Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Jean Luc Van Laethem
Based on 49 articles published since 2008
||||

Between 2008 and 2019, J-L Van Laethem wrote the following 49 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 Guideline Guidelines for time-to-event end-point definitions in trials for pancreatic cancer. Results of the DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials). 2014

Bonnetain, Franck / Bonsing, Bert / Conroy, Thierry / Dousseau, Adelaide / Glimelius, Bengt / Haustermans, Karin / Lacaine, François / Van Laethem, Jean Luc / Aparicio, Thomas / Aust, Daniela / Bassi, Claudio / Berger, Virginie / Chamorey, Emmanuel / Chibaudel, Benoist / Dahan, Laeticia / De Gramont, Aimery / Delpero, Jean Robert / Dervenis, Christos / Ducreux, Michel / Gal, Jocelyn / Gerber, Erich / Ghaneh, Paula / Hammel, Pascal / Hendlisz, Alain / Jooste, Valérie / Labianca, Roberto / Latouche, Aurelien / Lutz, Manfred / Macarulla, Teresa / Malka, David / Mauer, Muriel / Mitry, Emmanuel / Neoptolemos, John / Pessaux, Patrick / Sauvanet, Alain / Tabernero, Josep / Taieb, Julien / van Tienhoven, Geertjan / Gourgou-Bourgade, Sophie / Bellera, Carine / Mathoulin-Pélissier, Simone / Collette, Laurence. ·Methodology and Quality of Life Unit in Cancer, EA 3181, University Hospital of Besançon and CTD-INCa Gercor, UNICNCER GERICO, Besançon, France. Electronic address: franck.bonnetain@univ-fcomte.fr. · Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France. · Bordeaux Segalen University & CHRU, Bordeaux, France. · Department of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven, Belgium. · Digestive Surgical Department, Tenon hospital, Paris, France. · Gastro Intestinal Cancer Unit Erasme Hospital Brussels, Belgium. · Gastroenterology Department, Avicenne Hospital, Paris 13, Bobigny, France. · Institute for Pathology, University Hospital Carl-Gustav-Carus, Dresden, Germany. · Surgical and Gastroenterological Department, Endocrine and Pancreatic Unit, Hospital of 'G.B.Rossi', University of Verona, Italy. · Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest - Centre Paul Papin Centre de Lutte Contre le Cancer (CLCC), Angers, France. · Biostatistics Unit, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France. · Oncology Department, Hôpital Saint-Antoine & CTD-INCa GERCOR, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, UPMC Paris VI, Paris, France. · Gastroenterology Department, Hopital la Timone, Assitance publique des Hopitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France. · Department of Surgery, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France. · Department of Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Gastroenterology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. · Biostatistician, Biostatistics Unit, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France. · Department of Radiotherapy, Institut fuer Radioonkologie, Vienna, Austria. · Department of Surgical Oncology, Royal Liverpool Hospital, United Kingdom. · Department of Gastroenterology, Beaujon Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. · Digestive Oncology and Gastro-enterology Department, Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium. · Digestive Cancer Registry, INSERM U866, Dijon, France. · Medical Oncology Unit, Ospedali Riuniti di Bergamo, Bergame, Italy. · Inserm, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, U1018, Biostatistics Team, Villejuif, France. · Gastroenterology Department, Caritas Hospital, Saarbrücken, Germany. · Department of the Gastrointestinal Tumors and Phase I Unit, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. · Statistics Department, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie, Hôpital René Huguenin, Saint-Cloud, France. · Division of Surgery and Oncology at the University of Liverpool and Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom. · Department of Digestive Surgery, Universitu Hospital Strasbourg, France. · Department of Hepato-pancreatic and Biliary Surgery, Beaujon Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. · Department of Hepato-gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Georges Pompidou European hospital, Paris, France. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Academisch Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Institut Du Cancer de Montpellier, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, and Data Center for Cancer Clinical Trials, CTD-INCa, Montpellier, France. · Clinical and Epidemiological Research Unit, Institut Bergonie, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Bordeaux, France; Data Center for Cancer Clinical Trials, CTD-INCa, Bordeaux, France; INSERM, Centre d'Investigation Clinique - Épidémiologie Clinique CIC-EC 7, F-33000 Bordeaux, France. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #25256896.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Using potential surrogate end-points for overall survival (OS) such as Disease-Free- (DFS) or Progression-Free Survival (PFS) is increasingly common in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, end-points are too often imprecisely defined which largely contributes to a lack of homogeneity across trials, hampering comparison between them. The aim of the DATECAN (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials)-Pancreas project is to provide guidelines for standardised definition of time-to-event end-points in RCTs for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Time-to-event end-points currently used were identified from a literature review of pancreatic RCT trials (2006-2009). Academic research groups were contacted for participation in order to select clinicians and methodologists to participate in the pilot and scoring groups (>30 experts). A consensus was built after 2 rounds of the modified Delphi formal consensus approach with the Rand scoring methodology (range: 1-9). RESULTS: For pancreatic cancer, 14 time to event end-points and 25 distinct event types applied to two settings (detectable disease and/or no detectable disease) were considered relevant and included in the questionnaire sent to 52 selected experts. Thirty experts answered both scoring rounds. A total of 204 events distributed over the 14 end-points were scored. After the first round, consensus was reached for 25 items; after the second consensus was reached for 156 items; and after the face-to-face meeting for 203 items. CONCLUSION: The formal consensus approach reached the elaboration of guidelines for standardised definitions of time-to-event end-points allowing cross-comparison of RCTs in pancreatic cancer.

