Jessica MacIntyre

BACKGROUND: 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) is superior to gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who have a good performance status. We investigated this combination as neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). METHODS: In this retrospective series, we included patients with unresectable LAPC who received neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX with growth factor support. The primary analysis endpoint was R0 resection rate. RESULTS: Eighteen treatment-naïve patients with unresectable or borderline resectable LAPC were treated with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX. The median age was 57.5 years and all had ECOG PS of 0 or 1. Eleven (61 %) had tumors in the head of the pancreas and 9 (50 %) had biliary stents placed prior to chemotherapy. A total of 146 cycles were administered with a median of 8 cycles (range 3-17) per patient. At maximum response or tolerability, 7 (39 %) were converted to resectability by radiological criteria; 5 had R0 resections, 1 had an R1 resection, and 1 had unresectable disease. Among the 11 patients who remained unresectable after FOLFIRINOX, 3 went on to have R0 resections after combined chemoradiotherapy, giving an overall R0 resection rate of 44 % (95 % CI 22-69 %). After a median follow-up of 13.4 months, the 1-year progression-free survival was 83 % (95 % CI 59-96 %) and the 1-year overall survival was 100 % (95 % CI 85-100 %). Grade 3/4 chemotherapy-related toxicities were neutropenia (22 %), neutropenic fever (17 %), thrombocytopenia (11 %), fatigue (11 %), and diarrhea (11 %). Common grade 1/2 toxicities were neutropenia (33 %), anemia (72 %), thrombocytopenia (44 %), fatigue (78 %), nausea (50 %), diarrhea (33 %) and neuropathy (33 %). CONCLUSIONS: FOLFIRINOX followed by chemoradiotherapy is feasible as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with unresectable LAPC. The R0 resection rate of 44 % in this population is promising. Further studies are warranted.

OBJECTIVE: nab-Paclitaxel has been shown to disrupt pancreatic cancer stroma and was effective in combination with gemcitabine in a phase I/II trial. This study was designed to determine the efficacy of nab-paclitaxel monotherapy in previously treated pancreatic cancer patients. METHODS: In this phase II trial, patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who progressed on gemcitabine-based therapy, received nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m over 30 minutes on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was 6-month overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were response rate (by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors), progression-free survival, safety, and toxicity profile. RESULTS: Among 19 patients treated, the median age was 61 years, 9 (47%) were male patients and 18 (95%) had stage-IV disease. The primary endpoint of the study was reached with a 6-month OS of 58% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 33%-76%] and an estimated median OS of 7.3 months (95% CI, 2.8-15.8 mo). The median progression-free survival was 1.7 months (95% CI, 1.5-3.5 mo). One patient had a confirmed partial response and 6 (32%) had stable disease as their best response. Nonhematological toxicities were generally mild with grades 1-2 nausea, anorexia, hypocalcemia, and vomiting occurring in 63%, 47%, 37%, and 26% of patients, respectively. Grades 3-4 neutropenia, neutropenic fever, and anemia occurred in 32%, 11%, and 11% of patients, respectively. Only 2 of 15 available tumors stained positive for secreted protein acid rich in cysteine, and neither of these patients benefited from the therapy. CONCLUSIONS: nab-Paclitaxel was well tolerated, and it demonstrated preliminary evidence of activity in a subset of patients who progressed on gemcitabine-based therapy.

Risk factors which interfere with cognitive function are especially important during the first 2 years of life - a period referred to as early child development and a time during which rapid growth and essential development occur. Malnutrition, a condition whose effect on cognitive function is well known, has been shown to be part of a vicious cycle with diarrhoeal diseases, and the two pathologies together continue to be the leading cause of illness and death in young children in developing countries. This paper reviews the burden of early childhood diarrhoeal diseases globally and the emerging evidence of their relationship with global disparities in neurocognitive development. The strength of evidence which indicates that the severe childhood diarrhoeal burden may be implicated in cognitive impairment of children from low- and middle-income counties is discussed. Findings suggest that greater investment in multi-site, longitudinal enteric infection studies that assess long-term repercussions are warranted. Furthermore, economic analyses using the concept of human capital should play a key role in advancing our understanding of the breadth and complexities of the health, social and economic ramifications of early childhood diarrhoeal diseases and enteric infections. This broadened awareness can serve to help advocate for more effective interventions, particularly in developing economies.

PURPOSE: To develop United States (US) standards for survivorship care that informs (1) essential health system policy and process components and (2) evaluation of the quality of survivorship care. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute and the Department of Veterans Affairs led a review to identify indicators of quality cancer survivorship care in the domains of health system policy, process, and evaluation/assessment. A series of three virtual consensus meetings with survivorship care and research experts and advocates was conducted to rate the importance of the indicators and refine the top indicators. The final set of standards was developed, including ten indicators in each domain. RESULTS: Prioritized items were survivor-focused, including processes to both assess and manage physical, psychological, and social issues, and evaluation of patient outcomes and experiences. Specific indicators focused on developing a business model for sustaining survivorship care and collecting relevant business metrics (e.g., healthcare utilization, downstream revenue) to show value of survivorship care to health systems. CONCLUSIONS: The National Standards for Cancer Survivorship Care can be used by health systems to guide development of new survivorship care programs or services or to assess alignment and enhance services in existing survivorship programs. Given the variety of settings providing care to survivors, it is necessary for health systems to adapt these standards based on factors including age-specific needs, cancer types, treatments received, and health system resources. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: With over 18 million cancer survivors in the United States, many of whom experience varied symptoms and unmet needs, it is essential for health systems to have a comprehensive strategy to provide ongoing care. The US National Standards for Survivorship Care should serve as a blueprint for what survivors and their families can anticipate after a cancer diagnosis to address their needs.