Explore the vast range of titles available.

The overall 5-year survival for pancreatic cancer has changed little over the past few decades, and pancreatic cancer is predicted to be the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the next decade in Western countries. The past few years, however, have seen improvements in first-line and second-line palliative therapies and considerable progress in increasing survival with adjuvant treatment. The use of biomarkers to help define treatment and the potential of neoadjuvant therapies also offer opportunities to improve outcomes. This Review brings together information on achievements to date, what is working currently and where successes are likely to be achieved in the future. Furthermore, we address the questions of how we should approach the development of pancreatic cancer treatments, including those for patients with metastatic, locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, as well as for patients with resected tumours. In addition to embracing newer strategies comprising genomics, stromal therapies and immunotherapies, conventional approaches using chemotherapy and radiotherapy still offer considerable prospects for greater traction and synergy with evolving concepts.

BackgroundAcute pancreatitis (AP) is defined as an acute inflammatory attack of the pancreas of sudden onset. Around 25% of patients have either moderately severe or severe disease with a mortality rate of 15–20%.PurposeThe aim of this article was to summarize the advances being made in the understanding of this disease and the important role of surgery.Results and conclusionsAn accurate diagnosis should be made a soon as possible, initiating resuscitation with large volume intravenous fluids and oxygen by mask. Predicted severe disease will require intensive monitoring. Most deaths within the first week are due to multi-organ failure; thus, these patients will require intensive therapy unit management. During the second phase of the disease, death is due to local complications arising from the pancreatic inflammation, requiring accurate identification to determine the correct form of treatment. Acute peripancreatic fluid collections arise < 4 weeks after onset of interstitial edematous pancreatitis, not requiring any treatment. Most pancreatic pseudocysts arise > 4 weeks and largely resolve on conservative management. Necrotizing pancreatitis causing acute necrotic collections and later walled-off necrosis will require treatment if symptomatic or infected. Initial endoscopic transgastric or percutaneous drainage will resolve less serious collections but necrosectomy using minimally invasive approaches will be needed for more serious collections. To prevent recurrent attacks of AP, causative factors need to be removed where possible such as cholecystectomy and cessation of alcohol. Future progress requires improved management of multi-organ failure and more effective minimally invasive techniques for the removal of necrosis.

The objective of this study was to investigate whether the preoperative platelet-lymphocyte (P/L) ratio represents a significant prognostic index in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. A total of 110 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma over a 10-year period were identified from a prospectively maintained database. The preoperative P/L ratio was found to be a more significant prognostic marker ( P < .001) than either the lymphocyte count ( P = .007) or platelet count ( P = .068) on univariate Cox survival analysis. The median overall survival in patients with a P/L ratio of 150 or less (n = 48) was 19.7 months, 13.7 months in those with a P/L ratio of 151 to 300 (n = 43), and 5.8 months in patients with a value of greater than 300 (n = 19) (log-rank, P = .006). The preoperative P/L ratio retained significance on multivariate analysis ( P < .001), along with tumor size ( P = .010) and lymph node ratio ( P = .013). The preoperative P/L ratio represents a significant independent prognostic index in patients of resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

ObjectiveMinimally invasive surgical necrosectomy and endoscopic necrosectomy, compared with open necrosectomy, might improve outcomes in necrotising pancreatitis, especially in critically ill patients. Evidence from large comparative studies is lacking.DesignWe combined original and newly collected data from 15 published and unpublished patient cohorts (51 hospitals; 8 countries) on pancreatic necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis. Death rates were compared in patients undergoing open necrosectomy versus minimally invasive surgical or endoscopic necrosectomy. To adjust for confounding and to study effect modification by clinical severity, we performed two types of analyses: logistic multivariable regression and propensity score matching with stratification according to predicted risk of death at baseline (low: <5%; intermediate: ≥5% to <15%; high: ≥15% to <35%; and very high: ≥35%).ResultsAmong 1980 patients with necrotising pancreatitis, 1167 underwent open necrosectomy and 813 underwent minimally invasive surgical (n=467) or endoscopic (n=346) necrosectomy. There was a lower risk of death for minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy (OR, 0.53; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.84; p=0.006) and endoscopic necrosectomy (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63; p=0.006). After propensity score matching with risk stratification, minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy remained associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the very high-risk group (42/111 vs 59/111; risk ratio, 0.70; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95; p=0.02). Endoscopic necrosectomy was associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the high-risk group (3/40 vs 12/40; risk ratio, 0.27; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.88; p=0.03) and in the very high-risk group (12/57 vs 28/57; risk ratio, 0.43; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77; p=0.005).ConclusionIn high-risk patients with necrotising pancreatitis, minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic necrosectomy are associated with reduced death rates compared with open necrosectomy.

Background Nrf2 is a key transcriptional regulator of a battery of genes that facilitate phase II/III drug metabolism and defence against oxidative stress. Nrf2 is largely regulated by Keap1, which directs Nrf2 for proteasomal degradation. The Nrf2/Keap1 system is dysregulated in lung, head and neck, and breast cancers and this affects cellular proliferation and response to therapy. Here, we have investigated the integrity of the Nrf2/Keap1 system in pancreatic cancer. Results Keap1, Nrf2 and the Nrf2 target genes AKR1c1 and GCLC were detected in a panel of five pancreatic cancer cell lines. Mutation analysis of NRF2 exon 2 and KEAP1 exons 2-6 in these cell lines identified no mutations in NRF2 and only synonomous mutations in KEAP1 . RNAi depletion of Nrf2 caused a decrease in the proliferation of Suit-2, MiaPaca-2 and FAMPAC cells and enhanced sensitivity to gemcitabine (Suit-2), 5-flurouracil (FAMPAC), cisplatin (Suit-2 and FAMPAC) and gamma radiation (Suit-2). The expression of Nrf2 and Keap1 was also analysed in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (n = 66 and 57, respectively) and matching normal benign epithelium (n = 21 cases). Whilst no significant correlation was seen between the expression levels of Keap1 and Nrf2 in the tumors, interestingly, Nrf2 staining was significantly greater in the cytoplasm of tumors compared to benign ducts (P < 0.001). Conclusions Expression of Nrf2 is up-regulated in pancreatic cancer cell lines and ductal adenocarcinomas. This may reflect a greater intrinsic capacity of these cells to respond to stress signals and resist chemotherapeutic interventions. Nrf2 also appears to support proliferation in certain pancreatic adenocarinomas. Therefore, strategies to pharmacologically manipulate the levels and/or activity of Nrf2 may have the potential to reduce pancreatic tumor growth, and increase sensitivity to therapeutics.

Source data verification (SDV) is a resource intensive method of quality assurance frequently used in clinical trials. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that SDV would impact on comparative treatment effect results from a clinical trial. Data discrepancies and comparative treatment effects obtained following 100% SDV were compared to those based on data without SDV. Overall survival (OS) and Progression-free survival (PFS) were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests and Cox models. Tumour response classifications and comparative treatment Odds Ratios (ORs) for the outcome objective response rate, and number of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) were compared. OS estimates based on SDV data were compared against estimates obtained from centrally monitored data. Data discrepancies were identified between different monitoring procedures for the majority of variables examined, with some variation in discrepancy rates. There were no systematic patterns to discrepancies and their impact was negligible on OS, the primary outcome of the trial (HR (95% CI): 1.18(0.99 to 1.41), p = 0.064 with 100% SDV; 1.18(0.99 to 1.42), p = 0.068 without SDV; 1.18(0.99 to 1.40), p = 0.073 with central monitoring). Results were similar for PFS. More extreme discrepancies were found for the subjective outcome overall objective response (OR (95% CI): 1.67(1.04 to 2.68), p = 0.03 with 100% SDV; 2.45(1.49 to 4.04), p = 0.0003 without any SDV) which was mostly due to differing CT scans. Quality assurance methods used in clinical trials should be informed by empirical evidence. In this empirical comparison, SDV was expensive and identified random errors that made little impact on results and clinical conclusions of the trial. Central monitoring using an external data source was a more efficient approach for the primary outcome of OS. For the subjective outcome objective response, an independent blinded review committee and tracking system to monitor missing scan data could be more efficient than SDV.

Background The secretion of soluble factors enables communication between tumour cells and the surrounding microenvironment and plays an important role in oncogenesis. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is characterised by a highly reactive microenvironment, harbouring a variety of cell types, including S100A8/S100A9-expressing monocytes. S100A8/S100A9 proteins regulate the behaviour of cancer cells by inducing pre-metastatic cascades associated with cancer spread. The aim of this study was to examine how S100A8/A9 proteins mediate tumour-stroma crosstalk in PDAC. Methods Cytokine profiling of pancreatic cancer cell-derived conditioned media was performed using Bio-Plex Pro 27 Plex Human Cytokine assays. Protein expression and activation of downstream signalling effectors and NF-κB were assessed by western blotting analysis and reporter assays respectively. Results Stimulation of cultured pancreatic cancer cells with S100A8 and S100A9 increased the secretion of the pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-8, TNF-α, and FGF. S100A8, but not S100A9 induced PDGF secretion. Conversely, pancreatic cancer cell-derived conditioned media and the individual cytokines, TNF-α and TGF-β induced the expression of S100A8 and S100A9 proteins in the HL-60 monocytic cell line and primary human monocytes, while FGF and IL-8 induced the expression of S100A9 only. S100A8 and S100A9 activated MAPK and NF-κB signalling in pancreatic cancer. This was partially mediated via activation of the receptor of advanced glycosylation end-product (RAGE). Conclusion S100A8 and S100A9 proteins induce specific cytokine secretion from PDAC cells, which in turn enhances the expression of S100A8/A9. This paracrine crosstalk could have implications for PDAC invasiveness and metastatic potential.

Erlotinib is an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has shown a significant but only marginally improved median overall survival when combined with gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. Vandetanib is a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR2, RET, and EGFR, all of which are in involved in the pathogenesis of pancreatic cancer. We investigated the clinical efficacy of vandetanib when used in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. The Vandetanib in Pancreatic Cancer (ViP) trial was a phase 2 double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial in previously untreated adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas confirmed by cytology or histology. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0–2 and a documented life expectancy of at least 3 months. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vandetanib plus gemcitabine (vandetanib group) or placebo plus gemcitabine (placebo group) according to pre-generated sequences produced on the principle of randomly permuted blocks with variable block sizes of two and four. Patients were stratified at randomisation by disease stage and ECOG performance status. All patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 as a 30-min intravenous infusion, weekly, for 7 weeks followed by a 1-week break, followed by a cycle of 3 weeks of treatment with a 1-week break, until disease progression, and either oral vandetanib 300 mg per day once daily or matching placebo. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome measure was overall survival (defined as the difference in time between randomisation and death from any cause or the censor date) in the intention-to-treat population. This trial has been completed and the final results are reported. The study is registered at EudraCT, number 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN96397434. Patients were screened and enrolled between Oct 24, 2011, and Oct 7, 2013. Of 381 patients screened, 142 eligible patients were randomly assigned to treatment (72 to the vandetanib group and 70 to the placebo group). At database lock on July 15, 2015, at a median follow-up of 24·9 months (IQR 24·3 to not attainable), 131 patients had died: 70 (97%) of 72 in the vandetanib group and 61 (87%) of 70 in the placebo group. The median overall survival was 8·83 months (95% CI 7·11–11·58) in the vandetanib group and 8·95 months (6·55–11·74) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·21, 80·8% CI 0·95–1·53; log rank χ21df 1·1, p=0·303). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [49%] of 72 patients in the vandetanib group vs 22 [31%] of 70 in the placebo group), thrombocytopenia (20 [28%] vs 16 [23%]), hypertension (nine [13%] vs 11 [16%]), leucopenia (12 [17%] vs 13 [19%]), and fatigue (17 [24%] vs 15 [21%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study. The addition of vandetanib to gemcitabine monotherapy did not improve overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors might still have potential in the treatment of pancreatic cancer but further development requires the identification of biomarkers to specifically identify responsive cancer subtypes. Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca.

This randomized trial of adjuvant therapy after resection of pancreatic cancer found a significant survival benefit for chemotherapy with fluorouracil. Chemoradiotherapy alone or followed by chemotherapy was not beneficial and even appeared to shorten survival. Chemoradiotherapy was not beneficial and even appeared to shorten survival. Pancreatic cancer, with an overall five-year survival rate ranging from 0.4 percent 1 to 4 percent, 2 has a poor prognosis and is one of the top 10 causes of death from cancer in the Western world. 3 , 4 Surgical resection improves the outlook, although only about 10 percent of patients with pancreatic cancer are eligible for the procedure. 5 – 9 Most treatment failures are due to local recurrence, hepatic metastases, or both and occur within one to two years after surgery. 10 – 12 Adjuvant (postoperative) therapy may improve long-term survival, 7 – 9 , 13 _ 16 but its routine use is not universal 8 because the results of . . .

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is a highly lethal malignancy, which has now become the seventh most common cause of cancer death in the world, with the highest mortality rates in Europe and North America. In the past 30 years, there has been some progress in 5-year survival (rates increasing from 2.5 to 10%), but this is still extremely poor compared to all other common cancer types. Targeted therapies for advanced pancreatic cancer based on actionable mutations have been disappointing, with only 3–5% showing even a short clinical benefit. There is, however, a molecular diversity beyond mutations in genes responsible for producing classical canonical signaling pathways. Pancreatic cancer is almost unique in promoting an excess production of other components of the stroma, resulting in a complex tumor microenvironment that contributes to tumor development, progression, and response to treatment. Various transcriptional subtypes have also been described. Most notably, there is a strong alignment between the Classical/Pancreatic progenitor and Quasi-mesenchymal/Basal-like/Squamous subtype signatures of Moffit, Collinson, Bailey, Puleo, and Chan-Seng-Yue, which have potential clinical impact. Sequencing of epithelial cell populations enriched by laser capture microscopy combined with single-cell RNA sequencing has revealed the potential genomic evolution of pancreatic cancer as being a consequence of a gene expression continuum from mixed Basal-like and Classical cell populations within the same tumor, linked to allelic imbalances in mutant KRAS, with metastatic tumors being more copy number-unstable compared to primary tumors. The Basal-like subtype appears more chemoresistant with reduced survival compared to the Classical subtype. Chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation will also enrich the Basal-like subtype. Squamous/Basal-like programs facilitate immune infiltration compared with the Classical-like programs. The immune infiltrates associated with Basal and Classical type cells are distinct, potentially opening the door to differential strategies. Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics will now allow single cell profiling of tumor and resident immune cell populations that may further advance subtyping. Multiple clinical trials have been launched based on transcriptomic response signatures and molecular subtyping including COMPASS, Precision Promise, ESPAC6/7, PREDICT-PACA, and PASS1. We review several approaches to explore the clinical relevance of molecular profiling to provide optimal bench-to-beside translation with clinical impact.