PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pegvorhyaluronidase alfa (PEGPH20) plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (AG) in patients with hyaluronan-high metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: HALO 109-301 was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients ≥ 18 years of age with untreated, metastatic, hyaluronan-high PDA were randomly assigned 2:1 to PEGPH20 plus AG or placebo plus AG. Treatment was administered intravenously in 4-week cycles (3 weeks on, 1 week off) until progression or intolerable adverse events: PEGPH20 3.0 µg/kg twice per week for cycle 1 and once per week thereafter; nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m² once per week; and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m² once per week. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Response was independently assessed per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: At data cutoff, 494 patients were randomly assigned, with 492 (327 for PEGPH20 and 165 for placebo) included in intention-to-treat analyses. Baseline characteristics were balanced for PEGPH20 plus AG versus placebo plus AG. There were 330 deaths, with a median OS of 11.2 months for PEGPH20 plus AG versus 11.5 months for placebo plus AG (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.27; P = .97); median PFS was 7.1 months versus 7.1 months (HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.26]); ORR was 47% versus 36% (ORR ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.63]). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events with a ≥ 2% higher rate with PEGPH20 plus AG than with placebo plus AG included fatigue (16.0% v 9.6%), muscle spasms (6.5% v 0.6%), and hyponatremia (8.0% v 3.8%). CONCLUSION: The addition of PEGPH20 to AG increased the ORR but did not improve OS or PFS. The safety profile of PEGPH20 plus AG was consistent with that found in previous studies. These results do not support additional development of PEGPH20 in metastatic PDA.

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of the neck-thorax-abdomen and pelvis, including 3-phase examination of the liver, constitutes the basic imaging for primary neuroendocrine tumor (NET) diagnosis, staging, surveillance, and therapy monitoring. CT characterization of lymph nodes is difficult because of inadequate size criteria (short axis diameter), and bone metastases are often missed. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including diffusion-weighted imaging is preferred for the examination of the liver, pancreas, brain and bone. MRI may miss small lung metastases. MRI is less well suited than CT for the examination of extended body areas because of the longer examination procedure. Ultrasonography (US) frequently provides the initial diagnosis of liver metastases and contrast-enhanced US is excellent to characterize liver lesions that remain equivocal on CT/MRI. US is the method of choice to guide the biopsy needle for the histopathological NET diagnosis. US cannot visualize thoracic NET lesions for which CT-guided biopsy therefore is used. Endocopic US is the most sensitive method to diagnose pancreatic NETs, and additionally allows for biopsy. Intraoperative US facilitates lesion detection in the pancreas and liver. Somatostatin receptor imaging should be a part of the tumor staging, preoperative imaging and restaging, for which ⁶⁸Ga-DOTA-somatostatin analog PET/CT is recommended, which is vastly superior to somatostatin receptor scintigraphy, and facilitates the diagnosis of most types of NET lesions, for example lymph node metastases, bone metastases, liver metastases, peritoneal lesions, and primary small intestinal NETs. ¹⁸FDG-PET/CT is better suited for G3 and high G2 NETs, which generally have higher glucose metabolism and less somatostatin receptor expression than low-grade NETs, and additionally provides prognostic information.

Purpose: Knowledge of clinical course of pancreatic endocrine carcinomas (PECs) is poor. This study aimed to determine the time to progression of advanced PECs, and to identify predictors capable of selecting subgroups with higher risk of progression. Patients and Methods: In this multicenter retrospective analysis, patients with advanced PECs were enrolled. Staging was according to European Neuroendocrine Tumors Society guidelines. Grading was based on proliferation index using Ki67 immunohistochemistry. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), which was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox regression proportional hazard model was used to identify predictors for tumor progression. Results: Two hundred two patients with PECs were enrolled, including 172 with well-differentiated and 30 with poorly differentiated endocrine carcinomas. There were 34 patients with stage III and 168 with stage IV tumors. G1 tumors were present in 19.7% of patients, whereas 60.1% of patients had G2 tumors, and the remaining 20.2% had G3 tumors. Disease progression occurred in 166 patients (82.2%), at a median interval of 10 months (interquartile range, 5 to 22) from diagnosis. Median PFS was 14 months. Different PFS were observed depending on G grade (P < .001) and tumor differentiation (P < .001) and in patients who did not receive any antitumor treatment (P = .002). The major risk factor for progression was the proliferation index Ki67 (hazard ratio, 1.02 for each increasing unit; P < .001). Overall 5-year survival was 44.1%. Conclusion: The vast majority of patients with advanced PECs undergo disease progression. The major risk factor for progression is Ki67 index, which should lead physicians dealing with PECs to plan appropriate follow-up programs and therapeutic strategies.

Purpose: To assess the role of pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy as surrogate end point of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with breast cancer, we performed a trial-based meta-regression of randomized studies comparing different neoadjuvant systemic treatments. Methods: The systematic literature search included electronic databases and proceedings of oncologic meetings. Endocrine therapy trials were excluded. Treatment effects on DFS and OS were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs), and treatment effects on pCR were expressed as odds ratios (ORs). A weighted regression analysis was performed on log-transformed treatment effect estimates to test the association between treatment effects on the surrogate outcome and treatment effects on the clinical outcome. Results: Twenty-nine trials, 59 arms, and 30 comparisons, for a total of 14,641 patients, were included in the analysis. Using the complete set of data, the regression of either the log(HR) for DFS or the log(HR) for OS on the log(OR) for pCR demonstrated only weak associations (R² = 0.08; 95% CI, 0 to 0.47; and R² = 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.41, respectively). Better associations were found in an exploratory analysis assessing a subset of trials comparing intensified/dose-dense chemotherapy versus standard-dose regimens (DFS: R² = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.95; P = .003; and OS: R² = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.93; P = .03). Conclusion: This meta-regression analysis of 29 heterogeneous neoadjuvant trials does not support the use of pCR as a surrogate end point for DFS and OS in patients with breast cancer. However, pCR may potentially meet the criteria of surrogacy with specific systemic therapies.