24 research outputs found

    Refinement of screening for familial pancreatic cancer

    Get PDF
    Conclusions It appears safe to start screening for PDAC in IAR of non-CDKN2a FPC families at the age of 50 years. MRI-based screening supplemented by EUS at baseline and every 3rd year or when changes in MRI occur appears to be efficient.Surgical oncolog

    LCN2 and TIMP1 as potential serum markers for the early detection of familial pancreatic cancer.

    Get PDF
    High-risk individuals of familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) families are considered to be good candidates for screening programs to detect early PC or its high-grade precursor lesions, especially pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) 2/3 lesions. There is a definite need for diagnostic markers as neither reliable imaging methods nor biomarkers are available to detect these lesions. On the basis of a literature search, the potential serum markers neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (LCN2), metallopeptidase inhibitor 1 (TIMP1), chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 16 (CXCL16), IGFBP4, and iC3a, which were first tested in transgenic KrasLSL.(G12D/+);p53(R172H/+);Pdx1-Cre mice, were identified. ELISA analyses of LCN2, TIMP1, and CXCL16 revealed significantly higher levels in mice with PanIN2/3 lesions or PC compared to mice with normal pancreata or PanIN1 lesions. Analysis of preoperative human serum samples from patients with sporadic PC (n = 61), hereditary PC (n = 24), chronic pancreatitis (n = 28), pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (n = 11), and FPC patients with histologically proven multifocal PanIN2/3 lesions (n = 3), as well as healthy control subjects (n = 20), confirmed significantly higher serum levels of LCN2 and TIMP1 in patients with PC and multifocal PanIN2/3 lesions. The combination of LCN2 and TIMP1 as a diagnostic test for the detection of PC had a sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of 100% each. Although this preliminary finding needs to be validated in a large series of individuals at high risk for FPC, serum measurement of LCN2 and TIMP1 might be a promising screening tool

    A randomised phase II trial of weekly high-dose 5-fluorouracil with and without folinic acid and cisplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma: results of the 40955 EORTC trial.

    No full text
    Item does not contain fulltextPrevious small phase II trials have demonstrated that the combination of 5-fluorouracil (5FU) and cisplatin(CDDP) could have clinical activity in metastatic biliary tract cancer. This randomised phase II trial was designed to assess the activity and safety of a high-dose infusional weekly 5FU alone (HDFU) and the combination of 5FU, folinic acid (FA) and CDDP. Patients were included if they had histologically proven locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract carcinoma, World Health Organisation (WHO) performance status < or = 2, bilirubin <2 x upper normal limit, adequate haematological and renal functions and had not received prior chemotherapy, even in the adjuvant setting. Treatments: Arm A (HDFU) consisted of cycles of 5FU 3 g/m(2) intravenously (i.v.), 24 h infusion, weekly, for 6 weeks, followed by 1 week rest, every 7 weeks; Arm B (5FU+FA+CDDP) consisted of cycles of 5FU 2.0 g/m(2) i.v. with folinic acid 500 mg/m(2), 2 h-infusion, weekly, for 6 weeks, followed by 1 week rest plus cisplatin 50 mg/m(2), once every two weeks, for 6 weeks, followed by 1 week rest, every 7 weeks. From February 1997 to June 1999, 58 patients were randomised (29 in each arm). Patients had a median age of 58 years in Arm A and 62 years in Arm B, locally advanced disease was present in 21% of the patients in Arm A and 11% in Arm B. WHO performance status of 0/1/2 was noted in 48%/45%/7% of the patients in Arm A and 54%/43%/4% in Arm B. In both arms, the most common metastatic sites were the liver and peritoneum. Twenty-eight patients were eligible in each arm and one patient did not start the allocated therapy in Arm B. The median number of cycles was 2 [range 1-12] in Arm A and 2 [range 1-6] in Arm B. Responses for the eligible patients who started their allocated therapy were as follows: Complete Response (CR) 0% in Arm A, 4% in Arm B, Partial Response (PR) 7% in Arm A, 15% in Arm B resulting in an overall response rate [95% CI] of 7.1% in Arm A [0.9-23.5%] and 19% [6.3-38.1%] in Arm B. Disease stabilisation was observed in 46% in Arm A and 44% in Arm B. National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) grade 3-4 adverse events (% of patients in Arm A/Arm B) were neutropenia 4%/26%, thrombopenia 0%/7%, stomatitis 0%/4%, vomiting 7%/14%, diarrhoea 0%/11% and neurotoxicity 4%/0%. There was one early toxic death in Arm B. The median overall survival (OS) [95% CI] was in Arm A/Arm B: 5.0 [4.0-7.4] months/8.0 [5.8-11.8] months and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.3 [1.7-4.7] months/3.3 [2.3-6.7] months. Cisplatin in combination with 5FU+FA showed a higher activity than HDFU, but was more toxic. These results are not sufficient to start a phase III trial. However, our group is planning a phase III trial comparing 5FU+folinic acid versus the same schedule+oxaliplatin a platinum analogue
    corecore