Search

Purpose: Treatment options for refractory advanced gastric and esophagogastric junction cancer (AGOC) are limited. Regorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in the INTEGRATE I phase II trial. INTEGRATE IIa was designed to examine whether regorafenib improved overall survival (OS)., Methods: A double-blind placebo-controlled phase III trial compared regorafenib and best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo and BSC for participants with confirmed evaluable metastatic/advanced AGOC who failed ≥two prior therapies on a 2:1 random assignment, stratified by tumor location, geographic region (Asia v rest of world), and prior vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors. The primary end point was OS. Treatment efficacy on OS was first tested in the pooled INTEGRATE I + INTEGRATE IIa cohort and, if significant, then in the INTEGRATE IIa cohort. Secondary end points were PFS, objective response rate, safety, and quality of life (QoL)., Results: INTEGRATE IIa enrolled 251 participants: 157 from Asia and 94 from rest of world and 169 received regorafenib and 82 received placebo. No significant heterogeneity was observed between INTEGRATE I and INTEGRATE IIa studies on OS. Pooled OS analysis hazard ratio (HR) was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.87; P = .001; 361 events). INTEGRATE IIa alone OS HR was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.90; P = .006; 238 events), the median OS was 4.5 months versus 4.0 months, and 12-month survival rates were 19% and 6%, for regorafenib versus placebo, respectively. After a preplanned adjustment for multiplicity, there were no statistically significant differences across regions or other prespecified subgroups. Regorafenib improved PFS (HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.70]; P < .0001) and delayed deterioration in global QoL (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.89]; P = .0043). The toxicity profile was consistent with that of previous reports., Conclusion: Regorafenib improves survival compared with placebo in refractory AGOC.

Background: To evaluate the claim that oncologists overestimate expected survival time (EST) in advanced cancer., Methods: We pooled 7 prospective studies in which observed survival time (OST) was compared with EST (median survival in a group of similar patients estimated at baseline by the treating oncologist). We hypothesized that EST would be well calibrated (approximately 50% of EST longer than OST) and imprecise (<30% of EST within 0.67 to 1.33 of OST), and that multiples of EST would provide well-calibrated scenarios for survival time: worst-case (approximately 10% of OST <1/4 of EST), typical (approximately 50% of OST within half to double EST), and best-case (approximately 10% of OST >3 times EST). Associations between baseline characteristics and calibration of EST were assessed., Results: Characteristics of 1,211 patients: median age 66 years, male 61%, primary site lung (40%) and upper gastrointestinal (16%). The median OST was 8 months, and EST was 9 months. Oncologists' estimates of EST were well calibrated (50% longer than OST) and imprecise (28% within 0.67 to 1.33 of OST). Scenarios for survival time based on simple multiples of EST were well calibrated: 8% of patients had an OST less than 1/4 their EST (worst-case), 56% had an OST within half to double their EST (typical), and 11% had an OST greater than 3 times their EST (best-case). Calibration was independent of age, sex, and cancer type., Conclusions: Oncologists were no more likely to overestimate survival time than to underestimate it. Simple multiples of EST provide well-calibrated estimates of worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Hormonal therapies are commonly prescribed to patients with metastatic granulosa cell tumours (GCT), based on high response rates in small retrospective studies. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are reported to have high response rates and an accepted treatment option. We report the results of a phase 2 trial of an AI in recurrent/metastatic GCTs., Methods: 41 patients with recurrent ER/PR + ve GCT received anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 12 weeks, evaluated by RECIST1.1 criteria. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), CBR duration, quality of life and toxicity., Results: The CBR at 12 weeks in 38 evaluable patients was 78.9%, which included one (2.6%; 95% CI: 0.5-13.5%) partial response and 76.3% stable disease. Two additional patients without measurable disease were stable, based on inhibin. Median PFS was 8.6 m (95% CI 5.5-13.5 m). There were delayed responses observed after 12 weeks with a total of 4 pts. (10.5%; 95% CI 4.2%-24.1%) with a RECIST partial response; 23 (59%) patients were progression-free at 6 months. The adverse effects were predominantly low grade., Conclusions: This is the first prospective trial of hormonal therapy in GCTs. Although there was a high CBR, the objective response rate to anastrozole was much lower than the pooled response rates of >70% to AIs reported in most retrospective series and case reports. PARAGON demonstrates the importance of prospective trials in rare cancers and the need to reconsider the role of AIs as single agents in GCTs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest SB: Institutional grants from Astrazeneca, Tesaro, GSK. Personal fees for advisory boards/lectures: Amgen, Astrazeneca, Clovis, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD, Merck Sereno, Mersana, Oncxerna, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Tesaro, outside the submitted work. KS: Research funding to institution, Bayer and Amgen. Personal fees from