Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Richard Jackson
Based on 9 articles published since 2009
(Why 9 articles?)
||||

Between 2009 and 2019, Richard Jackson wrote the following 9 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
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 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.

3 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 / Anonymous2721324. ·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.

4 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.

5 Article Role of Radiological Imaging in the Diagnosis and Characterization of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: A Systematic Review. 2018

Mohamed, Eyas / Jackson, Richard / Halloran, Christopher M / Ghaneh, Paula. ·From the Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine and. · Liverpool Cancer Research UK Cancer Trials Unit, Liverpool Cancer Research UK Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom. ·Pancreas · Pubmed #30199486.

ABSTRACT: The evidence on the ability of radiological tests to predict a specific diagnosis and also their aptitude in identifying pathological markers indicative of malignancy in cystic lesions of the pancreas remains inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review on MEDLINE for the use of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) in the diagnosis and characterization of these cysts. The accuracy of CT scan for reaching a specific diagnosis was 39% to 61.4%, whereas its accuracy for differentiating benign from malignant lesions was 61.9% to 80%. Magnetic resonance imaging showed a better accuracy in identifying a specific diagnosis of 50% to 86%, whereas its accuracy in differentiating benign from malignant lesions was 55.6% to 87%. The use of magnetic resonance imaging was superior to CT scan in identifying septations, mural nodules, and ductal communication. The sensitivity of PET/CT in diagnosing malignancy was 85.7% to 100% with a reported accuracy of 88% to 95%. The evidence gathered from this review suggests that the adequacy of CT imaging in full characterization of pancreatic cysts is suboptimal, and therefore a low threshold for supplementary imaging is advised. The use of PET/CT should be considered in high-risk patients with equivocal findings.

6 Article The impact of diabetes mellitus on survival following resection and adjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. 2016

Kleeff, Jörg / Costello, Eithne / Jackson, Richard / Halloran, Chris / Greenhalf, William / Ghaneh, Paula / Lamb, Richard F / Lerch, Markus M / Mayerle, Julia / Palmer, Daniel / Cox, Trevor / Rawcliffe, Charlotte L / Strobel, Oliver / Büchler, Markus W / Neoptolemos, John P. ·Liverpool Cancer Research UK Cancer Trials Unit, Liverpool Cancer Research UK Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. · NIHR Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GA, UK. · Department of Medicine A, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-University Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. · Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. ·Br J Cancer · Pubmed #27584663.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is frequently observed in pancreatic cancer patients and is both a risk factor and an early manifestation of the disease. METHODS: We analysed the prognostic impact of diabetes on the outcome of pancreatic cancer following resection and adjuvant chemotherapy using individual patient data from three European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer randomised controlled trials. Analyses were carried out to assess the association between clinical characteristics and the presence of preoperative diabetes, as well as the effect of diabetic status on overall survival. RESULTS: In total, 1105 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 257 (23%) had confirmed diabetes and 848 (77%) did not. Median (95% confidence interval (CI)) unadjusted overall survival in non-diabetic patients was 22.3 (20.8-24.1) months compared with 18.8 (16.9-22.1) months for diabetic patients (P=0.24). Diabetic patients were older, had increased weight and more co-morbidities. Following adjustment, multivariable analysis demonstrated that diabetic patients had an increased risk of death (hazard ratio: 1.19 (95% CI 1.01, 1.40), P=0.034). Maximum tumour size of diabetic patients was larger at randomisation (33.6 vs 29.7 mm, P=0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes mellitus was associated with increased tumour size and reduced survival following pancreatic cancer resection and adjuvant chemotherapy.

7 Article Incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis from direct pancreatic juice collection in hereditary pancreatitis and familial pancreatic cancer before and after the introduction of prophylactic pancreatic stents and rectal diclofenac. 2015

Nicholson, James A / Greenhalf, William / Jackson, Richard / Cox, Trevor F / Butler, Jane V / Hanna, Thomas / Harrison, Sara / Grocock, Christopher J / Halloran, Christopher M / Howes, Nathan R / Raraty, Michael G / Ghaneh, Paula / Johnstone, Marianne / Sarkar, Sanchoy / Smart, Howard L / Evans, Jonathan C / Aithal, Guruprasad P / Sutton, Robert / Neoptolemos, John P / Lombard, Martin G. ·From the *National Institute for Health Research Liverpool Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, Royal Liverpool University Hospital; †Liverpool Clinical Trials Unit; Departments of ‡Gastroenterology, and §Radiology, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool; and ║Digestive Diseases Biomedical Research Unit, National Institute for Health Research Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, United Kingdom. ·Pancreas · Pubmed #25438071.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Individuals from hereditary pancreatitis (HP) and familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) kindreds are at increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Premalignant molecular changes may be detected in pancreatic juice collected by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The objective was to determine the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). METHODS: A prospective study (1999-2013) was undertaken of 80 ERCPs (24 in HP and 56 in FPC) from 60 individuals and the impact of PEP prophylaxis using a self-expelling pancreatic stent and 50 mg diclofenac per rectum from 2008. RESULTS: There was no PEP in the HP cohort and 13 (23.2%) PEP from 56 procedures in the FPC cohort (P = 0.0077). Up to 2008 PEP had occurred in 7 (43.8%) of 16 procedures in FPC individuals versus none of 18 procedures in HP individuals (P = 0.0021). After the introduction of prophylaxis, the incidence of PEP fell to 6 (15.0%) of 40 procedures in FPC individuals (P = 0.0347).The odds ratio (95% confidence interval) was 0.23 (0.06-0.84) in favor of prophylaxis (0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with HP are at minimal risk for PEP. Although the risk of PEP in individuals with FPC can be reduced by using prophylactic self-expelling stents and diclofenac, it remains too high for routine screening.

