Literature DB >> 29731985

Association between homologous recombination repair gene mutations and response to oxaliplatin in pancreatic cancer.

Tomohiro Kondo1, Masashi Kanai1, Tadayuki Kou1, Tomohiro Sakuma2, Hiroaki Mochizuki2, Mayumi Kamada3, Masahiko Nakatsui3, Norimitsu Uza4, Yuzo Kodama4, Toshihiko Masui5, Kyoichi Takaori5, Shigemi Matsumoto1, Hidehiko Miyake6, Yasushi Okuno3, Manabu Muto1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine the association between homologous recombination repair (HRR)-related gene mutations and efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
RESULTS: Non-synonymous mutations in HRR-related genes were found in 13 patients and only one patient had a family history of pancreatic cancer. Eight patients with HRR-related gene mutations (group A) and nine without HRR-related gene mutations (group B) received oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Median progression-free survival after initiation of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy was significantly longer in group A than in group B (20.8 months vs 1.7 months, p = 0.049). Interestingly, two patients with inactivating HRR-related gene mutations who received FOLFIRINOX as first-line treatment showed exceptional responses with respect to progression-free survival for > 24 months.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Complete coding exons of 12 HRR-related genes (ATM, ATR, BAP1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BLM, CHEK1, CHEK2, FANCA, MRE11A, PALB2, and RAD51) were sequenced using a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment-certified multiplex next-generation sequencing assay. Thirty consecutive PDAC patients who underwent this assay between April 2015 and July 2017 were included.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that inactivating HRR-related gene mutations are predictive of response to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with PDAC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BRCA; homologous recombination repair; oxaliplatin; pancreatic cancer; precision medicine

Year:  2018        PMID: 29731985      PMCID: PMC5929428          DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.24865

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncotarget        ISSN: 1949-2553


INTRODUCTION

BRCA1 and BRCA2 play pivotal roles in DNA homologous recombination repair (HRR), and germline BRCA1/2 mutations reportedly increase risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). A large clinic-based cohort study enrolling 306 patients with PDAC reported the prevalence of pathogenic BRCA1/2 germline mutations to be 4.6% [1]. Moreover, several retrospective studies have indicated that patients with PDAC harboring germline BRCA1/2 mutations are more sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy than those without the mutations [2-4]. In addition to BRCA1/2, other genes such as ATM, ATR, and PALB2 are involved in HRR [5]. In ovarian cancer, both germline and somatic mutations in HRR-related genes are predictive of response to platinum-based chemotherapy [6]. Therefore, it is reasonable to speculate that patients with PDAC harboring mutations in HRR-related genes in their tumor tissues are sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy. Supporting this idea, Waddell et al. reported that four of five patients with PDAC who were deficient in BRCA1/2 or PALB2 responded to platinum-based chemotherapy [7]. Oxaliplatin, a third-generation diaminocyclohexane platinum compound, is now commonly used in patients with PDAC [8-12]. However, to date, studies in patients with PDAC investigating prevalence of HRR-related gene mutations in tumor tissues and their association with efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy are sparse. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the association between HRR-related gene mutations identified using a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA)-certified multiplex next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay (OncoPrimeTM) [13] and efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with PDAC.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics

Patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1, and characteristics of individual patients are shown in Table 2. The median age was 64 (range 39–81) years.
Table 1

Patient characteristics

Number of Patients (%)
HRR-related gene mutationTotal
(+)n = 13(−)n = 15
Sex
Male7815 (53.6)
Female6713 (46.4)
Age, years
Median616464
Range44–8139–7439–81
Age ≤ 60 years6612 (42.9)
Disease status
Locally advanced527 (25.0)
Metastatic5611 (39.3)
Recurrence3710 (35.7)
Family history of cancer
Yes8917 (60.7)
No347 (25.0)
Unknown224 (14.3)
Family history of pancreatic caner
Yes134 (14.3)
No101020 (71.4)
Unknown224 (14.3)
Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy
Yes8917 (60.7)
No5611 (39.3)
Table 2

Characteristics of individual patients

CaseAgeSexFamily history of cancerDisease statusOxaliplatin-based regimenIdentification of HRR-related gene mutations
166FUnknownMetastaticFOLFIRINOXNo
252FGastric cancer (FDR), Colorectal cancer (TDR), Lung cancer (TDR)MetastaticFOLFIRINOXNo
342MPancreatic cancer (SDR)Locally advancedSOXNo
464MNoneLocally advancedGEMOXNo
539FCutaneous cancer (FDR)Esophageal cancer (TRD)MetastaticSOXNo
664MNoneRecurrence after adjuvant S-1SOXNo
774FLung cancer (FDR)Recurrence after adjuvant S-1SOXNo
865MGastric cancer (FDR), Lung cancer (TDR)MetastaticSOXNo
966FUnknownRecurrence after adjuvant S-1GEMOXNo
1055MNoneMetastaticFOLFIRINOXYes
1152MBrain tumor (FDR)Prostate cancer (TRD)Locally advancedFOLFIRINOXYes
1268MGastric cancer (FDR)MetastaticFOLFIRINOXYes
1347MPancreatic cancer (FDR)MetastaticGEMOXYes
1444MNoneRecurrence after adjuvant S-1SOXYes
1565FGastric cancer, Colorectal cancer (FDR)MetastaticFOLFOXYes
1681MUnknown cancer (FDR)MetastaticSOXYes
1757FGastric cancer (FDR)RecurrenceSOXYes
1865MBiliary tract cancer (FDR)Recurrence-No
1945MNoneMetastatic-No
2073MColorectal cancer (FDR)Recurrence after adjuvant S-1-No
2160FPancreatic cancer (FDR)Recurrence after adjuvant S-1-No
2259FGastric cancer (SDR)Pancreatic cancer (TDR)Recurrence after adjuvant S-1-No
2367MNoneRecurrence-No
2460FUnknownRecurrence after adjuvant S-1-Yes
2561MBreast cancer (FDR)Locally advanced-Yes
2667FGastric cancer (FDR)Locally advanced-Yes
2777FUnknownLocally advanced-Yes
2874FNoneLocally advanced-Yes

FDR, first-degree relative; SDR, second-degree relative; TDR, third-degree relative.

FDR, first-degree relative; SDR, second-degree relative; TDR, third-degree relative.

Completion rate of the NGS-based multiplex gene assay

The NGS-based multiplex gene assay was performed using archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor tissues (n = 21) or fresh frozen tumor tissues obtained from liver metastases (n = 5), primary sites (n = 3), and a lymph node metastasis (n = 1). The first NGS assay failed in four patients because of poor DNA quality, and a second assay was successfully completed in two patients using fresh frozen tissue obtained via fine-needle aspiration from a liver metastasis (n = 1) and a primary site (n = 1). The overall completion rate of the NGS assay was 93.3% (Figure 1).
Figure 1

Success rate of multiplex next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay in 30 consecutive patients with pancreatic cancer

Identification of non-synonymous mutations in HRR-related genes

The identified HRR-related gene mutations and their corresponding ID, reported in the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) database and the reference single nucleotide polymorphism (rs) ID in dbSNP, are summarized in Table 3. BRCA2 was the most commonly mutated gene (n = 10), followed by ATM (n = 8), BRCA1 (n = 2), CHEK2 (n = 2), ATR (n = 1), and PALB2 (n = 1). In total, non-synonymous HRR-related gene mutations were identified in 13 patients (46.4%). Germline allele frequency of each variant in the normal population as reported in the Exome Aggregation Consortium (http://exac.broadinstitute.org/) and Human Genetic Variation Database (http://www.hgvd.genome.med.kyoto-u.ac.jp/) are also summarized in Table 3.
Table 3

Identified HRR-related gene mutations

CaseGeneMutationFunctionCOSMIC IDdbSNP IDGermline testExACExAcEast AsianHGVD
10ATRI774fsInactivating mutation1617015Not reportednegativeNot reportedNot reportedNot reported
ATML2005VVUSNot reportedNot reportedpositiveNot reportedNot reportedNot reported
BRCA2I1929VVUSNot reportedrs79538375positive9.6e-049.8e-03Not reported
11ATMR2034XInactivating mutation922732rs532480170-1.7e-050Not reported
ATML2426IVUSNot reportedNot reported-Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
BRCA1L52FVUSNot reportedrs80357084-1.3e-041.8e-032.5e-03
12BRCA2S1989fsInactivating mutationNot reportedrs80359552-Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
BRCA2N2436IVUSNot reportedrs80358955-8.2e-0602.1e-03
CHEK2R474CInactivating mutationNot reportedrs540635787-8.8e-061.2e-04Not reported
13ATMR1618XInactivating mutation1350875Not reportedpositiveNot reportedNot reportedNot reported
14BRCA2Q3026XInactivating mutation3468418rs80359159-1.7e-050Not reported
15ATML1700fsInactivating mutationNot reportedNot reported-Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
16PALB2splice site 3350+5G>AVUSNot reportedrs587782566positiveNot reportedNot reportedNot reported
BRCA2A2351GVUSNot reportedrs80358932positive1.3e-041.7e-031.2e-03
17BRCA1R1443XInactivating mutation979730rs41293455-1.6e-050Not reported
24BRCA2S871XInactivating mutationNot reportedrs397507634negativeNot reportedNot reportedNot reported
BRCA2splice site 7977-2A>TInactivating mutationNot reportedrs276174899negativeNot reportedNot reportedNot reported
BRCA2V2503IVUSNot reportedrs587782191negative8.2e-06Not reported4.2e-04
ATMR2691CVUS922745rs531980488negative1.1e-047.0e-04Not reported
25ATMV1038XInactivating mutationNot reportedNot reported-Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
26BRCA2R2318XInactivating mutationNot reportedrs80358920-Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
27BRCA2I1929VVUSNot reportedrs79538375-9.6e-049.8e-030.012
ATMV2951IVUSNot reportedNot reported-Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
28CHEK2splice site 1591-1G>AVUSNot reportedNot reported-Not reportedNot reportedNot reported

VUS, variant of unknown significance; ExAC, Exome Aggregation Consortium; HGVD, Human Genetic Variation Database.

VUS, variant of unknown significance; ExAC, Exome Aggregation Consortium; HGVD, Human Genetic Variation Database.

Family history of cancer

Among the 28 patients evaluated, family history of any cancer and of pancreatic cancer within third-degree relatives was confirmed in 17 (60.7%) and four patients (14.3%), respectively. Of the 13 patients harboring HRR-related gene mutations, only one had a family history of pancreatic cancer (Table 1).

Efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy

Of the 28 patients evaluated, 17 received oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Treatment regimens are summarized in Table 2. Three radiologic responses and one tumor marker response (CA 19-9 and CEA decrease > 60%) were observed in patients harboring HRR-related gene mutations while only one radiologic response was observed in those without such mutations. Progression-free survival (PFS) and survival time after progression in individual patients are shown in Figure 2. Median PFS was significantly longer in patients with HRR-related gene mutations than those without mutations (20.8 months vs. 1.7 months, respectively; p = 0.049, Figure 3) and hazard ratio (HR) was 0.32 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.10–1.06, p = 0.061).
Figure 2

Progression-free survival, survival time after progression, and the response of individual patients who received oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy

Figure 3

Kaplan–Meier estimates of progression-free survival in patients who received oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy

DISCUSSION

In this study, non-synonymous HRR-related gene mutations were identified in 13 (46.4%) of 28 consecutive patients with PDAC who were evaluated using an NGS-based multiplex gene assay covering complete coding exons of 12 HRR-related genes. Among the 13 patients with HRR-related gene mutations, only one (7.6%) had a family history of pancreatic cancer (Table 2). In line with our current results, Shindo et al. recently reported that among 27 patients with pancreatic cancer harboring pathogenic germline mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2/ATM/PALB2, only three patients (11.1%) had a family history of pancreatic cancer [14]. These data suggest that prevalence of HRR-related gene mutations is not uncommon, even if a patient has no family history of pancreatic cancer. Efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapies such as FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX, GEMOX, and SOX in pancreatic cancer has been tested in several clinical trials [8, 9, 11, 12]. Among these, only FOLFIRINOX exhibited clear significant benefit over gemcitabine monotherapy (control) in a large randomized clinical trial and has been recommended for a standard treatment regimen [8]. Conversely, SOX failed to exhibit benefit over S-1 monotherapy in a second-line setting in a randomized clinical trial and is not recommended as standard treatment in routine clinical practice [11]. However, in this study, we observed one patient with an inactivating HRR-related gene mutation (BRCA2 Q3026X) who did not respond to the standard chemotherapy of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel but exhibited a partial response to SOX (Figure 2, Case 14). These results suggested that an oxaliplatin-based regimen, which failed to demonstrate a positive result in a clinical trial involving random patients with PDAC, is still beneficial in patients harboring HRR-related gene mutations. Among 28 patients, 17 received oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. In total, three of eight patients who harbored HRR-related gene mutations showed a radiologic response to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy and one showed a CA19-9 and CEA decrease of > 60% at 8 weeks, which has been shown to be a predictor of better overall survival [15], whereas the response rate was 11.1% (1/9) among patients without such mutations. Interestingly, two patients with HRR-related gene mutations who received FOLFIRINOX as first-line treatment showed exceptional PFS responses for > 24 months (Figure 2, Cases 10 and 11). Because impaired HRR may confer sensitivity to platinum agents and topoisomerase inhibitors [5, 16, 17], patients with HRR-related gene mutations may experience greater benefit from FOLFIRINOX treatment. On the other hand, four patients with HRR-related gene mutations showed neither radiologic nor tumor marker response to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. One patient (Case 13) refused to continue chemotherapy after the first cycle of GEMOX due to its toxicity. The other three patients (Case 15, 16, 17), received oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as third or later line treatment and this might have influenced the poor response. For example, Case 15 was obliged to discontinue chemotherapy after the first cycle of FOLFOX due to rapid deterioration of uncontrollable ascites. Therefore, to derive maximum benefit from oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with HRR-related gene mutations, it appears to be relevant to attempt this regimen at an earlier treatment time-point under better patient general status. Pathogenic germline BRCA1/2 mutations are listed among the genes recommended for reporting of secondary findings by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) [18], and we follow this recommendation in daily clinical practice. In this study, suspected pathogenic germline BRCA1/2 mutations that met the ACMG recommendations were found in five patients (Table 3, Cases 12, 14, 17, 24, and 26). However, except for case 24, four patients did not undergo the germline test primarily because the test results would not affect their own cancer treatment. We were able to conduct the additional germline DNA test in four patients who provided informed consent, and five of 10 HRR-related mutations were confirmed to be germline mutations (Table 3). Limitations of this study included a limited sample size, and differences in lines of treatment and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy regimens among the patients. In addition, we could not eliminate the possibility that mutations identified in nine patients who did not undergo the germline test may have been derived from germline DNA. In summary, the status of HRR-related gene mutations was positively associated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with PDAC. Monitoring HRR-related genes using an NGS assay might be useful in selecting PDAC patients potentially sensitive to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. We are currently planning a prospective trial to verify the results reported here and further explore precision medicine in the field of pancreatic cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients

A total of 30 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed PDAC who underwent an NGS-based multiplex assay (OncoPrimeTM) at Kyoto University Hospital between April 2015 and July 2017 were eligible for this study.

NGS-based multiplex assay (OncoPrimeTM)

An NGS-based multiplex assay (OncoPrimeTM) covers complete coding exons of 215 cancer-related genes and rearrangements in 17 frequently rearranged genes (Supplementary Table 1) [13, 19]. DNA extracted from archived FFPE tissue samples or fresh frozen tissue samples was used for this assay. NGS was performed in a CLIA-certified laboratory using Illumina HiSeq 2500 by EA Genomics (Morrisville, North Carolina, United States).

