Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by David Goldstein
Based on 47 articles published since 2010
(Why 47 articles?)
||||

Between 2010 and 2020, David Goldstein wrote the following 47 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2
1 Guideline Consensus statement on mandatory measurements in pancreatic cancer trials (COMM-PACT) for systemic treatment of unresectable disease. 2018

Ter Veer, Emil / van Rijssen, L Bengt / Besselink, Marc G / Mali, Rosa M A / Berlin, Jordan D / Boeck, Stefan / Bonnetain, Franck / Chau, Ian / Conroy, Thierry / Van Cutsem, Eric / Deplanque, Gael / Friess, Helmut / Glimelius, Bengt / Goldstein, David / Herrmann, Richard / Labianca, Roberto / Van Laethem, Jean-Luc / Macarulla, Teresa / van der Meer, Jonathan H M / Neoptolemos, John P / Okusaka, Takuji / O'Reilly, Eileen M / Pelzer, Uwe / Philip, Philip A / van der Poel, Marcel J / Reni, Michele / Scheithauer, Werner / Siveke, Jens T / Verslype, Chris / Busch, Olivier R / Wilmink, Johanna W / van Oijen, Martijn G H / van Laarhoven, Hanneke W M. ·Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. · Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. · Department of Internal Medicine III, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Klinikum Grosshadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany. · Methodology and Quality of Life in Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France. · Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London and Surrey, UK. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine and Lorraine University, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France. · Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, University Hospitals Gasthuisberg Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. · Department of Oncology, Hôpital Riviera-Chablais, Vevey, Switzerland. · Department of Surgery, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany. · Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. · Nelune Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Prince of Wales Clinical School University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. · Cancer Center, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy. · Department of Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Cancer Unit, Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. · Vall d'Hebron University Hospital (HUVH), Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. · Gastrointestinal Oncology Service, Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. · Department of Hematology, Oncology and Tumor Immunology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. · Department of Oncology, Karmanos Cancer Center, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. · Department of Internal Medicine I, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria. · Division of Solid Tumor Translational Oncology, West German Cancer Cancer, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK, partner site Essen) and German Cancer Research Center, DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Digestive Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. · Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Electronic address: h.vanlaarhoven@amc.uva.nl. ·Lancet Oncol · Pubmed #29508762.

ABSTRACT: Variations in the reporting of potentially confounding variables in studies investigating systemic treatments for unresectable pancreatic cancer pose challenges in drawing accurate comparisons between findings. In this Review, we establish the first international consensus on mandatory baseline and prognostic characteristics in future trials for the treatment of unresectable pancreatic cancer. We did a systematic literature search to find phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer to identify baseline characteristics and prognostic variables. We created a structured overview showing the reporting frequencies of baseline characteristics and the prognostic relevance of identified variables. We used a modified Delphi panel of two rounds involving an international panel of 23 leading medical oncologists in the field of pancreatic cancer to develop a consensus on the various variables identified. In total, 39 randomised controlled trials that had data on 15 863 patients were included, of which 32 baseline characteristics and 26 prognostic characteristics were identified. After two consensus rounds, 23 baseline characteristics and 12 prognostic characteristics were designated as mandatory for future pancreatic cancer trials. The COnsensus statement on Mandatory Measurements in unresectable PAncreatic Cancer Trials (COMM-PACT) identifies a mandatory set of baseline and prognostic characteristics to allow adequate comparison of outcomes between pancreatic cancer studies.

2 Review Targeting the undruggable in pancreatic cancer using nano-based gene silencing drugs. 2020

Kokkinos, John / Ignacio, Rosa Mistica C / Sharbeen, George / Boyer, Cyrille / Gonzales-Aloy, Estrella / Goldstein, David / Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative Apgi, ? / McCarroll, Joshua A / Phillips, Phoebe A. ·Pancreatic Cancer Translational Research Group, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia; Australian Centre for Nanomedicine, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. · Pancreatic Cancer Translational Research Group, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. · Australian Centre for Nanomedicine, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia; Centre for Advanced Macromolecular Design, School of Chemical Engineering, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. · Pancreatic Cancer Translational Research Group, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia; Prince of Wales Hospital, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. · Australian Centre for Nanomedicine, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia; Tumour Biology & Targeting Program, Children's Cancer Institute, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2031; School of Women's and Children's Health, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. Electronic address: JMccarroll@ccia.org.au. · Pancreatic Cancer Translational Research Group, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia; Australian Centre for Nanomedicine, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. Electronic address: p.phillips@unsw.edu.au. ·Biomaterials · Pubmed #32088410.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic cancer is predicted to be the second leading cause of cancer-related death by 2025. The best chemotherapy only extends survival by an average of 18 weeks. The extensive fibrotic stroma surrounding the tumor curbs therapeutic options as chemotherapy drugs cannot freely penetrate the tumor. RNA interference (RNAi) has emerged as a promising approach to revolutionize cancer treatment. Small interfering RNA (siRNA) can be designed to inhibit the expression of any gene which is important given the high degree of genetic heterogeneity present in pancreatic tumors. Despite the potential of siRNA therapies, there are hurdles limiting their clinical application such as poor transport across biological barriers, limited cellular uptake, degradation, and rapid clearance. Nanotechnology can address these challenges. In fact, the past few decades have seen the conceptualization, design, pre-clinical testing and recent clinical approval of a RNAi nanodrug to treat disease. In this review, we comment on the current state of play of clinical trials evaluating siRNA nanodrugs and review pre-clinical studies investigating the efficacy of siRNA therapeutics in pancreatic cancer. We assess the physiological barriers unique to pancreatic cancer that need to be considered when designing and testing new nanomedicines for this disease.

