Resectability and Ablatability Criteria for the Treatment of Liver Only Colorectal Metastases:Multidisciplinary Consensus Document from the COLLISION Trial Group

The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a 'toolbox' of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.</p

Locoregional treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer utilizing resection, ablation and embolization: A systematic review

The prognosis of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) remains univer-sally poor, requiring new and innovative treatment approaches. In a subset of oligometastatic PDAC patients, locoregional therapy, in addition to systemic chemotherapy, may improve survival. The aim of this systematic review was to explore and evaluate the current evidence on locoregional treatments for mPDAC. A systematic literature search was conducted on locoregional techniques, including resection, ablation and embolization, for mPDAC with a focus on hepatic and pulmonary metastases. A total of 59 studies were identified, including 63,453 patients. Although subject to significant bias, radical-intent local therapy for both the primary and metastatic sites was associated with a superior median overall survival from metastatic diagnosis or treatment (hepatic mPDAC 7.8–19 months; pulmonary mPDAC 22.8–47 months) compared to control groups receiving chemotherapy or best supportive care (hepatic mPDAC 4.3–7.6 months; pulmonary mPDAC 11.8 months). To recruit patients that may benefit from these local treatments, selection appears essential. Most significant is the upfront possibility of local radical pancreatic and metastatic treatment. In addition, a patient’s response to neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy, performance status, metastatic disease load and, to a lesser degree, histological differentiation grade and tumor marker CA19-9 serum levels, are powerful prognostic factors that help identify eligible subjects. Although the exact additive value of locoregional treatments for mPDAC patients cannot be distillated from the results, locoregional primary pancreatic and metastatic treatment seems beneficial for a highly selected group of oligometastatic PDAC patients. For definite recommendations, well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials with strict in-and exclusion criteria are needed to validate these results

Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Percutaneous Management Using Ablation, Brachytherapy, Intra-arterial Chemotherapy, and Intra-tumoral Immunotherapy

Purpose of Review: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most aggressive neoplasms, bearing a terrible prognosis. Stage III tumors, also known as locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), are unresectable, and current palliative chemotherapy regimens have only modestly improved survival in these patients. At this stage of disease, interventional techniques may be of value and further prolong life. The aim of this review was to explore current literature on locoregional percutaneous management for LAPC. Recent Findings: Locoregional percutaneous interventional techniques such as ablation, brachytherapy, and intra-arterial chemotherapy possess cytoreductive abilities and have the potential to increase survival. In addition, recent research demonstrates the immunomodulatory capacities of these treatments. This immune response may be leveraged by combining the interventional techniques with intra-tumoral immunotherapy, possibly creating a durable anti-tumor effect. This multimodality treatment approach is currently being examined in several ongoing clinical trials. Summary: The use of certain interventional techniques appears to improve survival in LAPC patients and may work synergistically when combined with immunotherapy. However, definitive conclusions can only be made when large prospective (randomized controlled) trials confirm these results

The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in repeat local treatment of recurrent colorectal liver metastases: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The additive value of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) prior to repeat local treatment of patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is unclear. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and an additional search in Google Scholar to find articles comparing repeat local treatment by partial hepatectomy and/or thermal ablation with versus without NAC. The search included randomized trials and comparative observational studies with univariate/multivariate analysis and/or matching as well as (inter)national guidelines assessed using the AGREE II instrument. The search identified 21,832 records; 172 were selected for full‐text review; 20 were included: 20 comparative observational studies were evaluated. Literature to evaluate the additive value of NAC prior to repeat local treatment was limited. Outcomes of NAC were often reported as subgroup analyses and reporting of results was frequently unclear. Assessment of the seven studies that qualified for inclusion in the meta‐analysis showed conflicting results. Only one study reported a significant difference in overall survival (OS) favoring NAC prior to repeat local treatment. However, further analysis revealed a high risk for residual bias, because only a selected group of chemo‐responders qualified for repeat local treatment, disregarding the non‐responders who did not qualify. All guidelines that specifically mention recurrent disease (3/3) recommend repeat local treatment; none provide recommendations about the role of NAC. The inconclusive findings of this meta‐analysis do not support recommendations to routinely favor NAC prior to repeat local treatment. This emphasizes the need to investigate the additive value of NAC prior to repeat local treatment of patients with recurrent CRLM in a future phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT)

