Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of death among patients with cancer. Outpatients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk, for which the Khorana score is commonly recommended. However, it has been questioned whether this tool is sufficiently accurate at identifying patients who should receive thromboprophylaxis. The present work proposes a new index, TiC-Onco risk score to be calculated at the time of diagnosis of cancer, that examines patients’ clinical and genetic risk factors for thrombosis. We included 391 outpatients with a recent diagnosis of cancer and candidates for systemic outpatient chemotherapy. All were treated according to standard guidelines. The study population was monitored for 6 months, and VTEs were recorded. The Khorana and the TiC-Onco scores were calculated for each patient and their VTE predictive accuracy VTEs was compared. We recorded 71 VTEs. The TiC-Onco risk score was significantly better at predicting VTE than the Khorana score (AUC 0.73 vs. 0.58, sensitivity 49 vs. 22%, specificity 81 vs. 82%, PPV 37 vs. 22%, and NPV 88 vs. 82%). TiC-Onco risk score performed significantly better than Khorana score at identifying cancer patients at high risk of VTE who would benefit from personalised thromboprophylaxis.

PURPOSE: SEQUOIA compared efficacy and safety of adding pegilodecakin (PEG), a pegylated recombinant human interleukin (IL)-10, with folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in patients following progression on first-line gemcitabine-containing therapy with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: SEQUOIA, a randomized, global phase III study, compared FOLFOX with PEG + FOLFOX as second line in gemcitabine-refractory PDAC. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 (PEG + FOLFOX:FOLFOX) and stratified by prior gemcitabine and region. Eligible patients had only one prior gemcitabine-containing treatment. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), response evaluation per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST) 1.1, and safety. Exploratory analyses included biomarkers related to immune activation. RESULTS: Between March 1, 2017, and September 9, 2019, 567 patients were randomly assigned PEG + FOLFOX (n = 283) or FOLFOX (n = 284). Most (94.7%) patients received prior gemcitabine plus nab paclitaxel. OS was similar comparing PEG + FOLFOX versus FOLFOX (median: 5.8 v 6.3 months; hazard ratio = 1.045; 95% CI, 0.863 to 1.265). Also, PFS (median 2.1 v 2.1 months; hazard ratio = 0.981; 95% CI, 0.808 to 1.190) and objective response rate (4.6% v 5.6%) were similar between the treatment arms. Most common (≥ 35%) treatment-emergent adverse events in PEG + FOLFOX versus FOLFOX were thrombocytopenia (55% v 20%), anemia (40% v 16%), fatigue (61% v 45%), neutropenia (39% v 28%), abdominal pain (37% v 29%), nausea (45% v 41%), neuropathy (37% v 38%), and decreased appetite (35% v 31%). Exploratory analyses revealed increases in total IL-18, interferon (IFN)-γ, and granzyme B and decreases in transforming growth factor (TGF)-β with the addition of PEG. CONCLUSION: PEG added to FOLFOX did not improve efficacy in advanced gemcitabine-refractory PDAC. Safety findings were consistent as previously observed from PEG with chemotherapy; toxicity was manageable and tolerable. Exploratory pharmacodynamic results were consistent with immunostimulatory signals of the IL-10R pathway.

Purpose: Gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (NAB) paclitaxel (GA) significantly improved survival compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and a Karnofsky performance status (PS) of 70% or greater. Because of the low number of patients with reduced PS, the efficacy of this regimen in fragile patients remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of different GA dosing regimens in patients with a poor PS. Patients and Methods: In the phase I part of this study, patients were randomly assigned to one of the following four parallel GA treatment arms (six patients per arm): a biweekly schedule of NAB-paclitaxel (150 mg/m² [arm A] or 125 mg/m² [arm C]) plus gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m² or a standard schedule of 3 weeks on and 1 week off of NAB-paclitaxel (100 mg/m² [arm B] or 125 mg/m² [arm D]) plus gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m². The two regimens with the better tolerability profile on the basis of predefined criteria were evaluated in the phase II part of the study, the primary end point of which was 6-month actuarial survival. Results: Arms B and D were selected for the phase II part of the study. A total of 221 patients (111 patients in arm B and 110 patients in arm D) were enrolled. Baseline characteristics including median age (71 and 68 years in arms B and D, respectively), sex (51% and 55% men in arms B and D, respectively), and metastatic disease (88% and 84% in arms B and D, respectively) were comparable between arms. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 toxicities in arms B and D were anemia (12% and 7%, respectively), neutropenia (32% and 30%, respectively), thrombocytopenia (7% and 11%, respectively), asthenia (14% and 16%, respectively), and neurotoxicity (11% and 16%, respectively). In arms B and D, there were no significant differences in response rate (24% and 28%, respectively), median progression-free survival (5.7 and 6.7 months, respectively), and 6-month overall survival (63% and 69%, respectively). Conclusion: NAB-paclitaxel administered at either 100 and 125 mg/m² in combination with gemcitabine on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days is well tolerated and results in acceptable safety and efficacy in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and a poor PS.

PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of death among patients with cancer. The Khorana score was developed for assessing the risk of VTE in outpatients with cancer receiving chemotherapy, but its accuracy in identifying patients at high risk has been questioned. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a clinical-genetic score that improves the assessment of VTE risk in oncology outpatients within 6 months of diagnosis. METHODS: The new score was developed using the data of 364 outpatients belonging to the Spanish ONCOTHROMB 12-01 population. In this cohort, clinical data associated with the risk of VTE were collected at the time of diagnosis, including the Khorana score. These patients were also genotyped for the 51 genetic variants known to be associated with VTE. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the weight of each genetic and clinical variable in relation to VTE risk, allowing a clinical-genetic risk score (the ONCOTHROMB score) to be developed. The Khorana and the ONCOTHROMB scores were then compared via the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration, and the number of patients needed to treat. The new score was then validated in a study of 263 patients in the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study population. RESULTS: Nine genetic variants, tumor site, TNM stage, and a body mass index of > 25 kg/m² were found to be associated with VTE and were used to build the ONCOTHROMB score, which better predicted the overall risk of VTE than did the Khorana score (AUC, 0.781 v 0.580; P < .001). Similar AUC results were recorded in the validation study the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study cohort involving patients with the same type of tumor (AUC for the ONCOTHROMB score v the Khorana score: 0.686 v 0.577; P < .001) and with all type of tumors (AUC for the ONCOTHROMB score v the Khorana score: 0.720 v 0.561; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The ONCOTHROMB score for VTE risk in outpatients with cancer, which takes into account both clinical and genetic variables, better identifies patients who might benefit from primary thromboprophylaxis than does the Khorana score.

Risks of recurrence and treatment-emergent bleeding are high in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) but factors associated with these risks remain substantially undefined. The aim of this analysis in patients with cancer-associated VTE included in the Caravaggio study was to identify risk factors for recurrent VTE and major bleeding. Variables potentially predictive for recurrent VTE or major bleeding were evaluated in a Cox proportional hazard multivariable analysis with backward variable selection. Recurrent VTE occurred in 78 patients (6.8%) and major bleeding in 45 (3.9%). Independent risk factors for recurrent VTE were deep vein thrombosis (DVT) as index event (Hazard ratio (HR) 1.84, 95% CI 1.17-2.88), ECOG status of 1 or more (HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.11-3.43), pancreatic or hepatobiliary cancer site (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.19-4.06), concomitant anti-cancer treatment (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.03-3.81) and creatinine clearance (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.00-1.20 for every 10 ml/min absolute increase). Independent risk factors for major bleeding were ECOG status of 2 (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.24-4.29), genitourinary cancer site (HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.28-5.77), upper gastrointestinal cancer site (HR 3.17, 95% CI 1.22-8.23), and non-resected luminal gastrointestinal cancer (HR 2.77, 95% CI 1.38-5.56). This analysis of the Caravaggio study in patients with cancer-associated VTE who were on standardized anticoagulant treatment identified five independent predictors for recurrent VTE and four independent predictors of treatment-emergent major bleeding. Considering these risks could help clinicians to optimize the anticoagulant treatment in patients with cancer-associated VTE.