Lorraine A. Chantrill

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most lethal of malignancies and a major health burden. We performed whole-genome sequencing and copy number variation (CNV) analysis of 100 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs). Chromosomal rearrangements leading to gene disruption were prevalent, affecting genes known to be important in pancreatic cancer (TP53, SMAD4, CDKN2A, ARID1A and ROBO2) and new candidate drivers of pancreatic carcinogenesis (KDM6A and PREX2). Patterns of structural variation (variation in chromosomal structure) classified PDACs into 4 subtypes with potential clinical utility: the subtypes were termed stable, locally rearranged, scattered and unstable. A significant proportion harboured focal amplifications, many of which contained druggable oncogenes (ERBB2, MET, FGFR1, CDK6, PIK3R3 and PIK3CA), but at low individual patient prevalence. Genomic instability co-segregated with inactivation of DNA maintenance genes (BRCA1, BRCA2 or PALB2) and a mutational signature of DNA damage repair deficiency. Of 8 patients who received platinum therapy, 4 of 5 individuals with these measures of defective DNA maintenance responded.

Pancreatic cancer is a highly lethal malignancy with few effective therapies. We performed exome sequencing and copy number analysis to define genomic aberrations in a prospectively accrued clinical cohort (n = 142) of early (stage I and II) sporadic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Detailed analysis of 99 informative tumours identified substantial heterogeneity with 2,016 non-silent mutations and 1,628 copy-number variations. We define 16 significantly mutated genes, reaffirming known mutations (KRAS, TP53, CDKN2A, SMAD4, MLL3, TGFBR2, ARID1A and SF3B1), and uncover novel mutated genes including additional genes involved in chromatin modification (EPC1 and ARID2), DNA damage repair (ATM) and other mechanisms (ZIM2, MAP2K4, NALCN, SLC16A4 and MAGEA6). Integrative analysis with in vitro functional data and animal models provided supportive evidence for potential roles for these genetic aberrations in carcinogenesis. Pathway-based analysis of recurrently mutated genes recapitulated clustering in core signalling pathways in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and identified new mutated genes in each pathway. We also identified frequent and diverse somatic aberrations in genes described traditionally as embryonic regulators of axon guidance, particularly SLIT/ROBO signalling, which was also evident in murine Sleeping Beauty transposon-mediated somatic mutagenesis models of pancreatic cancer, providing further supportive evidence for the potential involvement of axon guidance genes in pancreatic carcinogenesis.

The analysis of T-cell antigens in long-term survivors of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma suggests that neoantigen immunogenicity and quality, not purely quantity, correlate with survival. A small percentage of patients with pancreatic cancer survive beyond five years, but the reason for their relative longevity remains uncertain. In this retrospective analysis, Vinod Balachandran et al. evaluate the immune mechanisms of long-term survival in human pancreatic cancer. The analysis shows that survival correlates with high mutation load in conjunction with increased infiltration of cytolytic T cells and polyclonal T-cell responses and that mutations at the tumour antigen MUC16 locus are enriched in long-term survivors. Additionally, patients with high predicted neoantigen–microbial cross-reactivity scores tended to live longest. The authors provide evidence that the quality rather than quantity of neoantigens determines survival. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is a lethal cancer with fewer than 7% of patients surviving past 5 years. T-cell immunity has been linked to the exceptional outcome of the few long-term survivors1,2, yet the relevant antigens remain unknown. Here we use genetic, immunohistochemical and transcriptional immunoprofiling, computational biophysics, and functional assays to identify T-cell antigens in long-term survivors of pancreatic cancer. Using whole-exome sequencing and in silico neoantigen prediction, we found that tumours with both the highest neoantigen number and the most abundant CD8+ T-cell infiltrates, but neither alone, stratified patients with the longest survival. Investigating the specific neoantigen qualities promoting T-cell activation in long-term survivors, we discovered that these individuals were enriched in neoantigen qualities defined by a fitness model, and neoantigens in the tumour antigen MUC16 (also known as CA125). A neoantigen quality fitness model conferring greater immunogenicity to neoantigens with differential presentation and homology to infectious disease-derived peptides identified long-term survivors in two independent datasets, whereas a neoantigen quantity model ascribing greater immunogenicity to increasing neoantigen number alone did not. We detected intratumoural and lasting circulating T-cell reactivity to both high-quality and MUC16 neoantigens in long-term survivors of pancreatic cancer, including clones with specificity to both high-quality neoantigens and predicted cross-reactive microbial epitopes, consistent with neoantigen molecular mimicry. Notably, we observed selective loss of high-quality and MUC16 neoantigenic clones on metastatic progression, suggesting neoantigen immunoediting. Our results identify neoantigens with unique qualities as T-cell targets in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. More broadly, we identify neoantigen quality as a biomarker for immunogenic tumours that may guide the application of immunotherapies.

The diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PanNETs) is increasing owing to more sensitive detection methods, and this increase is creating challenges for clinical management. We performed whole-genome sequencing of 102 primary PanNETs and defined the genomic events that characterize their pathogenesis. Here we describe the mutational signatures they harbour, including a deficiency in G:C > T:A base excision repair due to inactivation of MUTYH, which encodes a DNA glycosylase. Clinically sporadic PanNETs contain a larger-than-expected proportion of germline mutations, including previously unreported mutations in the DNA repair genes MUTYH, CHEK2 and BRCA2. Together with mutations in MEN1 and VHL, these mutations occur in 17% of patients. Somatic mutations, including point mutations and gene fusions, were commonly found in genes involved in four main pathways: chromatin remodelling, DNA damage repair, activation of mTOR signalling (including previously undescribed EWSR1 gene fusions), and telomere maintenance. In addition, our gene expression analyses identified a subgroup of tumours associated with hypoxia and HIF signalling. The genomes of 102 primary pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours have been sequenced, revealing mutations in genes with functions such as chromatin remodelling, DNA damage repair, mTOR activation and telomere maintenance, and a greater-than-expected contribution from germ line mutations. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PanNETs) are the second most common epithelial neoplasm of the pancreas. Aldo Scarpa, Sean Grimmond and colleagues report whole-genome sequencing of 102 primary PanNETs and present analysis of their mutational signatures as part of the International Cancer Genome Consortium. They find frequent mutations in genes with functions that include chromatin remodelling, DNA damage repair, activation of mTOR signalling, and telomere maintenance. They also identify mutational signatures, including one resulting from inactivation of the DNA repair gene MUTYH, and report a larger than expected germline contribution to PanNET development.

BackgroundCurrent staging methods for pancreatic cancer (PC) are inadequate, and biomarkers to aid clinical decision making are lacking. Despite the availability of the serum marker carbohydrate antigen 19.9 (CA19.9) for over two decades, its precise role in the management of PC is yet to be defined, and as a consequence, it is not widely used.MethodsWe assessed the relationship between perioperative serum CA19.9 levels, survival and adjuvant chemotherapeutic responsiveness in a cohort of 260 patients who underwent operative resection for PC.ResultsBy specifically assessing the subgroup of patients with detectable CA19.9, we identified potential utility at key clinical decision points. Low postoperative CA19.9 at 3 months (median survival 25.6 vs 14.8 months, P = 0.0052) and before adjuvant chemotherapy were independent prognostic factors. Patients with postoperative CA 19.9 levels >90 U/ml did not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.7194) compared with those with a CA19.9 of ≤90 U/ml (median 26.0 vs 16.7 months, P = 0.0108). Normalization of CA19.9 within 6 months of resection was also an independent favorable prognostic factor (median 29.9 vs 14.8 months, P = 0.0004) and normal perioperative CA19.9 levels identified a good prognostic group, which was associated with a 5-year survival of 42%.ConclusionsPerioperative serum CA19.9 measurements are informative in patients with detectable CA19.9 (defined by serum levels of >5 U/ml) and have potential clinical utility in predicting outcome and response to adjuvant chemotherapy. Future clinical trials should prioritize incorporation of CA19.9 measurement at key decision points to prospectively validate these findings and facilitate implementation.

