80·8% CI 0·95-1·53; log rank χ INTERPRETATION: The addition of vandetanib to gemcitabine monotherapy did not improve overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors might still have potential in the treatment of pancreatic cancer but further development requires the identification of biomarkers to specifically identify responsive cancer subtypes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca.

6 Clinical Trial Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. 2017

Neoptolemos, John P / Palmer, Daniel H / Ghaneh, Paula / Psarelli, Eftychia E / Valle, Juan W / Halloran, Christopher M / Faluyi, Olusola / O'Reilly, Derek A / Cunningham, David / Wadsley, Jonathan / Darby, Suzanne / Meyer, Tim / Gillmore, Roopinder / Anthoney, Alan / Lind, Pehr / Glimelius, Bengt / Falk, Stephen / Izbicki, Jakob R / Middleton, Gary William / Cummins, Sebastian / Ross, Paul J / Wasan, Harpreet / McDonald, Alec / Crosby, Tom / Ma, Yuk Ting / Patel, Kinnari / Sherriff, David / Soomal, Rubin / Borg, David / Sothi, Sharmila / Hammel, Pascal / Hackert, Thilo / Jackson, Richard / Büchler, Markus W / Anonymous8200894. ·University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; The Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK. Electronic address: j.p.neoptolemos@liverpool.ac.uk. · University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Wirral, UK. · The Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK. · University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · University of Manchester/The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. · University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; The Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK. · The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Wirral, UK. · Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK. · Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. · Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, UK. · Royal Free Hospital, London, UK. · St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK. · Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; Clinical Research Sörmland, Eskilstuna, Sweden. · University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden. · Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, Bristol, UK. · University of Hamburg Medical institutions UKE, Hamburg, Germany. · Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK. · Guy's Hospital, London, UK. · Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK. · The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK. · Velindre Hospital, Cardiff, UK. · Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK. · Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK. · Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, UK. · Ipswich Hospital, Ipswich, UK. · Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. · University Hospital Coventry, Coventry, UK. · Hôpital Beaujon, Clichy, France. · University of Heidelberg, Germany. ·Lancet · Pubmed #28129987.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The ESPAC-3 trial showed that adjuvant gemcitabine is the standard of care based on similar survival to and less toxicity than adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Other clinical trials have shown better survival and tumour response with gemcitabine and capecitabine than with gemcitabine alone in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and capecitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We did a phase 3, two-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised clinical trial at 92 hospitals in England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, France, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had undergone complete macroscopic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (R0 or R1 resection). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) within 12 weeks of surgery to receive six cycles of either 1000 mg/m FINDINGS: Of 732 patients enrolled, 730 were included in the final analysis. Of these, 366 were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine and 364 to gemcitabine plus capecitabine. The Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee requested reporting of the results after there were 458 (95%) of a target of 480 deaths. The median overall survival for patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group was 28·0 months (95% CI 23·5-31·5) compared with 25·5 months (22·7-27·9) in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-0·98], p=0·032). 608 grade 3-4 adverse events were reported by 226 of 359 patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group compared with 481 grade 3-4 adverse events in 196 of 366 patients in the gemcitabine group. INTERPRETATION: The adjuvant combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine should be the new standard of care following resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

7 Clinical Trial miR-21 expression and clinical outcome in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: exploratory analysis of the pancreatic cancer Erbitux, radiotherapy and UFT (PERU) trial. 2016

Khan, Khurum / Cunningham, David / Peckitt, Clare / Barton, Sarah / Tait, Diana / Hawkins, Maria / Watkins, David / Starling, Naureen / Rao, Sheela / Begum, Ruwaida / Thomas, Janet / Oates, Jacqui / Guzzardo, Vincenza / Fassan, Matteo / Braconi, Chiara / Chau, Ian. ·Gastrointestinal Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK. · CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, Gray Laboratories, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. · Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, IT. · Division of Cancer Therapeutics, The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK. ·Oncotarget · Pubmed #26862857.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) is associated with high mortality, and biomarker-driven treatment approach is currently lacking. This study evaluated safety and efficacy of a combination approach of chemotherapy followed by chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) +/- cetuximab, and the prognostic role of miR-21 in patients with LAPC treated with a multimodality approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a randomised phase II trial in which patients with inoperable LAPC were offered gemcitabine and capecitabine (GEM-CAP) for 16 weeks. Patients with stable disease or response after GEM-CAP were randomised to capecitabine or UFT plus radiotherapy (RT) (A), or capecitabine or UFT plus cetuximab plus RT (B). The primary outcome of the study was overall survival (OS). Clinical outcome was compared according to baseline circulating miR-21 levels. RESULTS: 17 patients were enrolled and treated with GEM-CAP, with 13 patients achieving disease control and being randomised to arms A (n:7) and B (n:6). After a median follow-up of 61.2 months, median progression free survival (PFS) was 10.4 months and 12.7 months, median OS was 15.8 months and 22.0 months in arms A and B respectively (p > 0.05). Patients with high baseline plasma miR-21 had worse PFS (3.5 vs. 12.7 months; p:0.032) and OS (5.1 vs 15.3 months; p:0.5) compared to patients with low miR-21. Circulating miR-21 levels reflected miR-21 expression within the tissues. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of Cetuximab to CRT following induction chemotherapy did not improve survival. High miR-21 baseline plasma expression was associated with poor clinical outcome in LAPC patients treated with induction chemotherapy followed by chemo-radiotherapy.

