The mainstay of treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sorafenib, which targets vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors, among other kinases.¹ Sorafenib showed overall survival (OS) benefit compared with placebo in the SHARP trial and, since then, multiple studies evaluating different agents have failed to show survival benefit until recently, when multiple VEGF TKIs showed survival benefit compared with placebo in the second-line setting^2,3 and noninferiority compared with sorafenib in the untreated population.⁴ On the other hand, although checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy showed promising results in early phase 2 studies, subsequent phase 3 trials showed no improved efficacy compared with sorafenib and placebo in the first- and second-line setting, respectively.^5,6 Most recently, the combination of atezolizumab, a checkpoint inhibitor, and bevacizumab showed—for the first time—an OS benefit compared with sorafenib in advanced treatment-naive patients with HCC.⁷ Therefore, systemic treatment for advanced HCC currently incorporates VEGF inhibitors (VEGFis), checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), or the combination of both. Because these studies show variable efficacy across lines of therapy, a network meta-analysis (NMA) is helpful to compare different agents across randomized clinical trials (RCTs). This is especially important because current guidelines list the available treatments with no guidance regarding which regimen to be considered first.⁸ In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we aim to compare the efficacy of different treatment agents for patients with advanced HCC across the lines of therapy.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may improve overall survival (OS) in 'borderline' resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC). Whether the results are the same in upfront RPC is unknown. To evaluate the association of neoadjuvant treatment and survival outcomes in RPC, a systematic literature review was carried out including prospective randomized trials of neoadjuvant treatment versus upfront surgery. Articles indexed in PubMed, Embase and Scopus were evaluated. Data regarding systemic treatment regimens, R0 resection rates, disease-free survival (DFS) and OS were extracted. The outcomes were compared using a random-effects model. The index I² and the graphs of funnel plot were used for the interpretation of the data. Of 3229 abstracts, 6 randomized controlled trials were considered eligible with a combined sample size of 805 RPC patients. Among the trials, PACT-15, PREP-02/JSAP-05 and updated long-term results from PREOPANC and NEONAX trials were included. Combining the studies with meta-analysis, we could see that neoadjuvant treatment in RPC does not improve DFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71 (0.46-1.09)] or OS [HR 0.76 (0.52-1.11)], without significant heterogeneity. Interestingly, R0 rates improved ∼20% with the neoadjuvant approach [HR 1.2 (1.04-1.37)]. It is important to note that most studies evaluated gemcitabine-based regimens in the neoadjuvant setting. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation does not improve DFS or OS in RPC compared to upfront surgery followed by adjuvant treatment. Neoadjuvant treatment improves R0 rates by ∼20%. Randomized ongoing trials are eagerly awaited with more active combined regimens including modified FOLFIRINOX.

Palliative sedation (PS) is an intervention to treat refractory symptoms and to relieve suffering at the end of life. Its prevalence and practice patterns vary widely worldwide. The aim of our study was to evaluate the frequency, clinical indications and outcomes of PS in advanced cancer patients admitted to our tertiary comprehensive cancer center. We retrospectively studied the use of PS in advanced cancer patients who died between March 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2014. PS was defined as the use of continuous infusion of midazolam or neuroleptics for refractory symptoms in the end of life. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of our institution (project number 2481–15). During the study period, 552 cancer patients died at the institution and 374 met the inclusion criteria for this study. Main reason for exclusion was death in the Intensive Care Unit. Among all included patients, 54.2% (n = 203) received PS. Patients who received PS as compared to those not sedated were younger (67.8 vs. 76.4 years-old, p < 0.001) and more likely to have a diagnosis of lung cancer (23% vs. 14%, p = 0.028). The most common indications for sedation were dyspnea (55%) and delirium (19.7%) and the most common drugs used were midazolam (52.7%) or midazolam and a neuroleptic (39.4%). Median initial midazolam infusion rate was 0.75 mg/h (interquartile range – IQR - 0.6-1.5) and final rate was 1.5 mg/h (IQR 0.9–3.0). Patient survival (length of hospital stay from admission to death) of those who had PS was more than the double of those who did not (33.6 days vs 16 days, p < 0.001). The palliative care team was involved in the care of 12% (n = 25) of sedated patients. PS is a relatively common practice in the end-of-life of cancer patients at our hospital and it is not associated with shortening of hospital stay. Involvement of a dedicated palliative care team is strongly recommended if this procedure is being considered. Further research is needed to identify factors that may affect the frequency and outcomes associated with PS.

High rates of cell proliferation and protein synthesis in pancreatic cancer are among many factors leading to endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress. To restore cellular homeostasis, the unfolded protein response (UPR) activates as an adaptive mechanism through either the IRE1$\alpha$, PERK, or ATF6 pathways to reduce the translational load and process unfolded proteins, thus enabling tumor cells to proliferate. Under severe and prolonged ER stress, however, the UPR may promote adaptation, senescence, or apoptosis under these same pathways if homeostasis is not restored. In this review, we present evidence that high levels of ER stress and UPR activation are present in pancreatic cancer. We detail the mechanisms by which compounds activate one or many of the three arms of the UPR and effectuate downstream apoptosis and examine available data on the pre-clinical and clinical-phase ER stress inducers with the potential for anti-tumor efficacy in pancreatic cancer. Finally, we hypothesize a potential new approach to targeting pancreatic cancer by increasing levels of ER stress and UPR activation to incite apoptotic cell death.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) is the most common liver malignancy and third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. For early- and intermediate-stage disease, liver-directed therapies for locoregional control, or down-staging prior to definitive surgical therapy with hepatic resection or liver transplantation, have been studied broadly, and are the mainstays of current treatment guidelines. As HCC incidence has continued to grow, and with more patients presenting with advanced disease, our current treatment modalities do not suffice, and better therapies are needed to improve disease-specific and overall survival. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy utilized, and was associated with dismal results. The advent of immuno-oncology has been of significant interest, and has changed the paradigm of therapy for HCC. Lately, combination regimens including atezolizumab plus bevacizumab; durvalumab plus tremelimumab; and pembrolizumab plus Lenvatinib have shown impressive responses of between 25–35%; this is much higher than responses observed with single agents. Complete responses with checkpoint inhibitor therapy have been observed in advanced-stage HCC patients. These dramatic results have naturally led to several questions. Can or should checkpoint inhibitors, or other immunotherapy combinations, be used routinely before resection or transplant? Is there a synergistic effect of immunotherapy with locoregional therapy, and will pre-treatment increase disease-free survival after surgical intervention? Is it immunologically safe to use these therapies prior to transplantation? Much is still to be learned in terms of the dosing, timing, and overall utility of the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for pre-transplant care and down-staging. More studies will be needed to understand the management of adverse events while maximizing the therapeutic window of these agents. In this review, we look at the current data on therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced HCC, with a focus on pre-transplant treatment prior to liver transplant.

Introduction: To report the prevalence and outcomes of unselected pancreatic cancer (PC) patients with pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) detected using a universal testing approach. Methods: We undertook a prospective, multisite study of germline sequencing using a >80 gene next-generation sequencing platform among 250 patients with PC (not selected for age or family history of cancer) between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020. Demographic, tumor characteristics, and clinical outcomes were compared between PGV carriers and noncarriers. Results: Of 250 patients, the mean age was 65 years (SD 8.7), 56% was male, 83.6% was White, and 65.6% had advanced disease (stages III and IV). PGVs were found in 15.2% (N = 38) of patients, and 2 patients had more than 1 PGV. Variants of uncertain significance were found in 44.4% (N = 111). Family history of cancer (odds ratio: 2.36, 95% confidence interval: 1.14-5.19, P = 0.025) was associated with a higher risk of PGV. In a median follow-up of 16.5 months, the median overall survival was 16.8 months in PGV carriers compared with 16.5 months in noncarriers (hazard ratio: 0.51, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-1.01, P = 0.05). Higher levels of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and advanced disease stages (III and IV) were associated with worse outcomes in both groups. Overall, 68% of PGV carriers had mutations in homologous recombination repair genes, including BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, and RAD51C. Discussion: Universal multigene panel testing in PC reveals that 1 in 6 patients are carriers of PGV. Multigene germline testing should be used to aid in treatment selection, prognostication, and familial cancer counseling.