Fine-tuned manipulation of tumor tension and vasculature enhances response to chemotherapy and impairs metastatic spread in pancreatic cancer.

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.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).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.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.

Pancreatic cancer is molecularly diverse, with few effective therapies. Increased mutation burden and defective DNA repair are associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in several other cancer types. We interrogated 385 pancreatic cancer genomes to define hypermutation and its causes. Mutational signatures inferring defects in DNA repair were enriched in those with the highest mutation burdens. Mismatch repair deficiency was identified in 1% of tumors harboring different mechanisms of somatic inactivation of MLH1 and MSH2. Defining mutation load in individual pancreatic cancers and the optimal assay for patient selection may inform clinical trial design for immunotherapy in pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer is molecularly diverse, with few effective therapies. Increased mutation burden and defective DNA repair are associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in several other cancer types. We interrogated 385 pancreatic cancer genomes to define hypermutation and its causes. Mutational signatures inferring defects in DNA repair were enriched in those with the highest mutation burdens. Mismatch repair deficiency was identified in 1% of tumors harboring different mechanisms of somatic inactivation of MLH1 and MSH2. Defining mutation load in individual pancreatic cancers and the optimal assay for patient selection may inform clinical trial design for immunotherapy in pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has a 5-year survival of <5%, with therapies offering only incremental benefit,1Vogelzang N.J. et al.J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 88-109Crossref PubMed Scopus (85) Google Scholar potentially due to the diversity of its genomic landscape.2Bailey P. et al.Nature. 2016; 531: 47-52Crossref PubMed Scopus (1973) Google Scholar, 3Biankin A.V. et al.Nature. 2012; 491: 399-405Crossref PubMed Scopus (1379) Google Scholar, 4Waddell N. et al.Nature. 2015; 518: 495-501Crossref PubMed Scopus (1466) Google Scholar Recent reports link high mutation burden with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in several cancer types.5Le D.T. et al.N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 2509-2520Crossref PubMed Scopus (6099) Google Scholar Defining tumors that are hypermutated with an increased mutation burden and understanding the underlying mechanisms in pancreatic cancer has the potential to advance therapeutic development, particularly for immunotherapeutic strategies. Whole genome sequencing (WGS, n = 180) and whole exome sequencing (n = 205) of 385 unselected predominantly sporadic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (Supplementary Table 1) defined a mean mutation load of 1.8 and 1.1 mutation per megabase (Mb), respectively (Supplementary Table 2). Outlier analysis identified 20 tumors with the highest mutation burden (5.2%, 15 WGS and 5 exome) (Table 1 and Supplementary Figure 1A), 5 of which were considered extreme outliers and classified as hypermutated as they contained ≥12 somatic mutations/Mb, the defined threshold for hypermutation in colorectal cancer.6Cancer Genome Atlas NetworkNature. 2012; 487: 330-337Crossref PubMed Scopus (5894) Google Scholar Immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins (MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2) identified 4 MMR-deficient tumors, all of which were hypermutated (n = 180, Figure 1).Table 1Clinical and Histologic Features and Proposed Etiology for Highly Mutated Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Tumors (n = 20)Sample IDPersonal and family history of malignancyHistologyMutation load, mutations/MbIHC resultMSIsensor scoreKRAS mutationPredominant mutation signature (mutations/Mb)SV subtype (no. of events)Proposed etiologyHypermutation (extreme outliers) ICGC_0076aSample sequenced by WGS, other samples by exome sequencing.NoneMixed signet ring, mucinous and papillary adenocarcinoma38.55Absent MLH1 and PMS228.3p.G12VMMR (18.3)Scattered (131)MMR deficiency: >280 kb somatic homozygous deletion over MSH2. ICGC_0297aSample sequenced by WGS, other samples by exome sequencing.NoneUndifferentiated adenocarcinoma60.62Absent MSH2 and MSH627.33WTMMR (33.4)Scattered (75)MMR deficiency: Somatic MLH1 promoter hypermethylation. ICGC_0548aSample sequenced by WGS, other samples by exome sequencing.NoneDuctal adenocarcinoma, moderately differentiated30.13Absent MSH2 and MSH617.47WTMMR (16.6)Stable (49)MMR deficiency: >27 kb somatic inversion rearrangement disrupting MSH2. ICGC_0328aSample sequenced by WGS, other samples by exome sequencing.NoneDuctal adenocarcinoma16.63Normal3.2p.G12DUnknown (11.9)Scattered (110)Cell line with signature: etiology unknown. ICGC_00901 FDR, father CRCDuctal adenocarcinoma, moderately differentiated12.9Absent MSH2 and MSH60.21p.G12CNANAMMR deficiency: somatic MSH2 splice site c.2006G>A.Highly mutated tumors ICGC_0054aSample sequenced by WGS, other samples by exome sequencing.NoneDuctal adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated6.52Normal0.01p.G12VHR deficiency (1.3)Unstable (310)HR deficiency: no germline or somatic cause found. ICGC_0290aSample sequenced by WGS, other samples by exome sequencing.NoneDuctal adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated6.54Not available0.07p.G12VHR deficiency (3.1)Unstable (558)HR deficiency: Germline BRCA2 mutation c.7180A>T, p.A2394*. Somatic CN-LOH. ICGC_0215aSample sequenced by WGS, other samples by exome sequencing.2 FDR lung cancer, 2 FDR prostate cancer. Previous CRC and melanomaDuctal adenocarcinoma, moderately differentiated6.27Normal0.01p.G12VHR deficiency (1.9)Scattered (111)HR deficiency: Germline ATM mutation c.7539_7540delAT, p.Y2514*. Somatic CN-LOH. ICGC_0324NoneDuctal adenocarcinoma, moderately differentiated6.24Normal0p.G12DNANAUndefined ICGC_0034aSample sequenced by WGS, other samples by exome sequencing.NoneDuctal adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated6.09Normal4.02p.G12DHR deficiency (3.4)Unstable (366)HR deficiency: Germline BRCA2 mutation c.5237_5238insT, p.N1747*. Somatic CN-LOH. ICGC_0131aSample sequenced by WGS, other samples by exome sequencing.Lung cancer after PCDuctal adenocarcinoma, moderately differentiated5.63Normal0p.G12DT>G at TT sites (3.0)Focal (147)T>G at TT sites signature: etiology potentially associated with DNA oxidation ICGC_0006aSample sequenced by WGS, other samples by exome sequencing.1 FDR, father lung cancerAdenocarcinoma arising from IPMN, moderately differentiated5.29Normal0.01p.G12DHR deficiency (1.2)Unstable (211)HR deficiency: Somatic BRCA2 c.5351dupA, p.N1784KfsTer3. Somatic CN-LOH. ICGC_0321aSample sequenced by WGS, other samples by exome sequencing.2 FDR, mother and cousin breast cancerDuctal adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated4.79Not available0p.G12DHR deficiency (2.1)Unstable (286)HR deficiency: Germline BRCA2 c.6699delT, p.F2234LfsTer7. Somatic CN loss- 1 copy. ICGC_0309aSample sequenced by WGS, other samples by exome sequencing.NoneAdenocarcinoma arising from IPMN, moderately differentiated4.74Normal0.03p.G12VT>G at TT sites (3.1)Unstable (232)T>G at TT sites signature: etiology potentially associated with DNA oxidation ICGC_0005aSample sequenced by WGS, other samples by exome sequencing.1 FDR, mother CRCDuctal adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated4.72Not available1p.G12VHR deficiency (1.1)Focal (95)HR deficiency: No germline or somatic cause found. ICGC_0016aSample sequenced by WGS, other samples by exome sequencing.NoneDuctal adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated4.61Normal3.03p.G12VHR deficiency (1.7)Unstable (447)HR deficiency: potentially linked to Somatic RPA1 c.273G>T, p.R91S ICGC_00461 FDR, brother PCDuctal adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated4.3Normal0p.Q61HNANAUndefined GARV_0668aSample sequenced by WGS, other samples by exome sequencing.NoneDuctal adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated4.3Not available2.19p.G12VHR deficiency (1.6)Unstable (464)HR deficiency: Germline BRCA2 c.7068_7069delTC, p.L2357VfsTer2. Somatic CN loss - 1 copy. ICGC_0291NoneDuctal adenocarcinoma, well differentiated3.84Not available0.03p.G12RNANAHR deficiency: Somatic BRCA2 c.7283T>A, p.L2428*. ICGC_0256NoneDuctal adenocarcinoma, poorly differentiated3.72Not available0.06p.G12DNANAUndefinedCRC, colorectal cancer; FDR, first-degree relative; IHC, immunohistochemistry; IPMN, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm; CN-LOH, copy neutral loss of heterozygosity; CN, copy number; PC, pancreatic cancer; NA, not applicable to exome data.a Sample sequenced by WGS, other samples by exome sequencing. Open table in a new tab CRC, colorectal cancer; FDR, first-degree relative; IHC, immunohistochemistry; IPMN, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm; CN-LOH, copy neutral loss of heterozygosity; CN, copy number; PC, pancreatic cancer; NA, not applicable to exome data. KRAS mutation status and histopathologic characteristics have been associated with MMR-deficient pancreatic tumors.7Goggins M. et al.Am J Pathol. 1998; 152: 1501-1507PubMed Google Scholar Of the 4 MMR-deficient tumors in our cohort, 2 were KRAS wild-type; 3 had undifferentiated to moderately differentiated histology and one had a signet-ring component. These features were not predictive of MMR deficiency in our cohort, as 11 additional non−MMR-deficient tumors had a signet-ring cell component or colloid morphology, and 131 of 347 assessable tumors had poorly or undifferentiated histology. Mutational signature analysis can detect MMR deficiency indirectly based on the pattern of somatic mutations.8Alexandrov L.B. et al.Nature. 2013; 500: 415-421Crossref PubMed Scopus (6213) Google Scholar An MMR-deficient signature dominated the MMR-deficient tumors (with WGS), and was minimal in MMR intact tumors (Supplementary Figure 1). In addition, microsatellite instability (MSI), a hallmark of MMR deficiency in colorectal cancer, was detected in all three MMR deficient tumors with WGS using MSIsensor9Niu B. Ye K. et al.Bioinformatics. 2014; 30: 1015-1016Crossref PubMed Scopus (294) Google Scholar (Supplementary Table 2). MSI was not identified for the fourth MMR deficient sample potentially due to the reduced number of microsatellite loci in exome data. The underlying causes of MMR deficiency in the 4 cases were private somatic events. For 2 cases, MSH2 was disrupted by different structural rearrangements, 1 case contained a missense MSH2 mutation and the last, methylation of the MLH1 promoter (Figure 1). The missense mutation caused an MSH2 splice acceptor site mutation that alters the same nucleotide results in a pathogenic skipping of exon 13 in germline studies.10Thompson B.A. et al.Nat Genet. 2014; 46: 107-115Crossref PubMed Scopus (346) Google Scholar Hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter is the predominant mechanism of MSI in sporadic colon cancer.11Boland C.R. et al.Gastroenterology. 