3 Guideline New strategies and designs in pancreatic cancer research: consensus guidelines report from a European expert panel. 2012

Van Laethem, J-L / Verslype, C / Iovanna, J L / Michl, P / Conroy, T / Louvet, C / Hammel, P / Mitry, E / Ducreux, M / Maraculla, T / Uhl, W / Van Tienhoven, G / Bachet, J B / Maréchal, R / Hendlisz, A / Bali, M / Demetter, P / Ulrich, F / Aust, D / Luttges, J / Peeters, M / Mauer, M / Roth, A / Neoptolemos, J P / Lutz, M / Anonymous6430701. ·Gastrointestinal Cancer Unit, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. jl.vanlaethem@erasme.ulb.ac.be ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #21810728.

ABSTRACT: Although the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a huge challenge, it is entering a new era with the development of new strategies and trial designs. Because there is an increasing number of novel therapeutic agents and potential combinations available to test in patients with PDAC, the identification of robust prognostic and predictive markers and of new targets and relevant pathways is a top priority as well as the design of adequate trials incorporating molecular-driven hypothesis. We presently report a consensus strategy for research in pancreatic cancer that was developed by a multidisciplinary panel of experts from different European institutions and collaborative groups involved in pancreatic cancer. The expert panel embraces the concept of exploratory early proof of concept studies, based on the prediction of response to novel agents and combinations, and randomised phase II studies permitting the selection of the best therapeutic approach to go forward into phase III, where the recommended primary end point remains overall survival. Trials should contain as many translational components as possible, relying on standardised tissue and blood processing and robust biobanking, and including dynamic imaging. Attention should not only be paid to the pancreatic cancer cells but also to microenvironmental factors and stem/stellate cells.

4 Review Systemic treatment of pancreatic cancer revisited. 2019

Ducreux, Michel / Seufferlein, Thomas / Van Laethem, Jean-Luc / Laurent-Puig, Pierre / Smolenschi, Cristina / Malka, David / Boige, Valérie / Hollebecque, Antoine / Conroy, Thierry. ·Département de Médecine Oncologique, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center Grand Paris, Université Paris Saclay, France. Electronic address: michel.ducreux@gustaveroussy.fr. · Department of Internal Medicine I, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany. · Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive oncology, Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium. · Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Department of Biology, European Georges Pompidou Hospital, Paris, France. · Département de Médecine Oncologique, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center Grand Paris, France. · Département de Médecine Oncologique, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center Grand Paris, France; Département d'Innovation Thérapeutique, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center Grand Paris, France. · Département d'oncologie médicale, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France. ·Semin Oncol · Pubmed #30638624.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic cancer is considered to be one of the most aggressive cancers. For unknown reasons, the incidence of pancreatic cancer is slowly rising and so too are mortality rates. Over 75% of patients are diagnosed with locally advanced disease or with metastases; and more than 95% of patients have metastases at diagnosis or will develop metastases during their follow-up. Despite recent improvements in the therapy of pancreatic cancer, initially with demonstration of the activity of the FOLFIRINOX regimen and subsequently the approval of nab-paclitaxel in combination with gemcitabine, prognosis remains poor and the 5-year survival rate is less than 5%. To date, neither personalized medicine nor immunotherapy, the 2 recent revolutions of cancer treatment, have delivered major positive results in the treatment of pancreatic cancer; and it is especially clear that immune checkpoint inhibitors will not become a major tool in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. There are many ongoing studies, including those exploring combinations of chemotherapy with immunotherapy. Vaccines or T cells modified with a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T cells) could also play a role in the treatment of cancer in the future. The aim of this review is to discuss recent improvements in standard of care, major obstacles to overcome, recent results of new treatment combinations, and the most interesting innovative approaches.

5 Review What treatment in 2017 for inoperable pancreatic cancers? 2017

Taieb, J / Pointet, A-L / Van Laethem, J L / Laquente, B / Pernot, S / Lordick, F / Reni, M. ·Hepatogastroenterology and GI Oncology Department, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris Descartes University, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, Paris, France. · Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Erasme University Hospital, ULB, Brussels, Belgium. · Medical Oncology Department, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet, Barcelona, Spain. · University Cancer Center Leipzig (UCCL), University Medicine Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. · Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #28459988.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a frequent and severe disease, either diagnosed as metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPA) or as locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma (LAPC). Though no improvement in patients outcome have been made between 1996 and 2011, since 5 years new treatment options have become available to treat our patients. New standard first line regimens, such as FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine combined with nab-paclitaxel, have improved overall survivals and second line treatments have been tested and validated. Other first-line treatments have failed, but research remains active and trials are ongoing with promising new anti-cancer agents. These new effective regimens used for MPA have yielded promising results in LAPC patients in open cohorts or phase II trials and a recent trial have failed to demonstrate the added value of classical external radiotherapy in this setting. Here, we review current standards of care in LAPC and MPA, consider the latest challenges and strategic questions, and examine what we may hope for in the future.