8 Article Pancreatic cancer hENT1 expression and survival from gemcitabine in patients from the ESPAC-3 trial. 2014

Greenhalf, William / Ghaneh, Paula / Neoptolemos, John P / Palmer, Daniel H / Cox, Trevor F / Lamb, Richard F / Garner, Elizabeth / Campbell, Fiona / Mackey, John R / Costello, Eithne / Moore, Malcolm J / Valle, Juan W / McDonald, Alexander C / Carter, Ross / Tebbutt, Niall C / Goldstein, David / Shannon, Jennifer / Dervenis, Christos / Glimelius, Bengt / Deakin, Mark / Charnley, Richard M / Lacaine, François / Scarfe, Andrew G / Middleton, Mark R / Anthoney, Alan / Halloran, Christopher M / Mayerle, Julia / Oláh, Attila / Jackson, Richard / Rawcliffe, Charlotte L / Scarpa, Aldo / Bassi, Claudio / Büchler, Markus W / Anonymous5150777. ·Affiliations of authors: Liverpool Cancer Research UK Cancer Trials Unit, Liverpool Cancer Research UK Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK (WG, JPN, EG, TFC, PG, EC, CMH, CLR, FC, RJ) · the Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Canada (MJM) · Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Christie NHS Foundation Trust, School of Cancer and Enabling Sciences, University of Manchester, UK (JWV) · Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK (DHP) · Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK (ACM) · Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK (RC) · Hôpital Tenon, Université, Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France (FL) · Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia (NCT) · Prince of Wales Hospital and Clinical School University of New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia (DG) · Nepean Cancer Centre and University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (JS) · Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece (CD) · Medical Oncology, Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, Bebington, Merseyside, UK (DS) · Department of Oncology, Akademiska Sjukhuset, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden (BG) · University Hospital, North Staffordshire, UK (MD) · Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK (RMC) · Service de Chirurgie Digestive et Viscérale, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France (FL) · Cross Cancer Institute and University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada (JRM, AGS) · Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK (MRM) · St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK (AA) · Department of Medicine A, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany (JM) · Petz Aladar Hospital, Gyor, Hungary (AO) · Departments of Surgery and Pathology and ARC-NET Research Center, University of Verona, Italy (AS, CB) · Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany (MWB). ·J Natl Cancer Inst · Pubmed #24301456.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) levels in pancreatic adenocarcinoma may predict survival in patients who receive adjuvant gemcitabine after resection. METHODS: Microarrays from 434 patients randomized to chemotherapy in the ESPAC-3 trial (plus controls from ESPAC-1/3) were stained with the 10D7G2 anti-hENT1 antibody. Patients were classified as having high hENT1 expression if the mean H score for their cores was above the overall median H score (48). High and low hENT1-expressing groups were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty patients (87.6%) and 1808 cores were suitable and included in the final analysis. Median overall survival for gemcitabine-treated patients (n = 176) was 23.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 18.3 to 26.0) months vs 23.5 (95% CI = 19.8 to 27.3) months for 176 patients treated with 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (χ(2) 1=0.24; P = .62). Median survival for patients treated with gemcitabine was 17.1 (95% CI = 14.3 to 23.8) months for those with low hENT1 expression vs 26.2 (95% CI = 21.2 to 31.4) months for those with high hENT1 expression (χ(2)₁= 9.87; P = .002). For the 5-fluorouracil group, median survival was 25.6 (95% CI = 20.1 to 27.9) and 21.9 (95% CI = 16.0 to 28.3) months for those with low and high hENT1 expression, respectively (χ(2)₁ = 0.83; P = .36). hENT1 levels were not predictive of survival for the 28 patients of the observation group (χ(2)₁ = 0.37; P = .54). Multivariable analysis confirmed hENT1 expression as a predictive marker in gemcitabine-treated (Wald χ(2) = 9.16; P = .003) but not 5-fluorouracil-treated (Wald χ(2) = 1.22; P = .27) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Subject to prospective validation, gemcitabine should not be used for patients with low tumor hENT1 expression.

9 Minor Beyond ESPAC-4: better surgery and systemic therapy. 2017

Psarelli, Eftychia E / Jackson, Richard / Neoptolemos, John P / Palmer, Daniel H / Ghaneh, Paula / Halloran, Christopher M / Büchler, Markus W. ·Liverpool Clinical and Cancer Research UK Trials Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GL, UK. · Liverpool Clinical and Cancer Research UK Trials Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GL, UK; Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK. Electronic address: j.p.neoptolemos@liverpool.ac.uk. · Liverpool Clinical and Cancer Research UK Trials Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GL, UK; Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Wirral, UK. · Liverpool Clinical and Cancer Research UK Trials Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GL, UK; Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK. · Department of General, Abdominal and Transplant Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. ·Lancet · Pubmed #28422026.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --