Explore the vast range of titles available.

Approximately 7% of pancreatic cancers occur in patients with a germline mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 , an alteration that compromises DNA repair. In a randomized trial in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer that had responded to platinum-based chemotherapy, progression-free survival was nearly twice as long with olaparib than with placebo (7.4 months vs. 3.8 months).

In this report, the addition of nab-paclitaxel to standard gemcitabine increased the response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival among patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in Europe and the United States. 1 , 2 Since 1997, gemcitabine therapy has been the standard first-line treatment for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. 3 Among patients with metastatic disease, the 5-year survival rate is only 2%, 1 and 1-year survival rates of 17 to 23% have been reported with gemcitabine. 3 – 5 Numerous phase 2 studies involving patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have shown promising results; however, most subsequent large phase 3 studies have not shown significantly improved survival, 6 – 16 with the exception of a study involving patients who . . .

Outcome of low-grade glioma (WHO grade II) is highly variable, reflecting molecular heterogeneity of the disease. We compared two different, single-modality treatment strategies of standard radiotherapy versus primary temozolomide chemotherapy in patients with low-grade glioma, and assessed progression-free survival outcomes and identified predictive molecular factors. For this randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study (EORTC 22033-26033), undertaken in 78 clinical centres in 19 countries, we included patients aged 18 years or older who had a low-grade (WHO grade II) glioma (astrocytoma, oligoastrocytoma, or oligodendroglioma) with at least one high-risk feature (aged >40 years, progressive disease, tumour size >5 cm, tumour crossing the midline, or neurological symptoms), and without known HIV infection, chronic hepatitis B or C virus infection, or any condition that could interfere with oral drug administration. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either conformal radiotherapy (up to 50·4 Gy; 28 doses of 1·8 Gy once daily, 5 days per week for up to 6·5 weeks) or dose-dense oral temozolomide (75 mg/m2 once daily for 21 days, repeated every 28 days [one cycle], for a maximum of 12 cycles). Random treatment allocation was done online by a minimisation technique with prospective stratification by institution, 1p deletion (absent vs present vs undetermined), contrast enhancement (yes vs no), age (<40 vs ≥40 years), and WHO performance status (0 vs ≥1). Patients, treating physicians, and researchers were aware of the assigned intervention. A planned analysis was done after 216 progression events occurred. Our primary clinical endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed by intention-to-treat; secondary outcomes were overall survival, adverse events, neurocognitive function (will be reported separately), health-related quality of life and neurological function (reported separately), and correlative analyses of progression-free survival by molecular markers (1p/19q co-deletion, MGMT promoter methylation status, and IDH1/IDH2 mutations). This trial is closed to accrual but continuing for follow-up, and is registered at the European Trials Registry, EudraCT 2004-002714-11, and at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00182819. Between Sept 23, 2005, and March 26, 2010, 707 patients were registered for the study. Between Dec 6, 2005, and Dec 21, 2012, we randomly assigned 477 patients to receive either radiotherapy (n=240) or temozolomide chemotherapy (n=237). At a median follow-up of 48 months (IQR 31–56), median progression-free survival was 39 months (95% CI 35–44) in the temozolomide group and 46 months (40–56) in the radiotherapy group (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·9–1·5, p=0·22). Median overall survival has not been reached. Exploratory analyses in 318 molecularly-defined patients confirmed the significantly different prognosis for progression-free survival in the three recently defined molecular low-grade glioma subgroups (IDHmt, with or without 1p/19q co-deletion [IDHmt/codel], or IDH wild type [IDHwt]; p=0·013). Patients with IDHmt/non-codel tumours treated with radiotherapy had a longer progression-free survival than those treated with temozolomide (HR 1·86 [95% CI 1·21–2·87], log-rank p=0·0043), whereas there were no significant treatment-dependent differences in progression-free survival for patients with IDHmt/codel and IDHwt tumours. Grade 3–4 haematological adverse events occurred in 32 (14%) of 236 patients treated with temozolomide and in one (<1%) of 228 patients treated with radiotherapy, and grade 3–4 infections occurred in eight (3%) of 236 patients treated with temozolomide and in two (1%) of 228 patients treated with radiotherapy. Moderate to severe fatigue was recorded in eight (3%) patients in the radiotherapy group (grade 2) and 16 (7%) in the temozolomide group. 119 (25%) of all 477 patients had died at database lock. Four patients died due to treatment-related causes: two in the temozolomide group and two in the radiotherapy group. Overall, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival in patients with low-grade glioma when treated with either radiotherapy alone or temozolomide chemotherapy alone. Further data maturation is needed for overall survival analyses and evaluation of the full predictive effects of different molecular subtypes for future individualised treatment choices. Merck Sharpe & Dohme-Merck & Co, Canadian Cancer Society, Swiss Cancer League, UK National Institutes of Health, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, US National Cancer Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Cancer Research Fund.

Background Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) patients have very poor prognosis highlighting the urgent need of novel treatments. In this regard, repurposing non-oncology already-approved drugs might be an attractive strategy to offer more-effective treatment easily tested in clinical trials. Accumulating evidence suggests that epigenetic deregulation is a hallmark of cancer contributing to treatment resistance in several solid tumors, including PDAC. Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) are epigenetic drugs we have investigated preclinically and clinically as anticancer agents. Valproic acid (VPA) is a generic low-cost anticonvulsant and mood stabilizer with HDAC inhibitory activity, and anticancer properties also demonstrated in PDAC models. Statins use was reported to be associated with lower mortality risk in patients with pancreatic cancer and statins have been shown to have a direct antitumor effect when used alone or in combination therapy. We recently showed capability of VPA/Simvastatin (SIM) combination to potentiate the antitumor activity of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in vitro and in vivo PDAC preclinical models. Methods/Design VESPA is a patient-centric open label randomized multicenter phase-II investigator-initiated trial, evaluating the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of VPA/SIM plus first line gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel-based regimens (AG or PAXG) (experimental arm) versus chemotherapy alone (standard arm) in mPDAC patients. The study involves Italian and Spanish oncology centers and includes an initial 6-patients safety run-in-phase. A sample size of 240 patients (120 for each arm) was calculated under the hypothesis that the addition of VPA/SIM to gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel-based regimens may extend progression free survival from 6 to 9 months in the experimental arm. Secondary endpoints are overall survival, response rate, disease control rate, duration of response, CA 19.9 reduction, toxicity, and quality of life. The study includes a patient engagement plan and complementary biomarkers studies on tumor and blood samples. Conclusions VESPA is the first trial evaluating efficacy and safety of two repurposed drugs in oncology such as VPA and SIM, in combination with standard chemotherapy, with the aim of improving mPDAC survival. The study is ongoing. Enrollment started in June 2023 and a total of 63 patients have been enrolled as of June 2024. Trial registration EudraCT number: 2022-004154-63; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05821556, posted 2023/04/20.

Chemotherapy with high-dose methotrexate is the conventional approach to treat primary CNS lymphomas, but superiority of polychemotherapy compared with high-dose methotrexate alone is unproven. We assessed the effect of adding high-dose cytarabine to methotrexate in patients with newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma. This open, randomised, phase 2 trial was undertaken in 24 centres in six countries. 79 patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma exclusively localised into the CNS, cranial nerves, or eyes, aged 18–75 years, and with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 3 or lower and measurable disease were centrally randomly assigned by computer to receive four courses of either methotrexate 3·5 g/m 2 on day 1 (n=40) or methotrexate 3·5 g/m 2 on day 1 plus cytarabine 2 g/m 2 twice a day on days 2–3 (n=39). Both regimens were administered every 3 weeks and were followed by whole-brain irradiation. The primary endpoint was complete remission rate after chemotherapy. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00210314. All randomly assigned participants were analysed. After chemotherapy, seven patients given methotrexate and 18 given methotrexate plus cytarabine achieved a complete remission, with a complete remission rate of 18% (95% CI 6–30) and 46% (31–61), respectively, (p=0·006). Nine patients receiving methotrexate and nine receiving methotrexate plus cytarabine achieved a partial response, with an overall response rate of 40% (25–55) and 69% (55–83), respectively, (p=0·009). Grade 3–4 haematological toxicity was more common in the methotrexate plus cytarabine group than in the methotrexate group (36 [92%] vs six [15%]). Four patients died of toxic effects (three vs one). In patients aged 75 years and younger with primary CNS lymphoma, the addition of high-dose cytarabine to high-dose methotrexate provides improved outcome with acceptable toxicity compared with high-dose methotrexate alone. Swiss Cancer League.

Background Real-world data on treatment patterns/outcomes for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPAC) are limited. This study aims to assess real-world treatment patterns, survival outcomes, and prognostic/predictive factors in patients with mPAC. Methods Retrospective, observational, chart-review involving medical oncologists and gastroenterologists from five European countries. Physicians reported information on disease and patient characteristics, diagnosis, and treatment for patients diagnosed with mPAC from January-October 2016. Outcomes included median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS), and the impact of baseline performance status on survival. Univariate/multivariate regression analyses were undertaken to identify prognostic/predictive factors. Results Three hundred four physicians and 3432 patients were included. First-line therapies included modified (m)FOLFIRINOX (28.4%), gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (28.0%), and gemcitabine monotherapy (23.0%). Frequent second-line therapies were gemcitabine monotherapy (25.0%), fluorouracil (5-FU) + oxaliplatin (21.8%), and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (16.7%). Most frequent first- to second-line treatment sequences were gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel followed by fluoropyrimidine combinations. Longest unadjusted estimated mOS was observed with (m)FOLFIRINOX followed by gemcitabine-based combinations (19.1 months). Multivariate analysis identified significant prognostic/predictive factors for OS and PFS including performance status and carbohydrate antigen 19–9 (CA 19–9) levels. Conclusions Treatment and treatment sequences were generally in accordance with guidelines at the time of the study. Identification of prognostic/predictive factors for survival may help inform the individualised management of mPAC patients in the future.