6 Review Current standards and new innovative approaches for treatment of pancreatic cancer. 2016

Conroy, Thierry / Bachet, Jean-Baptiste / Ayav, Ahmet / Huguet, Florence / Lambert, Aurélien / Caramella, Caroline / Maréchal, Raphaël / Van Laethem, Jean-Luc / Ducreux, Michel. ·Department of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine and Lorraine University, 6 avenue de Bourgogne, CS 30519, 54519, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France. Electronic address: t.conroy@nancy.unicancer.fr. · Department of Hepato-Gastroenterology, Pitié-Salpétrière University Hospital, 47-83 boulevard de l'hôpital, 75651, Paris Cedex 13, France. · Department of Surgery, Nancy University Hospital Lorraine and Lorraine University, rue du Morvan, 54511, Vandoeuvre-lès Nancy, France. · Department of Radiation Therapy, Tenon Hospital, Paris Est University Hospitals, 4 rue de la Chine, 75020, Paris, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine and Lorraine University, 6 avenue de Bourgogne, CS 30519, 54519, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France. · Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand Paris, 114 rue Edouard-Vaillant, 94805, Villejuif Cedex, France. · Department of Gastroenterology, Erasme University Hospital-ULB-Brussels, Lennikstreet 808, 1070, Brussels, Belgium. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #26851397.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains a devastating disease with a 5-year survival rate not exceeding 6%. Treatment of this disease remains a major challenge. This article reviews the state-of-the-art in the management of this disease and the new innovative approaches that may help to accelerate progress in treating its victims. After careful pre-therapeutic evaluation, only 15-20% of patients diagnosed with a pancreatic cancer (PC) are eligible for upfront radical surgery. After R0 or R1 resection in such patients, evidence suggests a significantly positive impact on survival of adjuvant chemotherapy comprising 6 months of gemcitabine or fluorouracil/folinic acid. Delayed adjuvant chemoradiation is considered as an option in cases of positive margins. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) is defined as a tumour involving the mesenteric vasculature to a limited extend. Resection of these tumours is technically feasible, yet runs the high risk of a R1 resection. Neoadjuvant treatment probably offers the best chance of achieving successful R0 resection and long-term survival, but the best treatment options should be determined in prospective randomised studies. Gemcitabine has for 15 years been the only validated therapy for advanced PC. Following decades of negative phase III studies, increasing evidence now suggests that further significant improvements to overall survival can be achieved via either Folfirinox or gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel regimens. Progress in systemic therapy may improve the chances of resection in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) or locally advanced PC. This requires first enhancing knowledge of the genetic events driving carcinogenesis, which may then be translated into clinical studies.

7 Review [Evolution in the therapeutic strategy of localized resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma]. 2015

Van Daele, D / Puleo, F / Dumont, R / Polus, M / Loly, C / Martinive, P / Meunier, P / Collignon, J / Hendlisz, A / Maréchal, R / Louis, E / Van Laethem, J-L. · ·Rev Med Suisse · Pubmed #26502580.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is characterized by a high rate of early metastatic relapse. Surgical resection is still recognized as the cornerstone upfront therapy. However, reported 5 years survival rates are inferior to 20-25% even when surgery is followed by chemotherapy. Margins involvement on the surgical specimen (50 to 85%) and lymph node involvement (around 70%) both strongly impact survival. Median survivals are close to those of locally advanced diseases treated by chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, 15 to 16 months. This review focuses on adverse prognostic factors, post-operative outcomes and their impact on multimodality therapy completion rates and survivals in patients undergoing upfront surgery. Current data and emerging results from neoadjuvant series could lead to a change in the therapeutic strategy.

8 Review New challenges in perioperative management of pancreatic cancer. 2015

Puleo, Francesco / Maréchal, Raphaël / Demetter, Pieter / Bali, Maria-Antonietta / Calomme, Annabelle / Closset, Jean / Bachet, Jean-Baptiste / Deviere, Jacques / Van Laethem, Jean-Luc. ·Francesco Puleo, Raphaël Maréchal, Annabelle Calomme, Jean Closset, Jacques Deviere, Jean-Luc Van Laethem, Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Erasme Hospital, 1070 Brussels, Belgium. ·World J Gastroenterol · Pubmed #25741134.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in the industrialized world. Despite progress in the understanding of the molecular and genetic basis of this disease, the 5-year survival rate has remained low and usually does not exceed 5%. Only 20%-25% of patients present with potentially resectable disease and surgery represents the only chance for a cure. After decades of gemcitabine hegemony and limited therapeutic options, more active chemotherapies are emerging in advanced PDAC, like 5-Fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan and oxaliplatin and nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, that have profoundly impacted therapeutic possibilities. PDAC is considered a systemic disease because of the high rate of relapse after curative surgery in patients with resectable disease at diagnosis. Neoadjuvant strategies in resectable, borderline resectable, or locally advanced pancreatic cancer may improve outcomes. Incorporation of tissue biomarker testing and imaging techniques into preoperative strategies should allow clinicians to identify patients who may ultimately achieve curative benefit from surgery. This review summarizes current knowledge of adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment for PDAC and discusses the rationale for moving from adjuvant to preoperative and perioperative therapeutic strategies in the current era of more active chemotherapies and personalized medicine. We also discuss the integration of good specimen collection, tissue biomarkers, and imaging tools into newly designed preoperative and perioperative strategies.