8 Clinical Trial Nanoliposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil and folinic acid in metastatic pancreatic cancer after previous gemcitabine-based therapy (NAPOLI-1): a global, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. 2016

Wang-Gillam, Andrea / Li, Chung-Pin / Bodoky, György / Dean, Andrew / Shan, Yan-Shen / Jameson, Gayle / Macarulla, Teresa / Lee, Kyung-Hun / Cunningham, David / Blanc, Jean F / Hubner, Richard A / Chiu, Chang-Fang / Schwartsmann, Gilberto / Siveke, Jens T / Braiteh, Fadi / Moyo, Victor / Belanger, Bruce / Dhindsa, Navreet / Bayever, Eliel / Von Hoff, Daniel D / Chen, Li-Tzong / Anonymous3470850. ·Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA. · Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital and National Yang-Ming University School of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan. · St László Teaching Hospital, Budapest, Hungary. · St John of God Hospital, Subiaco, WA, Australia. · National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. · TGen, Phoenix, and HonorHealth, Scottsdale, AZ, USA. · Vall d'Hebron University Hospital (HUVH) and Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain. · Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. · The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. · Hôpital Saint-André, Bordeaux, France. · The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. · China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan. · Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil. · Klinikum rechts der Isar der T U München, Munich, Germany. · Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA. · Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Cambridge, MA, USA. · National Institute of Cancer Research, National Health Research Institutes, Tainan, and Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. Electronic address: leochen@nhri.org.tw. ·Lancet · Pubmed #26615328.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Nanoliposomal irinotecan showed activity in a phase 2 study in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapies. We assessed the effect of nanoliposomal irinotecan alone or combined with fluorouracil and folinic acid in a phase 3 trial in this population. METHODS: We did a global, phase 3, randomised, open-label trial at 76 sites in 14 countries. Eligible patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive web response system at a central location to receive either nanoliposomal irinotecan monotherapy (120 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks, equivalent to 100 mg/m(2) of irinotecan base) or fluorouracil and folinic acid. A third arm consisting of nanoliposomal irinotecan (80 mg/m(2), equivalent to 70 mg/m(2) of irinotecan base) with fluorouracil and folinic acid every 2 weeks was added later (1:1:1), in a protocol amendment. Randomisation was stratified by baseline albumin, Karnofsky performance status, and ethnic origin. Treatment was continued until disease progression or intolerable toxic effects. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The primary analysis was planned after 305 events. Safety was assessed in all patients who had received study drug. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01494506. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2012, and Sept 11, 2013, 417 patients were randomly assigned either nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid (n=117), nanoliposomal irinotecan monotherapy (n=151), or fluorouracil and folinic acid (n=149). After 313 events, median overall survival in patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid was 6.1 months (95% CI 4.8-8.9) vs 4.2 months (3.3-5.3) with fluorouracil and folinic acid (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.92; p=0.012). Median overall survival did not differ between patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan monotherapy and those allocated fluorouracil and folinic acid (4.9 months [4.2-5.6] vs 4.2 months [3.6-4.9]; 0.99, 0.77-1.28; p=0.94). The grade 3 or 4 adverse events that occurred most frequently in the 117 patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid were neutropenia (32 [27%]), diarrhoea (15 [13%]), vomiting (13 [11%]), and fatigue (16 [14%]). INTERPRETATION: Nanoliposomal irinotecan in combination with fluorouracil and folinic acid extends survival with a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who previously received gemcitabine-based therapy. This agent represents a new treatment option for this population. FUNDING: Merrimack Pharmaceuticals.

9 Clinical Trial Gemcitabine and capecitabine with or without telomerase peptide vaccine GV1001 in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (TeloVac): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. 2014

Middleton, Gary / Silcocks, Paul / Cox, Trevor / Valle, Juan / Wadsley, Jonathan / Propper, David / Coxon, Fareeda / Ross, Paul / Madhusudan, Srinivasan / Roques, Tom / Cunningham, David / Falk, Stephen / Wadd, Nick / Harrison, Mark / Corrie, Pippa / Iveson, Tim / Robinson, Angus / McAdam, Karen / Eatock, Martin / Evans, Jeff / Archer, Caroline / Hickish, Tamas / Garcia-Alonso, Angel / Nicolson, Marianne / Steward, William / Anthoney, Alan / Greenhalf, William / Shaw, Victoria / Costello, Eithne / Naisbitt, Dean / Rawcliffe, Charlotte / Nanson, Gemma / Neoptolemos, John. ·University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK. · Liverpool Cancer Research UK Cancer Trials Unit and GCLP Facility, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Christie Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester UK. · Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK. · St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, West Smithfield, London, UK. · Northern Centre for Cancer Care, The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. · Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. · Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK. · The Royal Marsden, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Bristol Haematology And Oncology Centre, University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK. · The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middleborough, UK. · Mount Vernon Hospital, The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Northwood, UK. · Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK. · Southampton General Hospital, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, Hampshire, UK. · Conquest Hospital, East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, The Ridge, St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex, UK. · Peterborough City Hospital, Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Edith, Cavell Campus, Peterborough, UK. · Belfast City Hospital, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK. · University of Glasgow, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK. · Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Cosham, Portsmouth, UK. · Royal Bournemouth Hospital, The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bournemouth, UK. · Glan Clwyd Hospital, University Health Board, Rhyl, Denbighshire, UK. · Abderdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK. · Leicester Royal Infirmary, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK. · St James University Hospital, The Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust, Beckett Street, Leeds, UK. · Liverpool Cancer Research UK Cancer Trials Unit and GCLP Facility, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. Electronic address: j.p.neoptolemos@liverpool.ac.uk. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #24954781.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of sequential or simultaneous telomerase vaccination (GV1001) in combination with chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: TeloVac was a three-group, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. We recruited patients from 51 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were treatment naive, aged older than 18 years, with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy with sequential GV1001 (sequential chemoimmunotherapy), or chemotherapy with concurrent GV1001 (concurrent chemoimmunotherapy). Treatments were allocated with equal probability by means of computer-generated random permuted blocks of sizes 3 and 6 in equal proportion. Chemotherapy included six cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2), 30 min intravenous infusion, at days 1, 8, and 15) and capecitabine (830 mg/m(2) orally twice daily for 21 days, repeated every 28 days). Sequential chemoimmunotherapy included two cycles of combination chemotherapy, then an intradermal lower abdominal injection of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; 75 μg) and GV1001 (0·56 mg; days 1, 3, and 5, once on weeks 2-4, and six monthly thereafter). Concurrent chemoimmunotherapy included giving GV1001 from the start of chemotherapy with GM-CSF as an adjuvant. The primary endpoint was overall survival; analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN4382138. FINDINGS: The first patient was randomly assigned to treatment on March 29, 2007, and the trial was terminated on March 27, 2011. Of 1572 patients screened, 1062 were randomly assigned to treatment (358 patients were allocated to the chemotherapy group, 350 to the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 354 to the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). We recorded 772 deaths; the 290 patients still alive were followed up for a median of 6·0 months (IQR 2·4-12·2). Median overall survival was not significantly different in the chemotherapy group than in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group (7·9 months [95% CI 7·1-8·8] vs 6·9 months [6·4-7·6]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·19, 98·25% CI 0·97-1·48, p=0·05), or in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group (8·4 months [95% CI 7·3-9·7], HR 1·05, 98·25% CI 0·85-1·29, p=0·64; overall log-rank of χ(2)2df=4·3; p=0·11). The commonest grade 3-4 toxic effects were neutropenia (68 [19%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 58 [17%] patients in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 79 [22%] patients in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group; fatigue (27 [8%] in the chemotherapy group, 35 [10%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 44 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group); and pain (34 [9%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 39 [11%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 41 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). INTERPRETATION: Adding GV1001 vaccination to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival. New strategies to enhance the immune response effect of telomerase vaccination during chemotherapy are required for clinical efficacy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and KAEL-GemVax.

10 Clinical Trial The combination of a chemotherapy doublet (gemcitabine and capecitabine) with a biological doublet (bevacizumab and erlotinib) in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The results of a phase I/II study. 2014

Watkins, D J / Starling, N / Cunningham, D / Thomas, J / Webb, J / Brown, G / Barbachano, Y / Oates, J / Chau, I. ·Department of Medicine, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London and Surrey, United Kingdom. · Department of Medicine, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London and Surrey, United Kingdom. Electronic address: david.cunningham@rmh.nhs.uk. · Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London and Surrey, United Kingdom. · Computing and Statistics, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London and Surrey, United Kingdom. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #24613126.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Preclinical data support the combined inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathways in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Following a dose finding phase I study the efficacy and toxicity of a four-drug regimen utilising the cytotoxic doublet of gemcitabine and capecitabine (GemCap), with the biological doublet of erlotinib and bevacizumab were further assessed in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase II expansion cohort, patients with chemonaive locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer received gemcitabine (1000mg/m(2) D1, 8, 15), capecitabine (1400mg/m(2) D1-21), erlotinib (100mg daily) and bevacizumab (5mg/kg D1, 15) every 28days. The primary endpoint was radiological response rate by response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST). Computed tomography (CT) assessment was performed every 8weeks. Consolidation radiotherapy was considered in locally advanced patients following six cycles of treatment. RESULTS: In total 44 patients (phases I & II) were recruited. The median cycles delivered were 6 (range 1-16). Confirmed radiological responses were seen in 23% (95% confidence interval (CI): 11-38%) of patients. The median progression-free and overall survival for the entire cohort was 8.4 and 12.6months, respectively. In patients with metastatic disease the median overall survival was 10.1months. Common grade 3/4 toxicities were; neutropenia 52%, lethargy 32%, diarrhoea 18% and hand-foot syndrome 18%. CONCLUSION: The combination of gemcitabine, capecitabine, erlotinib and bevacizumab was feasible with a manageable toxicity profile and demonstrated encouraging efficacy data in a good performance status population.