The investigator-assessed response rate was 14 (58%) of 24 (four each in B1, C1, and C2, and two in B2), median progression-free survival was 11·7 months (12·5 months for B1, 10·4 months for B2, 10·8 months for C1, and 12·4 months for C2), and median overall survival was 20·1 months (12·7 months for B1, 20·1 months for B2, 15·9 months for C1, and not evaluable for C2).1 The nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine combination, which constitutes the chemotherapy backbone of the O’Hara and colleagues trial, has yielded variable outcome figures across differently selected populations. [...]the history of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma clinical research is paved with countless disappointing and resource-wasting failures of trials based on promising, hope-raising, preclinical or early clinical development findings that have been misinterpreted. [...]the authors are extremely careful in interpreting the outcome data and acknowledge that this is beyond the scope of phase 1 trials.

Rare diseases are an important public health issue with high unmet need. The introduction of the EU Regulation on orphan medicinal products (OMP) has been successful in stimulating investment in the research and development of OMPs. Despite this advancement, patients do not have universal access to these new medicines. There are many factors that affect OMP uptake, but one of the most important is the difficulty of making pricing and reimbursement (P&R) decisions in rare diseases. Until now, there has been little consensus on the most appropriate assessment criteria, perspective or appraisal process. This paper proposes nine principles to help improve the consistency of OMP P&R assessment in Europe and ensure that value assessment, pricing and funding processes reflect the specificities of rare diseases and contribute to both the sustainability of healthcare systems and the sustainability of innovation in this field. These recommendations are the output of the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL), a collaboration between rare disease experts, patient representatives, academics, health technology assessment (HTA) practitioners, politicians and industry representatives. ORPH-VAL reached its recommendations through careful consideration of existing OMP P&R literature and through a wide consultation with expert stakeholders, including payers, regulators and patients. The principles cover four areas: OMP decision criteria, OMP decision process, OMP sustainable funding systems and European co-ordination. This paper also presents a guide to the core elements of value relevant to OMPs that should be consistently considered in all OMP appraisals. The principles outlined in this paper may be helpful in drawing together an emerging consensus on this topic and identifying areas where consistency in payer approach could be achievable and beneficial. All stakeholders have an obligation to work together to ensure that the promise of OMP’s is realised.

T-cell avidity is a major determinant of Adoptive T cell therapy (ACT) efficacy for cancer treatment. However, high-avidity tumor-specific T cells can rarely be isolated from cancer patients, highlighting the need for strategies to enhance the cytotoxic capacity of low-avidity cells. Here, we rescue the anti-tumor functions of low-avidity T cells against pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) by knocking-out TIGIT, a key inhibitory molecule expressed on exhausted CD8 + T cells infiltrating gastrointestinal tumors. We uncover that TIGIT disruption by base editing boosts the intracellular signal transduction derived from a weak T cell receptor (TCR) engagement enforcing cytoskeletal rearrangements, thus increasing T cell avidity and stabilizing the immunological synapse. Accordingly, TIGIT disruption enables low-avidity T cells to exert robust degranulation, comparable to that of high-avidity T cells, and potent and durable anti-tumor capacity in vivo in male mice. These results highlight TIGIT knockout as a potential strategy to enhance low-avidity T cell function and broaden the repertoire of TCR engineered T cells in the treatment of pancreatic cancer and other solid malignancies. Anti-tumor functions of low-avidity T cells are often suboptimal. Here the authors show that genetic disruption of TIGIT in TCR-engineered T cells enhances their anti-tumor activity against pancreatic and other gastrointestinal cancers by increasing TCR signal strength.

Variations in the reporting of potentially confounding variables in studies investigating systemic treatments for unresectable pancreatic cancer pose challenges in drawing accurate comparisons between findings. In this Review, we establish the first international consensus on mandatory baseline and prognostic characteristics in future trials for the treatment of unresectable pancreatic cancer. We did a systematic literature search to find phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer to identify baseline characteristics and prognostic variables. We created a structured overview showing the reporting frequencies of baseline characteristics and the prognostic relevance of identified variables. We used a modified Delphi panel of two rounds involving an international panel of 23 leading medical oncologists in the field of pancreatic cancer to develop a consensus on the various variables identified. In total, 39 randomised controlled trials that had data on 15 863 patients were included, of which 32 baseline characteristics and 26 prognostic characteristics were identified. After two consensus rounds, 23 baseline characteristics and 12 prognostic characteristics were designated as mandatory for future pancreatic cancer trials. The COnsensus statement on Mandatory Measurements in unresectable PAncreatic Cancer Trials (COMM-PACT) identifies a mandatory set of baseline and prognostic characteristics to allow adequate comparison of outcomes between pancreatic cancer studies.