9 Review Addressing the challenges of pancreatic cancer: future directions for improving outcomes. 2015

Hidalgo, Manuel / Cascinu, Stefano / Kleeff, Jörg / Labianca, Roberto / Löhr, J-Matthias / Neoptolemos, John / Real, Francisco X / Van Laethem, Jean-Luc / Heinemann, Volker. ·Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Oncológicas (CNIO), Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: mhidalgo@cnio.es. · Department of Medical Oncology, University of Ancona, Ancona, Italy. · Department of General Surgery, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. · Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy. · Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. · National Institutes of Health Research Liverpool Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit and Cancer Research UK Liverpool Clinical Trials Unit Director, University of Liverpool and Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK. · Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Oncológicas (CNIO), Madrid and Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Gastroenterology-GI Cancer Unit, Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium. · Comprehensive Cancer Centre Munich, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany. ·Pancreatology · Pubmed #25547205.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), which accounts for more than 90% of all pancreatic tumours, is a devastating malignancy with an extremely poor prognosis, as shown by a 1-year survival rate of around 18% for all stages of the disease. The low survival rates associated with PDAC primarily reflect the fact that tumours progress rapidly with few specific symptoms and are thus at an advanced stage at diagnosis in most patients. As a result, there is an urgent need to develop accurate markers of pre-invasive pancreatic neoplasms in order to facilitate prediction of cancer risk and to help diagnose the disease at an earlier stage. However, screening for early diagnosis of prostate cancer remains challenging and identifying a highly accurate, low-cost screening test for early PDAC for use in clinical practice remains an important unmet need. More effective therapies are also crucial in PDAC, since progress in identifying novel therapies has been hampered by the genetic complexity of the disease and treatment remains a major challenge. Presently, the greatest step towards improved treatment efficacy has been made in the field of palliative chemotherapy by introducing FOLFIRINOX (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan and oxaliplatin) and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. Strategies designed to raise the profile of PDAC in research and clinical practice are a further requirement in order to ensure the best treatment for patients. This article proposes a number of approaches that may help to accelerate progress in treating patients with PDAC, which, in turn, may be expected to improve the quality of life and survival for those suffering from this devastating disease.

10 Review Adjuvant pharmacotherapy in the management of elderly patients with pancreatic cancer. 2013

Maréchal, Raphaël / Demols, Anne / Van Laethem, Jean-Luc. ·Department of Gastroenterology, GI Cancer Unit, Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik 808, 1070, Brussels, Belgium. raphael.marechal@erasme.ulb.ac.be ·Drugs Aging · Pubmed #23338795.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the fourth or fifth leading cause of death from cancer in Western industrialized countries. Surgical resection is the only chance of cure, but only 15-20 % of cases are potentially resectable at presentation, and despite complete resection, the overall prognosis remains relatively poor. Adjuvant therapy has modestly improved cure rates. The majority of patients with pancreatic cancer are over the age of 65 years. But this age group is underrepresented within clinical trials, and it is unknown whether older patients achieve similar results to younger ones in terms of survival and treatment tolerance. In addition, there are no clinical trials dedicated to the elderly. Retrospective studies coming from the non-resectable setting provide some understanding on outcomes in older patients with PDAC. To date, we can reasonably argue that selected elderly patients with PDAC can benefit from curative surgery and postoperative chemotherapy as do their younger counterparts, without a significant increase in morbidity and mortality. Gemcitabine should be preferred to 5-fluorouracil on the basis of a better risk-benefit balance.

11 Review Molecular changes in pancreatic cancer: implications for molecular targeting therapy. 2012

Demetter, P / Maréchal, R / Verset, L / Salmon, I / Bachet, J-B / Van Laethem, J L. ·Department of Pathology, Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. pieter.demetter@erasme.ulb.ac.be ·Acta Gastroenterol Belg · Pubmed #22870784.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has a high mortality rate, which is generally related to the initial diagnosis coming at late stage disease combined with a lack of effective treatment options. Gemcitabine has been the most commonly used drug over the past decade and is still the cornerstone of therapy in adjuvant and metastatic settings. Intrinsic or acquired resistance of tumours to gemcitabine is, however, a major clinical problem. New therapeutic strategies are urgently needed whereas we also need to identify new prognostic and predictive biomarkers. This article focuses on gemcitabine resistance, on the role of chemokines and chemokine receptors in pancreatic carcinoma initiation and progression, and on stellate cells as partners in crime with neoplastic epithelial cells.

12 Review The potential role of targeted therapies in the management of neuroendocrine tumours. 2009

Verset, G / Borbath, I / Delaunoit, T / Demetter, P / Demolin, G / Hendlisz, A / Pattyn, P / Pauwels, S / Peeters, M / Roeyen, G / Van Cutsem, E / Van Hootegem, Ph / Verslype, C / Van Laethem, J L. ·Department Gastrointestinal Oncology Unit, Erasme University Hospital, Anderlecht. ·Acta Gastroenterol Belg · Pubmed #19402374.

ABSTRACT: The management of gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours is evolving thanks to new TNM-classification, diagnostic and staging procedures and new therapeutic options. Targeting new pathways, mostly angiogenesis, development of novel agents is under way and opens new perspectives in controlling the evolution of these tumours and possibly changing their management. In parallel, new functional imaging techniques and biomolecular markers will be developed to provide adequate tools for the assessment of tumor response according to therapeutic intervention on angiogenesis, proliferation and apoptosis. This paper reviews the potential role of new investigational targeted agents which will likely become the backbone of future therapy of neuroendocrine tumors.