3 Review Current challenges in optimizing systemic therapy for patients with pancreatic cancer: expert perspectives from the Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group (AGITG) with invited international faculty. 2017

Segelov, Eva / Lordick, Florian / Goldstein, David / Chantrill, Lorraine A / Croagh, Daniel / Lawrence, Ben / Arnold, Dirk / Chau, Ian / Obermannova, Radka / Price, Timothy Jay. ·a Department of Oncology , Monash Medical Centre and Monash University , Melbourne , Australia. · b Department of Oncology, University Cancer Center Leipzig , University Medicine Leipzig , Leipzig , Germany. · c Department of Oncology, Nelune Cancer Centre , Prince of Wales Hospital and University of New South Wales , Sydney , Australia. · d Department of Oncology , The Kinghorn Cancer Centre and University of Western Sydney , Sydney , Australia. · e Department of Oncology , University of Auckland , Auckland , New Zealand. · f Department of Oncology , Instituto CUF de Oncologia , Lisbon , Portugal. · g Department of Oncology , Royal Marsden Hospital , London & Surrey , UK. · h Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care , Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute , Brno , Czech Republic. · i Queen Elizabeth Hospital and Lyell McEwin Hospital , Adelaide , Australia. ·Expert Rev Anticancer Ther · Pubmed #28817982.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Despite recent progress, the outlook for most patients with pancreatic cancer remains poor. There is variation in how patients are managed globally due to differing interpretations of the evidence, partly because studies in this disease are challenging to undertake. This article collates the evidence upon which current best practice is based and offers an expert opinion from an international faculty on how latest developments should influence current treatment paradigms. Areas covered: Optimal chemotherapy for first and subsequent lines of therapy; optimal management of locally advanced, non-metastatic cancer including the role of neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, current evidence for adjuvant chemotherapy, major advances in pancreatic cancer genomics and challenges in supportive care particularly relevant to patients with pancreatic cancer. For each section, literature was reviewed by comprehensive search techniques, including clinical trial websites and abstracts from international cancer meetings. Expert commentary: For each section, a commentary is provided. Overall the challenges identified were: difficulties in diagnosing pancreatic cancer early, challenges for performing randomised clinical trials in all stages of the disease, some progress in systemic therapy with new agents and in identifying molecular subtypes that may be clinically relevant and move towards personalized therapy, but still, pancreatic cancer remains a very poor prognosis cancer with significant palliative care needs.

4 Review Circulating pancreatic stellate (stromal) cells in pancreatic cancer-a fertile area for novel research. 2017

Pang, Tony C Y / Xu, Zhihong / Pothula, Srinivasa / Becker, Therese / Goldstein, David / Pirola, Romano C / Wilson, Jeremy S / Apte, Minoti V. ·Pancreatic Research Group, South Western Sydney Clinical School,University of New South Wales, and Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Australia and. · Centre for Circulating Tumour Cell Diagnostics and Research, InghamInstitute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, and School ofMedicine, Western Sydney University, Australia. ·Carcinogenesis · Pubmed #28379317.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic stellate cells (PSCs) are known to play an important role in facilitating pancreatic cancer progression-both in terms of local tumour growth as well as the establishment of metastases. We have previously demonstrated that PSCs from the primary cancer seed to distant metastatic sites. We therefore hypothesise that PSCs circulate along with pancreatic cancer cells (circulating tumour cells-CTCs) to help create a growth permissive microenvironment at distant metastatic sites. This review aims to explore the concept of circulating PSCs in pancreatic cancer and suggests future directions for research in this area.

5 Review Rituximab to treat gemcitabine-induced hemolytic-uremic syndrome (HUS) in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a case series and literature review. 2017

Ritchie, Georgia E / Fernando, Mangalee / Goldstein, David. ·Department of Medical Oncology and Renal Medicine, Prince of Wales Hospital, Barker St, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia. georgia.ritchie@sesiahs.health.nsw.gov.au. · Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales Medical School, Kensington, Australia. georgia.ritchie@sesiahs.health.nsw.gov.au. · Department of Medical Oncology and Renal Medicine, Prince of Wales Hospital, Barker St, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia. · Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales Medical School, Kensington, Australia. ·Cancer Chemother Pharmacol · Pubmed #27497971.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Hemolytic-uremic syndrome (HUS) is a rare side effect of gemcitabine, which is reported as having a high morbidity and mortality despite interventions with standard HUS therapies including plasmapheresis. The purpose of this report was to describe the successful treatment of gemcitabine-induced HUS (G-HUS) with rituximab. It also aims to summarize the literature regarding the morbidity and mortality of G-HUS in pancreatic adenocarcinoma depending on the treatment given, ultimately providing some guidance for beneficial therapies. METHODS: This is a retrospective report of three patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who developed G-HUS and were treated with a combination of therapies including rituximab. RESULTS: All three patients received a combination of therapies to treat their HUS. One patient appeared to have some benefit with plasmapheresis. Resolution occurred following one course of rituximab for all three patients. This resolution has been long lasting with a minimum of eighteen month's follow-up. Similarly, in our literature review a variety of therapies were utilized, but immune therapies appear to reverse HUS if other therapies are failing. CONCLUSION: Rituximab can be an effective therapy for reversal of hemolysis and stabilization of renal function in G-HUS when other therapies fail.

6 Review Key role of pancreatic stellate cells in pancreatic cancer. 2016

Pothula, Srinivasa P / Xu, Zhihong / Goldstein, David / Pirola, Romano C / Wilson, Jeremy S / Apte, Minoti V. ·Pancreatic Research Group, South Western Sydney Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW, Australia. · Pancreatic Research Group, South Western Sydney Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. · Pancreatic Research Group, South Western Sydney Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: m.apte@unsw.edu.au. ·Cancer Lett · Pubmed #26571462.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic stellate cells (PSCs) are responsible for producing the collagenous stroma in pancreatic cancer. Findings from the majority of in vitro and in vivo studies to date indicate that PSCs interact with cancer cells as well as with other cellular elements in the stroma including immune cells, endothelial cells and neuronal cells to set up a growth permissive microenvironment for pancreatic tumours. However, two recent studies reporting a protective effect of myofibroblasts in pancreatic cancer have served to remind researchers of the possibility that the role of PSCs in this disease may be context and time-dependent, such that any possible early protective role of PSCs is subverted in later stages by the ability of cancer cells to turn PSCs into cancer-promoting aides. This concept is supported by the development in recent years of several novel therapeutic approaches targeting the stroma that have been successfully applied in pre-clinical settings to inhibit disease progression. A multi-pronged approach aimed at tumour cells as well as stromal elements may be the key to achieving better clinical outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer.

7 Review Exploiting base excision repair to improve therapeutic approaches for pancreatic cancer. 2015

Sharbeen, George / McCarroll, Joshua / Goldstein, David / Phillips, Phoebe A. ·Pancreatic Cancer Translational Research Group, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, Prince of Wales Clinical School, UNSW Australia , Sydney, NSW , Australia. · Children's Cancer Institute, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, UNSW Australia , Sydney, NSW , Australia. ·Front Nutr · Pubmed #25988138.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) is a highly chemoresistant and metastatic disease with a dismal 5-year survival rate of 6%. More effective therapeutic targets and approaches are urgently needed to tackle this devastating disease. The base excision repair (BER) pathway has been identified as a predictor of therapeutic response, prognostic factor, and therapeutic target in a variety of cancers. This review will discuss our current understanding of BER in PDA and its potential to improve PDA treatment.