Merck, Amgen, Servier, BMS, IPSEN, Competitive Drug Development, outside the submitted work. AC: Grants from Cancer Research UK and Astrazeneca, personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, outside the submitted work. RL: Personal fees from Tesaro and Roche outside the submitted work. MH: Research funding to institution Merck, BMS, Clovis Oncology. Honoraria for Advisory Boards/ Lectures: Amgen, AZ, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Roche outside the submitted work. CG: Research funding to institution: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Aprea, Nucana, Tesaro, BerGen Bio. Honorary for advisory boards/lectures: Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, GSK, Tesaro, Nucana, Clovis, Foundation One, Sierra Oncology, Cor2Ed, Takeda. PS: Grant from University of Sydney. RE: Personal fees from Arquer Diagnostics, GSK, Clovis oncology outside submitted work. MF: personal fees from Astra Zeneca, MSD, GSK, Tesaro, Lilly, Takeda and Novartis; institutional grants from Astra Zeneca, Novartis and Beigene, other from Abbvie and ACT Genomics outside the submitted work. All other authors (MT, ROC, DM, SN, VMM, TB, JCG, PTG, OM, LA, CK, KC, LD, NB) report no disclosures of interest., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Palliative chemotherapy is the cornerstone of treatment for the majority of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, with the aim of increasing length and quality of life. Although guidelines outline the available treatment options in the first line, they provide limited guidance on choice and intensity of the chemotherapy backbone. Data from the TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies confirm a survival benefit with triplet FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab, and this is a preferred option for younger patients with good performance status able to tolerate it. However, the relative benefit of a fluoropyrimidine doublet with oxaliplatin or irinotecan over single-agent fluoropyrimidine with or without a biologic is less certain; the available data demonstrate that single-agent fluoropyrimidine plus a biologic with planned sequencing of subsequent agents can produce similar overall survival outcomes with reduced toxicity. Our analysis of local real-world registry data suggests that this is an underutilized approach, particularly in younger and fitter patients. Established prognostic factors, including patient age, performance status, tumor sidedness, and biomarkers such as RAS/BRAF, are key in treatment selection; patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type disease or patients with low tumor bulk may be ideal for a less intensive regimen. Further studies are required to confirm the value of less-intensive regimens in the modern era, where the incorporation of biologic therapies has become routine and where non-chemotherapy options are emerging as viable options for molecularly defined patient subsets., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Doublet chemotherapy in combination with a biologic agent has been a standard of care in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer for over a decade. The evidence for a "lighter" treatment approach is limited to mono-chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in the RAS unselected population. Anti-EGFR antibodies have activity as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy in RAS wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer; however their role in first-line treatment in combination with 5-fluorouracil monotherapy or when given alone has not been well studied. MONARCC aims to investigate this approach in an elderly population., Methods/design: MONARCC is a prospective, open-label, multicentre, non-comparative randomised phase II trial. Eligible patients aged ≥70 with unresectable metastatic, untreated, RAS/BRAF wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer will be randomised 1:1 to receive panitumumab alone or panitumumab plus infusional 5-fluorouracil. RAS and BRAF analyses will be performed in local laboratories. Comprehensive Health Assessment and Limited Health Assessments will be performed at baseline and at 16 weeks, respectively, to assess frailty. The Patient Symptom Questionnaire and Overall Treatment Utility are to be undertaken at different timepoints to assess the impact of treatment-related toxicities and quality of life. Treatment will be delivered every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity (as determined by treating clinician or patient), delay of treatment of more than 6 weeks, or withdrawal of consent. The primary end point is 6-month progression-free survival in both arms. Secondary end points include overall survival, time to treatment failure, objective tumour response rate as defined by RECIST v1.1 and safety (adverse events). Tertiary and correlative endpoints include the feasibility and utility of a comprehensive geriatric assessment, quality of life and biological substudies., Discussion: MONARCC investigates the activity and tolerability of first-line panitumumab-based treatments with a view to expand on current treatment options while maximising progression-free and overall survival and quality of life in molecularly selected elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer., Trial Registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12618000233224 , prospectively registered 14 February 2018., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Amplification or overexpression of the FGFR family of receptor tyrosine kinases occurs in a significant proportion of gastric cancers. Regorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor of angiogenic and oncogenic kinases, including FGFR, which showed activity in the randomized phase II INTEGRATE clinical trial in advanced gastric cancer. There are currently no biomarkers that predict response to this agent, and whether regorafenib is preferentially active in FGFR-driven cancers is unknown. Through screening 25 gastric cancer cell lines, we identified five cell lines that were exquisitely sensitive to regorafenib, four of which harbored amplification or overexpression of FGFR family members. These four cell lines were also sensitive to the FGFR-specific inhibitors, BGJ398, erdafitinib, and TAS-120. Regorafenib inhibited FGFR-driven MAPK signaling in these cell lines, and knockdown studies confirmed their dependence on specific FGFRs for proliferation. In the INTEGRATE trial cohort, amplification or overexpression of FGFRs 1-4 was detected in 8%-19% of cases, however, this was not associated with improved progression-free survival and no objective responses were observed in these cases. Further preclinical analyses revealed FGFR-driven gastric cancer cell lines rapidly reactivate MAPK/ERK signaling in response to FGFR inhibition, which may underlie the limited clinical response to regorafenib. Importantly, combination treatment with an FGFR and MEK inhibitor delayed MAPK/ERK reactivation and synergistically inhibited proliferation of FGFR-driven gastric cancer cell lines. These findings suggest that upfront combinatorial inhibition of FGFR and MEK may represent a more effective treatment strategy for FGFR-driven gastric cancers., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Trifluridine/tipiracil is available on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with, or not considered candidates for, fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapies, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents. This article reviews trifluridine/tipiracil clinical data and presents practical information on its use in the management of refractory mCRC in Australia. Whereas the primary mechanism of action of fluoropyrimidines such as fluorouracil (5-FU) and capecitabine is enzyme inhibition of nucleotide synthesis, trifluridine/tipiracil primarily acts by incorporation into DNA, resulting in DNA dysfunction. Trifluridine/tipiracil has activity in patients with 5-FU-resistant tumors and can be considered in patients with prior intolerance or toxicity to 5-FU. In the pivotal phase III RECOURSE trial evaluating trifluridine/tipiracil in chemotherapy-refractory mCRC, efficacy benefits were observed across all a priori prognostic subgroups including those defined by age (≥65 and ≥75 years), geographical origin, primary tumor site or KRAS status. Trifluridine/tipiracil therapy benefits appropriately selected patients who have an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, with no more than mild hepatic impairment or mild-to-moderate renal impairment, and who are capable of adhering to oral therapy safely. Appropriate dosing, monitoring for adverse events and effective management of side effects are essential., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: Worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival, based on simple multiples of an individual's expected survival time (EST), estimated by their oncologist, are a useful way of formulating and explaining prognosis. We aimed to determine the accuracy and prognostic significance of oncologists' estimates of EST, and the accuracy of the resulting scenarios for survival time, in advanced gastric cancer., Materials and Methods: Sixty-six oncologists estimated the EST at baseline for each of the 152 participants they enrolled in the INTEGRATE trial. We hypothesized that oncologists' estimates of EST would be unbiased (∼50% would be longer or shorter than the observed survival time [OST]); imprecise (<33% within 0.67-1.33 times the OST); independently predictive of overall survival (OS); and accurate at deriving scenarios for survival time with approximately 10% of patients dying within a quarter of their EST (worst-case scenario), 50% living within half to double their EST (typical scenario), and 10% living three or more times their EST (best-case scenario)., Results: Oncologists' estimates of EST were unbiased (45% were shorter than the OST, 55% were longer); imprecise (29% were within 0.67-1.33 times observed); moderately discriminative (Harrell's C-statistic 0.62, p = .001); and an independently significant predictor of OS (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.95; p = .001) in a Cox model including performance status, number of metastatic sites, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio ≥3, treatment group, age, and health-related quality of life (EORTC-QLQC30 physical function score). Scenarios for survival time derived from oncologists' estimates were remarkably accurate: 9% of patients died within a quarter of their EST, 57% lived within half to double their EST, and 12% lived three times their EST or longer., Conclusion: Oncologists' estimates of EST were unbiased, imprecise, moderately discriminative, and independently significant predictors of OS. Simple multiples of the EST accurately estimated worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival time in advanced gastric cancer., Implications for Practice: Results of this study demonstrate that oncologists' estimates of expected survival time for their patients with advanced gastric cancer were unbiased, imprecise, moderately discriminative, and independently significant predictors of overall survival. Simple multiples of the expected survival time accurately estimated worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival time in advanced gastric cancer., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2019.)