11 Clinical Trial Optimal duration and timing of adjuvant chemotherapy after definitive surgery for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: ongoing lessons from the ESPAC-3 study. 2014

Valle, Juan W / Palmer, Daniel / Jackson, Richard / Cox, Trevor / Neoptolemos, John P / Ghaneh, Paula / Rawcliffe, Charlotte L / Bassi, Claudio / Stocken, Deborah D / Cunningham, David / O'Reilly, Derek / Goldstein, David / Robinson, Bridget A / Karapetis, Christos / Scarfe, Andrew / Lacaine, Francois / Sand, Juhani / Izbicki, Jakob R / Mayerle, Julia / Dervenis, Christos / Oláh, Attila / Butturini, Giovanni / Lind, Pehr A / Middleton, Mark R / Anthoney, Alan / Sumpter, Kate / Carter, Ross / Büchler, Markus W. ·Juan W. Valle, Derek O'Reilly, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Christie Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and University of Manchester, Manchester · Richard Jackson, Trevor Cox, John P. Neoptolemos, Paula Ghaneh, Charlotte L. Rawcliffe, Liverpool Cancer Research UK Centre and the National Institute for Health Research Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool · Daniel Palmer, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · Deborah D. Stocken, the Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham · David Cunningham, Royal Marsden Hospital Foundation Trust, Sutton · Mark R. Middleton, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford · Alan Anthoney, The Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust, Leeds · Kate Sumpter, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne · Ross Carter, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, United Kingdom · Claudio Bassi, Giovanni Butturini, University of Verona, Verona, Italy · David Goldstein, Bridget A. Robinson, Christos Karapetis, the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group, Camperdown, Australia · Andrew Scarfe, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada · Francois Lacaine, Hôpital TENON, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie, Paris, France · Juhani Sand, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland · Jakob R. Izbicki, University of Hamburg, Hamburg · Julia Mayerle, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald, Greifswald · Markus W. Büchler, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany · Christos Dervenis, the Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece · Attila Oláh, the Petz Aladar Hospital, Gyor, Hungary · Pehr A. Lind, Karolinska-Stockholm Söder Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #24419109.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Adjuvant chemotherapy improves patient survival rates after resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but the optimal duration and time to initiate chemotherapy is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma treated within the international, phase III, European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer-3 (version 2) study were included if they had been randomly assigned to chemotherapy. Overall survival analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis, retaining patients in their randomized groups, and adjusting the overall treatment effect by known prognostic variables as well as the start time of chemotherapy. RESULTS: There were 985 patients, of whom 486 (49%) received gemcitabine and 499 (51%) received fluorouracil; 675 patients (68%) completed all six cycles of chemotherapy (full course) and 293 patients (30%) completed one to five cycles. Lymph node involvement, resection margins status, tumor differentiation, and completion of therapy were all shown by multivariable Cox regression to be independent survival factors. Overall survival favored patients who completed the full six courses of treatment versus those who did not (hazard ratio [HR], 0.516; 95% CI, 0.443 to 0.601; P < .001). Time to starting chemotherapy did not influence overall survival rates for the full study population (HR, 0.985; 95% CI, 0.956 to 1.015). Chemotherapy start time was an important survival factor only for the subgroup of patients who did not complete therapy, in favor of later treatment (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Completion of all six cycles of planned adjuvant chemotherapy rather than early initiation was an independent prognostic factor after resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. There seems to be no difference in outcome if chemotherapy is delayed up to 12 weeks, thus allowing adequate time for postoperative recovery.

12 Clinical Trial A dose escalation study of gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin in combination with imatinib for gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. 2012

Starling, N / Hawkes, E A / Chau, I / Watkins, D / Thomas, J / Webb, J / Brown, G / Thomas, K / Barbachano, Y / Oates, J / Cunningham, D. ·Department of Medicine,Royal Marsden Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey and London, UK. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #21750117.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Targeting platelet-derived growth factor receptor-β (PDGFR-β) is a potential strategy to reduce tumour-related interstitial fluid pressure, enhance cytotoxic drug uptake and reduce chemoresistance. This study aimed to define safe doses of gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin when combined with imatinib (potent PDGFR-β inhibitor) in patients with advanced gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer (PC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a 3 + 3 dose escalation design, patients of performance status zero or one were entered into five sequential dose levels (DLs) of gemcitabine [day 1, from 400 (DL1) to 1000 mg/m(2) (DL4)] and oxaliplatin [day 2, 85 (DL1-4) and 100 mg/m(2) (DL5)] two weekly. Imatinib 400 mg od was given for 7 days (day minus 2-5) each cycle. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients received 168 cycles in total. Median age was 61 years (44-74 years). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in two of two patients at DL5 (G4 thrombocytopenia, G3 lethargy), defined as the maximum tolerated dose and one of six patients at DL4 (G3 lethargy). DL4 was expanded. There were 2 of 27 partial responses and 14 of 27 stable disease [disease control 52%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 32% to 71%]. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.6 (95% CI 2.1-7.0) and 5.6 months (95% CI 2.5-8.7), respectively. CONCLUSION: In gemcitabine-refractory PC, gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) and oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2)) can be safely combined with imatinib given on a 7 days on and 7 days off intermittent schedule.

13 Clinical Trial Adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid vs gemcitabine following pancreatic cancer resection: a randomized controlled trial. 2010

Neoptolemos, John P / Stocken, Deborah D / Bassi, Claudio / Ghaneh, Paula / Cunningham, David / Goldstein, David / Padbury, Robert / Moore, Malcolm J / Gallinger, Steven / Mariette, Christophe / Wente, Moritz N / Izbicki, Jakob R / Friess, Helmut / Lerch, Markus M / Dervenis, Christos / Oláh, Attila / Butturini, Giovanni / Doi, Ryuichiro / Lind, Pehr A / Smith, David / Valle, Juan W / Palmer, Daniel H / Buckels, John A / Thompson, Joyce / McKay, Colin J / Rawcliffe, Charlotte L / Büchler, Markus W / Anonymous9620671. ·Liverpool Cancer Research UK Cancer Trials Unit, Cancer Research UK Centre, University of Liverpool, Fifth Floor, UCD Bldg, Daulby Street, Liverpool, L69 3GA, United Kingdom. j.p.neoptolemos@liverpool.ac.uk ·JAMA · Pubmed #20823433.