Repeat local treatment of recurrent colorectal liver metastases, the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy: An amsterdam colorectal liver met registry (amcore) based study

This cohort study aimed to evaluate efficacy, safety, and survival outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by repeat local treatment compared to upfront repeat local treatment of recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). A total of 152 patients with 267 tumors from the prospective Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) met the inclusion criteria. Two cohorts of patients with recurrent CRLM were compared: patients who received chemotherapy prior to repeat local treatment (32 patients) versus upfront repeat local treatment (120 patients). Data from May 2002 to December 2020 were collected. Results on the primary endpoint overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints local tumor progression‐free survival (LTPFS) and distant progression‐free survival (DPFS) were reviewed using the Kaplan– Meier method. Subsequently, uni‐ and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models, accounting for potential confounders, were estimated. Additionally, subgroup analyses, according to patient, initial and repeat local treatment characteristics, were conducted. Procedure‐related complications and length of hospital stay were compared using chi‐square test and Fisher’s exact test. The 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year OS from date of diagnosis of recurrent disease was 98.6%, 72.5%, and 47.7% for both cohorts combined. The crude survival analysis did not reveal a significant difference in OS between the two cohorts (p = 0.834), with 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year OS of 100.0%, 73.2%, and 57.5% for the NAC group and 98.2%, 72.3%, and 45.3% for the upfront repeat local treatment group, respectively. After adjusting for two confounders, comorbidities (p = 0.010) and primary tumor location (p = 0.023), the corrected HR in multivariable analysis was 0.839 (95% CI, 0.416–1.691; p = 0.624). No differences between the two cohorts were found with regards to LTPFS (HR = 0.662; 95% CI, 0.249–1.756; p = 0.407) and DPFS (HR = 0.798; 95% CI, 0.483–1.318; p = 0.378). No heterogeneous treatment effects were detected in subgroup analyses according to patient, disease, and treatment characteristics. No significant difference was found in periprocedural complications (p = 0.843) and median length of hospital stay (p = 0.600) between the two cohorts. Chemotherapy‐related toxicity was reported in 46.7% of patients. Adding NAC prior to repeat local treatment did not improve OS, LTPFS, or DPFS, nor did it affect periprocedural morbidity or length of hospital stay. The results of this comparative assessment do not substantiate the routine use of NAC prior to repeat local treatment of CRLM. Because the exact role of NAC (in different subgroups) remains inconclusive, we are currently designing a phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT), COLLISION RELAPSE trial, directly comparing upfront repeat local treatment (control) to neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by repeat local treatment (intervention)

Thermal ablation compared to partial hepatectomy for recurrent colorectal liver metastases: An amsterdam colorectal liver met registry (amcore) based study