2010; 138: 2073-2087 e3Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1359) Google Scholar The remaining hypermutated tumor contained an intact MMR pathway, and was a cell line (ATCC, CRL-2551) with an unidentified mutational signature, therefore the high mutation burden in this sample may be the result of long-term cell culture. The 15 samples (11 WGS and 4 exome) identified in the outlier analysis with high mutation burden, but not hypermutated (∼4 to 12 mutations/Mb) contained no evidence of MMR deficiency. Mutational signature analysis of the WGS samples indicated homologous recombination (HR) repair deficiency as the most substantial (range, 1.0–3.4 mutations/Mb) contributor to the mutation burden for 8 WGS mutation load outlier tumors. In support of a HR defect4Waddell N. et al.Nature. 2015; 518: 495-501Crossref PubMed Scopus (1466) Google Scholar; 7 of these tumors contained high levels of genomic instability with >200 structural variants and mutations in genes involved in HR were present for 6 of 8 cases (Supplementary Table 2). In addition, 1 case that had undergone exome sequencing had a somatic BRCA2 nonsense mutation that likely contributed to HR deficiency in this case. A mutational signature associated with T>G mutations at TT sites previously described in other cancers, including esophageal cancer12Nones K. Waddell N. Wayte N. et al.Nat Commun. 2014; : 5Google Scholar was the major contributor (>3 mutations/Mb) in 2 samples. For these 2 and the remaining 4 cases, no potential causative event could be identified. Although germline defects in MMR genes are well reported in pancreatic cancer13Grant R.C. Selander I. et al.Gastroenterology. 2015; 148: 556-564Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (211) Google Scholar in our cohort, they did not contribute to MMR deficiency even in those with familial pancreatic cancer or a personal or family history of Lynch-related tumors. A germline truncating variant was detected in PMS2 in 1 case, but did not have loss of the second allele, had normal immunohistochemistry staining and did not display a MMR mutational signature (Supplementary Table 2). MMR deficiency is important in the evolution in a small, but meaningful proportion of pancreatic cancers with a prevalence of 1% (4 of 385) in our cohort. This is consistent with recent studies using the Bethesda polymerase chain reaction panel,14Laghi L. et al.PLoS One. 2012; 7: e46002Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar and with previous estimates of MSI prevalence of 2%−3%.15Nakata B. et al.Clin Cancer Res. 2002; 8: 2536-2540PubMed Google Scholar However, in tumors with low epithelial content that underwent exome sequencing, the sensitivity of somatic mutation detection is reduced, which will affect mutation burden and signature analysis. While cognizant of small numbers, immunohistochemistry was the most accurate in defining MMR due to multiple genomic mechanisms of MMR gene inactivation. Multiple methods to define MMR deficiency may be required for clinical trials that aim to recruit MMR-deficient participants to assess the potential efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors or other therapies in pancreatic cancer. Homologous recombination-deficient tumors, and those with a novel signature seen in esophageal cancer had an increased mutation burden, and need further evaluation as potential patient selection markers for clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitor and other therapies that target tumors with a high mutation burden. The authors would like to thank Cathy Axford, Deborah Gwynne, Mary-Anne Brancato, Clare Watson, Michelle Thomas, Gerard Hammond, and Doug Stetner for central coordination of the Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative, data management, and quality control; Mona Martyn-Smith, Lisa Braatvedt, Henry Tang, Virginia Papangelis, and Maria Beilin for biospecimen acquisition; and Sonia Grimaldi and Giada Bonizzato of the ARC-Net Biobank for biospecimen acquisition. For a full list of contributors see Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative: http://www.pancreaticcancer.net.au/apgi/collaborators. The cohort consisted of 385 patients with histologically verified pancreatic exocrine carcinoma, prospectively recruited between 2006 and 2013 through the Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative (www.pancreaticcancer.net.au) as part of the International Cancer Genome Consortium.1Hudson T.J. et al.Nature. 2010; 464: 993-998Crossref PubMed Scopus (1689) Google Scholar Ethical approval was granted at all treating institutions and individual patients provided informed consent upon entry to the study. The clinicopathologic information for the cohort is described in (Supplementary Table 1), and the global mutation profile has previously been reported for some of these tumors (Supplementary Table 2). Tumor and normal DNA were extracted after histologic review from fresh frozen tissue samples collected at the time of surgical resection or biopsy, as described previously.2Biankin A.V. et al.Nature. 2012; 491: 399-405Crossref PubMed Scopus (1513) Google Scholar Tumor cellularity was determined from single-nucleotide polymorphism array data using qpure.3Song S. et al.PLoS One. 2012; 7: e45835Crossref PubMed Scopus (85) Google Scholar Tumors with epithelial content ≥40% underwent WGS lower cellularity tumors underwent whole exome sequencing. DNA from patient-derived pancreas cell lines and matched normal was also extracted. Exome and WGS were performed using paired 100-bp reads on the Illumina HiSeq 2000, as described previously.2Biankin A.V. et al.Nature. 2012; 491: 399-405Crossref PubMed Scopus (1513) Google Scholar, 4Waddell N. et al.Nature. 2015; 518: 495-501Crossref PubMed Scopus (1686) Google Scholar Regions of germline and somatic copy number change were detected using Illumina SNP BeadChips with GAP.5Popova T. et al.Genome Biol. 2009; 10 (R128−R128)Crossref PubMed Scopus (151) Google Scholar Somatic structural variants were identified from WGS reads using the qSV tool.4Waddell N. et al.Nature. 2015; 518: 495-501Crossref PubMed Scopus (1686) Google Scholar, 6Patch A.M. et al.Nature. 2015; 521: 489-494Crossref PubMed Scopus (930) Google Scholar Single nucleotide variants were called using 2 variant callers: qSNP7Kassahn K.S. et al.PLoS One. 2013; 8: e74380Crossref PubMed Scopus (52) Google Scholar and GATK.8McKenna A. et al.Genome Res. 2010; 20: 1297-1303Crossref PubMed Scopus (14755) Google Scholar Mutations identified by both callers or, those that were unique to a caller but verified by an orthogonal sequencing approach, were considered high confidence and used in all subsequent analyses. Small indels (<200 bp) were identified using Pindel9Ye K. et al.Bioinformatics. 2009; 25: 2865-2871Crossref PubMed Scopus (1391) Google Scholar and each indel was visually inspected in the Integrative Genome Browser. The distribution of the total number of small somatic mutations (coding and noncoding single nucleotide and indel variants) identified per megabase for exome and WGS sequence data were analyzed separately. The group of samples with high mutation load, at the top of each distribution, were defined as the upper distribution outliers for mutations per megabase, that is, ≥75th centile + (1.5× interquartile range). The threshold for detecting outliers in the exome and WGS groups was 3.4 and 4.2 mutations/Mb, respectively. From within the highly mutated set of tumors, hypermutated samples were identified as those with a mutation rate exceeding the thresholds for extreme distribution outliers (≥75th centile + [5× interquartile range]) of 7.4 and 8.1 mutations/Mb for exome and WGS sequencing, respectively. MSIsensor was used to detect microsatellite instability by directly comparing microsatellite repeat lengths between paired normal and tumor sequencing data.10Niu B. et al.Bioinformatics. 2014; 30: 1015-1016Crossref PubMed Scopus (378) Google Scholar A MSIsensor score of >3.5% of somatic microsatellites with repeat length shifts was the detection threshold used to indicate microsatellite instability as published for endometrial cancer.10Niu B. et al.Bioinformatics. 2014; 30: 1015-1016Crossref PubMed Scopus (378) Google Scholar This correlated well with the 5 and 7 microsatellite panels recommended in the Bethesda guidelines.10Niu B. et al.Bioinformatics. 2014; 30: 1015-1016Crossref PubMed Scopus (378) Google Scholar, 11Umar A. et al.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96: 261-268Crossref PubMed Scopus (2461) Google Scholar Tissue microarrays were constructed using at least three 1-mm formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor cores. Immunohistochemistry for MSH6 and PMS2 proteins was performed on tissue microarray sections as a screen for MMR deficiency due to MMR proteins forming heterodimers with concordant mismatch repair loss (ie, loss of MLH1 and PMS2 or loss of MSH2 and MSH6).12Hall G. et al.Pathology. 2010; 42: 409-413Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (98) Google Scholar Immunohistochemistry on full tumor sections for MSH2, MLH1, MSH6, and PMS2 was performed in those with abnormal staining in core sections. The immunohistochemistry was performed as described previously12Hall G. et al.Pathology. 2010; 42: 409-413Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (98) Google Scholar and scored by a senior pathologist. Somatic mutational signatures were extracted from the whole genome sequenced samples using the framework described previously.13Alexandrov L.B. et al.Cell Rep. 2013; 3: 246-259Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (734) Google Scholar High confidence somatic substitutions were classified by the substitution change and sequence context, that is, the type of immediately neighboring bases to the variant. The framework processes the counts of somatic mutations at each context within each sample using non-negative factorization to produce the different signature profiles that are present in the data. The profiles identified were matched against reported signatures from the Cancer of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (http://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic/signatures). The major contributory signatures, defined as the mutational signature with the highest number of contributing somatic substitution variants, is reported for highly mutated whole genome samples. Bisulfite-converted whole-genome amplified DNA was hybridized to Infinium Human Methylation 450K Beadchips according to the manufacturers protocol (Illumina). Methylation arrays were performed on DNA from 174 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma samples, which were compared to DNA from 29 adjacent nonmalignant pancreata. A subset of the methylation data has been published previously.14Nones K. et al.Int J Cancer. 2014; 135: 1110-1118Crossref PubMed Scopus (156) Google Scholar We examined the data for evidence of tumor-specific hypermethylation of the promoter region of MLH1 and MSH2 genes. The methylation array data have been deposited into the International Cancer Genome Consortium data portal (dcc.icgc.org, project PACA-AU). Download .xlsx (.08 MB) Help with xlsx files Supplementary Tables 1 and 2

Purpose Individuals with adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of Vater demonstrate a broad range of outcomes, presumably because these cancers may arise from any one of the three epithelia that converge at that location. This variability poses challenges for clinical decision making and the development of novel therapeutic strategies. Patients and Methods We assessed the potential clinical utility of histomolecular phenotypes defined using a combination of histopathology and protein expression (CDX2 and MUC1) in 208 patients from three independent cohorts who underwent surgical resection for adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of Vater. Results Histologic subtype and CDX2 and MUC1 expression were significant prognostic variables. Patients with a histomolecular pancreaticobiliary phenotype (CDX2 negative, MUC1 positive) segregated into a poor prognostic group in the training (hazard ratio [HR], 3.34; 95% CI, 1.69 to 6.62; P &lt; .001) and both validation cohorts (HR, 5.65; 95% CI, 2.77 to 11.5; P &lt; .001 and HR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.25 to 7.17; P = .0119) compared with histomolecular nonpancreaticobiliary carcinomas. Further stratification by lymph node (LN) status defined three clinically relevant subgroups: one, patients with histomolecular nonpancreaticobiliary (intestinal) carcinoma without LN metastases who had an excellent prognosis; two, those with histomolecular pancreaticobiliary carcinoma with LN metastases who had a poor outcome; and three, the remainder of patients (nonpancreaticobiliary, LN positive or pancreaticobiliary, LN negative) who had an intermediate outcome. Conclusion Histopathologic and molecular criteria combine to define clinically relevant histomolecular phenotypes of adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of Vater and potentially represent distinct diseases with significant implications for current therapeutic strategies, the ability to interpret past clinical trials, and future trial design.