Objective: A subset of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) may benefit from antiestrogen therapy with higher response rates reported in tumors that are strongly estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (ER⁺). PARAGON is a basket trial that incorporates 7 phase 2 trials investigating the activity of anastrozole in patients with ER⁺ and/or progesterone receptor (PR)-positive (PR⁺) recurrent/metastatic gynecological cancers., Methods: Postmenopausal women with ER⁺ and/or PR⁺ ROC, who were asymptomatic and had cancer antigen 125 (CA125) progression after response to first line chemotherapy, where chemotherapy was not clinically indicated. Patients received anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity., Results: Fifty-four patients were enrolled (52 evaluable). Clinical benefit at three months (primary endpoint) was observed in 18 patients (34.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI]=23%-48%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.7 months (95% CI=2.1-3.1). The median duration of clinical benefit was 6.5 months (95% CI=2.8-11.7). Most patients progressed within 6 months of starting anastrozole but 12 (22%) continued treatment for longer than 6 months. Anastrozole was well tolerated. In the exploratory analysis, ER histoscores and the intensity of ER staining did not correlate with clinical benefit rate or PFS., Conclusion: A subset of asymptomatic patients with ER⁺ and/or PR⁺ ROC and CA125 progression had durable clinical benefit on anastrozole, with acceptable toxicity. Anastrozole may delay symptomatic progression and the time to subsequent chemotherapy. The future challenge is to identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from an aromatase inhibitor and whether the clinical benefit could be increased by the addition of other agents., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (Copyright © 2019. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Background: The INTEGRATE phase II multinational randomized controlled trial demonstrated the activity of regorafenib on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with refractory advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. We sought to evaluate whether these PFS gains had the potential to be offset by quality of life (QoL) impacts from treatment side effects and to thereby determine the appropriateness of continuing development to phase III., Methods: QoL was assessed in INTEGRATE at baseline and at each 4 weeks thereafter, until discontinuation of study treatment, using the QLQ-C30, STO22, and EQ-5D questionnaires. The patient disease and treatment assessment (PTDATA) form was also provided to English-speaking participants. Randomized groups were compared on the QLQ-C30, STO22, and EQ-5D scales using a repeated-measures model; the frequency of troublesome symptoms and side effects measured by the PTDATA form; and deterioration-free survival (DFS). The prognostic value of baseline QoL information was also evaluated., Results: Of the 147 eligible randomized patients, 142 consented to participate in the QoL substudy, 136 completed a baseline QoL assessment, and 95 completed at least one post-baseline QoL assessment. The DFS rate was significantly improved with regorafenib, and there was no compelling statistical evidence that regorafenib had a broad negative effect across the spectrum of QoL indices evaluated. Fatigue, anxiety, appetite loss, and pain were among the issues most commonly reported for both randomized groups. Baseline levels of pain, appetite, constipation, and physical functioning were prognostic factors for survival., Conclusions: Regorafenib improved DFS without an excessively negative effect on QoL. Progressing development to the phase III setting is warranted.

Background: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the locally advanced and metastatic setting, with mixed results. This review attempts to synthesise all the randomised data available to help better inform patient and clinician decision-making when dealing with this difficult disease., Objectives: To assess the effect of chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both for first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Our primary outcome was overall survival, while secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, grade 3/4 adverse events, therapy response and quality of life., Search Methods: We searched for published and unpublished studies in CENTRAL (searched 14 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 14 June 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2017) and CANCERLIT (1999 to 2002) databases. We also handsearched all relevant conference abstracts published up until 14 June 2017., Selection Criteria: All randomised studies assessing overall survival outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, alone or in combination, were the eligible treatments., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently analysed studies, and a third settled any disputes. We extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QoL), and we assessed risk of bias for each study., Main Results: We included 42 studies addressing chemotherapy in 9463 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We did not identify any eligible studies on radiotherapy.We did not find any benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care. However, two identified studies did not have sufficient data to be included in the analysis, and many of the chemotherapy regimens studied were outdated.Compared to gemcitabine alone, participants receiving 5FU had worse OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.27, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.92) and QoL. On the other hand, two studies showed FOLFIRINOX was better than gemcitabine for OS (HR 0.51 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.57) and response rates (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.65), but it increased the rate of side effects. The studies evaluating CO-101, ZD9331 and exatecan did not show benefit or harm when compared with gemcitabine alone.Giving gemcitabine at a fixed dose rate improved OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94, high-quality evidence) but increased the rate of side effects when compared with bolus dosing.When comparing gemcitabine combinations to gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine plus platinum improved PFS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95) and response rates (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98) but not OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, low-quality evidence). The rate of side effects increased. Gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine improved OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95), PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87) and response rates (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.47, high-quality evidence), but it also increased side effects. Gemcitabine plus topoisomerase inhibitor did not improve survival outcomes but did increase toxicity. One study demonstrated that gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel improved OS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, high-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82) and response rates (RR 3.29, 95% CI 2.24 to 4.84) but increased side effects. Gemcitabine-containing multi-drug combinations (GEMOXEL or cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU/gemcitabine) improved OS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, low-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) and QOL.We did not find any survival advantages when comparing 5FU combinations to 5FU alone., Authors' Conclusions: Combination chemotherapy has recently overtaken the long-standing gemcitabine as the standard of care. FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are highly efficacious, but our analysis shows that other combination regimens also offer a benefit. Selection of the most appropriate chemotherapy for individual patients still remains difficult, with clinicopathological stratification remaining elusive. Biomarker development is essential to help rationalise treatment selection for patients.

