Introduction: The activity of butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) in blood reflects liver function and has recently been associated with systemic inflammatory response and tumor cachexia. As these conditions have been previously linked with pancreatic cancer (PC), the purpose of the present study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of plasma BChE in PC. Methods: Data from 574 consecutive PC patients, treated between 2004 and 2018 at a single academic center, was evaluated. The primary endpoint was cancer-specific survival (CSS), analyzed by Kaplan–Meier curve, and both univariate and multivariate Cox proportional models. Results: BChE activity negatively correlated with other liver parameters (bilirubin, gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and C-reactive protein (CRP)), and positively correlated with albumin levels, respectively (p < 0.01). In univariate analysis, a low plasma BChE activity was a factor of poor CSS (hazard ratio: 1.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.129–1.754, p = 0.002). In multivariate analysis, tumor stage, tumor grade, administration of chemotherapy, bilirubin levels and a low BChE activity (hazard ratio: 1.42, 95% confidence interval: 1.10–1.82; p = 0.006) were identified as independent prognostic factors. Conclusion: Decreased activity of BChE in blood plasma predicts shorter survival time in PC patients. Therefore, BChE might be helpful in additional stratification of patients into different prognostic risk groups.

We recently published a clinically-meaningful improvement in median overall survival (OS) for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), >30% bone marrow (BM) blasts and white blood cell (WBC) count ≤15 G/L, treated with front-line azacitidine versus conventional care regimens within a phase 3 clinical trial (AZA-AML-001; NCT01074047; registered: February 2010). As results obtained in clinical trials are facing increased pressure to be confirmed by real-world data, we aimed to test whether data obtained in the AZA-AML-001 trial accurately represent observations made in routine clinical practice by analysing additional AML patients treated with azacitidine front-line within the Austrian Azacitidine Registry (AAR; NCT01595295; registered: May 2012) and directly comparing patient-level data of both cohorts. We assessed the efficacy of front-line azacitidine in a total of 407 patients with newly-diagnosed AML. Firstly, we compared data from AML patients with WBC ≤ 15 G/L and >30% BM blasts included within the AZA-AML-001 trial treated with azacitidine (“AML-001” cohort; n = 214) with AAR patients meeting the same inclusion criteria (“AAR (001-like)” cohort; n = 95). The current analysis thus represents a new sub-analysis of the AML-001 trial, which is directly compared with a new sub-analysis of the AAR. Baseline characteristics, azacitidine application, response rates and OS were comparable between all patient cohorts within the trial or registry setting. Median OS was 9.9 versus 10.8 months (p = 0.616) for “AML-001” versus “AAR (001-like)” cohorts, respectively. Secondly, we pooled data from both cohorts (n = 309) and assessed the outcome. Median OS of the pooled cohorts was 10.3 (95% confidence interval: 8.7, 12.6) months, and the one-year survival rate was 45.8%. Thirdly, we compared data from AAR patients meeting AZA-AML-001 trial inclusion criteria (n = 95) versus all AAR patients with World Health Organization (WHO)-defined AML (“AAR (WHO-AML)” cohort; n = 193). Within the registry population, median OS for AAR patients meeting trial inclusion criteria versus all WHO-AML patients was 10.8 versus 11.8 months (p = 0.599), respectively. We thus tested and confirmed the efficacy of azacitidine as a front-line agent in patients with AML, >30% BM blasts and WBC ≤ 15 G/L in a routine clinical practice setting. We further show that the efficacy of azacitidine does not appear to be limited to AML patients who meet stringent clinical trial inclusion criteria, but instead appears efficacious as front-line treatment in all patients with WHO-AML.

Cytomegalovirus reactivation can be life threatening. However, little evidence on its incidence in solid cancers is available. Therefore our single center Cytomegalovirus polymerase chain reaction database with altogether 890 CMV positive blood serum samples of mainly hematological and oncological patients was retrospectively analyzed to examine the occurrence of Cytomegalovirus reactivation in patients with solid tumors, resulting in 107 patients tested positive for Cytomegalovirus reactivation. Seventeen patients with solid cancer and a positive CMV-PCR test were identified, of which eight patients had clinically relevant CMV disease and received prompt antiviral treatment. Five patients fully recovered, but despite prompt antiviral treatment three patients died. Among these three patients two had significant co-infections (in one case EBV and in the other case Aspergillus) indicating that that CMV reactivation was at least one factor contributing to sepsis. The patient with the EBV co-infection was treated in an adjuvant therapy setting for breast cancer and died due to Cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus associated pneumonia despite intensive therapy. The other two patients had progressive disease of an underlying pancreatic cancer at the time of CMV diagnosis. One patient died due to attendant uncontrollable Aspergillus pneumonia, the other patient most likely died independent from CMV disease because of massively progressive underlying disease. Cytomegalovirus reactivation and disease might be underestimated in routine clinical practice. In our retrospective analysis we show that approximately 50 % of our patients suffering from solid cancers with a positive Cytomegalovirus polymerase chain reaction also had clinically relevant Cytomegalovirus disease requiring antiviral therapy.