8 Review Role of pancreatic stellate cells in chemoresistance in pancreatic cancer. 2014

McCarroll, Joshua A / Naim, Stephanie / Sharbeen, George / Russia, Nelson / Lee, Julia / Kavallaris, Maria / Goldstein, David / Phillips, Phoebe A. ·Tumour Biology and Targeting Program, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, Children's Cancer Institute Australia, University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia ; Australian Centre for Nanomedicine, University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Pancreatic Cancer Translational Research Group, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia. ·Front Physiol · Pubmed #24782785.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic cancer is highly chemoresistant. A major contributing factor is the characteristic extensive stromal or fibrotic reaction, which comprises up to 90% of the tumor volume. Over the last decade there has been intensive research into the role of the pro-fibrogenic pancreatic stellate cells (PSCs) and their interaction with pancreatic cancer cells. As a result of the significant alterations in the tumor microenvironment following activation of PSCs, tumor progression, and chemoresistance is enhanced. This review will discuss how PSCs contribute to chemoresistance in pancreatic cancer.

9 Review Potential applications of nanotechnology for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer. 2014

McCarroll, Joshua / Teo, Joann / Boyer, Cyrille / Goldstein, David / Kavallaris, Maria / Phillips, Phoebe A. ·Tumor Biology and Targeting Program, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, Children's Cancer Institute Australia, University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia ; Australian Centre for NanoMedicine, University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Tumor Biology and Targeting Program, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, Children's Cancer Institute Australia, University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia ; Australian Centre for NanoMedicine, University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia ; Panceatic Cancer Translational Research Group, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Australian Centre for NanoMedicine, University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Panceatic Cancer Translational Research Group, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Australian Centre for NanoMedicine, University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia ; Panceatic Cancer Translational Research Group, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia. ·Front Physiol · Pubmed #24478715.

ABSTRACT: Despite improvements in our understanding of pancreatic cancer and the emerging concept of personalized medicine for the treatment of this disease, it is still the fourth most common cause of cancer death in the western world. It is established that pancreatic cancer is a highly heterogeneous disease with a complex tumor microenvironment. Indeed the extensive stroma surrounding the cancer cells has been shown to be important in promoting tumor growth and metastases, as well as sequestering chemotherapeutic agents consequently decreasing delivery to the tumor cells. Nanotechnology has come to the forefront in the areas of medical diagnostics, imaging, and therapeutic drug delivery. This review will focus on the potential applications of nanotechnology for diagnosis, imaging, and delivery of therapeutic agents for the treatment of pancreatic cancer.

10 Clinical Trial Tumor Reduction in Primary and Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Lesions With nab-Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine: An Exploratory Analysis From a Phase 3 Study. 2017

Kunzmann, Volker / Ramanathan, Ramesh K / Goldstein, David / Liu, Helen / Ferrara, Stefano / Lu, Brian / Renschler, Markus F / Von Hoff, Daniel D. ·From the *Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany; †Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; ‡Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; §Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ; and ∥Translational German Research Institute and Honor Health Research Institute, Scottsdale, AZ. ·Pancreas · Pubmed #27841795.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Results from the phase 3 Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Clinical Trial (MPACT) led to approval of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. The current analysis evaluated the effects of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine on primary pancreatic and metastatic lesions. METHODS: In this analysis of the previously described MPACT trial, changes in pancreatic and metastatic tumor burden were assessed using independently measured diameters of lesions on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scans. Changes in the sums of longest tumor diameters were summarized using descriptive statistics and were included in a multivariate analysis of overall survival. RESULTS: Primary pancreatic lesion measurement was feasible. Reductions in primary pancreatic tumor burden and metastatic burden from baseline to nadir were significantly greater with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine. Baseline pancreatic tumor burden was independently predictive of survival. Both regimens elicited linear reductions in primary pancreatic and metastatic tumor burden through time. There was a high within-patient concordance of tumor changes between primary pancreatic lesions and metastatic lesions. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of MPACT demonstrated significant tumor shrinkage benefit for nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in both primary pancreatic and metastatic lesions, supporting ongoing evaluation of this regimen in locally advanced disease.

11 Clinical Trial Prognostic nomogram and score to predict overall survival in locally advanced untreated pancreatic cancer (PROLAP). 2016

Vernerey, Dewi / Huguet, Florence / Vienot, Angélique / Goldstein, David / Paget-Bailly, Sophie / Van Laethem, Jean-Luc / Glimelius, Bengt / Artru, Pascal / Moore, Malcolm J / André, Thierry / Mineur, Laurent / Chibaudel, Benoist / Benetkiewicz, Magdalena / Louvet, Christophe / Hammel, Pascal / Bonnetain, Franck. ·Methodological and Quality of Life in Oncology Unit, EA 3181, University Hospital of Besançon, 3 Boulevard Alexandre Fleming, Besançon 25030, France. · Oncology Multidisciplinary Research Group (GERCOR), 151 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, Paris 75011, France. · Department of Radiotherapy, Tenon Hospital (AP-HP), 4 rue de la Chine, Paris 75020, France. · Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Besançon, 3 Boulevard Alexandre Fleming, Besançon 25030, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales hospital and Prince of Wales Clinical school, UNSW, Sydney, New South Wales 2031, Australia. · AGITG (Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group), 119-143 Missenden Rd, Camperdown, New South Wales 2050, Australia. · Department of Gastroenterology, Erasme University Hospital, Route de Lennik 808, Brussels 1070, Belgium. · Department of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, University of Uppsala, Uppsala 75105, Sweden. · Department of Gastroenterology, Jean Mermoz Hospital, 55 avenue Mermoz, Lyon 69008, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2M9, Canada. · Department of Medical Oncology, Saint-Antoine Hospital (AP-HP), 184 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, Paris 75011, France. · Department of Radiotherapy and Medical Oncology, Sainte-Catherine Institute, 250 Chemin de Baigne Pieds, Avignon 84918, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Franco-British Hospital Institute, 3 Rue Barbès, Levallois-Perret 92300, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institute Mutualiste Montsouris, 42 Boulevard Jourdan, Paris 75014, France. · Department of Digestive Oncology, Beaujon Hospital (AP-HP), 100 boulevard du General Leclerc, Clichy 92110, France. ·Br J Cancer · Pubmed #27404456.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) patients remains controversial. Better discrimination for overall survival (OS) at diagnosis is needed. We address this issue by developing and validating a prognostic nomogram and a score for OS in LAPC (PROLAP). METHODS: Analyses were derived from 442 LAPC patients enrolled in the LAP07 trial. The prognostic ability of 30 baseline parameters was evaluated using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Performance assessment and internal validation of the final model were done with Harrell's C-index, calibration plot and bootstrap sample procedures. On the basis of the final model, a prognostic nomogram and a score were developed, and externally validated in 106 consecutive LAPC patients treated in Besançon Hospital, France. RESULTS: Age, pain, tumour size, albumin and CA 19-9 were independent prognostic factors for OS. The final model had good calibration, acceptable discrimination (C-index=0.60) and robust internal validity. The PROLAP score has the potential to delineate three different prognosis groups with median OS of 15.4, 11.7 and 8.5 months (log-rank P<0.0001). The score ability to discriminate OS was externally confirmed in 63 (59%) patients with complete clinical data derived from a data set of 106 consecutive LAPC patients; median OS of 18.3, 14.1 and 7.6 months for the three groups (log-rank P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The PROLAP nomogram and score can accurately predict OS before initiation of induction chemotherapy in LAPC-untreated patients. They may help to optimise clinical trials design and might offer the opportunity to define risk-adapted strategies for LAPC management in the future.