13 Review The antiproliferative effect of somatostatin analogs: clinical relevance in patients with neuroendocrine gastro-entero-pancreatic tumours. 2009

Verslype, C / Carton, S / Borbath, I / Delaunoit, T / Demetter, P / Demolin, G / Hendlisz, A / Pattyn, P / Pauwels, S / Peeters, M / Roeyen, G / Van Hootegem, Ph / Van Laethem, J L / Van Cutsem, E. ·Department of Hepatology and Digestive Oncology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium. Chris.Verslype@uzleuven.be ·Acta Gastroenterol Belg · Pubmed #19402373.

ABSTRACT: Somatostatin analogs (SSAs) have an important role in the management of patients with neuroendocrine tumours of the gastrointestinal tract and pancreas (GEP NETs). These compounds can control the symptoms induced by the production of hormones and peptides. The antiproliferative effects of SSAs and especially tumour shrinkage are less obvious in patients with GEP NETs than in those with acromegaly. However, based upon phase II experience there is a strong suggestion of a disease stabilizing effect of SSAs in selected patients. Those patients with a progressive, non-functional GEP NET, positive octreotide scintigraphy, a low proliferation index and in the absence of surgical options may benefit from a first-line medical therapy with SSAs. The exploration of the mechanisms of this effect are unclear and hampered by the lack of suitable preclinical models. The better understanding of the tumour biology of GEP NETs, together with the development of new SSAs with better affinity on all somatostatin receptors, represent an unmet medical need.

14 Review Role of chemotherapy in gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: the end of a story? 2009

Delaunoit, T / Van den Eynde, M / Borbath, I / Demetter, P / Demolin, G / Pattyn, P / Pauwels, S / Peeters, M / Roeyen, G / Van Cutsem, E / Van Hootegem, Ph / Van Laethem, J L / Verslype, C / Hendlisz, A. ·Department of Gastroenterology and Medical Oncology, Jolimont Hospital, Haine-Saint-Paul, Belgium. thierry.delaunoit@entitejolimontoise.be ·Acta Gastroenterol Belg · Pubmed #19402372.

ABSTRACT: Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours (GEP NET) are heterogeneous and rare malignancies although their prevalence is increasing. Multiple therapeutic approaches are available to date for their management, including surgery, hormonal and immune radionucleide therapies and chemotherapy. The purpose of this review is to collect, examine, and analyze data available regarding contemporary chemotherapeutic management of GEP NET in order to determine whether or not chemotherapy still takes place in the therapeutic arsenal of GEP NET. We therefore performed a systematic search of all the English-spoken literature regarding GEP NET. Anthracyclins, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), DTIC and streptozotocin are amongst the most commonly used chemotherapeutic agents, usually prescribed in combination. Their efficiency in reducing tumor burden is not always associated with better survival, perhaps due to severe toxicity. Chemotherapy in GEP NET is mainly devoted to poorly differentiated tumours, but also in well differentiated carcinomas either not eligible or resistant to other therapies. Chemotherapy remains therefore useful in specific cases of GEP NET management. However, a new era of antitumoral agents, such as targeted therapies, could eventually replace these old recipes in the near future.

15 Review Locoregional and radioisotopic targeted treatment of neuroendocrine tumours. 2009

Hendlisz, A / Flamen, P / Van den Eynde, M / Borbath, I / Demetter, P / Demolin, G / Pattyn, P / Pauwels, S / Peeters, M / Roeyen, G / Van Cutsemo, E / Van Hootegem, Ph / Van Laethem, J L / Verslype, C / Delaunoit, T. ·Medical Oncology Clinic, Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium. alain.hendlisz@bordet.be ·Acta Gastroenterol Belg · Pubmed #19402371.

ABSTRACT: Gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP NET) are a heterogeneous group of proliferative disorders whose management dramatically relies on tumour biology. For well-differentiated, low-proliferative index tumours, locoregional treatment and targeted radioisotopic therapies offer an attractive and seemingly efficient alternative to palliative surgical resections. Lack of well-designed, prospective, randomized multicentric studies hinders a balanced evaluation of available locoregional treatment methods: embolization, chemo-embolization, radio-embolization. According to available datas, all techniques achieve a 50-60% radiological response rate and almost 80% of symptomatic relieve for the patients, while their impact on progression-free and overall survival remains not assessable. Same conclusions can be drawn for radiolabeled targeted therapies like MetaiodoBenzylGuanidine (MIBG) and Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy (PRRT), which, provided that their target is expressed by tumour cells, can deliver therapeutic doses of radiation to neoplastic tissues. 131I-MIBG has been associated with a 50% symptomatic response rate and mainly haematological toxicities. PRRT with 111In-DiethyleneTriamineentaacetic Acid-Octreotide, [90Y-DOTA0-Tyr3]-Octreotide, or [177Lu-DOTA0-Tyr3]-Octreotate seem to alleviate symptoms in 50% of patients and obtain a radiological response in 30-38%. Renal toxicity, partially preventable, is more frequent than previously thought and result in an annual decrease in glomerular function by 4 to 8% per year. Forthcoming research in GEP NET should by a majority be designed in randomized, prospective and multicentric fashion. Locoregional disease trials must focus on clinical outcome differences between embolization techniques (embolization, chemoembolization and radioembolization) and surgery. In disseminated disease, studies should assess radiolabeled targeted therapies efficiency when administered along with and compared to new biological and older chemotherapeutic agents.