ABSTRACT: CONTEXT: Adjuvant fluorouracil has been shown to be of benefit for patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine is known to be the most effective agent in advanced disease as well as an effective agent in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether fluorouracil or gemcitabine is superior in terms of overall survival as adjuvant treatment following resection of pancreatic cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-3 trial, an open-label, phase 3, randomized controlled trial conducted in 159 pancreatic cancer centers in Europe, Australasia, Japan, and Canada. Included in ESPAC-3 version 2 were 1088 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had undergone cancer resection; patients were randomized between July 2000 and January 2007 and underwent at least 2 years of follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either fluorouracil plus folinic acid (folinic acid, 20 mg/m(2), intravenous bolus injection, followed by fluorouracil, 425 mg/m(2) intravenous bolus injection given 1-5 days every 28 days) (n = 551) or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion once a week for 3 of every 4 weeks) (n = 537) for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was overall survival; secondary measures were toxicity, progression-free survival, and quality of life. RESULTS: Final analysis was carried out on an intention-to-treat basis after a median of 34.2 (interquartile range, 27.1-43.4) months' follow-up after 753 deaths (69%). Median survival was 23.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.1-25.0) months for patients treated with fluorouracil plus folinic acid and 23.6 (95% CI, 21.4-26.4) months for those treated with gemcitabine (chi(1)(2) = 0.7; P = .39; hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.81-1.08]). Seventy-seven patients (14%) receiving fluorouracil plus folinic acid had 97 treatment-related serious adverse events, compared with 40 patients (7.5%) receiving gemcitabine, who had 52 events (P < .001). There were no significant differences in either progression-free survival or global quality-of-life scores between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with the use of fluorouracil plus folinic acid, gemcitabine did not result in improved overall survival in patients with completely resected pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00058201.

14 Clinical Trial Dose finding and early efficacy study of gemcitabine plus capecitabine in combination with bevacizumab plus erlotinib in advanced pancreatic cancer. 2009

Starling, Naureen / Watkins, David / Cunningham, David / Thomas, Janet / Webb, Janine / Brown, Gina / Thomas, Karen / Oates, Jacqui / Chau, Ian. ·Department of Medicine, Royal Marsden Hospital, Downs Rd, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5PT, United Kingdom. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #19858399.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: This study evaluated safety and efficacy of chemotherapy (gemcitabine plus capecitabine) plus bevacizumab/erlotinib in advanced pancreatic cancer because dual epidermal growth factor receptor/vascular endothelial growth factor blockade has a rational biologic basis in this malignancy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic carcinoma were enrolled onto one of the following four sequential dose levels (DLs) of escalating capecitabine doses (days 1 to 21): DL1, 910 mg/m(2); DL2, 1,160 mg/m(2); DL3, 1,400 mg/m(2); or DL4, 1,660 mg/m(2). Doses of coadministered gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15), bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15), and erlotinib (100 mg/d) every 28 days (up to six cycles) were fixed. Using a 3+3 study design, dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was assessed in cycle 1. Results Twenty assessable patients were enrolled (DL1, n = 8; DL2, n = 3; DL3, n = 6; and DL4, n = 3); 97 cycles were administered. Median age was 63 years (range, 33 to 77 years), and male-to-female ratio was 10:10. Performance status was 0 and 1 in two and 17 patients, respectively; and nine and 11 patients had locally advanced and metastatic disease, respectively. DLT occurred in one patient at DL1 (grade 3 epistaxis) and two patients at DL4 (grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 skin rash > 7 days). Common grade 3 and 4 toxicities (10% to 20%) were diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, stomatitis, and skin rash. Grade 3 lethargy and grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 40% and 45% of patients, respectively. No GI perforation, grade 3 GI hemorrhage/hypertension, or pneumonitis occurred. Ten partial responses were observed. Median overall and progression-survival times (all patients) were 12.5 and 9.0 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: The maximum-tolerated dose of capecitabine was 1,660 mg/m(2). The recommended capecitabine dose in this cytotoxic doublet/biologic doublet regimen is 1,440 mg/m(2); this regimen is under evaluation in an ongoing phase II study.

15 Clinical Trial Phase III randomized comparison of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus capecitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. 2009

Cunningham, David / Chau, Ian / Stocken, Deborah D / Valle, Juan W / Smith, David / Steward, William / Harper, Peter G / Dunn, Janet / Tudur-Smith, Catrin / West, Julia / Falk, Stephen / Crellin, Adrian / Adab, Fawzi / Thompson, Joyce / Leonard, Pauline / Ostrowski, Joe / Eatock, Martin / Scheithauer, Werner / Herrmann, Richard / Neoptolemos, John P. ·Royal Marsden National HealthService (NHS) Foundation Trust, London and Surrey, United Kingdom. david.cunningham@rmh.nhs.uk ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #19858379.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Both gemcitabine (GEM) and fluoropyrimidines are valuable treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. This open-label study was designed to compare the overall survival (OS) of patients randomly assigned to GEM alone or GEM plus capecitabine (GEM-CAP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically proven locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas with a performance status On the basis of our trial and the meta-analysis, GEM-CAP should be considered as one of the standard first-line options in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

