Ma, Wen Wee

Pancreatic cancer is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Surgical resection with negative margins still constitutes the cornerstone of potentially curative therapy, but is possible only in 15–20% of patients at the time of initial diagnosis. Accumulating evidence suggests that the neoadjuvant approach may improve R0 resection rate in localized resectable and borderline resectable diseases, and potentially downstage locally advanced disease to achieve surgical resection, though the impact on survival is to be determined. Despite advancements in the last decade in developing effective combinational chemo-radio therapeutic options, preoperative treatment strategies, and better peri-operative care, pancreatic cancer continues to carry a dismal prognosis in the majority. Prodigious efforts are currently being made in optimizing the neoadjuvant therapy with a better toxicity profile, developing novel agents, imaging techniques, and identification of biomarkers for the disease. Advancement in our understanding of the tumor microenvironment and molecular pathology is urgently needed to facilitate the development of novel targeted and immunotherapies for this setting. In this review, we detail the current literature on contemporary management of resectable, borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer with a focus on future directions in the field.

Background: Serious adverse events (SAEs) and subject replacements occur frequently in phase 1 oncology clinical trials. Whether baseline quality-of-life (QOL) or social support can predict risk for SAEs or subject replacement among these patients is not known. Methods: Between 2011–2013, 92 patients undergoing screening for enrollment into one of 22 phase 1 solid tumor clinical trials at Roswell Park Cancer Institute were included in this study. QOL Questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G), Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOSSSS), Charlson comorbidity scores (CCS) and Royal Marsden scores (RMS) were obtained at baseline. Frequency of dose limiting toxicities (DLTs), subject replacement and SAEs that occurred within the first 4 cycles of treatment were recorded. Fisher’s exact test and Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test were used to study the association between categorical and continuous variables, respectively. A linear transformation was used to standardize QOL scores. p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Baseline QOL, MOSSSS, CCS and RMS were not associated with subject replacement nor DLTs. Baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 scores were significantly lower among patients who encountered SAEs within the first 4 cycles (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Lower (worse) EORTC QLQ-C30 score at baseline is associated with SAE occurrence during phase 1 oncology trials.

The recent success of anti-PD1 drugs in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with mismatch repair deficiency generated overwhelming enthusiasm for immunotherapy in the disease. However, patients with mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer represent only a small subset of the metastatic population. Current research focuses on advancing immunotherapy to earlier stages of the disease including adjuvant and first-line metastatic settings, and on inducing sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy through a combinatorial approach. Here, we review the contemporary understanding of the immune and molecular landscape in colorectal cancer and discuss ongoing clinical trials evaluating novel combination regimens based on immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUNDIncreased susceptibility to 5‐fluorouracil (5‐FU)/capecitabine can lead to rapidly occurring toxicity caused by impaired clearance, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency, and other genetic variations in the enzymes that metabolize 5‐FU. Life‐threatening 5‐FU overdoses occur because of infusion pump errors, dosage miscalculations, and accidental or suicidal ingestion of capecitabine. Uridine triacetate (Vistogard) was approved in 2015 for adult and pediatric patients who exhibit early‐onset severe or life‐threatening 5‐FU/capecitabine toxicities or present with an overdose. Uridine triacetate delivers high concentrations of uridine, which competes with toxic 5‐FU metabolites.METHODSIn 2 open‐label clinical studies, patients who presented with a 5‐FU/capecitabine overdose or an early onset of severe toxicities were treated. Patients received uridine triacetate as soon as possible (most within the first 96 hours after 5‐FU/capecitabine). Outcomes included survival, resumption of chemotherapy, and safety. Their survival was compared with the survival of a historical cohort of overdose patients who received only supportive care.RESULTSA total of 137 of 142 overdose patients (96%) treated with uridine triacetate survived and had a rapid reversal of severe acute cardiotoxicity and neurotoxicity; in addition, mucositis and leukopenia were prevented, or the patients recovered from them. In the historical cohort, 21 of 25 patients (84%) died. Among the 141 uridine triacetate–treated overdose patients with a diagnosis of cancer (the noncancer patients included 6 intentional or accidental pediatric overdoses), 53 resumed chemotherapy in < 30 days (median time after 5‐FU, 19.6 days), and this indicated a rapid recovery from toxicity. Adverse reactions in patients receiving uridine triacetate included vomiting (8.1%), nausea (4.6%), and diarrhea (3.5%).CONCLUSIONSIn these studies, uridine triacetate was a safe and effective lifesaving antidote for capecitabine and 5‐FU overexposure, and it facilitated the rapid resumption of chemotherapy. Cancer 2017;123:345–356. © 2016 American Cancer Society.