Back to Authors

Pillarisetty, Venu Gopal

0000-0002-1162-9643

Mayo Clinic

University of Washington

Citations 4

The DNAJB1–PRKACA Oncogenic Fusion Drives Stepwise Biliary and Pancreatic Carcinogenesis from Intraductal Precursor Lesions
Carney, Patrick R. , Carter, Jason A, Stram, Austin, Rubinstein, C Dustin, Pillarisetty, Venu G, Ronnekleiv-Kelly, Sean M , Nukaya, Manabu , Carter, Jason A. , Veltri, Anthony J. , Matkowskyj, Kristina A. , Rubinstein, Clifford Dustin , Veith, Alex C. , Pillarisetty, Venu Gopal , Bradfield, Christopher A.

No container title available | May 27, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.64898/2026.05.23.727425 Get It

SUMMARY Intraductal oncocytic papillary neoplasms (IOPNs) are rare tumors that develop from biliary and pancreatic ductal epithelium and progress to lethal cancers. Human IOPNs and IOPN-associated carcinomas are known to harbor the DNAJB1-PRKACA gene fusion, however the role of the oncogenic fusion in carcinogenesis is poorly understood. We developed a Cre-inducible mouse model of human DNAJB1-PRKACA expression and substantiated that the DNAJB1-PRKACA fusion gene is a bona fide driver of IOPN-associated biliary and pancreatic carcinoma. By analyzing the unique histopathologic and transcriptional changes that occur at each stage of tumor development, we found that these murine tumors closely mimic human DNAJB1-PRKACA driven tumors. Furthermore, we identified that many of the salient features of invasive carcinoma are established at the pre-invasive stage, including evidence of tumor cell metabolic dysregulation, immunosuppressive tumor stroma and expression of genes strongly associated with invasive DNAJB1-PRKACA driven cancer in humans. Finally, we found that Slc16a14 , a characteristic DNAJB1-PRKACA regulated super-enhancer associated gene, serves as a robust biomarker of malignant transformation from IOPN to invasive carcinoma.
Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Tumors, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
Shah, Manisha H. , Benson, Al B. , Bergsland, Emily K. , Blaszkowsky, Lawrence S. , Brock, Pamela , Chan, J.K.C., Das, Satya , Dickson, Paxton V. , Fanta, Paul T. , Giordano, Thomas J. , Halperin, Daniel M. , He, Jin , Heaney, Anthony P. , Heslin, Martin J. , Kandeel, Fouad , Kardan, Arash , Khan, Sajid , Kuvshinoff, Boris W. , Miller, Kimberly D. , Reidy‐Lagunes, Diane , Salgado, Sarimar Agosto , Shaheen, Shagufta , Sussman, Craig, Trikalinos, Nikolaos A. , Uboha, N., Vijayvergia, Namrata , Lynn, Beth, Hochstetler, Cindy, Trikalinos, Nikolaos A , Goldner, Whitney Sears , Hálfdánarson, Þorvarður R. , Lieu, Christopher H. , Pillarisetty, Venu Gopal , Soares, Heloisa P. , Soulen, Michael C , Strosberg, Jonathan , Wong, Terence Z.

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | August 2, 2021 | Volume: 19 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 839-868

10.6004/jnccn.2021.0032 Get It

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Gland Tumors focus on the diagnosis, treatment, and management of patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), adrenal tumors, pheochromocytomas, paragangliomas, and multiple endocrine neoplasia. NETs are generally subclassified by site of origin, stage, and histologic characteristics. Appropriate diagnosis and treatment of NETs often involves collaboration between specialists in multiple disciplines, using specific biochemical, radiologic, and surgical methods. Specialists include pathologists, endocrinologists, radiologists (including nuclear medicine specialists), and medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists. These guidelines discuss the diagnosis and management of both sporadic and hereditary neuroendocrine and adrenal tumors and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. This article is focused on the 2021 NCCN Guidelines principles of genetic risk assessment and counseling and recommendations for well-differentiated grade 3 NETs, poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas, adrenal tumors, pheochromocytomas, and paragangliomas.
Patterns of recurrence and survival probability after second recurrence of retroperitoneal sarcoma: A study from TARPSWG
Houdt, Winan J. van , Fiore, Marco , Barretta, Francesco , Blay, Jean‐Yves , Lahat, Guy, Strauß, D. , Ahuja, Nita , Grignani, Giovanni , Quagliuolo, Vittorio , Stoeckle, Eberhard , Schrage, Yvonne , Pennacchioli, Elisabetta , Swallow, Carol J. , Canter, Robert J. , Mullen, John T. , Fairweather, Mark , Miceli, Rosalba , Raut, Chandrajit P. , Gladdy, Rebecca A. , van Houdt, Winan J , Blay, Jean-Yves , Grignani, Giovanni , Bagaria, Sanjay P , Callegaro, Dario , Fiore, Marco , Rutkowski, Piotr , González, Ricardo , Paoli, Antonino De , Cardona, Kenneth , Pillarisetty, Venu Gopal , Nessim, Carolyn , Bagaria, Sanjay P. , Callegaro, Dario , Gronchi, Alessandro