12 Clinical Trial Second-line therapy after nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine or after gemcitabine for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. 2016

Chiorean, E Gabriela / Von Hoff, Daniel D / Tabernero, Josep / El-Maraghi, Robert / Ma, Wen Wee / Reni, Michele / Harris, Marion / Whorf, Robert / Liu, Helen / Li, Jack Shiansong / Manax, Victoria / Romano, Alfredo / Lu, Brian / Goldstein, David. ·Division Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, 825 Eastlake Avenue E, G4-833, Seattle, WA 98109-1023, USA. · Translational Genomics Research Institute and HonorHealth, 445 North Fifth Street, Suite 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA. · Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), P Vall d'Hebron 119-129, Barcelona 08035, Spain. · Royal Victoria Hospital Barrie Canada, 201 Georgian Drive, Barrie, Ontario, Canada L4M 6M2. · Roswell Park Cancer Institute, 665 Elm Street, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA. · San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgetina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy. · Monash Health, 246 Clayton Road, Melbourne VIC 3168, Australia. · Florida Cancer Specialists, 2401 60th Street Ct W, Bradenton, FL 34209-5500, USA. · Celgene Corporation, 86 Morris Avenue, Summit, NJ 07901, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, South Sydney Illawarra, Barker Street, Sydney NSW 2031, Australia. ·Br J Cancer · Pubmed #27351217.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: This exploratory analysis evaluated second-line (2L) therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer in a large phase 3 trial (MPACT). METHODS: Patients who received first-line (1L) nab-paclitaxel+gemcitabine (nab-P+Gem) or Gem were assessed for survival based on 2L treatment received. Multivariate analyses tested influence of treatment effect and prognostic factors on survival. RESULTS: The majority of 2L treatments (267 out of 347, 77%) contained a fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil or capecitabine). Median total survival (1L randomisation to death) for patients who received 2L treatment after 1L nab-P+Gem vs Gem alone was 12.8 vs 9.9 months (P=0.015). Median total survival for patients with a fluoropyrimidine-containing 2L therapy after nab-P+Gem vs Gem was 13.5 vs 9.5 months (P=0.012). Median 2L survival (duration from start of 2L therapy to death) was 5.3 vs 4.5 months for nab-P+Gem vs Gem, respectively (P=0.886). Factors significantly associated with longer post-1L survival by multivariate analyses included 1L nab-P+Gem, receiving 2L treatment, longer 1L progression-free survival, and Karnofsky performance status⩾70 and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio⩽5 at the end of 1L treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the use of 2L therapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Fluoropyrimidine-containing treatment after 1L nab-P+Gem is an active regimen with significant clinical effect.

13 Clinical Trial Effect of Chemoradiotherapy vs Chemotherapy on Survival in Patients With Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Controlled After 4 Months of Gemcitabine With or Without Erlotinib: The LAP07 Randomized Clinical Trial. 2016

Hammel, Pascal / Huguet, Florence / van Laethem, Jean-Luc / Goldstein, David / Glimelius, Bengt / Artru, Pascal / Borbath, Ivan / Bouché, Olivier / Shannon, Jenny / André, Thierry / Mineur, Laurent / Chibaudel, Benoist / Bonnetain, Franck / Louvet, Christophe / Anonymous4990866. ·Department of Digestive Oncology, Beaujon Hospital (AP-HP), Clichy, France. · Department of Radiotherapy, Tenon Hospital (AP-HP), Paris, France. · Department of Gastroenterology, Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia5Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group (AGITG), Camperdown, Australia6Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. · Department of Radiology, Oncology, and Radiation Science, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden. · Department of Gastroenterology, Jean Mermoz Hospital, Lyon, France. · Department of Gastroenterology, Saint-Luc University Clinics, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Gastroenterology, Robert Debré Hospital, Reims, France. · Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group (AGITG), Camperdown, Australia6Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia11Department of Medical Oncology, Nepean Hospital NSW, Sydney, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Saint-Antoine Hospital (AP-HP), Paris, France. · Department of Radiotherapy and Medical Oncology, Sainte-Catherine Institute, Avignon, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Franco-British Hospital Institute, Levallois-Perret, France15Oncology Multidisciplinary Research Group (GERCOR), Paris, France. · Department of Methodology and Quality of Life in Oncology, Hospital Minjoz, Besançon, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institute Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France. ·JAMA · Pubmed #27139057.

ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE: In locally advanced pancreatic cancer, the role of chemoradiotherapy is controversial and the efficacy of erlotinib is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether chemoradiotherapy improves overall survival of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer controlled after 4 months of gemcitabine-based induction chemotherapy and to assess the effect of erlotinib on survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In LAP07, an international, open-label, phase 3 randomized trial, 449 patients were enrolled between 2008 and 2011. Follow-up ended in February 2013. INTERVENTIONS: In the first randomization, 223 patients received 1000 mg/m2 weekly of gemcitabine alone and 219 patients received 1000 mg/m2 of gemcitabine plus 100 mg/d of erlotinib. In the second randomization involving patients with progression-free disease after 4 months, 136 patients received 2 months of the same chemotherapy and 133 underwent chemoradiotherapy (54 Gy plus capecitabine). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was overall survival from the date of the first randomization. Secondary outcomes were the effect of erlotinib and quality assurance of radiotherapy on overall survival, progression-free survival of gemcitabine-erlotinib and erlotinib maintenance with gemcitabine alone at the second randomization, and toxic effects. RESULTS: A total of 442 of the 449 patients (232 men; median age, 63.3 years) enrolled underwent the first randomization. Of these, 269 underwent the second randomization. Interim analysis was performed when 221 patients died (109 in the chemoradiotherapy group and 112 in the chemotherapy group), reaching the early stopping boundaries for futility. With a median follow-up of 36.7 months, the median overall survival from the date of the first randomization was not significantly different between chemotherapy at 16.5 months (95% CI, 14.5-18.5 months) and chemoradiotherapy at 15.2 months (95% CI, 13.9-17.3 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.79-1.34; P = .83). Median overall survival from the date of the first randomization for the 223 patients receiving gemcitabine was 13.6 months (95% CI, 12.3-15.3 months) and was 11.9 months (95% CI, 10.4-13.5 months) for the 219 patients receiving gemcitabine plus erlotinib (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97-1.45; P = .09; 188 deaths vs 191 deaths). Chemoradiotherapy was associated with decreased local progression (32% vs 46%, P = .03) and no increase in grade 3 to 4 toxicity, except for nausea. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this open-label, randomized trial involving patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer with disease controlled after 4 months of induction chemotherapy, there was no significant difference in overall survival with chemoradiotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone and there was no significant difference in overall survival with gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine plus erlotinib used as maintenance therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00634725.

14 Clinical Trial Development of peripheral neuropathy and its association with survival during treatment with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: A subset analysis from a randomised phase III trial (MPACT). 2016

Goldstein, David / Von Hoff, Daniel D / Moore, Malcolm / Greeno, Edward / Tortora, Giampaolo / Ramanathan, Ramesh K / Macarulla, Teresa / Liu, Helen / Pilot, Richard / Ferrara, Stefano / Lu, Brian. ·Prince of Wales Hospital, Department of Oncology, South Eastern Sydney Illawarra, NSW Health, Barker Street, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia; University of New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: david.goldstein@sesiahs.health.nsw.gov.au. · Scottsdale Healthcare/TGen, Bisgrove Research Pavilion, 10510 North 92nd Street, Suite 200, Scottsdale, AZ 85258, USA. · Princess Margaret Hospital, 5th Floor 708, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G2M9, Canada. · University of Minnesota, Division of Hematology, Oncology and Transplantation, 420 Delaware Street SE, MMC 480, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. · Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di Verona, Policlinico Borgo Roma, Piazzale L. Scuro, 10, 37134 Verona, Italy. · Mayo Clinic, 13400 E Shea Blvd FL 3, Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA. · Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), P. Vall d'Hebron 119-129, Barcelona, Spain. · Celgene Corporation, 86 Morris Avenue, Summit, NJ 07901, USA. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #26655559.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In a phase III trial in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC), nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-P/Gem) demonstrated greater efficacy but higher rates of peripheral neuropathy (PN) versus Gem. This exploratory analysis aimed to characterise the frequency, duration, and severity of PN with nab-P/Gem in the MPACT study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated MPC received nab-P/Gem or Gem. PN was evaluated using a broad-spectrum group of Standardised Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Queries (SMQ) and graded by National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE) version 3.0. A case report form was completed by physicians on day 1 of each cycle (also graded by NCI CTCAE version 3.0). RESULTS: In the nab-P/Gem arm, 227/421 patients (54%) experienced any-grade PN and 70 (17%) experienced grade III PN. No grade IV PN was reported. Most early-onset PN events were grade I, and treatment-related grade III PN occurred in 7% of patients who received up to three cycles of nab-P. Of those who developed grade III PN with nab-P/Gem treatment, 30 (43%) improved to grade ≤ I (median time to improvement = 29 days) and 31 (44%) resumed therapy. Development of PN was associated with efficacy; median overall survival in patients with grade III versus 0 PN was 14.9 versus 5.9 months (hazard ratio, 0.33; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: nab-P/Gem was associated with grade III PN in a small percentage of patients. PN development was associated with longer treatment duration and improved survival. Grade III PN was reversible to grade ≤ I in many patients (median ≈ 1 month) NCT00844649.

15 Clinical Trial nab-Paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer: long-term survival from a phase III trial. 2015

Goldstein, David / El-Maraghi, Robert Hassan / Hammel, Pascal / Heinemann, Volker / Kunzmann, Volker / Sastre, Javier / Scheithauer, Werner / Siena, Salvatore / Tabernero, Josep / Teixeira, Luis / Tortora, Giampaolo / Van Laethem, Jean-Luc / Young, Rosemary / Penenberg, Darryl Neil / Lu, Brian / Romano, Alfredo / Von Hoff, Daniel D. ·Prince of Wales Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia (DG) · Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre, Barrie, ON, Canada (RHEM) · Hôpital Beaujon, Clichy, France (PH) · Klinikum Grosshadern, University of Munich, Munich, Germany (VH) · Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (VK) · Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain (JS) · Medizinische Universität Wien, Wien, Austria (WS) · Ospedale Niguarda Ca' Granda, Milan, Italy (SS) · Vall d'Hebron University Hospital and Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain (JT) · Hôpital Saint Antoine, Paris, France (LT) · Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata and University of Verona, Verona, Italy (GT) · Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium (JLVL) · Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Australia (RY) · Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ (DNP) · Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ (BL) · Celgene Corporation, Boudry, Switzerland (AR) · Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center at Scottsdale Healthcare/TGen, Scottsdale, AZ (DDVH). ·J Natl Cancer Inst · Pubmed #25638248.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Positive findings from the phase III MPACT trial led to the regulatory approval of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as a treatment option for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. This report is an update of overall survival (OS) based on longer follow-up. METHODS: Patients (n = 861) with metastatic pancreatic cancer and a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or greater were randomly assigned one to one to receive nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine or gemcitabine alone. Efficacy data for this post hoc analysis were collected through May 9, 2013. Exploratory analyses of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were conducted. The primary efficacy endpoint was OS, which was analyzed for all randomly assigned patients by the Kaplan-Meier method. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The median OS was statistically significantly longer for nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine vs gemcitabine alone (8.7 vs 6.6 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62 to 0.83, P < .001). Long-term (>three-year) survivors were identified in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine arm only (4%). In pooled treatment arm analyses, higher CA19-9 level and NLR at baseline were statistically significantly associated with worse OS. There appeared to be a treatment effect for OS favoring nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine over gemcitabine alone in poor-prognosis subgroups defined by these factors (HR = 0.612, P < .001 for CA19-9 level ≥ median and HR = 0.81, P = .079 for NLR > 5). CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm and extend the primary report of OS, supporting the superior efficacy of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine over gemcitabine alone. Subgroup analyses support the relevance of CA 19-9 and NLR as prognostic markers in metastatic pancreatic cancer.