The aim of this study was to assess safety, efficacy and survival outcomes of repeat thermal ablation as compared to repeat partial hepatectomy in patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) based study of two cohorts, repeat thermal ablation versus repeat partial hepatectomy, analyzed 136 patients (100 thermal ablation, 36 partial hepatectomy) and 224 tumors (170 thermal ablation, 54 partial hepatectomy) with recurrent CRLM from May 2002 to December 2020. The primary and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), distant progression-free survival (DPFS) and local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS), estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and complications, analyzed using the chi-square test. Multivariable analyses based on Cox proportional hazards model were used to account for potential confounders. In addition, subgroup analyses according to patient, initial and repeat local treatment characteristics were performed. In the crude overall comparison, OS of patients treated with repeat partial hepatectomy was not statistically different from repeat thermal ablation (p = 0.927). Further quantification of OS, after accounting for potential confounders, demonstrated concordant results for repeat local treatment (hazard ratio (HR), 0.986; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.517–1.881; p = 0.966). The 1-, 3-and 5-year OS were 98.9%, 62.6% and 42.3% respectively for the thermal ablation group and 93.8%, 74.5% and 49.3% for the repeat resection group. No differences in DPFS (p = 0.942), LTPFS (p = 0.397) and complication rate (p = 0.063) were found. Mean length of hospital stay was 2.1 days in the repeat thermal ablation group and 4.8 days in the repeat partial hepatectomy group (p = 0.009). Subgroup analyses identified no heterogeneous treatment effects according to patient, initial and repeat local treatment characteristics. Repeat partial hepatectomy was not statistically different from repeat thermal ablation with regard to OS, DPFS, LTPFS and complications, whereas length of hospital stay favored repeat thermal ablation. Thermal ablation should be considered a valid and potentially less invasive alternative for small-size (0–3 cm) CRLM in the treatment of recurrent new CRLM. While, the eagerly awaited results of the phase III prospective randomized controlled COLLISION trial (NCT03088150) should provide definitive answers regarding surgery versus thermal ablation for CRLM

Primary tumor sidedness, ras and braf mutations and msi status as prognostic factors in patients with colorectal liver metastases treated with surgery and thermal ablation: Results from the amsterdam colorectal liver met registry (amcore)

The aim of this study was to assess primary tumor sidedness of colorectal cancer (CRC), rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (RAS) and v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) mutations and microsatellite instability (MSI) status as prognostic factors predicting complications, survival outcomes, and local tumor progression (LTP) following surgery and thermal ablation in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) based study included 520 patients, 774 procedures, and 2101 tumors undergoing local treatment (resection and/or thermal ablation) from 2000 to 2021. Outcomes following local treatment were analyzed for primary tumor sidedness of CRC, RAS, and BRAF mutations and MSI status. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS), local control (LC), distant progression-free survival (DPFS), and overall survival (OS). Uni-and multivariable analyses were performed based on Cox proportional hazards model. The chi-square test was used to analyze complications. Complications (p = 0.485), OS (p = 0.252), LTPFS (p = 0.939), and LC (p = 0.423) was not associated with tumor-sidedness. Compared to right-sided colon cancer (CC) (reference HR 1.000), DPFS was superior for left-sided CC and rectal cancer (p = 0.018) with an HR for left-sided CC of 0.742 (95% CI, 0.596–0.923) and for RC of 0.760 (95% CI, 0.597–0.966). Regarding RAS mutations, no significant difference was found in OS (p = 0.116). DPFS (p = 0.001), LTPFS (p = 0.039), and LC (p = 0.025) were significantly lower in the RAS mutation group. Though no difference in LTPFS was found between RAS wildtype and RAS mutated CRLM following resection (p = 0.532), LTPFS was worse for RAS mutated tumors compared to RAS wildtype following thermal ablation (p = 0.037). OS was significantly lower in the BRAF mutation group (p < 0.001) and in the MSI group (p < 0.001) following local treatment, while both did not affect DPFS, LTPFS, and LC. This AmCORE based study suggests the necessity of wider margins to reduce LTP rates in patients with RAS mutated CRLM, especially for thermal ablation. Upfront knowledge regarding molecular biomarkers may contribute to improved oncological outcomes

