Background: Solid tumors such as pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) comprise not just tumor cells but also a microenvironment with which the tumor cells constantly interact. Detailed characterization of the cellular composition of the tumor microenvironment is critical to the understanding of the disease and treatment of the patient. Single-cell transcriptomics has been used to study the cellular composition of different solid tumor types including PDAC. However, almost all of those studies used primary tumor tissues. Methods: In this study, we employed a single-cell RNA sequencing technology to profile the transcriptomes of individual cells from dissociated primary tumors or metastatic biopsies obtained from patients with PDAC. Unsupervised clustering analysis as well as a new supervised classification algorithm, SuperCT, was used to identify the different cell types within the tumor tissues. The expression signatures of the different cell types were then compared between primary tumors and metastatic biopsies. The expressions of the cell type-specific signature genes were also correlated with patient survival using public datasets. Results: Our single-cell RNA sequencing analysis revealed distinct cell types in primary and metastatic PDAC tissues including tumor cells, endothelial cells, cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), and immune cells. The cancer cells showed high inter-patient heterogeneity, whereas the stromal cells were more homogenous across patients. Immune infiltration varies significantly from patient to patient with majority of the immune cells being macrophages and exhausted lymphocytes. We found that the tumor cellular composition was an important factor in defining the PDAC subtypes. Furthermore, the expression levels of cell type-specific markers for EMT⁺ cancer cells, activated CAFs, and endothelial cells significantly associated with patient survival. Conclusions: Taken together, our work identifies significant heterogeneity in cellular compositions of PDAC tumors and between primary tumors and metastatic lesions. Furthermore, the cellular composition was an important factor in defining PDAC subtypes and significantly correlated with patient outcome. These findings provide valuable insights on the PDAC microenvironment and could potentially inform the management of PDAC patients.

PURPOSE: The phase III POLO study demonstrated significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit for active olaparib maintenance therapy versus placebo for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma and a germline BRCA mutation. Here, we report the final analysis of overall survival (OS) and other secondary end points. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA mutation whose disease had not progressed after ≥ 16 weeks of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 3:2 to active maintenance olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was PFS; secondary end points included OS, time to second disease progression or death, time to first and second subsequent cancer therapies or death, time to discontinuation of study treatment or death, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: In total, 154 patients were randomly assigned (olaparib, n = 92; placebo, n = 62). No statistically significant OS benefit was observed (median 19.0 v 19.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.22; P = .3487). Kaplan-Meier OS curves separated at approximately 24 months, and the estimated 3-year survival after random assignment was 33.9% versus 17.8%, respectively. Median time to first subsequent cancer therapy or death (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.66; P < .0001), time to second subsequent cancer therapy or death (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.89; P = .0111), and time to discontinuation of study treatment or death (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.63; P < .0001) significantly favored olaparib. The HR for second disease progression or death favored olaparib without reaching statistical significance (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.02; P = .0613). Olaparib was well tolerated with no new safety signals. CONCLUSION: Although no statistically significant OS benefit was observed, the HR numerically favored olaparib, which also conferred clinically meaningful benefits including increased time off chemotherapy and long-term survival in a subset of patients.

Futibatinib, a highly selective, irreversible FGFR1–4 inhibitor, was evaluated in a large multihistology phase I dose-expansion trial that enrolled 197 patients with advanced solid tumors. Futibatinib demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) of 13.7%, with responses in a broad spectrum of tumors (cholangiocarcinoma and gastric, urothelial, central nervous system, head and neck, and breast cancer) bearing both known and previously uncharacterized FGFR1–3 aberrations. The greatest activity was observed in FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement–positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ORR, 25.4%). Some patients with acquired resistance to a prior FGFR inhibitor also experienced responses with futibatinib. Futibatinib demonstrated a manageable safety profile. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were hyperphosphatemia (81.2%), diarrhea (33.5%), and nausea (30.4%). These results formed the basis for ongoing futibatinib phase II/III trials and demonstrate the potential of genomically selected early-phase trials to help identify molecular subsets likely to benefit from targeted therapy. Significance: This phase I dose-expansion trial demonstrated clinical activity and tolerability of the irreversible FGFR1–4 inhibitor futibatinib across a broad spectrum of FGFR-aberrant tumors. These results formed the rationale for ongoing phase II/III futibatinib trials in cholangiocarcinoma, breast cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and a genomically selected disease-agnostic population. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 275

PURPOSE: This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430 ). METHODS: We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m²) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m²) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION: The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) has shown modest activity and tolerable toxicity in a phase II trial for biliary tract cancers (BTCs). Meanwhile, gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin (GEMOX) has been the reference arm in recent phase II and III trials for BTCs. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of XELOX versus GEMOX as first-line therapy for advanced BCTs. In this open-label, randomized, phase III, noninferiority trial, we randomly selected patients with metastatic BCTs to receive GEMOX (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1) or XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2, twice daily, on days 1-14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1) as first-line treatment, given every 3 weeks, totaling eight cycles. The primary end point was to prove the noninferiority of XELOX to GEMOX in terms of 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. In total, 114 patients randomly received GEMOX and 108 randomly received XELOX. The median PFS was 5.3 months for the GEMOX group and 5.8 months for the XELOX group. The 6-month PFS rate was 44.5% for the GEMOX group and 46.7% for the XELOX group. The 95% confidence interval of the 6-month PFS rate difference between both groups was -12% to 16%, meeting the criteria for noninferiority of XELOX to GEMOX. There was no difference in objective response (P=0.171) and median overall survival (P=0.131) between both groups. The most common grade three to four adverse events were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. No patient died of treatment-related causes. The XELOX group had significantly lower frequencies of hospital visits than the GEMOX group (P<0.001). XELOX showed significant noninferiority to GEMOX in terms of 6-month PFS rate. Thus, XELOX could be an alternative first-line treatment of BCTs. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT01470443).