The MDS-IWG and NCCN currently endorse both FAB and WHO classifications of MDS and AML, thus allowing patients with 20–30 % bone marrow blasts (AML20–30, formerly MDS-RAEB-t) to be categorised and treated as either MDS or AML. In addition, an artificial distinction between AML20–30 and AML30+ was made by regulatory agencies by initially restricting approval of azacitidine to AML20–30. Thus, uncertainty prevails regarding the diagnosis, prognosis and optimal treatment timing and strategy for patients with AML20–30. Here, we aim to provide clarification for patients treated with azacitidine front-line. The Austrian Azacitidine Registry is a multicentre database (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01595295). For this analysis, we selected 339 patients treated with azacitidine front-line. According to the WHO classification 53, 96 and 190 patients had MDS-RAEB-I, MDS-RAEB-II and AML (AML20–30: n = 79; AML30+: n = 111), respectively. According to the FAB classification, 131, 101 and 111 patients had MDS-RAEB, MDS-RAEB-t and AML, respectively. The median ages of patients with MDS and AML were 72 (range 37–87) and 77 (range 23–93) years, respectively. Overall, 80 % of classifiable patients (≤30 % bone marrow blasts) had intermediate-2 or high-risk IPSS scores. Most other baseline, treatment and response characteristics were similar between patients diagnosed with MDS or AML. WHO-classified patients with AML20–30 had significantly worse OS than patients with MDS-RAEB-II (13.1 vs 18.9 months; p = 0.010), but similar OS to patients with AML30+ (10.9 vs 13.1 months; p = 0.238). AML patients that showed MDS-related features did not have worse outcomes compared with patients who did not (13.2 vs 8.9 months; p = 0.104). FAB-classified patients with MDS-RAEB-t had similar survival to patients with AML30+ (12.8 vs 10.9 months; p = 0.376), but significantly worse OS than patients with MDS-RAEB (10.9 vs 24.4 months; p < 0.001). Our data demonstrate the validity of the WHO classification of MDS and AML, and its superiority over the former FAB classification, for patients treated with azacitidine front-line. Neither bone marrow blast count nor presence of MDS-related features had an adverse prognostic impact on survival. Patients with AML20–30 should therefore be regarded as having ‘true AML’ and in our opinion treatment should be initiated without delay.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma carries a devastating prognosis. For locally advanced and metastatic disease, several chemotherapeutic regimens are currently being used. Over the past years, novel approaches have included targeting EGFR, NTRK, PARP, K-Ras as well as stroma and fibrosis, leading to approval of NTRK and PARP inhibitors. Moreover, immune check point inhibitors and different combinational approaches involving immunotherapeutic agents are being investigated in many clinical trials. MiRNAs represent a novel tool and are thought to greatly improve management by allowing for earlier diagnosis and for more precise guidance of treatment.

Pancreatic carcinoma carries a devastating prognosis and is the 4th leading cause for cancer related death in the US and most European countries. Apart from imaging and CA 19-9, pancreatic carcinoma is still lacking reliable markers to assess tumor dynamics and to monitor treatment response over time. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of cell free tumor-DNA (cft-DNA), respectively KRAS mutation in peripheral blood, detection as a prognostic and predictive value for chemotherapy monitoring. Serial plasma samples from 42 patients with KRAS mutated pancreatic cancer were prospectively collected and the ctKRAS Mutation Assay (Idylla™, Biocartis, Mechelen, Belgium) of cft-DNA was performed on 29 patients that did not receive curative surgery and went on to palliative chemotherapy. To monitor cft-DNA KRAS mutation levels during treatment quantitative assessment of cft-DNA was performed at baseline and during follow up at predetermined times. All 29 patients included in our analyses had a detected KRAS mutation in the tumor biopsy. In almost half (48.2%) of patients a KRAS mutation could also be detected in peripheral plasma. Patients with detectable KRAS mutations before treatment start in plasma had a significantly worse survival (16.8 months vs not reached, p < 0.031 and HR 3.303). Looking for a dynamic assessment of tumor response, we found a statistically significant association between the KRAS mutant ratio from first staging CT scan to basal levels with tumor response or progress (p = 0.014). Performing KRAS testing from peripheral blood for patients, who have no elevated tumor markers, might be a novel option for treatment monitoring complementing routine imaging techniques.