Mechanism of injury and special considerations as predictive of serious injury: A systematic review.

Objectives: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention\u27s field triage guidelines (FTG) are routinely used by emergency medical services personnel for triaging injured patients. The most recent (2011) FTG contains physiologic, anatomic, mechanism, and special consideration steps. Our objective was to systematically review the criteria in the mechanism and special consideration steps that might be predictive of serious injury or need for a trauma center. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the predictive utility of mechanism and special consideration criteria for predicting serious injury. A research librarian searched in Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases for studies published between January 2011 and February 2021. Eligible studies were identified using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were excluded if they lacked an outcome for serious injury, such as measures of resource use, injury severity scores, mortality, or composite measures using a combination of outcomes. Given the heterogeneity in populations, measures, and outcomes, results were synthesized qualitatively focusing on positive likelihood ratios (LR+) whenever these could be calculated from presented data or adjusted odds ratios (aOR

APOLLO: A randomized phase II double-blind study of olaparib versus placebo following curative intent therapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer and a pathogenic BRCA1, BRCA2 or PALB2 mutation-ECOG-ACRIN EA2192

Background: A meaningful subset of PDAC is characterized by a homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). The most well-defined patients within this group are those with pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2 and PALB2. In the metastatic setting, PARP inhibitor maintenance provides a progression-free survival benefit after a period of platinum based chemotherapy1,2, but the role of PARP inhibitors in the curative intent setting is undefined. The OlympiA study established one year of olaparib as the standard of care for patients with BRCA-related, early stage breast cancer who completed all other curative-intent treatment3. Therefore, we have designed a randomized, phase II double-blind study of one year of olaparib vs placebo in patients with pancreatic cancer and a germline or somatic variant in BRCA or PALB2 who have completed all curative intent therapy. Methods: We have enrolled and treated 23 of 152 planned patients on study NCT 04858334/EA2192. Eligibility criteria include: a pathogenic germline or somatic variant in BRCA1, BRCA2 or PALB2 as determined by local laboratory (central review required); completion of curative-intent resection and ≥ three months of multi-agent chemotherapy; no evidence of recurrent disease. At enrollment, patients must be within 12 weeks of their last anti-cancer intervention. Patients are randomized 2:1 to receive oral olaparib 300 mg twice daily or placebo for 12 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint is relapse-free survival. Overall survival is a secondary endpoint. Tumor tissue, fecal material (for microbiome analysis) and serial ctDNA samples are being collected

The management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Current expert opinion and recommendations derived from the 24th ESMO/World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona, 2022

This article summarises expert discussion on the management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which took place during the 24th World Gastrointestinal Cancer Congress (WGICC) in Barcelona, July 2022. A multidisciplinary approach is mandatory to ensure an optimal diagnosis and staging of HCC, planning of curative and therapeutic options, including surgical, embolisation, ablative strategies, or systemic therapy. Furthermore, in many patients with HCC, underlying liver cirrhosis represents a challenge and influences the therapeutic options

Adjuvant nab-Paclitaxel + Gemcitabine in Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Results from a Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430). METHODS We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 (nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 (nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent (nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine

Neoadjuvant treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 5520 patients

Background: Recent years have seen standardization of the anatomic definitions of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and increasing utilization of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). The aim of the current review was to summarize the evidence for NAT in pancreatic adenocarcinoma since 2009, when consensus criteria for resectable (R), borderline resectable (BR), and locally advanced (LA) disease were endorsed. Methods: PubMed search was undertaken along with extensive backward search of the references of published articles to identify studies utilizing NAT for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Abstracts from ASCO-GI 2014 and 2015 were also searched. Results: A total of 96 studies including 5520 patients were included in the final quantitative synthesis. Pooled estimates revealed 36% grade ≥ 3 toxicities, 5% biliary complications, 21% hospitalization rate and low mortality (0%, range 0–16%) during NAT. The majority of patients (59%) had stable disease. On an intention-to-treat basis, R0-resection rates varied from 63% among R patients to 23% among LA patients. R0 rates were \u3e 80% among all patients who were resected after NAT. Among R and BR patients who underwent resection after NAT, median OS was 30 and 27.4 months, respectively. Conclusions: The current study summarizes the recent literature for NAT in pancreatic adenocarcinoma and demonstrates improving outcomes after NAT compared to those historically associated with a surgery-first approach for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Everolimus with or without bevacizumab in advanced pNET: CALGB 80701 (Alliance).

Treatment with the MTOR inhibitor everolimus improves progression-free survival (PFS) in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs), but it is not known if the addition of a VEGF pathway inhibitor to an MTOR inhibitor enhances antitumor activity. We performed a randomized phase II study evaluating everolimus with or without bevacizumab in patients with advanced pNETs. One hundred and fifty patients were randomized to receive everolimus 10 mg daily with or without bevacizumab 10 mg/kg i.v. every 2 weeks. Patients also received standard dose of octreotide in both arms. The primary endpoint was PFS, based on local investigator review. Treatment with the combination of everolimus and bevacizumab resulted in improved progression-free survival compared to everolimus (16.7 months compared to 14.0 months; one-sided stratified log-rank P = 0.1028; hazard ratio (HR) 0.80 (95% CI 0.56-1.13)), meeting the predefined primary endpoint. Confirmed tumor responses were observed in 31% (95% CI 20%, 41%) of patients receiving combination therapy, as compared to only 12% (95% CI 5%, 19%) of patients receiving treatment with everolimus (P = 0.0053). Median overall survival duration was similar in the everolimus and combination arm (42.5 and 42.1 months, respectively). Treatment-related toxicities were more common in the combination arm. In summary, treatment with everolimus and bevacizumab led to superior PFS and higher response rates compared to everolimus in patients with advanced pNETs. Although the higher rate of treatment-related adverse events may limit the use of this combination, our results support the continued evaluation of VEGF pathway inhibitors in pNETs

Preoperative Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic radiation plus sensitizing chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine (chemoradiotherapy) before surgery is standard care for locally advanced rectal cancer in North America. Whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) can be used in lieu of chemoradiotherapy is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuvant FOLFOX (with chemoradiotherapy given only if the primary tumor decreased in size by RESULTS: From June 2012 through December 2018, a total of 1194 patients underwent randomization and 1128 started treatment; among those who started treatment, 585 were in the FOLFOX group and 543 in the chemoradiotherapy group. At a median follow-up of 58 months, FOLFOX was noninferior to chemoradiotherapy for disease-free survival (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.92; 90.2% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.14; P = 0.005 for noninferiority). Five-year disease-free survival was 80.8% (95% CI, 77.9 to 83.7) in the FOLFOX group and 78.6% (95% CI, 75.4 to 81.8) in the chemoradiotherapy group. The groups were similar with respect to overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.44) and local recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.44 to 3.16). In the FOLFOX group, 53 patients (9.1%) received preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 8 (1.4%) received postoperative chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who were eligible for sphincter-sparing surgery, preoperative FOLFOX was noninferior to preoperative chemoradiotherapy with respect to disease-free survival. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; PROSPECT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01515787.)

Adjuvant nab-Paclitaxel + Gemcitabine in Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Results From a Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial

PURPOSE: This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430). METHODS: We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m(2)) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 (nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 (nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent (nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION: The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine