Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis. The disease and its treatment can cause significant nutritional impairments that often adversely impact patient quality of life (QOL). The pancreas has both exocrine and endocrine functions and, in the setting of cancer, both systems may be affected. Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) manifests as weight loss and steatorrhea, while endocrine insufficiency may result in diabetes mellitus. Surgical resection, a central component of pancreatic cancer treatment, may induce or exacerbate these dysfunctions. Nutritional and metabolic dysfunctions in patients with pancreatic cancer lack characterization, and few guidelines exist for nutritional support in patients after surgical resection. We reviewed publications from the past two decades (1995–2016) addressing the nutritional and metabolic status of patients with pancreatic cancer, grouping them into status at the time of diagnosis, status at the time of resection, and status of nutritional support throughout the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer. Here, we summarize the results of these investigations and evaluate the effectiveness of various types of nutritional support in patients after pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We outline the following conservative perioperative strategies to optimize patient outcomes and guide the care of these patients: (1) patients with albumin < 2.5 mg/dL or weight loss > 10% should postpone surgery and begin aggressive nutrition supplementation; (2) patients with albumin < 3 mg/dL or weight loss between 5% and 10% should have nutrition supplementation prior to surgery; (3) enteral nutrition (EN) should be preferred as a nutritional intervention over total parenteral nutrition (TPN) postoperatively; and, (4) a multidisciplinary approach should be used to allow for early detection of symptoms of endocrine and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency alongside implementation of appropriate treatment to improve the patient’s quality of life.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has become frontline therapy for unresectable HCC. The compatibility of atezolizumab/bevacizumab with liver-directed RT has not been reported. Methods: HCC patients treated with liver-directed RT and atezolizumab/bevacizumab between 1/2020–11/2021 were included. Toxicity and outcomes were retrospectively recorded. For ALCs, we matched the analysis to a previously cohort of RT-treated HCC patients who did not receive atezolizumab/bevacizumab. Survival and time-to-liver-failure were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier. Results: Of 21 patients, with a median follow-up of 9.5 months, the median OS was 16.1 months. Post-RT, all patients had reduced tumors or treatment response. There were no ≥Grade 3 RT-related toxicities. Autoimmune complications occurred in two patients (9.5%), and GI bleeding in three patients (14.3%). Liver function remained stable post-RT. There was a marked decrease in ALCs immediately post-RT (post-RT/pre-RT ratio 47.3%, p < 0.0001), restored by 1 month to pre-treatment baseline (1-month post-RT/pre-RT ratio 95.1%, n.s.). Compared to HCC patients treated with RT alone, post-RT ALC recovery was faster with atezolizumab/bevacizumab (p = 0.009). Conclusion: In this first reported experience of RT with modern systemic therapy for HCC, combination therapy is safe and well-tolerated. As a favorable prognosticator, there appears to be faster recovery of ALC among patients who received RT with atezolizumab/bevacizumab.

Identification of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) following curative intent therapies is a surrogate for microscopic residual disease for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Preclinically, in micrometastatic microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancer, increased TGFβ signaling results in exclusion of antitumor cytotoxic T cells from the tumor microenvironment. Bintrafusp alfa (BA) is a bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the TGFβRII receptor (“TGFβ trap”) and anti-PD-L1 antibody. Patients with liver-limited, MSS mCRC and with detected ctDNA after complete resection of all known tumors and standard-of-care therapy were treated with 1,200 mg of BA intravenously every 14 days for six doses. The primary endpoint was ctDNA clearance. Radiographic characteristics at recurrence were compared using independent t tests to historical data from a similar cohort of patients with liver-limited mCRC who underwent observation. Only 4 of 15 planned patients received BA before the study was stopped early for loss of equipoise. There was no grade ≥3 adverse event. None of the patients cleared ctDNA. All patients developed radiographic recurrence by the first planned restaging. Although not detectable at prior to treatment, TGFβ3 was found in circulation in all patients at cycle 2 day 1. Compared with a historical cohort, patients administered BA developed more metastases (15 vs. 2, P = 0.005) and greater tumor volumes (9 cm vs. 2 cm, P = 0.05). Treatment with BA in patients with ctDNA-detected, liver-limited mCRC did not clear ctDNA and was associated with large-volume recurrence, highlighting the potential context-specific complexity of dual TGFβ and PD-L1 inhibition.Significance: Use of ctDNA to identify patients with micrometastatic disease for therapeutic intervention is feasible. Treatment with BA in patients with liver-limited mCRC and with detectable ctDNA after resection generated rapid progression. Approaches targeting TGFβ signaling must consider its pathway complexity in future immunotherapy combination strategies.