Aim: While first-line palliative chemotherapy (CT1) improves survival and quality of life in advanced biliary cancer (ABC), there is no randomized evidence to support second-line chemotherapy (CT2) in ABC. We aim to explore to role of CT2 in ABC., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all patients who received one or more lines of chemotherapy for ABC at four Australian cancer centers between 2008 and 2011. A Cox proportional hazard model was developed to determine the impact of clinicopathologic variables on overall survival (OS) from time of progression on CT1., Results: We identified 73 patients who received palliative chemotherapy for ABC. Twenty-five patients (34%) received two or more lines of chemotherapy. Patients with a preserved performance status on progression on first-line chemotherapy (CT1) were more likely to receive second-line chemotherapy (CT2) (P < 0.001). Disease control rate with CT2 was 36%, and mean progression-free survival was 3.2 months (95% confidence interval 1.5-4.9 months). The following variables were significant in the univariate analysis of OS from time of progression on CT1: lines of chemotherapy (P = 0.0001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at progression on CT1 (P < 0.0001) and disease control with CT1 (P = 0.027). Lines of chemotherapy received and performance status remained significant in the multivariate analysis for OS from progression on CT1., Conclusion: Second-line chemotherapy is feasible in a subset of patients with ABC. Even after accounting for confounding variables, CT2 appears to increase OS in ABC, although we are unable to exclude other unmeasured factors such as tumor biology. These findings warrant further evaluation with prospective trials., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Objectives: Periampullary cancers (PACs) include the following 4 traditional anatomic subtypes: pancreatic, ampullary, biliary, or duodenal cancers. This review was performed to highlight recent advances in the genomic and molecular understanding of each PAC subtype and the advances in chemotherapeutic and molecular trials in these cancer subtypes., Results: Recent advances have highlighted differences in the genomic and molecular features within each PAC subtype. Ampullary cancers can now be further defined accurately into their intestinal and pancreatobiliary subtypes using histomolecular profiling. K-ras mutation, which occurs in most pancreatic cancers, is found to occur less frequently in ampullary (42%-52%), biliary (22%-23%), and duodenal cancers (32%-35%), suggesting crucial differences in targetable mutations in these cancer subtypes.Ampullary cancers of intestinal subtype and duodenal cancers seem to share similarities with colorectal cancer, given that they respond to similar chemotherapeutic regimens. This has potential implications for clinical trials and treatment selection, where PACs are often considered together., Conclusions: Future trials should be designed in view of our increased understanding of the different anatomic and histomolecularly profiled subtypes of PAC cancers, which respects their individual molecular characteristics, phenotype, and response to treatment.

Purpose: Personalized medicine strategies using genomic profiling are particularly pertinent for pancreas cancer. The Individualized Molecular Pancreatic Cancer Therapy (IMPaCT) trial was initially designed to exploit results from genome sequencing of pancreatic cancer under the auspices of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) in Australia. Sequencing revealed small subsets of patients with aberrations in their tumor genome that could be targeted with currently available therapies., Experimental Design: The pilot stage of the IMPaCT trial assessed the feasibility of acquiring suitable tumor specimens for molecular analysis and returning high-quality actionable genomic data within a clinically acceptable timeframe. We screened for three molecular targets: HER2 amplification; KRAS wild-type; and mutations in DNA damage repair pathways (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM)., Results: Tumor biopsy and archived tumor samples were collected from 93 patients and 76 were screened. To date 22 candidate cases have been identified: 14 KRAS wild-type, 5 cases of HER2 amplification, 2 mutations in BRCA2, and 1 ATM mutation. Median time from consent to the return of validated results was 21.5 days. An inability to obtain a biopsy or insufficient tumor content in the available specimen were common reasons for patient exclusion from molecular analysis while deteriorating performance status prohibited a number of patients from proceeding in the study., Conclusions: Documenting the feasibility of acquiring and screening biospecimens for actionable molecular targets in real time will aid other groups embarking on similar trials. Key elements include the need to better prescreen patients, screen more patients, and offer more attractive clinical trial options., (©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.)