Tempero, Margaret A.

Guideline-recommended screening programs exist for only a few single-cancer types, and these cancers represent less than one-half of all new cancer cases diagnosed each year in the U.S. In addition, these “single-cancer” standard of care (SoC) screening tests vary in accuracy, adherence, and effectiveness, though all are generally understood to lead to reductions in cancer-related mortality. Recent advances in high-throughput technologies and machine learning have facilitated the development of blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests. The opportunity for early detection of multiple cancers with a single blood test holds promise in addressing the current unmet need in cancer screening. By complementing existing SoC screening, MCED tests have the potential to detect a wide range of cancers at earlier stages when patients are asymptomatic, enabling more effective treatment options and improved cancer outcomes. MCED tests are positioned to be utilized as a complementary screening tool to improve screening adherence at the population level, to broaden screening availability for individuals who are not adherent with SoC screening programs, as well as for those who may harbor cancers that do not have SoC testing available. Published work to date has primarily focused on test performance relating to sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). MCED tests will require approval through the pre-market approval pathway from the United States Food and Drug Administration. Additional studies will be needed to demonstrate clinical utility (i.e., improvements in health outcomes) and establish optimal implementation strategies, (i.e., testing intervals), follow-up and logistics of shared decision making. Here, we propose core attributes of MCED testing for which clinical data are needed to ideally position MCED testing for widespread use in clinical practice.

Ampullary cancers refer to tumors originating from the ampulla of Vater (the ampulla, the intraduodenal portion of the bile duct, and the intraduodenal portion of the pancreatic duct), while periampullary cancers may arise from locations encompassing the head of the pancreas, distal bile duct, duodenum, or ampulla of Vater. Ampullary cancers are rare gastrointestinal malignancies, and prognosis varies greatly based on factors such as patient age, TNM classification, differentiation grade, and treatment modality received. Systemic therapy is used in all stages of ampullary cancer, including neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, and first-line or subsequent-line therapy for locally advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease. Radiation therapy may be used in localized ampullary cancer, sometimes in combination with chemotherapy, but there is no high-level evidence to support its utility. Select tumors may be treated surgically. This article describes NCCN recommendations regarding management of ampullary adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430 ). METHODS We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m 2 ) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m 2 ) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.

Objectives Pancreatic resection is associated with postoperative morbidity and reduced quality of life (QoL). A systematic literature review was conducted to understand the patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) landscape in early-stage pancreatic cancer (PC). Methods Databases/registries (through January 24, 2019) and conference abstracts (2014–2017) were searched. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale/Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Searches were for general (resectable PC, adjuvant/neoadjuvant, QoL) and supplemental studies (resectable PC, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire [QLQ] – Pancreatic Cancer [PAN26]). Results Of 750 studies identified, 39 (general, 22; supplemental, 17) were eligible: 32 used QLQ Core 30 (C30) and/or QLQ-PAN26, and 15 used other PROMs. Baseline QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL scores in early-stage PC were similar to all-stage PC reference values but lower than all-stage–all-cancer values. The QoL declined after surgery, recovered to baseline in 3 to 6 months, and then generally stabilized. A minimally important difference (MID) of 10 was commonly used for QLQ-C30 but was not established for QLQ-PAN26. Conclusions In early-stage PC, QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PAN26 are the most commonly used PROMs. Baseline QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL scores suggested a high humanistic burden. Immediately after surgery, QoL declined but seemed stable over the longer term. The QLQ-C30 MID may elucidate the clinical impact of treatment on QoL; MID for QLQ-PAN26 needs to be established.

The NCCN Guidelines for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma discuss the diagnosis and management of adenocarcinomas of the exocrine pancreas and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss important updates to the 2019 version of the guidelines, focusing on postoperative adjuvant treatment of patients with pancreatic cancers.