16 Clinical Trial Prognostic factors of survival in a randomized phase III trial (MPACT) of weekly nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. 2015

Tabernero, Josep / Chiorean, E Gabriela / Infante, Jeffrey R / Hingorani, Sunil R / Ganju, Vinod / Weekes, Colin / Scheithauer, Werner / Ramanathan, Ramesh K / Goldstein, David / Penenberg, Darryl N / Romano, Alfredo / Ferrara, Stefano / Von Hoff, Daniel D. ·Medical Oncology Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital and Institute of Oncology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Division of Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Department of Oncology/Hematology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tennessee, USA; Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA; Department of Oncology, Peninsula Oncology Centre, Monash University, Frankston, Victoria, Australia; Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, Colorado, USA; Division of Clinical Oncology, Medizinische Universität Wien, Vienna, Austria; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA; Department of Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Celgene Corporation, Summit, New Jersey, USA; Department of Oncology, Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center at Scottsdale Healthcare/TGen, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA jtabernero@vhio.net. · Medical Oncology Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital and Institute of Oncology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Division of Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA; Department of Oncology/Hematology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tennessee, USA; Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA; Department of Oncology, Peninsula Oncology Centre, Monash University, Frankston, Victoria, Australia; Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, Colorado, USA; Division of Clinical Oncology, Medizinische Universität Wien, Vienna, Austria; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA; Department of Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Celgene Corporation, Summit, New Jersey, USA; Department of Oncology, Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center at Scottsdale Healthcare/TGen, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA. ·Oncologist · Pubmed #25582141.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: nab-Paclitaxel in combination with gemcitabine has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC), based on superiority over gemcitabine demonstrated in the phase III MPACT trial. Previously, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score and the presence of liver metastases were shown to be predictive of survival with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine treatment. This analysis sought to further explore the relationship between clinical characteristics and survival in the MPACT trial and to identify potential predictors of overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with MPC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cox regression models adjusted for stratification factors and a stepwise multivariate analysis of prespecified baseline prognostic factors were performed. RESULTS: Treatment effect was significantly associated with survival, with a similar magnitude of reduction in risk of death compared with the previously reported primary analysis. Treatment effect consistently favored nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine across the majority of the prespecified factors. In addition to KPS score and presence of liver metastases, age and number of metastatic sites were independent prognostic factors of overall and progression-free survival. Baseline carbohydrate antigen 19-9 was not found to be an independent prognostic factor of survival in this analysis. CONCLUSION: The results of this analysis confirm broad utility of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for the treatment of MPC. In addition, these findings suggest that KPS score, presence of liver metastases, age, and number of metastatic sites are important predictors of survival that may be useful when making treatment decisions and designing future clinical trials.

17 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.

18 Clinical Trial Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. 2013

Von Hoff, Daniel D / Ervin, Thomas / Arena, Francis P / Chiorean, E Gabriela / Infante, Jeffrey / Moore, Malcolm / Seay, Thomas / Tjulandin, Sergei A / Ma, Wen Wee / Saleh, Mansoor N / Harris, Marion / Reni, Michele / Dowden, Scot / Laheru, Daniel / Bahary, Nathan / Ramanathan, Ramesh K / Tabernero, Josep / Hidalgo, Manuel / Goldstein, David / Van Cutsem, Eric / Wei, Xinyu / Iglesias, Jose / Renschler, Markus F. ·From the Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, and Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center, Scottsdale - both in Arizona (D.D.V.H., R.K.R.) · Cancer Specialists, Fort Myers, FL (T.E.) · Arena Oncology Associates, Lake Success (F.P.A.), and Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo (W.W.M.) - both in New York · University of Washington, Seattle (E.G.C.) · Sarah Cannon Research Institute-Tennessee Oncology, Nashville (J. Infante) · Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto (M.M.) · Atlanta Cancer Care (T.S.) and Georgia Cancer Specialists (M.N.S.) - both in Atlanta · Blokhin Cancer Research Center, Moscow (S.A.T.) · Southern Health, East Bentleigh, VIC (M.H.), Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney (D.G.), and Bionomics, Thebarton, SA (J. Iglesias) - all in Australia · San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan (M.R.) · Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada (S.D.) · Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore (D.L.) · University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh (N.B.) · Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona (J.T.) · Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal, Madrid (M.H.) · University Hospitals Leuven and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (E.V.C.) · and Celgene, Summit, NJ (X.W., M.F.R.). ·N Engl J Med · Pubmed #24131140.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In a phase 1-2 trial of albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) plus gemcitabine, substantial clinical activity was noted in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We conducted a phase 3 study of the efficacy and safety of the combination versus gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with a Karnofsky performance-status score of 70 or more (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better performance status) to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg per square meter of body-surface area) followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or gemcitabine monotherapy (1000 mg per square meter) weekly for 7 of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle 2 and subsequent cycles). Patients received the study treatment until disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival and overall response rate. RESULTS: A total of 861 patients were randomly assigned to nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (431 patients) or gemcitabine (430). The median overall survival was 8.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group as compared with 6.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.83; P<0.001). The survival rate was 35% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group versus 22% in the gemcitabine group at 1 year, and 9% versus 4% at 2 years. The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, as compared with 3.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.82; P<0.001); the response rate according to independent review was 23% versus 7% in the two groups (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (38% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group vs. 27% in the gemcitabine group), fatigue (17% vs. 7%), and neuropathy (17% vs. 1%). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 3% versus 1% of the patients in the two groups. In the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, neuropathy of grade 3 or higher improved to grade 1 or lower in a median of 29 days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate, but rates of peripheral neuropathy and myelosuppression were increased. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00844649.).