Chronic pancreatitis predisposes to pancreatic cancer development and both diseases share a common etiology. A central role has been proposed for the digestive enzyme-secreting acinar cell that can undergo ductal metaplasia in the inflammatory environment of pancreatitis. This metaplastic change is now a recognised precursor of pancreatic cancer. Inflammatory molecules also foster tumour growth through autocrine and paracrine effects in the epithelium and the stroma. These insights have raised new opportunities such as the manipulation of inflammation as a preventive and/or therapeutic strategy for pancreatic cancer. Finally, we address the need for an in-depth study of the pancreatic acinar cells.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal and molecularly diverse malignancies. Repurposing of therapeutics that target specific molecular mechanisms in different disease types offers potential for rapid improvements in outcome. Although HER2 amplification occurs in pancreatic cancer, it is inadequately characterized to exploit the potential of anti-HER2 therapies.HER2 amplification was detected and further analyzed using multiple genomic sequencing approaches. Standardized reference laboratory assays defined HER2 amplification in a large cohort of patients (n = 469) with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).An amplified inversion event (1 MB) was identified at the HER2 locus in a patient with PDAC. Using standardized laboratory assays, we established diagnostic criteria for HER2 amplification in PDAC, and observed a prevalence of 2%. Clinically, HER2- amplified PDAC was characterized by a lack of liver metastases, and a preponderance of lung and brain metastases. Excluding breast and gastric cancer, the incidence of HER2-amplified cancers in the USA is >22,000 per annum.HER2 amplification occurs in 2% of PDAC, and has distinct features with implications for clinical practice. The molecular heterogeneity of PDAC implies that even an incidence of 2% represents an attractive target for anti-HER2 therapies, as options for PDAC are limited. Recruiting patients based on HER2 amplification, rather than organ of origin, could make trials of anti-HER2 therapies feasible in less common cancer types.

Extensive molecular heterogeneity of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA), few effective therapies and high mortality make this disease a prime model for advancing development of tailored therapies. The p16-cyclin D-cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6-retinoblastoma (RB) protein (CDK4) pathway, regulator of cell proliferation, is deregulated in PDA. Our aim was to develop a novel personalised treatment strategy for PDA based on targeting CDK4.Sensitivity to potent CDK4/6 inhibitor PD-0332991 (palbociclib) was correlated to protein and genomic data in 19 primary patient-derived PDA lines to identify biomarkers of response. In vivo efficacy of PD-0332991 and combination therapies was determined in subcutaneous, intrasplenic and orthotopic tumour models derived from genome-sequenced patient specimens and genetically engineered model. Mechanistically, monotherapy and combination therapy were investigated in the context of tumour cell and extracellular matrix (ECM) signalling. Prognostic relevance of companion biomarker, RB protein, was evaluated and validated in independent PDA patient cohorts (>500 specimens).Subtype-specific in vivo efficacy of PD-0332991-based therapy was for the first time observed at multiple stages of PDA progression: primary tumour growth, recurrence (second-line therapy) and metastatic setting and may potentially be guided by a simple biomarker (RB protein). PD-0332991 significantly disrupted surrounding ECM organisation, leading to increased quiescence, apoptosis, improved chemosensitivity, decreased invasion, metastatic spread and PDA progression in vivo. RB protein is prevalent in primary operable and metastatic PDA and may present a promising predictive biomarker to guide this therapeutic approach.This study demonstrates the promise of CDK4 inhibition in PDA over standard therapy when applied in a molecular subtype-specific context.

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.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.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.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.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.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.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.

Adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival for patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Elderly patients are under-represented in Phase III clinical trials, and as a consequence the efficacy of adjuvant therapy in older patients with pancreatic cancer is not clear. We aimed to assess the use and efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients with pancreatic cancer.We assessed a community cohort of 439 patients with a diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent operative resection in centres associated with the Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative.The median age of the cohort was 67 years. Overall only 47% of all patients received adjuvant therapy. Patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy were predominantly younger, had later stage disease, more lymph node involvement and more evidence of perineural invasion than the group that did not receive adjuvant treatment. Overall, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with prolonged survival (median 22.1 vs 15.8 months; P<0.0001). Older patients (aged ≥70) were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (51.5% vs 29.8%; P<0.0001). Older patients had a particularly poor outcome when adjuvant therapy was not delivered (median survival=13.1 months; HR 1.89, 95% CI: 1.27-2.78, P=0.002).Patients aged ≥70 are less likely to receive adjuvant therapy although it is associated with improved outcome. Increased use of adjuvant therapy in older individuals is encouraged as they constitute a large proportion of patients with pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND Inherited predisposition to pancreatic cancer contributes significantly to its incidence and presents an opportunity for the development of early detection strategies. The genetic basis of predisposition remains unexplained in a high proportion of patients with familial PC (FPC). METHODS Clinicopathologic features were assessed in a cohort of 766 patients who had been diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PC). Patients were classified with FPC if they had ≥1 affected first‐degree relatives; otherwise, they were classified with sporadic PC (SPC). RESULTS The prevalence of FPC in this cohort was 8.9%. In FPC families with an affected parent‐child pair, 71% in the subsequent generation were 12.3 years younger at diagnosis. Patients with FPC had more first‐degree relatives who had an extrapancreatic malignancy (EPM) (42.6% vs 21.2; P &lt;.0001), particularly melanoma and endometrial cancer, but not a personal history of EPM. Patients with SPC were more likely to be active smokers, have higher cumulative tobacco exposure, and have fewer multifocal precursor lesions, but these were not associated with differences in survival. Long‐standing diabetes mellitus (&gt;2 years) was associated with poor survival in both groups. CONCLUSIONS FPC represents 9% of PC, and the risk of malignancy in kindred does not appear to be confined to the pancreas. Patients with FPC have more precursor lesions and include fewer active smokers, but other clinicopathologic factors and outcome are similar to those in patients with SPC. Furthermore, some FPC kindreds may exhibit anticipation. A better understanding of the clinical features of PC will facilitate efforts to uncover novel susceptibility genes and the development of early detection strategies. Cancer 2014;120:3669–3675. © 2014 American Cancer Society .