16 Review The role of surgery and transplantation in neuroendocrine tumours. 2009

Roeyen, G / Chapelle, T / Borbath, I / Delaunoit, T / Demetter, P / Demolin, G / Hendlisz, A / Pattyn, P / Pauwels, S / Peeters, M / Van Cutsemo, E / Van Hootegem, Ph / Van Laethem, J L / Verslype, C / Ysebaert, D. ·Department of Hepatobiliary, Endocrine and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium. geert.roeyen@uza.be ·Acta Gastroenterol Belg · Pubmed #19402370.

ABSTRACT: Surgery represents the only chance of cure for a patient with a neuroendocrine tumour (NET). The main indications for surgery lie in the risk of developing metastatic disease with increasing tumour diameter and for a functioning NET also in control of the hormonal syndrome. However, only a small minority of patients presents with a potentially resectable primary NET without metastatic disease. An R0-resection is mandatory, which may be achieved in selected cases by tissue sparing surgical techniques. Most patients unfortunately present with a locally advanced or metastatic disease. For patients with an advanced functioning NET, control of the hormonal syndrome may also represent a surgical indication. Various cytoreductive techniques or, in highly selected cases, liver transplantation can be applied. For locally advanced non-functioning tumours, there is an indication for surgery in large tumours which tend to create local complications because of bleeding or bowel obstruction. Especially in ileal NETs aggressive surgical therapy is recommended because of prevention of long-term complications, which may improve survival.

17 Review [Pancreatic cancer: ten years of systemic therapy]. 2008

Van Laethem, Jean-Luc. ·Clinique d'oncologie digestive, Hôpital Universitaire Erasme, ULB, Bruxelles. jvlaethe@ulb.ac.be ·Bull Cancer · Pubmed #18390419.

ABSTRACT: By today, systemic therapy for pancreatic cancer remains a huge challenge considering the last 10 years existing data. In 1997, gemcitabine emerged as a new reference treatment in advanced disease stage displaying a valuable clinical benefit rate but an overall survival limited to 6 months. In 2007, around 20 large phase III trials enrolling 7000 patients have evaluated a lot of new cytotoxic and biological compounds, but only a modest and poorly clinically relevant benefit in survival of 0.5 month was obtained, a result in sharp contrast to what it is observed in other types of cancer, where some substantial progress was noted over the last ten years. Considering the aggressive and multiresistant phenotype of this cancer, a different and more selective approach for development of new therapies has to be envisaged, starting with the deciphering of the biomolecular mechanism, first step towards the discovery of new therapeutic targets. By this way only, we could anticipate relevant advances and better exploitation and exploration of future targeted therapies.

18 Guideline Cancer of the pancreas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. 2015

Ducreux, M / Cuhna, A Sa / Caramella, C / Hollebecque, A / Burtin, P / Goéré, D / Seufferlein, T / Haustermans, K / Van Laethem, J L / Conroy, T / Arnold, D / Anonymous6570840. ·Département de médecine, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris Sud, le Kremlin Bicêtre. · Faculté de Médecine, Université Paris Sud, le Kremlin Bicêtre Département de Chirugie Hépato-biliaire, Hopital Paul Brousse, Villejuif. · Département d'imagerie. · Département de médecine, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif Département d'Innovation Thérapeutique. · Département de médecine, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif. · Département de Chirurgie Générale, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. · Department of Internal Medicine I, Ulm University Hospital Medical Center, Ulm, Germany. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven Kankerinstitute, Leuven. · Departement of Gastroenterology, Hôpital Erasme, Cliniques Universitaires de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. · Département de médecine, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre lés Nancy, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Tumor Biology Center, Freiburg, Germany. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #26314780.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

19 Clinical Trial A phase II study of antibody-drug conjugate, TAK-264 (MLN0264) in previously treated patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma expressing guanylyl cyclase C. 2017

Almhanna, Khaldoun / Wright, David / Mercade, Teresa Macarulla / Van Laethem, Jean-Luc / Gracian, Antonio Cubillo / Guillen-Ponce, Carmen / Faris, Jason / Lopez, Carolina Muriel / Hubner, Richard A / Bendell, Johanna / Bols, Alain / Feliu, Jaime / Starling, Naureen / Enzinger, Peter / Mahalingham, Devalingham / Messersmith, Wells / Yang, Huyuan / Fasanmade, Adedigbo / Danaee, Hadi / Kalebic, Thea. ·Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA. Khaldoun.Almhanna@moffitt.org. · Florida Cancer Specialists, Tampa, FL, USA. · Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. · Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium. · HM Universitario Sanchinarro, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal (CIOCC), Madrid, Spain. · Departamento de Ciencias Médicas Clínicas, Universidad San Pablo CEU, Madrid, Spain. · Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. · Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA. · Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, Spain. · The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. · Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, TN, USA. · Brugge Oostende Oncologisch Centrum, Bruges, Belgium. · CIBERONC, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. · The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. · Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. · University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA. · University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA. · Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Cambridge, MA, USA. ·Invest New Drugs · Pubmed #28527133.