16 Article PET-PANC: multicentre prospective diagnostic accuracy and health economic analysis study of the impact of combined modality 18fluorine-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography scanning in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer. 2018

Ghaneh, Paula / Hanson, Robert / Titman, Andrew / Lancaster, Gill / Plumpton, Catrin / Lloyd-Williams, Huw / Yeo, Seow Tien / Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor / Johnson, Colin / Abu Hilal, Mohammed / Higginson, Antony P / Armstrong, Tom / Smith, Andrew / Scarsbrook, Andrew / McKay, Colin / Carter, Ross / Sutcliffe, Robert P / Bramhall, Simon / Kocher, Hemant M / Cunningham, David / Pereira, Stephen P / Davidson, Brian / Chang, David / Khan, Saboor / Zealley, Ian / Sarker, Debashis / Al Sarireh, Bilal / Charnley, Richard / Lobo, Dileep / Nicolson, Marianne / Halloran, Christopher / Raraty, Michael / Sutton, Robert / Vinjamuri, Sobhan / Evans, Jonathan / Campbell, Fiona / Deeks, Jon / Sanghera, Bal / Wong, Wai-Lup / Neoptolemos, John P. ·Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Liverpool Cancer Research UK Cancer Trials Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. · Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK. · Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. · Department of Surgery, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. · Department of Radiology, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK. · Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK. · Department of Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK. · Department of Surgery, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK. · Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. · Department of General Surgery, Wye Valley NHS Trust, Hereford, UK. · Barts Cancer Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK. · Gastrointestinal and Lymphoma Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Institute for Liver and Digestive Health, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Department of Surgery, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Department of Surgery, Royal Blackburn Hospital, East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Blackburn, UK. · Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK. · Department of Surgery, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK. · Department of Oncology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Department of Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board, Swansea, UK. · Department of Surgery, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. · Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. · Department of Oncology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK. · Department of Surgery, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK. · Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK. · Department of Radiology, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK. · Department of Pathology, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK. · Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. · Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Middlesex, UK. ·Health Technol Assess · Pubmed #29402376.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer diagnosis and staging can be difficult in 10-20% of patients. Positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) adds precise anatomical localisation to functional data. The use of PET/CT may add further value to the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incremental diagnostic accuracy and impact of PET/CT in addition to standard diagnostic work-up in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. DESIGN: A multicentre prospective diagnostic accuracy and clinical value study of PET/CT in suspected pancreatic malignancy. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy. INTERVENTIONS: All patients to undergo PET/CT following standard diagnostic work-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incremental diagnostic value of PET/CT in addition to standard diagnostic work-up with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Secondary outcomes were (1) changes in patients' diagnosis, staging and management as a result of PET/CT; (2) changes in the costs and effectiveness of patient management as a result of PET/CT; (3) the incremental diagnostic value of PET/CT in chronic pancreatitis; (4) the identification of groups of patients who would benefit most from PET/CT; and (5) the incremental diagnostic value of PET/CT in other pancreatic tumours. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2013, 589 patients with suspected pancreatic cancer underwent MDCT and PET/CT, with 550 patients having complete data and in-range PET/CT. Sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were 88.5% and 70.6%, respectively, for MDCT and 92.7% and 75.8%, respectively, for PET/CT. The maximum standardised uptake value (SUV CONCLUSION: PET/CT provided a significant incremental diagnostic benefit in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and significantly influenced the staging and management of patients. PET/CT had limited utility in chronic pancreatitis and other pancreatic tumours. PET/CT is likely to be cost-effective at current reimbursement rates for PET/CT to the UK NHS. This was not a randomised controlled trial and therefore we do not have any information from patients who would have undergone MDCT only for comparison. In addition, there were issues in estimating costs for PET/CT. Future work should evaluate the role of PET/CT in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and prognosis and response to therapy in patients with pancreatic cancer. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73852054 and UKCRN 8166. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

17 Article A case of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma with prolonged survival after combination of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX therapy and synchronous distal pancreatectomy and hepatectomy. 2015

Neofytou, Kyriakos / Giakoustidis, Alexandros / Smyth, Elizabeth C / Cunningham, David / Mudan, Satvinder. ·Department of Academic Surgery, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom. ·J Surg Oncol · Pubmed #25556724.

ABSTRACT: In this case report we detail the treatment of a patient with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and a solitary liver metastasis who received nine cycles of FOLFIRINOX therapy with favourable response. The patient subsequently underwent synchronous distal pancreatectomy and hepatectomy with an R0 resection followed by three further cycles of FOLFIRINOX. At the last follow-up, 2 years from operation and 28 months from the diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma the patient remains disease free.