Purpose RAS mutations predict lack of response to epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but preclinical studies and retrospective clinical data suggest that patients with tumors harboring the exon 2 KRAS G13D mutation may benefit from cetuximab. We aimed to assess cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in patients with molecularly selected (G13D mutation) chemotherapy-refractory mCRC in a randomized phase II trial of this rare molecular subtype. Patients and Methods Patients with chemotherapy-refractory KRAS G13D mutation–positive mCRC who had progressed within 6 months of irinotecan therapy were randomly assigned to cetuximab 400 mg/m 2 loading dose and then 250 mg/m 2 once per week with or without irinotecan 180 mg/m 2 once every 2 weeks. The primary end point was 6-month progression-free survival; secondary end points were response rate, overall survival, quality of life, and toxicity. Results Fifty-one of 53 patients recruited over 2 years were eligible. The 6-month progression-free survival rate was 10% (95% CI, 2% to 26%) for cetuximab versus 23% (95% CI, 9% to 40%) for cetuximab plus irinotecan with a hazard ratio of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.32). Response and stable disease rates were 0% and 58% for monotherapy versus 9% and 70% for combination treatment, respectively. Overall survival and quality of life were similar; toxicities were higher with combination therapy. Conclusion In patients with G13D-mutated chemotherapy-refractory mCRC, there was no statistically significant improvement in disease control at 6 months with either cetuximab monotherapy or cetuximab plus irinotecan. No responses were seen with single-agent cetuximab. The responses observed with the combination of cetuximab and irinotecan may reflect true drug synergy or persistent irinotecan sensitivity. The ICECREAM (Irinotecan Cetuximab Evaluation and Cetuximab Response Evaluation Among Patients with a G13D Mutation) study demonstrates the need to prospectively evaluate hypotheses that were previously supported by retrospective analyses and exemplifies the value of international collaboration in trials of rare molecular subtypes.

Bevacizumab is an antiangiogenic mAb with efficacy against several cancers, but it is associated with risk of arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Further data are needed to determine the safety of bevacizumab.We recorded grade 3, 4, or 5 ATE events and other data (including age, baseline cardiovascular risk factors, history of ATE, and aspirin use) from 471 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in the MAX (Mitomycin, Avastin, Xeloda) trial of capecitabine monotherapy versus capecitabine with bevacizumab with or without mitomycin C.Bevacizumab-treated patients had 12 grade 3, 4, or 5 ATEs (3.8% incidence). ATEs occurred in 2.1% of patients >65 years, 5% of those with a history of ATE, and 5% of those with cardiac risk factors. Age, history of ATE, or vascular risk factors did not increase risk. Aspirin users had a higher incidence than nonusers (8.9% versus 2.7%) but had higher rates of vascular risk factors.Bevacizumab was associated with a modestly higher risk of ATE, but safety was not significantly worse in older patients or patients with a history of ATE or vascular risk factors. The effect of aspirin in preventing ATE in patients receiving bevacizumab could not be determined from this study.

Locally advanced rectal cancer is regularly treated with trimodality therapy consisting of neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. There is a need for biomarkers to assess treatment response, and aid in stratification of patient risk to adapt and personalise components of the therapy. Currently, pathological stage and tumour regression grade are used to assess response. Experimental markers include proteins involved in cell proliferation, apoptosis, angiogenesis, the epithelial to mesenchymal transition and microsatellite instability. As yet, no single marker is sufficiently robust to have clinical utility. Microarrays that screen a tumour for multiple promising candidate markers, gene expression and microRNA profiling will likely have higher yield and it is expected that a combination or panel of markers would prove most useful. Moving forward, utilising serial samples of circulating tumour cells or circulating nucleic acids can potentially allow us to demonstrate tumour heterogeneity, document mutational changes and subsequently measure treatment response.

The return of research results (RoR) remains a complex and well-debated issue. Despite the debate, actual data related to the experience of giving individual results back, and the impact these results may have on clinical care and health outcomes, is sorely lacking. Through the work of the Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative (APGI) we: (1) delineate the pathway back to the patient where actionable research data were identified; and (2) report the clinical utilisation of individual results returned. Using this experience, we discuss barriers and opportunities associated with a comprehensive process of RoR in large-scale genomic research that may be useful for others developing their own policies. We performed whole-genome (n = 184) and exome (n = 208) sequencing of matched tumour-normal DNA pairs from 392 patients with sporadic pancreatic cancer (PC) as part of the APGI. We identified pathogenic germline mutations in candidate genes (n = 130) with established predisposition to PC or medium–high penetrance genes with well-defined cancer associated syndromes or phenotypes. Variants from candidate genes were annotated and classified according to international guidelines. Variants were considered actionable if clinical utility was established, with regard to prevention, diagnosis, prognostication and/or therapy. A total of 48,904 germline variants were identified, with 2356 unique variants undergoing annotation and in silico classification. Twenty cases were deemed actionable and were returned via previously described RoR framework, representing an actionable finding rate of 5.1%. Overall, 1.78% of our cohort experienced clinical benefit from RoR. Returning research results within the context of large-scale genomics research is a labour-intensive, highly variable, complex operation. Results that warrant action are not infrequent, but the prevalence of those who experience a clinical difference as a result of returning individual results is currently low.

Summary. Mature boar spermatozoa oxidized glycerol to carbon dioxide in the absence of any detectable activity of glycerol kinase. With triosephosphate isomerase and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase inhibited by the presence of 3-chloro-1-hydroxypropanone (CHOP), dihydroxyacetone phosphate accumulated in incubates when glycerol-3-phosphate was the substrate, but not when it was glycerol. Both dihydroxyacetone and glyceraldehyde could be used as substrates; in the presence of CHOP, dihydroxyacetone phosphate and fructose-1,6-bisphosphate accumulated when dihydroxyacetone was the substrate, but not when it was glyceraldehyde. The metabolic pathways glycerol→glyceraldehyde→glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate and dihydroxyacetone→dihydroxyacetone phosphate have been shown to operate in these cells. Keywords: glycerol; glycerol kinase; glyceraldehyde; dihydroxyacetone; spermatozoa; boar

The treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer has not moved much beyond single agent gemcitabine until recently when protocols such as FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin) and nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine have demonstrated some improved outcomes. Advances in technology especially in massively parallel genome sequencing has progressed our understanding of the biology of pancreatic cancer especially the candidate signalling pathways that are involved in tumourogenesis and disease course. This has allowed identification of potentially actionable mutations that may be targeted by new biological agents. The heterogeneity of pancreatic cancer makes tumour tissue collection important with the aim of being able to personalise therapies for the individual as opposed to a one size fits all approach to treatment of the condition. This paper reviews the developments in this area of translational research and the ongoing clinical studies that will attempt to move this into the everyday oncology practice.

Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer whose disease has progressed on oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-containing regimens may benefit from EGFR-inhibiting monoclonal antibodies if they do not contain mutations in the KRAS gene (are “wild type”). It is unknown whether these antibodies, such as cetuximab, are more efficacious in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer as monotherapy, or in combination with irinotecan. Lack of mutation in KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA predicts response to EFGR-inhibitors. The ICECREAM trial examines the question of monotherapy versus combination with chemotherapy in two groups of patients: those with a “quadruple wild type” tumour genotype (no mutations in KRAS, NRAS, PI3KCA or BRAF genes) and those with the specific KRAS mutation in codon G13D, for whom possibly EGFR-inhibitor efficacy may be equivalent. ICECREAM is a randomised, phase II, open-label, controlled trial comparing the efficacy of cetuximab alone or with irinotecan in patients with “quadruple wild type” or G13D-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer, whose disease has progressed on, or who are intolerant of oxaliplatin- and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is the 6-month progression-free survival benefit of the treatment regimen. Secondary endpoints are response rate, overall survival, and quality of life. The tertiary endpoint is prediction of outcome with further biological markers. International collaboration has facilitated recruitment in this prospective trial of treatment in these infrequently found molecular subsets of colorectal cancer. This unique trial will yield prospective information on the efficacy of cetuximab and whether this is further enhanced with chemotherapy in two distinct populations of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the “quadruple wild type”, which may ‘superselect’ for tumours sensitive to EGFR-inhibition, and the rare KRAS G13D mutated tumours, which are also postulated to be sensitive to the drug. The focus on establishing both positive and negative predictive factors for the response to targeted therapy is an attempt to improve outcomes, reduce toxicity and contain treatment costs. Tissue and blood will yield a resource for molecular studies. Recruitment, particularly of patients with the rare G13D mutation, will demonstrate the ability for international collaboration to run prospective trials in small colorectal cancer molecular subgroups. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12612000901808 , registered 16 August 2012.

The oxidative metabolic capability of mature boar spermatozoa has been determined in vitro. The high rate of oxidation of fructose, glucose, glycerol, glycerol-3-phosphate and lactate to CO2 and the optimization of incubation conditions indicates that these cells could constitute a model system for investigating the anti-glycolytic activity of potential male anti-fertility agents. The effects of several chemical agents on the oxidative metabolism of boar spermatozoa are reported.

Abstract Background Survival times of women starting first‐line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer ( MBC ) in routine clinical practice were determined and compared with those from a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. Methods We identified women with MBC starting first‐line chemotherapy from J une 2003 to F ebruary 2011 and recorded their demographics, tumour and treatment characteristics, and survival times from the start of chemotherapy. Their survival distribution was summarised by the following percentiles (represented scenarios for survival): 90th (worst‐case), 75th (lower‐typical), 25th (upper‐typical) and 10th (best‐case), which were compared with the same percentiles from our systematic review of first‐line chemotherapy trials. Results The 273 women had a median age of 56 years, and a median time from diagnosis of MBC of 3 months. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0–1 in 80%. Tumours were hormone receptor positive in 69%, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 ( HER 2)‐positive in 27% and triple negative in 13%. Survival times in months in routine clinical practice (vs the systematic review) were: 90th percentile 4 (6); 75th percentile 9 (12); median 20 (22); 25th percentile 36 (36) and 10th percentile 61 (56). Independent predictors of overall survival included HER 2‐positive disease (hazard ratio ( HR ) 0.49, P = 0.0002), hormone receptor positive disease ( HR 0.51, P = 0.0004), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1 ( HR 0.36, P &lt; 0.0001) and adjuvant chemotherapy ( HR 1.86, P = 0.0002). Conclusion Median and better survival times in routine practice were similar to those from randomised clinical trials; however, survival times worse than the median were shorter, likely reflecting patient selection in trials. Oncologists should adjust trial‐based survival estimates for patients not meeting typical trial eligibility criteria.

Adenocarcinoma of the pancreas is an aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PNET) comprise ~3% of primary pancreatic neoplasms and they are more heterogeneous in their histological character and outcome. This is the case report of a 73-year-old female patient with synchronously diagnosed pancreatic adenocarcinoma and PNET, which is likely associated with a pathogenic partner and localizer of breast cancer 2, early onset (PALB2) mutation. The potential pathogenic significance of PALB2 and its association with various malignancies were investigated and the potential role of PALB2 in conferring sensitivity to chemotherapeutic agents, such as mitomycin C and cisplatin, was discussed. This case report highlights the significance of ongoing research into the molecular pathogenesis of pancreatic cancer, which may help guide the selection of optimal treatments for this disease, as well as the need for ongoing study of PALB2 as a possible predictive marker of response to DNA-damaging agents.

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to investigate the prevalence and distribution of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16 DNA in paraffin sections of all pelvic lymph nodes removed from 14 patients with Stage Ib-cervical cancer at the time of resection of their primary tumours. The results were compared with those obtained from 8 women with no known history of cervical abnormality. In all, 22 cervical biopsies and 40 I lymph nodes (296 paraffin blocks) were examined. Nine of the 14 cervical cancer patients had primary tumours that were positive for HPV-16 DNA: only 3 of these had lymph nodes with histological evidence of metastasis, and HPV 16 DNA was detected in each of the corresponding paraffin blocks. HPV 16 DNA was also detected in varying proportions (8%-92%) of the histologically-negative lymph nodes from these women. There was no correlation between the HPV DNA-positive lymph nodes and their proximity to the primary tumour. HPV-16 DNA was not identified in any of the lymph nodes from the 5 women whose cancers were not HPV-16-related, or in those of women with no evidence of cervical abnormality. This preliminary survey suggests that HPV DNA is frequently transported from HPV-16-related cervical tumours to regional lymph nodes. However, its practical significance will not be clear until sufficient time has elapsed for correlation of the results with the clinical outcome.

Sirtuin 1 is a protein deacetylase that regulates a large number of proteins often functionally implicated in tumor development and progression. Its pleiotropic function has turned SIRT1 into an attractive chemotherapeutic target, underscored by very promising preclinical results with SIRT1 inhibitors in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia. Here, we revisit the studies on SIRT1 as an emerging target for therapy in pancreatic cancer, a tumor with dismal outcomes for which currently few therapeutic options are available. We highlight those potential SIRT1 target genes that are commonly affected in pancreatic cancer according to recent genomic analyses.

To investigate the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal disease.We compared rates of gastrointestinal perforation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and peritoneal disease receiving first-line chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab in three distinct cohorts: (1) the AGITG MAX trial (Phase III randomised clinical trial comparing capecitabine vs capecitabine and bevacizumab vs capecitabine, bevacizumab and mitomycinC); (2) the prospective Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer (TRACC) registry (any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab); and (3) two cancer centres in New South Wales, Australia [Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre and Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre (NSWCC) from January 2005 to Decenber 2012, (any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab). For the AGITG MAX trial capecitabine was compared to the other two arms (capecitabine/bevacizumab and capecitabine/bevacizumab/mitomycinC). In the AGITG MAX trial and the TRACC registry rates of gastrointestinal perforation were also collected in patients who did not have peritoneal metastases. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, chemotherapy duration, and overall survival. Time-to-event outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.Eighty-four MAX, 179 TRACC and 69 NSWCC patients had peritoneal disease. There were no gastrointestinal perforations recorded in either the MAX subgroup or the NSWCC cohorts. Of the patients without peritoneal disease in the MAX trial, 4/300 (1.3%) in the bevacizumab arms had gastrointestinal perforations compared to 1/123 (0.8%) in the capecitabine alone arm. In the TRACC registry 3/126 (2.4%) patients who had received bevacizumab had a gastrointestinal perforation compared to 1/53 (1.9%) in the chemotherapy alone arm. In a further analysis of patients without peritoneal metastases in the TRACC registry, the rate of gastrointestinal perforations was 9/369 (2.4%) in the chemotherapy/bevacizumab group and 5/177 (2.8%) in the chemotherapy alone group. The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy was associated with improved progression-free survival in all three cohorts: MAX 6.9 m vs 4.9 m, HR = 0.64 (95%CI: 0.42-1.02); P = 0.063; TRACC 9.1 m vs 5.5 m, HR = 0.61 (95%CI: 0.37-0.86); P = 0.009; NSWCC 8.7 m vs 6.8 m, HR = 0.75 (95%CI: 0.43-1.32); P = 0.32. Chemotherapy duration was similar across the groups.Patients with peritoneal disease do not appear to have an increased risk of gastrointestinal perforations when receiving first-line therapy with bevacizumab compared to systemic therapy alone.