Cancer | August 15, 2020 | Volume: 126 | Issue: 22 | Pages: 4917-4925

10.1002/cncr.33139 Get It

Background In this series from the Transatlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPSWG), the authors examined longitudinal outcomes of patients with a second recurrence of retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) after complete resection of a first local recurrence (LR). Methods Data from patients undergoing resection of a first LR from January 2002 to December 2011were collected from 22 sarcoma centers. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) after second recurrence. Results Second recurrences occurred in 400 of 567 patients (70.5%) after an R0/R1 resection of a first locally recurrent RPS. Patterns of disease recurrence were LR in 323 patients (80.75%), distant metastases (DM) in 55 patients (13.75%), and both LR and DM in 22 patients (5.5%). The main subtype among the LR group was liposarcoma (77%), whereas DM mainly were leiomyosarcomas (43.6%). In patients with a second LR only, a total of 200 patients underwent re‐resection (61.9%). The 5‐year OS rate varied significantly based on the pattern of failure ( P < .001): 45.6% for the LR group, 25.5% for the DM group, and 0% for the group with LR and DM. The only factors found to be associated with improved OS on multivariable analysis were both time between second surgery and the development of the second recurrence (32 months vs 8 months: hazard ratio, 0.44 [ P < .001]) and surgery for second recurrence (yes vs no: hazard ratio, 3.25 [ P < .001]). The 5‐year OS rate for patients undergoing surgery for a second LR was 59% versus 18% in the patients not deemed suitable for surgical resection. Conclusions Survival rates after second recurrence of RPS varied based on patterns of disease recurrence and treatment. Durable disease‐free survivors were identified after surgery for second LR in patients selected for this intervention.
Predicting Survival in Patients Undergoing Resection for Locally Recurrent Retroperitoneal Sarcoma: A Study and Novel Nomogram from TARPSWG
Raut, Chandrajit P. , Callegaro, Dario , Miceli, Rosalba , Barretta, Francesco , Rutkowski, Piotr , Blay, Jean‐Yves , Lahat, Guy, Strauß, D. , Ahuja, Nita , Grignani, Giovanni , Quagliuolo, Vittorio , Stoeckle, Eberhard , Swallow, Carol J. , Canter, Robert J. , Mullen, John T. , Gelderblom, Hans , Pennacchioli, Elisabetta , Coevorden, Frits van , Fiore, Marco , Fairweather, Mark , Blay, Jean-Yves , Grignani, Giovanni , Callegaro, Dario , Fiore, Marco , Gelderblom, Hans , González, Ricardo , Paoli, Antonino De , Pillarisetty, Venu Gopal , Nessim, Carolyn , Bagaria, Sanjay P. , Cardona, Kenneth , Gronchi, Alessandro

Clinical Cancer Research | February 5, 2019 | Volume: 25 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 2664-2671

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-18-2700 Get It

Abstract Purpose: The role of surgery for first relapse locally recurrent retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS-LR1) is uncertain. We report outcomes of the largest RPS-LR1 series and propose a new prognostic nomogram. Experimental Design: Patients with consecutive RPS-LR1 without distant metastases who underwent resection at 22 centers (2002–2011) were included. Endpoints were disease-free and overall survival (DFS, OS) and crude-cumulative-incidence (CCI) of local/distant recurrence from second surgery. Nomograms predicting DFS and OS from second surgery were developed and validated (calibration plots); discrimination was assessed (Harrell C index). Results: Of 684 patients identified, full prognostic variable data were available for 602. Initial surgery for primary RPS was performed at our institutions in 188 patients (31%) and elsewhere in 414 (69%). At a median follow-up of 119 months [Interquartile range (IQR), 80–169] from initial surgery and 75 months (IQR 50–105) from second surgery, 6-year DFS and OS were 19.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 16.0–23.0%] and 54.1% (95% CI, 49.8–58.8%), respectively. Recurrence patterns and survival probability were histology-specific, with liposarcoma subtypes having the highest 6-year CCI of second local recurrence (LR, 60.2%–70.9%) and leiomyosarcoma (LMS) having higher 6-year CCI of distant metastasis (DM, 36.3%). Nomograms included age at second surgery, multifocality, grade, completeness of second surgery, histology, chemotherapy/radiotherapy at first surgery, and number of organs resected at first surgery. OS and DFS nomograms showed good calibration and discriminative ability (C index 0.70 and 0.67, respectively). Conclusions: We developed nomograms to predict DFS and OS for patients undergoing RPS-LR1 resection. Nomograms provide individualized, disease-relevant estimations of survival for RPS-LR1 patients and assist in clinical decisions.