NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in treatment-naive patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (NAPOLI 3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Gemcitabine; Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomaGemcitabina; Adenocarcinoma ductal de pàncrees metastàticGemcitabina; Adenocarcinoma ductal de páncreas metastásicoBackground Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma remains one of the most lethal malignancies, with few treatment options. NAPOLI 3 aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). Methods NAPOLI 3 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study conducted at 187 community and academic sites in 18 countries worldwide across Europe, North America, South America, Asia, and Australia. Patients with mPDAC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive NALIRIFOX (liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2, administered sequentially as a continuous intravenous infusion over 46 h) on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, administered intravenously, on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Balanced block randomisation was stratified by geographical region, performance status, and liver metastases, managed through an interactive web response system. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, evaluated when at least 543 events were observed across the two treatment groups. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04083235. Findings Between Feb 19, 2020 and Aug 17, 2021, 770 patients were randomly assigned (NALIRIFOX, 383; nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine, 387; median follow-up 16·1 months [IQR 13·4–19·1]). Median overall survival was 11·1 months (95% CI 10·0–12·1) with NALIRIFOX versus 9·2 months (8·3–10·6) with nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine (hazard ratio 0·83; 95% CI 0·70–0·99; p=0·036). Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 322 (87%) of 370 patients receiving NALIRIFOX and 326 (86%) of 379 patients receiving nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine; treatment-related deaths occurred in six (2%) patients in the NALIRIFOX group and eight (2%) patients in the nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine group. Interpretation Our findings support use of the NALIRIFOX regimen as a possible reference regimen for first-line treatment of mPDAC.Ipsen

Randomised, open-label, phase II study of Gemcitabine with and without IMM-101 for advanced pancreatic cancer

Background: Immune Modulation and Gemcitabine Evaluation-1, a randomised, open-label, phase II, first-line, proof of concept study (NCT01303172), explored safety and tolerability of IMM-101 (heat-killed Mycobacterium obuense; NCTC 13365) with gemcitabine (GEM) in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Methods: Patients were randomised (2 : 1) to IMM-101 (10 mg ml−l intradermally)+GEM (1000 mg m−2 intravenously; n=75), or GEM alone (n=35). Safety was assessed on frequency and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) were collected. Results: IMM-101 was well tolerated with a similar rate of AE and serious adverse event reporting in both groups after allowance for exposure. Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 6.7 months for IMM-101+GEM v 5.6 months for GEM; while not significant, the hazard ratio (HR) numerically favoured IMM-101+GEM (HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.44–1.04, P=0.074). In a pre-defined metastatic subgroup (84%), OS was significantly improved from 4.4 to 7.0 months in favour of IMM-101+GEM (HR, 0.54, 95% CI 0.33–0.87, P=0.01). Conclusions: IMM-101 with GEM was as safe and well tolerated as GEM alone, and there was a suggestion of a beneficial effect on survival in patients with metastatic disease. This warrants further evaluation in an adequately powered confirmatory study

Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma by Immuno-Positron Emission Tomography

Diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) by current imaging techniques is useful and widely used in the clinic but presents several limitations and challenges, especially in small lesions that frequently cause radiological tumors infra-staging, false-positive diagnosis of metastatic tumor recurrence, and common occult micro-metastatic disease. The revolution in cancer multi-“omics” and bioinformatics has uncovered clinically relevant alterations in PDAC that still need to be integrated into patients’ clinical management, urging the development of non-invasive imaging techniques against principal biomarkers to assess and incorporate this information into the clinical practice. “Immuno-PET” merges the high target selectivity and specificity of antibodies and engineered fragments toward a given tumor cell surface marker with the high spatial resolution, sensitivity, and quantitative capabilities of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging techniques. In this review, we detail and provide examples of the clinical limitations of current imaging techniques for diagnosing PDAC. Furthermore, we define the different components of immuno-PET and summarize the existing applications of this technique in PDAC. The development of novel immuno-PET methods will make it possible to conduct the non-invasive diagnosis and monitoring of patients over time using in vivo, integrated, quantifiable, 3D, whole body immunohistochemistry working like a “virtual biopsy”

Zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, untreated, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (SPOTLIGHT): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Background: Zolbetuximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting claudin-18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2), has shown efficacy in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. We report the results of the SPOTLIGHT trial, which investigated the efficacy and safety of first-line zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 (modified folinic acid [or levofolinate], fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin regimen) versus placebo plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Methods: SPOTLIGHT is a global, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients from 215 centres in 20 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with CLDN18.2-positive (defined as ≥75% of tumour cells showing moderate-to-strong membranous CLDN18 staining), HER2-negative (based on local or central evaluation), previously untreated, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, with radiologically evaluable disease (measurable or non-measurable) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1; and adequate organ function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology and stratified according to region, number of organs with metastases, and previous gastrectomy. Patients received zolbetuximab (800 mg/m2 loading dose followed by 600 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) plus mFOLFOX6 (every 2 weeks) or placebo plus mFOLFOX6. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent review committee in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03504397, and is closed to new participants. Findings: Between June 21, 2018, and April 1, 2022, 565 patients were randomly assigned to receive either zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 (283 patients; the zolbetuximab group) or placebo plus mFOLFOX6 (282 patients; the placebo group). At least one dose of treatment was administered to 279 (99%) of 283 patients in the zolbetuximab group and 278 (99%) of 282 patients in the placebo group. In the zolbetuximab group, 176 (62%) patients were male and 107 (38%) were female. In the placebo group, 175 (62%) patients were male and 107 (38%) were female. The median follow-up duration for progression-free survival was 12·94 months in the zolbetuximab group versus 12·65 months in the placebo group. Zolbetuximab treatment showed a significant reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·75, 95% CI 0·60–0·94; p=0·0066). The median progression-free survival was 10·61 months (95% CI 8·90–12·48) in the zolbetuximab group versus 8·67 months (8·21–10·28) in the placebo group. Zolbetuximab treatment also showed a significant reduction in the risk of death versus placebo (HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·60–0·94; p=0·0053). Treatment-emergent grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 242 (87%) of 279 patients in the zolbetuximab group versus 216 (78%) of 278 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were nausea, vomiting, and decreased appetite. Treatment-related deaths occurred in five (2%) patients in the zolbetuximab group versus four (1%) patients in the placebo group. No new safety signals were identified. Interpretation: Targeting CLDN18.2 with zolbetuximab significantly prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival when combined with mFOLFOX6 versus placebo plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 might represent a new first-line treatment in these patients. Funding: Astellas Pharma, Inc.N

Una revisión sistemática de las recomendaciones diagnósticas y terapéuticas del panel de expertos en cáncer de origen desconocido

Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) is a metastatic cancer with confirmed histology of which the primary origin is unknown after to work up initial evaluation through a pathological clinical study, the analytical and imaging study. The diagnostic process includes the early obtaining of quality biopsy material. It includes its histological and immunohistochemical analysis: a study to determine the tumor line, an analysis of cytokeratins and a large battery of antibodies to confirm the specific origin of each possible tumor type. The development of molecular platforms has allowed improving the diagnosis of CUP, increasing the number of patients who can benefit from treatment with specific therapy, significantly increasing the survival and reducing the toxicity. However, the updated guidelines (NICE, ESMO, NCCN) emphasize that the impact on the clinical benefit of the specific treatment according to the results of the molecular platforms is still controversial.El Cáncer de Origen Desconocido (COD) es un cáncer metastásico con histología confirmada del cual se desconoce el origen primario después de realizar un estudio diagnóstico inicial mediante el estudio clínico patológico, el estudio analítico y de imagen. El estudio diagnóstico incluye la obtención precoz de material de biopsia de calidad. Incluye su análisis histológico e inmunohistoquímico: un estudio para determinar la estirpe tumoral, análisis de citoqueratinas y una batería amplia de anticuerpos para confirmar el origen específico. El desarrollo de plataformas moleculares ha mejorado su diagnóstico, incrementando el número de pacientes que se benefician del tratamiento con terapia específica, aumentando su supervivencia y reduciendo la toxicidad. Sin embargo, las guías actualizadas (NICE, ESMO, NCCN) destacan que el impacto en el beneficio clínico del tratamiento específico según los resultados de las plataformas moleculares es todavía controvertido

Improving shared decision-making about cancer treatment through design-based data-driven decision-support tools and redesigning care paths: an overview of the 4D PICTURE project

Background: Patients with cancer often have to make complex decisions about treatment, with the options varying in risk profiles and effects on survival and quality of life. Moreover, inefficient care paths make it hard for patients to participate in shared decision-making. Data-driven decision-support tools have the potential to empower patients, support personalized care, improve health outcomes and promote health equity. However, decision-support tools currently seldom consider quality of life or individual preferences, and their use in clinical practice remains limited, partly because they are not well integrated in patients’ care paths. Aim and objectives: The central aim of the 4D PICTURE project is to redesign patients’ care paths and develop and integrate evidence-based decision-support tools to improve decision-making processes in cancer care delivery. This article presents an overview of this international, interdisciplinary project. Design, methods and analysis: In co-creation with patients and other stakeholders, we will develop data-driven decision-support tools for patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer and melanoma. We will support treatment decisions by using large, high-quality datasets with state-of-the-art prognostic algorithms. We will further develop a conversation tool, the Metaphor Menu, using text mining combined with citizen science techniques and linguistics, incorporating large datasets of patient experiences, values and preferences. We will further develop a promising methodology, MetroMapping, to redesign care paths. We will evaluate MetroMapping and these integrated decision-support tools, and ensure their sustainability using the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework. We will explore the generalizability of MetroMapping and the decision-support tools for other types of cancer and across other EU member states. Ethics: Through an embedded ethics approach, we will address social and ethical issues. Discussion: Improved care paths integrating comprehensive decision-support tools have the potential to empower patients, their significant others and healthcare providers in decision-making and improve outcomes. This project will strengthen health care at the system level by improving its resilience and efficiency