19 Clinical Trial Impact of gemcitabine chemotherapy and 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy/5-fluorouracil on quality of life of patients managed for pancreatic cancer. 2013

Short, Michala / Goldstein, David / Halkett, Georgia / Reece, William / Borg, Martin / Zissiadis, Yvonne / Kneebone, Andrew / Spry, Nigel. ·Discipline of Medical Radiation Sciences, University of Sydney, and Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. ·Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys · Pubmed #22543205.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To report quality of life (QOL) results for patients receiving chemoradiation therapy for pancreatic cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients (n=41 locally advanced, n=22 postsurgery) entered the B9E-AY-S168 study and received 1 cycle of induction gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 weekly ×3 with 1-week break) followed by 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (RT) (54 Gy locally advanced and 45 Gy postsurgery) and concomitant continuous-infusion 5-fluorouracil (5FU) (200 mg/m2/d throughout RT). After 4 weeks, patients received an additional 3 cycles of consolidation gemcitabine chemotherapy. Patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PAN26 questionnaires at baseline, before RT/5FU, at end of RT/5FU, before consolidation gemcitabine, and at treatment completion. RESULTS: The patterns of change in global QOL scores differed between groups. In the locally advanced group global QOL scores were +13, +8, +3, and +1 compared with baseline before RT/5FU (P=.008), at end of RT/5FU, before consolidation gemcitabine, and at treatment completion, respectively. In the postsurgery group, global QOL scores were -3, +4, +15, and +17 compared with baseline at the same time points, with a significant improvement in global QOL before consolidation gemcitabine (P=.03). No significant declines in global QOL were reported by either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that global QOL and associated function and symptom profiles for pancreatic chemoradiation therapy differ between locally advanced and postsurgery patients, likely owing to differences in underlying disease status. For both groups, the treatment protocol was well tolerated and did not have a negative impact on patients' global QOL.

20 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 / Anonymous5551105. ·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.

21 Article The Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry (UGICR): a clinical quality registry to monitor and improve care in upper gastrointestinal cancers. 2019

Maharaj, Ashika D / Holland, Jennifer F / Scarborough, Ri O / Evans, Sue M / Ioannou, Liane J / Brown, Wendy / Croagh, Daniel G / Pilgrim, Charles H C / Kench, James G / Lipton, Lara R / Leong, Trevor / McNeil, John J / Nikfarjam, Mehrdad / Aly, Ahmad / Burton, Paul R / Cashin, Paul A / Chu, Julie / Duong, Cuong P / Evans, Peter / Goldstein, David / Haydon, Andrew / Hii, Michael W / Knowles, Brett P F / Merrett, Neil D / Michael, Michael / Neale, Rachel E / Philip, Jennifer / Porter, Ian W T / Smith, Marty / Spillane, John / Tagkalidis, Peter P / Zalcberg, John R. ·Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. · Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. · Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. · Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. · Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia. · Western Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. · Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. · Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. · Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. · Peninsula Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. · Nelune Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia. · St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. · Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. · School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Penrith South, New South Wales, Australia. · Population Health Division, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Queensland, Australia. · Cabrini Health, Malvern, Victoria, Australia. · Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia john.zalcberg@monash.edu. ·BMJ Open · Pubmed #31575580.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry (UGICR) was developed to monitor and improve the quality of care provided to patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: It supports four cancer modules: pancreatic, oesophagogastric, biliary and primary liver cancer. The pancreatic cancer (PC) module was the first module to be implemented, with others being established in a staged approach. Individuals are recruited to the registry if they are aged 18 years or older, have received care for their cancer at a participating public/private hospital or private clinic in Australia and do not opt out of participation. FINDINGS TO DATE: The UGICR is governed by a multidisciplinary steering committee that provides clinical governance and oversees clinical working parties. The role of the working parties is to develop quality indicators based on best practice for each registry module, develop the minimum datasets and provide guidance in analysing and reporting of results. Data are captured from existing data sources (population-based cancer incidence registries, pathology databases and hospital-coded data) and manually from clinical records. Data collectors directly enter information into a secure web-based Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data collection platform. The PC module began with a pilot phase, and subsequently, we used a formal modified Delphi consensus process to establish a core set of quality indicators for PC. The second module developed was the oesophagogastric cancer (OGC) module. Results of the 1 year pilot phases for PC and OGC modules are included in this cohort profile. FUTURE PLANS: The UGICR will provide regular reports of risk-adjusted, benchmarked performance on a range of quality indicators that will highlight variations in care and clinical outcomes at a health service level. The registry has also been developed with the view to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which will further add to our understanding of the care of patients with these cancers.

22 Article CanStem111P trial: a Phase III study of napabucasin plus nab-paclitaxel with gemcitabine. 2019

Sonbol, Mohamad Bassam / Ahn, Daniel H / Goldstein, David / Okusaka, Takuji / Tabernero, Josep / Macarulla, Teresa / Reni, Michele / Li, Chung-Pin / O'Neil, Bert / Van Cutsem, Eric / Bekaii-Saab, Tanios. ·Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. · Vall d'Hebron University Hospital & Institute of Oncology (VHIO), CIBERONC, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Vall d'Hebron University Hospital & Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. · Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. · National Yang-Ming University School of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan. · Department of Medicine, IU Health University Hospital, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. · University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven & KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. ·Future Oncol · Pubmed #30768369.

ABSTRACT: Napabucasin (also known as BBI-608 or BBI608) is an investigational, oral agent hypothesized to inhibit multiple oncogenic pathways. In this article, we describe the design and rationale for the CanStem111P clinical trial, a multicenter, randomized, open-label, Phase III study designed to determine the efficacy and safety of combining napabucasin with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (NCT02993731). Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive weekly gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel with or without napabucasin. The results of this study will help define the role of this novel agent in the management of advanced pancreatic cancer.

23 Article Monitoring quality of care for patients with pancreatic cancer: a modified Delphi consensus. 2019

Maharaj, Ashika D / Ioannou, Liane / Croagh, Daniel / Zalcberg, John / Neale, Rachel E / Goldstein, David / Merrett, Neil / Kench, James G / White, Kate / Pilgrim, Charles H C / Chantrill, Lorraine / Cosman, Peter / Kneebone, Andrew / Lipton, Lara / Nikfarjam, Mehrdad / Philip, Jennifer / Sandroussi, Charbel / Tagkalidis, Peter / Chye, Richard / Haghighi, Koroush S / Samra, Jaswinder / Evans, Sue M. ·Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. · Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia; Epworth Healthcare, Richmond, Australia. · QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia. · Prince of Wales Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, NSW, Australia. · School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, NSW, Australia. · Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia; Central Clinical School, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Sydney Nursing School, University of Sydney, Australia. · Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Cabrini, Malvern, Victoria, Australia; Peninsula Health, Frankston, Victoria, Australia; Peninsula Private Hospital, Frankston, Victoria, Australia. · Kinghorn Cancer Centre, St Vincent's Hospital, NSW, Australia; Garvan Institute of Medical Research and University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia. · School of Medicine, Faculty of Science, Medicine & Health, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia. · Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Australia. · Cabrini, Malvern, Victoria, Australia; Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Western Health, Sunshine, Victoria, Australia. · Melbourne University, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia. · Melbourne University, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. · Central Clinical School, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. · St Vincent's Private Hospital, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia; Faculty of Health, University of Technology, NSW, Australia. · Prince of Wales Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, NSW, Australia; Kinghorn Cancer Centre, St Vincent's Hospital, NSW, Australia. · Department of Upper GI Surgery, Royal North Shore Hospital, NSW, Australia; Macquarie University Hospital, Macquarie University, Australia. · Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: sue.evans@monash.edu. ·HPB (Oxford) · Pubmed #30316625.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Best practise care optimises survival and quality of life in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC), but there is evidence of variability in management and suboptimal care for some patients. Monitoring practise is necessary to underpin improvement initiatives. We aimed to develop a core set of quality indicators that measure quality of care across the disease trajectory. METHODS: A modified, three-round Delphi survey was performed among experts with wide experience in PC care across three states in Australia. A total of 107 potential quality indicators were identified from the literature and divided into five areas: diagnosis and staging, surgery, other treatment, patient management and outcomes. A further six indicators were added by the panel, increasing potential quality indicators to 113. Rated on a scale of 1-9, indicators with high median importance and feasibility (score 7-9) and low disagreement (<1) were considered in the candidate set. RESULTS: From 113 potential quality indicators, 34 indicators met the inclusion criteria and 27 (7 diagnosis and staging, 5 surgical, 4 other treatment, 5 patient management, 6 outcome) were included in the final set. CONCLUSIONS: The developed indicator set can be applied as a tool for internal quality improvement, comparative quality reporting, public reporting and research in PC care.

24 Article The Impact of Positive Resection Margins on Survival and Recurrence Following Resection and Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. 2019

Ghaneh, Paula / Kleeff, Jorg / Halloran, Christopher M / Raraty, Michael / Jackson, Richard / Melling, James / Jones, Owain / Palmer, Daniel H / Cox, Trevor F / Smith, Chloe J / O'Reilly, Derek A / Izbicki, Jakob R / Scarfe, Andrew G / Valle, Juan W / McDonald, Alexander C / Carter, Ross / Tebbutt, Niall C / Goldstein, David / Padbury, Robert / Shannon, Jennifer / Dervenis, Christos / Glimelius, Bengt / Deakin, Mark / Anthoney, Alan / Lerch, Markus M / Mayerle, Julia / Oláh, Attila / Rawcliffe, Charlotte L / Campbell, Fiona / Strobel, Oliver / Büchler, Markus W / Neoptolemos, John P / Anonymous11311124. ·Liverpool Cancer Research U.K. Cancer Trials Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · The Department of Surgery, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK. · Department of Surgery, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK. · Department of Surgery, University of Hamburg Medical institutions UKE, Hamburg, Germany. · Department of Oncology Division of Medical Oncology 2228 Cross Cancer Institute and University of Alberta, Canada. · Department of Medical Oncology , The Christie, Manchester, UK. · Department of Medical Oncology, The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. · Department of Surgery, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. · Department of Medical Oncology, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales hospital and Clinical School University of New South Wales, Australia. · Department of Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, South Australia. · Department of Medical Oncology, Nepean Cancer Centre and University of Sydney, Australia. · Department of Surgery, The Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Experimental and Clinical Oncology, Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala, Sweden. · Department of Surgery, University Hospital, North Staffordshire, UK. · Division of Oncology at the University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK. · Department of Medicine A, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. · Department of Surgery, The Petz Aladar Hospital, Gyor, Hungary. · Department of Pathology, The Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK. · The Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. ·Ann Surg · Pubmed #29068800.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: Local and distant disease recurrence are frequently observed following pancreatic cancer resection, but an improved understanding of resection margin assessment is required to aid tailored therapies. METHODS: Analyses were carried out to assess the association between clinical characteristics and margin involvement as well as the effects of individual margin involvement on site of recurrence and overall and recurrence-free survival using individual patient data from the European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-3 randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: There were 1151 patients, of whom 505 (43.9%) had an R1 resection. The median and 95% confidence interval (CI) overall survival was 24.9 (22.9-27.2) months for 646 (56.1%) patients with resection margin negative (R0 >1 mm) tumors, 25.4 (21.6-30.4) months for 146 (12.7%) patients with R1<1 mm positive resection margins, and 18.7 (17.2-21.1) months for 359 (31.2%) patients with R1-direct positive margins (P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, overall R1-direct tumor margins, poor tumor differentiation, positive lymph node status, WHO performance status ≥1, maximum tumor size, and R1-direct posterior resection margin were all independently significantly associated with reduced overall and recurrence-free survival. Competing risks analysis showed that overall R1-direct positive resection margin status, positive lymph node status, WHO performance status 1, and R1-direct positive superior mesenteric/medial margin resection status were all significantly associated with local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: R1-direct resections were associated with significantly reduced overall and recurrence-free survival following pancreatic cancer resection. Resection margin involvement was also associated with an increased risk for local recurrence.

25 Article Performance status dynamics during treatment with 2018

Chiorean, E Gabriela / Von Hoff, Daniel / Wan, Yin / Margunato-Debay, Sandra / Botteman, Marc / Goldstein, David. ·Medical Oncology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. · Oncology, Translational Genomics Research Institute and HonorHealth, Phoenix, AZ. · Pharmerit International, Bethesda, MD. · Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ, USA. · Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. ·Cancer Manag Res · Pubmed #29910636.

ABSTRACT: Objectives: This analysis examined changes in Karnofsky performance status (KPS) as a surrogate for patient's well-being during treatment with Participants and methods: Descriptive analyses were performed for KPS at three time points (3 and 6 months after randomization and 1 month before disease progression) and for time to any KPS deterioration. Time to definitive KPS deterioration (≥10-point KPS decrease from baseline) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A larger decrease from baseline (≥20 points) was investigated as a sensitivity analysis. A Cox proportional hazards model analyzed the effect of baseline factors (including treatment) potentially associated with time to definitive deterioration. Results: The two treatment arms had generally comparable time to any KPS deterioration, similar KPS at 3 and 6 months after randomization and at 1 month before disease progression, and no significant difference in time to definitive deterioration. Baseline KPS, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, age, liver metastases, and region had a significant effect on time to definitive KPS deterioration, but treatment arm did not. Conclusion: The increased survival observed with

Next