Methods: Based on the presence of molecular alterations, pts are treated with a MTT (among sorafenib, everolimus, pazopanib, lapatinib, nilotinib). After 12 weeks of treatment (induction period), pts with objective response are proposed to continue the MTT, while pts with stable disease are randomly assigned (1:1, maintenance period) to continuation or interruption of MTT. Analyses are carried out per MTT cohort using a sequential Bayesian approach. Primary endpoint of the induction period is the 12-week progression-free rate (PFR12w as per RECIST1.1). Secondary endpoints include toxicity and PFS. This abstract reports the preliminary results of the induction period for the sorafenib and everolimus cohorts. Results: From Feb.2014 to Apr. 2015, 48 and 30 pts were enrolled and evaluable at 12 weeks in the sorafenib and everolimus cohorts, respectively. The PFR12w were 32% and 29% in the sorafenib and everolimus cohorts, respectively. The PFR12w according to molecular alterations are presented in Table 1. No major safety issues were reported. Updated PFS will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: This molecular-driven approach warrants further investigation in specific molecular subtypes. Clinical trial information: NCT02029001 No conflict of interest.

Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) is a lethal disease with a poor 5-year survival. Systemic treatments can be used to control symptoms and prolong life. Cytotoxic chemotherapies are commonly administered, with combination treatments, such as fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) or nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine showing the largest clinical benefits. Newer genomic classifications of PDAC may provide a rationale for targeted therapies or immunotherapies, although at present these remain largely experimental. This review discusses the evidence behind the currently used regimens, while introducing the potential future of pancreatic cancer care.

Despite recent progress, the outlook for most patients with pancreatic cancer remains poor. There is variation in how patients are managed globally due to differing interpretations of the evidence, partly because studies in this disease are challenging to undertake. This article collates the evidence upon which current best practice is based and offers an expert opinion from an international faculty on how latest developments should influence current treatment paradigms. Areas covered: Optimal chemotherapy for first and subsequent lines of therapy; optimal management of locally advanced, non-metastatic cancer including the role of neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, current evidence for adjuvant chemotherapy, major advances in pancreatic cancer genomics and challenges in supportive care particularly relevant to patients with pancreatic cancer. For each section, literature was reviewed by comprehensive search techniques, including clinical trial websites and abstracts from international cancer meetings. Expert commentary: For each section, a commentary is provided. Overall the challenges identified were: difficulties in diagnosing pancreatic cancer early, challenges for performing randomised clinical trials in all stages of the disease, some progress in systemic therapy with new agents and in identifying molecular subtypes that may be clinically relevant and move towards personalized therapy, but still, pancreatic cancer remains a very poor prognosis cancer with significant palliative care needs.

ABSTRACT Aim: We developed a web-based tool to help oncologists estimate and explain best-case, typical, and worst-case scenarios for survival to patients with advanced cancer. We report here on the attitudes of patients seeking prognostic information and being given it in this format. Methods: Oncologists were encouraged to use the tool whenever a patient with advanced cancer requested quantitative prognostic information. For each patient, the oncologist estimated the ‘median survival of a group of similar patients’ and used the tool to calculate ranges for the 3 scenarios based on this estimate. Oncologists presented the information using standardized oral and printed formats. Patients completed a questionnaire about their attitudes to receiving this format of information. Results: 47 patients of 6 oncologists have completed the questionnaire. Patients' characteristics were: median age 68 years; male 72%; high school education 56%; ECOG PS 0-1 73%; >8 weeks since diagnosis of advanced cancer 66%; primary cancer of kidney 22%, prostate 20%, pancreas 18%, colon 11%, breast 9% and other 20%. The median estimated survival time was 9 months (range 3-48). Most patients agreed that ‘having my life expectancy presented this way’ was helpful (89%), made sense (96%), improved my understanding (81%), and will help me make plans (83%); about half agreed that it was reassuring (55%), gave hope (52%), made me feel worried or anxious (49%), and was upsetting (58%). Most agreed that being told each scenario was helpful: best-case (89%), typical (83%), worst-case (85%), and median (74%). Most agreed that receiving a printed summary was helpful (85%); and, that the information would be helpful for their family members (76%) and family doctor (85%). The prognosis was considered about the same as expected by 47%, worse than expected by 28%, and better than expected by 26%. Preferences for the scenario to be told first were typical 28%, best-case 17%, worst-case 11%, and not important 45%. Conclusions: The vast majority of patients seeking information about their survival time found it helpful to receive such information as 3 scenarios, and agreed that it would be helpful for their family members and doctors to receive this information. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background: Neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC WHO grade 3) are aggressive cancers that are rapidly fatal. There have been no randomised trials to date to establish standard therapy for advanced gastrointestinal (GI) NECs. Etoposide and carboplatin are used by extrapolation from small cell lung cancer data. Paclitaxel is also active in NECs but there is no data on the role of nab-paclitaxel. This randomised study aims to establish if carboplatin and nab-paclitaxel combination is an effective and tolerable treatment for advanced GI NECs. Trial design: NABNEC has commenced as a randomised phase II multicentre trial enrolling adults with advanced and/or metastatic non-resectable GI NECs. Patients are randomised to: Arm A (n = 47) IV nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 on Day 1 every week and IV carboplatin AUC = 5 on Day 1 every 3 weeks OR: Arm B (n = 23) IV etoposide 100mg/m2on Days 1-3 every 3 weeks and IV carboplatin AUC = 5 on Day 1 every 3 weeks. Treatment will continue until disease progression or unmanageable toxicity. The primary endpoint is objective response rate (RR) by RECIST 1.1. At 6 months, the RR in the intervention group would need to be at least 50% to justify further investigation. A total sample size of 70 patients with a 2:1 randomisation (intervention to control) will have 80% power with 95% confidence to rule out a 30% objective RR in favour of a more clinically relevant RR of 50% at 6 months. Secondary endpoints include progression free survival, overall survival, safety as measured by NCI-CTCAE V4.03, and quality of life using EORTC QLQC30 and QLQ-GINET21 questionnaires. Translational research endpoints include (1) blood and tissue biomarkers (prognostic and/or predictive) correlated with clinical endpoints including (a) circulating tumour cells, (b) mutation profile by whole exome sequencing, (c) DNA methylation profile and (2) utility of 18-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging as an early predictor of response and association of SUV max with clinical endpoints. NABNEC has opened to recruitment at 9 study sites and is currently enrolling patients. The randomised NABNEC study will run at 20 sites in Australia and New Zealand. ANZCTR # 12616000958482. Clinical trial identification: AG0215NET/CTC0137 Version 1.1 29 February 2016 Legal entity responsible for the study: Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group Funding: National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC); Specialised Therapeutics Australia PTY Ltd (STA) Disclosure: M. Khasraw, J. Simes: Funding to Institution from Specialised Therapeutics Australia PTY Ltd. M. Michael: Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen; Novartis Pharma KK; travel, accommodations, expenses: Ipsen. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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.