Pancreatic cancer and immunotherapy: A clinical overview

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive disease with high mortality. The vast majority of patients present with unresectable, advanced stage disease, for whom standard of care chemo(radio)therapy may improve survival by several months. Immunotherapy has led to a fundamental shift in the treatment of several advanced cancers. However, its efficacy in PDAC in terms of clinical benefit is limited, possibly owing to the immunosuppressive, inaccessible tumor microenvironment. Still, various immunotherapies have demonstrated the capacity to initiate local and systemic immune responses, suggesting an immune potentiating effect. In this review, we address PDAC’s immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and immune evasion methods and discuss a wide range of immunotherapies, including immunomodulators (i.e., immune checkpoint inhibitors, immune stimulatory agonists, cytokines and adjuvants), oncolytic viruses, adoptive cell therapies (i.e., T cells and natural killer cells) and cancer vaccines. We provide a general introduction to their working mechanism as well as evidence of their clinical efficacy and immune potentiating abilities in PDAC. The key to successful implementation of immunotherapy in this disease may rely on exploitation of synergistic effects between treatment combinations. Accordingly, future treatment approaches should aim to incorporate diverse and novel immunotherapeutic strategies coupled with cytotoxic drugs and/or local ablative treatment, targeting a wide array of tumor-induced immune escape mechanisms

Irreversible electroporation and nivolumab combined with intratumoral administration of a toll‐like receptor ligand, as a means of in vivo vaccination for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (Panfire‐iii). a phase‐i study protocol

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a novel image‐guided tumor ablation technique with the ability to generate a window for the establishment of systemic antitumor immunity. IRE transiently alters the tumor’s immunosuppressive microenvironment while simultaneously generating antigen release, thereby instigating an adaptive immune response. Combining IRE with immunotherapeutic drugs, i.e., electroimmunotherapy, has synergistic potential and might induce a durable antitumor response. The primary objective of this study is to assess the safety of the combination of IRE with IMO‐2125 (a toll‐like receptor 9 ligand) and/or nivolumab in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). In this randomized controlled phase I clinical trial, 18 patients with mPDAC pretreated with chemotherapy will be enrolled in one of three study arms: A (control): nivolumab monotherapy; B: percutaneous IRE of the primary tumor followed by nivolumab; or C: intratumoral injection of IMO‐2125 followed by percutaneous IRE of the primary tumor and nivolumab. Assessments include contrast enhanced computed tomography (ceCT),18F‐FDG and18F‐BMS‐986192 (PD‐L1) positron emission tomography (PET)‐CT, biopsies of the primary tumor and metastases, peripheral blood samples, and quality of life and pain questionnaires. There is no curative treatment option for patients with mPDAC, and palliative chemotherapy regimens only moderately improve survival. Consequently, there is an urgent need for innovative and radically different treatment approaches. Should electroimmunotherapy establish an effective and durable anti‐tumor response, it may ultimately improve PDAC’s dismal prognosis

Improved Outcomes of Thermal Ablation for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A 10-Year Analysis from the Prospective Amsterdam CORE Registry (AmCORE)

Background: To analyze long-term oncological outcomes of open and percutaneous thermal ablation in the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Methods: This assessment from a prospective, longitudinal tumor registry included 329 patients who underwent 541 procedures for 1350 CRLM from January 2010 to February 2021. Three cohorts were formed: 2010–2013 (129 procedures [53 percutaneous]), 2014–2017 (206 procedures [121 percutaneous]) and 2018–2021 (206 procedures [135 percutaneous]). Local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) and overall survival (OS) data were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Potential confounding factors were analyzed with uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses. Results: LTPFS improved significantly over time for percutaneous ablations (2-year LTPFS 37.7% vs. 69.0% vs. 86.3%, respectively, P <.0001), while LTPFS for open ablations remained reasonably stable (2-year LTPFS 87.1% [2010–2013], vs. 92.7% [2014–2017] vs. 90.2% [2018–2021], P =.12). In the latter cohort (2018–2021), the open approach was no longer superior regarding LTPFS (P =.125). No differences between the three cohorts were found regarding OS (P =.088), length of hospital stay (open approach, P =.065; percutaneous approach, P =.054), and rate and severity of complications (P =.404). The rate and severity of complications favored the percutaneous approach in all three cohorts (P =.002). Conclusion: Over the last 10 years efficacy of percutaneous ablations has improved remarkably for the treatment of CRLM. Oncological outcomes seem to have reached results following open ablation. Given its minimal invasive character and shorter length of hospital stay, whenever feasible, percutaneous procedures may be favored over an open approach