ABSTRACT: Background This phase II open-label, multicenter study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of TAK-264 in previously treated patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma expressing guanylyl cyclase C (GCC). Methods Patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma expressing GCC (H-score ≥ 10) received TAK-264 1.8 mg/kg on day 1 of a 21-day cycle as a 30-min intravenous infusion for up to 1 year or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was overall response rate (ORR [complete response + partial response (PR)]). Secondary objectives included evaluations of the safety and pharmacokinetic profile of TAK-264 (NCT02202785). Results 43 patients were enrolled and treated with 1.8 mg/kg TAK-264: 11, 15, and 17 patients with low, intermediate, and high GCC expression, respectively. Median number of treatment cycles received was two (range 1-10). The ORR was 3%, including one patient with intermediate GCC expression who achieved a PR. All patients experienced ≥1 adverse events (AE). The majority of patients experienced grade 1/2 AEs affecting the gastrointestinal tract. Fifteen (35%) patients experienced ≥grade 3 drug-related AEs; five (12%) patients had a serious AE. The most common (≥10% of patients) all-grade drug-related AEs were nausea (33%), fatigue (28%), neutropenia (23%), decreased appetite (23%), vomiting (16%), asthenia (16%), and alopecia (14%). Conclusions TAK-264 demonstrated a manageable safety profile; however, the low efficacy of TAK-264 observed in this study did not support further clinical investigation.

20 Clinical Trial Phase I/II Study of Refametinib (BAY 86-9766) in Combination with Gemcitabine in Advanced Pancreatic cancer. 2017

Van Laethem, Jean-Luc / Riess, Hanno / Jassem, Jacek / Haas, Michael / Martens, Uwe M / Weekes, Colin / Peeters, Marc / Ross, Paul / Bridgewater, John / Melichar, Bohuslav / Cascinu, Stefano / Saramak, Piotr / Michl, Patrick / Van Brummelen, David / Zaniboni, Alberto / Schmiegel, Wollf / Dueland, Svein / Giurescu, Marius / Garosi, Vittorio L / Roth, Katrin / Schulz, Anke / Seidel, Henrik / Rajagopalan, Prabhu / Teufel, Michael / Childs, Barrett H. ·Department of Gastroenterology, Erasme University Hospital, CP 572/10, route de Lennik 808, 1070, Brussels, Belgium. JL.VanLaethem@erasme.ulb.ac.be. · Medical Department, Division of Hematology, Oncology and Tumor Immunology, Charity Hospital, Virchow-Klinikum Campus, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. · Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Medical University of Gdansk, M. Skłodowskiej-Curie 3a Street, Gdansk, 80-210, Poland. · Department of Hematology and Oncology, University of Munich Medical Center, Marchioninistraße 15, 81366, Munich, Germany. · Department of Hematology and Oncology, Cancer Center Heilbronn-Franken, Am Gesundbrunnen 20-26, 74078, Heilbronn, Germany. · Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, 1665 Aurora Ct, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. · Department of Oncology, Antwerp University Hospital, Wilrijkstraat 10, 2650, Edegem, Belgium. · Department of Medical Oncology, Guy's & St Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK. · Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, 72 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6DD, UK. · Department of Oncology, Palacky University Medical School and University Hospital Olomouc, Křížkovského 8, 771 47, Olomouc, Czech Republic. · Department of Medical Oncology, A.O.U. United Hospitals, Polytechnic University of Marche, Piazza Roma, 22, Ancona, Italy. · Department of Oncological Gastroenterology, Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center, ul. W.K. Roentgena 5, 02-781, Warsaw, Poland. · Department of Gastroenterology, Endocrinology, Metabolism and Infectiology, University Hospital of Giessen and Marburg, Baldingerstraße, 35043, Marburg, Germany. · Universitätsklinikum Halle - University Hospital Halle (Saale), Ernst-Grube-Straße 40, 06120, Halle (Saale), Germany. · Department of Radiotherapy, UZ Brussels, Avenue du Laerbeek 101, 1090, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Medical Oncology, Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital Institute, Via Bissolati, 57, Brescia, Italy. · Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University Hospital Bochum, Alexandrinenstraße 1, Bochum, 44791, Germany. · Department of Oncology, Oslo University Radium Hospital, Trondheimsveien 235, Bjerke, 0514, Oslo, Norway. · Bayer Pharma AG, Müllerstraße 178, 13353, Berlin, Germany. · Bayer S.p.A., Viale Certosa 126-130, 20156, Milan, Italy. · Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 100 Bayer Blvd, Whippany, NJ, 07981, USA. ·Target Oncol · Pubmed #27975152.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Activating KRAS mutations are reported in up to 90% of pancreatic cancers. Refametinib potently inhibits MEK1/2, part of the MAPK signaling pathway. This phase I/II study evaluated the safety and efficacy of refametinib plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Phase I comprised dose escalation, followed by phase II expansion. Refametinib and gemcitabine plasma levels were analyzed for pharmacokinetics. KRAS mutational status was determined from circulating tumor DNA. RESULTS: Ninety patients overall received treatment. The maximum tolerated dose was refametinib 50 mg twice daily plus standard gemcitabine (1000 mg/m CONCLUSION: Refametinib plus gemcitabine was well tolerated, with a promising objective response rate, and had an acceptable safety profile and no pharmacokinetic interaction. There was a trend towards improved outcomes in patients without detectable KRAS mutations that deserves future investigation.

21 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.

22 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 / Anonymous6180866. ·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.