18 Article FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: the Royal Marsden experience. 2014

Moorcraft, Sing Yu / Khan, Khurum / Peckitt, Clare / Watkins, David / Rao, Sheela / Cunningham, David / Chau, Ian. ·Gastrointestinal Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, United Kingdom. · Gastrointestinal Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, United Kingdom. Electronic address: ian.chau@rmh.nhs.uk. ·Clin Colorectal Cancer · Pubmed #25442814.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) has a very poor prognosis. Treatment with FOLFIRINOX has been shown to improve outcomes, but can be associated with significant toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients with locally advanced or metastatic PDA treated with FOLFIRINOX at the Royal Marsden between November 2010 and November 2013. Efficacy, tolerability, and potential prognostic factors were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with metastatic PDA and 22 patients with locally advanced PDA were treated with FOLFIRINOX. Patients received a median of 9 cycles (range, 1-26) of FOLFIRINOX. The overall response rate was 41% (20 patients), and a further 17 patients (35%) had stable disease. Thirty-five patients (71%) received FOLFIRINOX in the first-line setting, with a median progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively, of 12.9 months and 18.4 months for patients with locally advanced disease; and 8.4 months and 12.2 months for patients with metastatic disease. The most frequently occurring Grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (29%), fatigue (18%), febrile neutropenia (14%), thromboembolism (12%), and thrombocytopenia (10%). In a univariate analysis, reduction in CA 19-9 of >50% (P < .001), normalization of CA19-9 (P < .001), surgery after FOLFIRINOX (P = .004), and use of prophylactic pegfilgrastim (P = .005) were prognostic for overall survival. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and tolerability of FOLFIRINOX for PDA at our institution is similar to that reported in clinical trials. Careful selection of patients and monitoring of response (according to CA19-9) and toxicities can help maximize advantage in this patient population.

19 Article Capecitabine and streptozocin ± cisplatin in advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. 2014

Meyer, Tim / Qian, Wendi / Caplin, Martyn E / Armstrong, Graham / Lao-Sirieix, Si-Houy / Hardy, Richard / Valle, Juan W / Talbot, Denis C / Cunningham, David / Reed, Nick / Shaw, Ashley / Navalkissoor, Shaunak / Luong, Tu-Vinh / Corrie, Pippa G. ·Neuroendocrine Tumour Unit, The Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, UK; UCL Cancer Institute, London, UK. · Cambridge Cancer Trials Centre, Cambridge Clinical Trials Unit - Cancer Theme, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit Hub for Trials Methodology, Cambridge, UK. · Neuroendocrine Tumour Unit, The Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, UK. · Cambridge Cancer Trials Centre, Cambridge Clinical Trials Unit - Cancer Theme, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. · Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie, Manchester, UK. · Oxford Neuroendocrine Tumour Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK. · Gastrointestinal Unit, The Royal Marsden, London, UK. · Beatson Oncology Centre, Glasgow, UK. · Oncology Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. · Cambridge Cancer Trials Centre, Cambridge Clinical Trials Unit - Cancer Theme, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; Oncology Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: pippa.corrie@addenbrookes.nhs.uk. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #24445147.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Cytotoxic chemotherapy is widely used for advanced, unresectable pancreatic and other gastrointestinal foregut neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) and the most commonly used regimen combines 5-fluorouracil with streptozocin. The NET01 trial was designed to investigate whether capecitabine combined with streptozocin was an acceptable regimen with or without adding cisplatin. METHODS: Patients with advanced, unresectable NETs of pancreatic, gastrointestinal foregut or unknown primary site were randomised to receive three-weekly capecitabine (Cap) 625 mg/m(2) twice daily orally, streptozocin (Strep) 1.0 g/m(2) intravenously on day 1, with or without cisplatin (Cis) 70 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1. The primary outcome measure was objective response. Secondary outcome measures included progression-free and overall survival, quality of life, toxicity and biochemical response. RESULTS: 86 (44 CapStrep, 42 CapStrepCis) patients were randomised. Best objective response rate was 12% (95% confidence interval (CI)=2-22%) with CapStrep and 16% (95% CI=4-27.4%) with CapStrepCis. Disease-control rate was 80% with CapStrep and 74% with CapStrepCis. The estimated median progression-free and overall survival were 10.2 and 26.7 months for CapStrep and 9.7 and 27.5 months for CapStrepCis. 44% of CapStrep and 68% of CapStrepCis patients experienced grade ≥3 adverse events. INTERPRETATION: The efficacies of the novel CapStrep±Cis regimens were very similar. CapStrep was better tolerated than CapStrepCis. The trial was registered as EudraCT: 2004-005202-71 and ISRCTN: 35124268.

20 Article The effects of gemcitabine and capecitabine combination chemotherapy and of low-dose adjuvant GM-CSF on the levels of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. 2014

Annels, Nicola E / Shaw, Victoria E / Gabitass, Rachel F / Billingham, Lucinda / Corrie, Pippa / Eatock, Martin / Valle, Juan / Smith, David / Wadsley, Jonathan / Cunningham, David / Pandha, Hardev / Neoptolemos, John P / Middleton, Gary. ·University of Surrey, Guildford, UK, n.annels@surrey.ac.uk. ·Cancer Immunol Immunother · Pubmed #24292263.

