Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Francesco Sclafani
Based on 4 articles published since 2010
(Why 4 articles?)
||||

Between 2010 and 2020, Francesco Sclafani wrote the following 4 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Review New therapeutic targets in pancreatic cancer. 2019

Lai, Eleonora / Puzzoni, Marco / Ziranu, Pina / Pretta, Andrea / Impera, Valentino / Mariani, Stefano / Liscia, Nicole / Soro, Paolo / Musio, Francesca / Persano, Mara / Donisi, Clelia / Tolu, Simona / Balconi, Francesca / Pireddu, Annagrazia / Demurtas, Laura / Pusceddu, Valeria / Camera, Silvia / Sclafani, Francesco / Scartozzi, Mario. ·Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: ele.lai87@gmail.com. · Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: marcopuzzoni@gmail.com. · Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: pziranu@libero.it. · Medical Oncology Unit, Sapienza University of Rome - University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: an.pretta@gmail.com. · Medical Oncology Unit, Sapienza University of Rome - University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: vola_90@live.it. · Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: mariani.step@gmail.com. · Medical Oncology Unit, Sapienza University of Rome - University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: nikina310788@gmail.com. · Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: paol.soro.9@outlook.it. · Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: francesca.musio@gmail.com. · Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: marapersano@alice.it. · Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: cleliadonisi@gmail.com. · Medical Oncology Unit, Sapienza University of Rome - University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: simo.tolu@tiscali.it. · Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: frabalconi@gmail.com. · Medical Oncology Unit, Sapienza University of Rome - University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: pireddu.annagrazia@tiscali.it. · Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: lau.demi81@gmail.com. · Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: valeria.pusce@gmail.com. · Medical Oncology Unit, Sapienza University of Rome - University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: silvia.camera@hotmail.it. · Gastrointestinal Unit, Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: francesco.sclafani@bordet.be. · Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital and University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: marioscartozzi@gmail.com. ·Cancer Treat Rev · Pubmed #31739115.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with poor survival. Of all newly diagnosed patients, only about 20% can benefit from a potentially curative surgical resection, the remaining 80% presenting with unresectable locally advanced (LAPC) or metastatic (MPC) disease. Currently, there are limited therapeutic options for LAPC and MPC patients. Furthermore, despite intensive research efforts to better understand the molecular bases of PDAC and the biological relevance of its tumor microenvironment, treatments still largely consist of classical cytotoxic chemotherapy agents. Several studies of genetic and epigenetic sequencing have demonstrated the existence of 4 molecular PDAC subtypes, with heterogeneous genetic characteristics and different biological behaviour: squamous, pancreatic progenitor, immunogenic and aberrantly differentiated endocrine exocrine (ADEX). These distinct subtypes derive from alterations at multiple levels. Apart from the DNA repair pathway, however, none of these has so far been validated as a clinically relevant therapeutic target. Also, PDAC is unique from an immunological perspective and many studies have recently tried to elucidate the role of intratumoral effector T-cells, RAS oncogene, immunosuppressive leukocytes and desmoplastic reaction in maintaining the immunological homeostasis of this disease. However, there still remains much to be learned about the mechanisms whereby the pancreatic immune microenvironment promotes immune escape of cancer cells. Furthermore, while therapies targeting the stroma as well as immunotherapies hold promise for the future, these are not yet standard of care. This review aims to outline the state-of-the-art of LAPC and MPC treatment, highlighting data on the target therapies failure and current ongoing clinical trials on new promising therapeutic strategies.

2 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 / Anonymous231183. ·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, Universit√† 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.

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

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

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

4 Article Detection of somatostatin receptor subtypes 2 and 5 by somatostatin receptor scintigraphy and immunohistochemistry: clinical implications in the diagnostic and therapeutic management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. 2011

Sclafani, Francesco / Carnaghi, Carlo / Di Tommaso, Luca / Rodari, Marcello / Destro, Annarita / Rimassa, Lorenza / Giordano, Laura / Chiti, Arturo / Roncalli, Massimo / Santoro, Armando. ·Medical Oncology and Hematology Unit, Humanitas Cancer Center, Istituto Clinico Humanitas, IRCCS, Rozzano (MI), Italy. dr.sclafani@gmail.com ·Tumori · Pubmed #22158494.

ABSTRACT: AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS) is the standard method for the detection of somatostatin receptors (SSTRs). It is commonly used in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (GEP-NET) staging, and represents the criterion of choice for treatment with somatostatin (SST) analogs. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was reported as a reliable method for the detection of SSTRs with theoretically superior sensitivity over SRS. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively analyzed the sensitivity and specificity of IHC in the detection of SSTRs in a cohort of consecutive patients with GEP-NETs attending our Institute from 1997 to 2007. IHC analysis was restricted to SSTR2 and SSTR5, and the results were interpreted according to two different scoring systems. SRS was used as the gold standard. Results. Forty-four patients were enrolled; 24 (55%) had foregut carcinoids, 9 (20%) midgut carcinoids, 2 (5%) hindgut carcinoids, and 9 (20%) had GEP-NETs of unknown primary sites. A high concordance rate between IHC and SRS was shown, irrespective of the IHC scoring system applied (73% and 70%). The sensitivity of IHC was 89.3% and 78.6% and the specificity 43.8% and 50%, depending on the scoring system used. CONCLUSIONS: Although SSTR2 was shown to be expressed by IHC in up to 50% of tumors not visualized by SRS, SRS still remains the method of choice in the diagnostic and therapeutic management of GEP-NETs. More pathological and clinical data are needed to properly understand the clinical relevance of immunohistochemical detection of SSTR expression in the absence of tumor uptake at SRS.