23 Clinical Trial Positron emission tomography response evaluation from a randomized phase III trial of weekly nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone for patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. 2016

Ramanathan, R K / Goldstein, D / Korn, R L / Arena, F / Moore, M / Siena, S / Teixeira, L / Tabernero, J / Van Laethem, J-L / Liu, H / McGovern, D / Lu, B / Von Hoff, D D. ·Division of Hematology/Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, USA ramanathan.ramesh@mayo.edu. · Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia. · Diagnostic Radiology, Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd, Scottsdale. · Hematology/Oncology, NYU Langone Arena Oncology, Lake Success, USA. · Provencial Health Services Authority, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada. · Falck Division of Oncology, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Niguarda Cancer Center, Ospedale Niguarda Ca' Granda and Università degli Studi di Millano, Milan, Italy. · Department of Medical Oncology, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Paris, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital and Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · University Clinic of Brussels, Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium. · Biostatistics and Research and Design, Celgene Corporation, Summit. · Clinical Research, Translational Genomics Research Institute and Honor Health, Scottsdale, USA. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #26802153.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In the phase III MPACT trial, nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-P + Gem) demonstrated superior efficacy versus Gem alone for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. We sought to examine the feasibility of positron emission tomography (PET) and to compare metabolic response rates and associated correlations with efficacy in the MPACT trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomized 1:1 to receive nab-P + Gem or Gem alone. Treatment continued until disease progression by RECIST or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: PET scans were carried out on the first 257 patients enrolled at PET-equipped centers (PET cohort). Most patients (252 of 257) had ≥2 PET-avid lesions, and median maximum standardized uptake values at baseline were 4.6 and 4.5 in the nab-P + Gem and Gem-alone arms, respectively. In a pooled treatment arm analysis, a metabolic response by PET (best response at any time during study) was associated with longer overall survival (OS) (median 11.3 versus 6.9 months; HR, 0.56; P < 0.001). Efficacy results within each treatment arm appeared better for patients with a metabolic response. The metabolic response rate (best response and week 8 response) was higher for nab-P + Gem (best response: 72% versus 53%, P = 0.002; week 8: 67% versus 51%; P = 0.014). Efficacy in the PET cohort was greater for nab-P + Gem versus Gem alone, including for OS (median 10.5 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; P = 0.009) and ORR by RECIST (31% versus 11%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pancreatic lesions were PET avid at baseline, and the rate of metabolic response was significantly higher for nab-P + Gem versus Gem alone at week 8 and for best response during study. Having a metabolic response was associated with longer survival, and more patients experienced a metabolic response than a RECIST-defined response. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT00844649.

24 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.

25 Clinical Trial A phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ganitumab or placebo in combination with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: the GAMMA trial. 2015

Fuchs, C S / Azevedo, S / Okusaka, T / Van Laethem, J-L / Lipton, L R / Riess, H / Szczylik, C / Moore, M J / Peeters, M / Bodoky, G / Ikeda, M / Melichar, B / Nemecek, R / Ohkawa, S / Świeboda-Sadlej, A / Tjulandin, S A / Van Cutsem, E / Loberg, R / Haddad, V / Gansert, J L / Bach, B A / Carrato, A. ·Department of Medical Oncology/Solid Tumor Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA charles_fuchs@dfci.harvard.edu. · Oncology Service, Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil. · Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. · Department of Gastroenterology, Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium. · Medical Oncology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia. · Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Tumor Immunology, Charité University, Berlin, Germany. · Department of Oncology, Military Institute of Health Services, Warsaw, Poland. · Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. · Department of Oncology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegum, Belgium. · Department of Oncology, St László Hospital, Budapest, Hungary. · Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan. · Department of Oncology, Palacký University Medical School and Teaching Hospital, Olomouc. · Department of Oncology, Masaryk University Medical School and Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic. · Department of Gastroenterology, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Japan. · Department of Haematology, Oncology and Internal Medicine, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. · Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Chemotherapy, Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russia. · Digestive Oncology, University Hospitals Gasthuisberg/Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. · Medical Sciences, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, USA. · Global Biostatistical Science, Amgen Ltd, Cambridge, UK. · Global Development, Thousand Oaks. · Development Oncology Therapeutics, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, USA. · Medical Oncology Department, University Hospital Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, Spain. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #25609246.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: This double-blind, phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of ganitumab combined with gemcitabine as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned 2 : 2 : 1 to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) (days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus placebo, ganitumab 12 mg/kg, or ganitumab 20 mg/kg (days 1 and 15 of each cycle). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and efficacy by levels of circulating biomarkers. RESULTS: Overall, 322 patients were randomly assigned to placebo, 318 to ganitumab 12 mg/kg, and 160 to ganitumab 20 mg/kg. The study was stopped based on results from a preplanned futility analysis; the final results are reported. Median OS was 7.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.3-8.2] in the placebo arm, 7.0 months (95% CI, 6.2-8.5) in the ganitumab 12-mg/kg arm [hazard ratio (HR), 1.00; 95% CI, 0.82-1.21; P = 0.494], and 7.1 months (95% CI, 6.4-8.5) in the ganitumab 20-mg/kg arm (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.76-1.23; P = 0.397). Median PFS was 3.7, 3.6 (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84-1.20; P = 0.520), and 3.7 months (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77-1.22; P = 0.403), respectively. No unexpected toxicity was observed with ganitumab plus gemcitabine. The circulating biomarkers assessed [insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), IGF-binding protein-2, and -3] were not associated with a treatment effect on OS or PFS by ganitumab. CONCLUSION: Ganitumab combined with gemcitabine had manageable toxicity but did not improve OS, compared with gemcitabine alone in unselected patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01231347.

Next