John P. Neoptolemos

Serum cytokine biomarker panels for discriminating pancreatic cancer from benign pancreatic disease

BackgroundWe investigated whether combinations of serum cytokines, used with logistic disease predictor models, could facilitate the detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).MethodsThe serum levels of 27 cytokines were measured in 241 subjects, 127 with PDAC, 49 with chronic pancreatitis, 20 with benign biliary obstruction and 45 healthy controls. Samples were split randomly into independent training and test sets. Cytokine biomarker panels were selected by identifying the top performing cytokines in best fit logistic regression models during multiple rounds of resampling from the training dataset. Disease prediction by logistic models, built using the resulting cytokine panels, was evaluated with training and test sets and further examined using resampled performance evaluation.ResultsFor the discrimination of PDAC patients from patients with benign disease, a panel of IP-10, IL-6, PDGF plus CA19-9 offered improved diagnostic performance over CA19-9 alone in the training (AUC 0.838 vs. 0.678) and independent test set (AUC 0.884 vs. 0.798). For the discrimination of PDAC from CP, a panel of IL-8, CA19-9, IL-6 and IP-10 offered improved diagnostic performance over CA19-9 alone with the training (AUC 0.880 vs. 0.758) and test set (AUC 0.912 vs. 0.848). Finally, for the discrimination of PDAC in the presence of jaundice from benign controls with jaundice, a panel of IP-10, IL-8, IL-1b and PDGF demonstrated improvement over CA19-9 in the training (AUC 0.810 vs. 0.614) and test set (AUC 0.857 vs. 0.659).ConclusionsThese findings support the potential role for cytokine panels in the discrimination of PDAC from patients with benign pancreatic diseases and warrant additional study.

Therapeutic developments in pancreatic cancer: current and future perspectives

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.Key pointsPancreatic cancer is currently the fourth leading cause of cancer-associated mortality and is projected to be the second leading cause within the next decade in Western countries.For resectable tumours, surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (gemcitabine plus capecitabine) is the standard of care; median survival in these patients is 26 months, with a 5-year survival of 30%.For borderline resectable and locally advanced, unresectable tumours, neoadjuvant protocols are utilized, with a shift towards chemotherapy rather than radiochemotherapy, although good evidence from randomized controlled trials is lacking.In the metastatic setting, FOLFIRINOX and nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine are standard treatment options in patients with good performance status; both combinations have shown a survival advantage over previously standard gemcitabine monotherapy.Second-line therapies, notably nanoliposomal irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil–folinic acid, might prolong survival after first-line gemcitabine failure.Pathway-specific targeted therapies have failed to provide clinically relevant benefits; therapies targeting the stroma as well as immunotherapies hold promise for the future but are currently not standard of care.For decades, the 5-year survival for pancreatic cancer remained largely static. In this Review, the authors explore the improvements in pancreatic cancer treatment obtained in the past few years and discuss key questions related to the future development of new therapies.

Guidelines for the Diagnostic Cross Sectional Imaging and Severity Scoring of Chronic Pancreatitis

The paper presents the international guidelines for imaging evaluation of chronic pancreatitis. The following consensus was obtained: Computed tomography (CT) is often the most appropriate initial imaging modality for evaluation of patients with suspected chronic pancreatitis (CP) depicting most changes in pancreatic morphology. CT is also indicated to exclude other potential intraabdominal pathologies presenting with symptoms similar to CP. However, CT cannot exclude a diagnosis of CP nor can it be used to exclusively diagnose early or mild disease. Here magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is superior and is indicated especially in patients where no specific pathological changes are seen on CT. Secretin-stimulated MRCP is more accurate than standard MRCP in the depiction of subtle ductal changes. It should be performed after a negative MRCP, when there is still clinical suspicion of CP. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) can also be used to diagnose parenchymal and ductal changes mainly during the early stage of the disease. No validated radiological severity scoring systems for CP are available, although a modified Cambridge Classification has been used for MRCP. There is an unmet need for development of a new and validated radiological CP severity scoring system based on imaging criteria including glandular volume loss, ductal changes, parenchymal calcifications and parenchymal fibrosis based on CT and/or MRI. Secretin-stimulated MRCP in addition, can provide assessment of exocrine function and ductal compliance. An algorithm is presented, where these imaging parameters can be incorporated together with clinical findings in the classification and severity grading of CP.

Expression of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) and hENT1 predicts survival in pancreatic cancer

ABSTRACTBackgroundDihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) tumour expression may provide added value to human equilibrative nucleoside transporter-1 (hENT1) tumour expression in predicting survival following pyrimidine-based adjuvant chemotherapy.MethodsDPD and hENT1 immunohistochemistry and scoring was completed on tumour cores from 238 patients with pancreatic cancer in the ESPAC-3(v2) trial, randomised to either postoperative gemcitabine or 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (5FU/FA).ResultsDPD tumour expression was associated with reduced overall survival (hazard ratio, HR = 1.73 [95% confidence interval, CI = 1.21–2.49], p = 0.003). This was significant in the 5FU/FA arm (HR = 2.07 [95% CI = 1.22–3.53], p = 0.007), but not in the gemcitabine arm (HR = 1.47 [0.91–3.37], p = 0.119). High hENT1 tumour expression was associated with increased survival in gemcitabine treated (HR = 0.56 [0.38–0.82], p = 0.003) but not in 5FU/FA treated patients (HR = 1.19 [0.80–1.78], p = 0.390). In patients with low hENT1 tumour expression, high DPD tumour expression was associated with a worse median [95% CI] survival in the 5FU/FA arm (9.7 [5.3–30.4] vs 29.2 [19.5–41.9] months, p = 0.002) but not in the gemcitabine arm (14.0 [9.1–15.7] vs. 18.0 [7.6–15.3] months, p = 1.000). The interaction of treatment arm and DPD expression was not significant (p = 0.303), but the interaction of treatment arm and hENT1 expression was (p = 0.009).ConclusionDPD tumour expression was a negative prognostic biomarker. Together with tumour expression of hENT1, DPD tumour expression defined patient subgroups that might benefit from either postoperative 5FU/FA or gemcitabine.