ABSTRACT: In pre-clinical models, the only two chemotherapy drugs which have been demonstrated to directly reduce the number of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil. Here we analyze the dynamics of MDSCs, phenotyped as Lin-DR-CD11b+, in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving the combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine, a 5-FU pro-drug. We found no evidence that gemcitabine and capecitabine directly reduce MDSC% in patients. Gemcitabine and capecitabine reduced MDSCs in 42% of patients (n = 19) and MDSC% fell in only 3/9 patients with above-median baseline MDSCs. In 5/8 patients with minimal tumour volume change on treatment, the MDSC% went up: increases in MDSC% in these patients appeared to correlate with sustained cancer-related inflammatory cytokine upregulation. In a separate cohort of 21 patients treated with gemcitabine and capecitabine together with concurrently administered GV1001 vaccine with adjuvant GM-CSF, the MDSC% fell in 18/21 patients and there was a significant difference in the trajectory of MDSCs between those receiving GV1001 and GM-CSF in combination with chemotherapy and those receiving chemotherapy alone. Thus, there was no evidence that the addition of low-dose adjuvant GM-CSF increased Lin-DR-CD11b+ MDSC in patients receiving combination chemoimmunotherapy. 9/21 patients developed an immune response to GV1001 and the MDSCs fell in 8 of these 9 patients, 6 of whom had above-median pre-vaccination MDSC levels. A high pre-vaccination MDSC% does not preclude the development of immunity to a tumour-associated antigen.

21 Article "Chronic" metastatic pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma. 2013

Cananzi, Ferdinando C M / Jayanth, Akali / Lorenzi, Bruno / Belgaumkar, Ajay / Mochlinski, Kazimiriez / Sharma, Anand / Mudan, Satvinder / Cunningham, David. ·Department of Surgery, The Royal Marsden, Fulham Road, London SW6 6JJ, UK. Electronic address: fcm.cananzi@hotmail.it. ·Pancreatology · Pubmed #24075523.

ABSTRACT: Acinar cell carcinoma (ACC) of the pancreas is a rare exocrine tumour for which there is very limited information about chemotherapy regimens and prognosis. Even though there are clinical guidelines for management of ductal cell carcinoma, a definitive and specific regime has not yet been agreed for this type of pancreatic cancer. We report a case of metastatic ACC of pancreas who has been treated with a multimodal approach, including novel combinations of different targeted drugs with conventional chemotherapy, surgery and radiofrequency ablation since the last 11 years. This degree of long term survival has not been reported so far in such a case of metastatic ACC of the pancreas. This case highlights the importance of a personalised multidisciplinary therapeutic strategy, employing locoregional therapies along with combinations of established and novel systemic therapies to control the disease, and the importance of flexibility when instigating new treatment paradigms for progressive cancer. Also, this case demonstrates that complete tumour eradication may not be the sole purpose of surgical oncology.

22 Article Gemcitabine plus capecitabine in unselected patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. 2013

Hubner, Richard A / Worsnop, Fiona / Cunningham, David / Chau, Ian. ·Department of Medical Oncology, Christie Hospital Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom. richard.hubner@christie.nhs.uk ·Pancreas · Pubmed #23462324.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine (GEMCAP) is a treatment option for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC), but data are lacking concerning outcomes in unselected patients not enrolled to a randomized trial. METHODS: Baseline demographic, clinical, toxicity, tumor response, and survival data were collected for previously untreated patients with APC receiving off-protocol GEMCAP at a single institution between 2005 and 2009. RESULTS: Data from 113 patients were included in the study. The mean age was 65 years; 51% of patients had metastatic disease; and 80% were of World Health Organization performance status 0 or 1. Patients received a mean of 20 weeks of chemotherapy. The objective response rate was 9.7%; the median overall survival was 8.7 months (95% confidence interval, 6.7-10.7), and 34% of patients were alive 1 year after starting treatment. Performance status (0 or 1 vs 2) was a significant prognostic factor (P < 0.0001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events, excluding nonfebrile neutropenia, were experienced by 37 patients (33%), the commonest being lethargy (8%), hand-foot syndrome (8%), diarrhea (7%), thrombocytopenia (4%), and febrile neutropenia (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine is effective and tolerable in unselected patients with APC, and outcomes are comparable with those of patients receiving GEMCAP in clinical trials.

23 Article Optimal treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. 2010

Cunningham, David / Chong, Irene. ·The Royal Marsden Hospital, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK. david.cunningham@rmh.nhs.uk ·Gut · Pubmed #20947879.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

24 Article Survival from cancer of the pancreas in England and Wales up to 2001. 2008

Starling, N / Cunningham, D. ·Department of Medicine, Royal Marsden Hospital, Downs Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5PT, UK. ·Br J Cancer · Pubmed #18813250.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

25 Article Gemcitabine based combination chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer-indirect comparison. 2008

Sultana, Asma / Ghaneh, Paula / Cunningham, David / Starling, Naureen / Neoptolemos, John P / Smith, Catrin Tudur. ·CRUK Liverpool Cancer Trials Unit, Cancer Research Centre, 200 London Road, Liverpool L3 9TA, UK. asmasul@liv.ac.uk ·BMC Cancer · Pubmed #18611273.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Recent meta-analyses have found a survival advantage with gemcitabine based combinations over single agent gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. There is paucity of evidence in the form of direct head-to-head randomised controlled trials to determine which combinations are to be preferred. METHOD: Using the adjusted indirect comparison method proposed by Bucher et al, we have assessed randomised controlled trials of four gemcitabine based combinations namely gemcitabine plus a platinum compound or 5-fluorouracil or irinotecan or capecitabine. RESULTS: No particular combination was significantly superior to another, but the indirect evidence suggests some important trends. CONCLUSION: The strongest trends on indirect comparison are towards favouring gemcitabine plus capecitabine or gemcitabine plus a platinum compound over gemcitabine plus irinotecan, and to a lesser degree, over gemcitabine plus 5-fluorouracil.

Next