Identification of HRR-related gene mutations

Twelve HRR-related genes included in OncoPrimeTM (ATM, ATR, BAP1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BLM, CHEK1, CHEK2, FANCA, MRE11A, PALB2, and RAD51) were evaluated in this study. Variant calling was performed using variant calling software (VarPROWL) in a CLIA-certified laboratory by EA Genomics as previously reported [13] based on the following workflow: Step 1: Remove all silent mutations in non-reference alleles, retaining mutations that are missense, are nonsense, or involve splicing junctions. Step 2: Remove all non-reference alleles that appear in > 1% of the population (high minor allele frequency) because they are likely germline events. Step 3: Remove all non-reference alleles with allele frequencies of < 4% and > 95%. This was performed because the limit of detection was 4% and alleles with > 95% frequency were most likely germline DNA because the sample material had at least 20% tumor content. Step 4: The identified mutations were prioritized based on their presence in the following databases: Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (https://www.omim.org/), ClinVar (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar/), Clinical Trials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/), Drug Bank (https://www.drugbank.ca/), COSMIC (http://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic), and the Cancer Genome Atlas (https://cancergenome.nih.gov/). After the filtering process mentioned above, non-synonymous mutations including variants of unknown significance were considered HRR-related gene mutations. Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy includes oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil, and l-leucovorin (FOLFIRINOX); gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX); and S-1 and oxaliplatin (SOX) [8, 11, 12]. Standard doses and schedules of the regimens were adjusted at the discretion of the treating physicians based on incidence of adverse events and individual patient general status. Clinical data were retrieved using a prospective cohort database system (CyberOncology®; Cyber Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan) and electronic medical records.

Statistical analysis

Objective response was assessed based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 [20]. PFS was defined as the interval between date of initiation of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy and date of disease progression or death due to any cause. Survival time after disease progression was defined as the interval between date of disease progression and death. Patients not experiencing disease progression or death were censored at the last follow-up visit. Median PFS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences were compared using the log-rank test. The hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval were calculated using Cox regression models. The data cutoff date was November 30, 2017. Statistical analyses were performed using R version 3.4.1.

Ethics

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine (G692) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients provided written informed consent for the use of genomic and clinical data for research purposes.
  20 in total

1.  FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Thierry Conroy; Françoise Desseigne; Marc Ychou; Olivier Bouché; Rosine Guimbaud; Yves Bécouarn; Antoine Adenis; Jean-Luc Raoul; Sophie Gourgou-Bourgade; Christelle de la Fouchardière; Jaafar Bennouna; Jean-Baptiste Bachet; Faiza Khemissa-Akouz; Denis Péré-Vergé; Catherine Delbaldo; Eric Assenat; Bruno Chauffert; Pierre Michel; Christine Montoto-Grillot; Michel Ducreux
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-05-12       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  PANCREOX: A Randomized Phase III Study of Fluorouracil/Leucovorin With or Without Oxaliplatin for Second-Line Advanced Pancreatic Cancer in Patients Who Have Received Gemcitabine-Based Chemotherapy.

Authors:  Sharlene Gill; Yoo-Joung Ko; Christine Cripps; Annie Beaudoin; Sukhbinder Dhesy-Thind; Muhammad Zulfiqar; Pawel Zalewski; Thuan Do; Pablo Cano; Wendy Yin Han Lam; Scot Dowden; Helene Grassin; John Stewart; Malcolm Moore
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-09-30       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 3.  BRCAness revisited.

Authors:  Christopher J Lord; Alan Ashworth
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2016-01-18       Impact factor: 60.716

4.  Clinical outcomes in pancreatic adenocarcinoma associated with BRCA-2 mutation.

Authors:  Ojas Vyas; Keith Leung; Leslie Ledbetter; Kristin Kaley; Teresa Rodriguez; Marie C Garcon; Muhammad W Saif
Journal:  Anticancer Drugs       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 2.248

5.  Deleterious Germline Mutations in Patients With Apparently Sporadic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Koji Shindo; Jun Yu; Masaya Suenaga; Shahriar Fesharakizadeh; Christy Cho; Anne Macgregor-Das; Abdulrehman Siddiqui; P Dane Witmer; Koji Tamura; Tae Jun Song; Jose Alejandro Navarro Almario; Aaron Brant; Michael Borges; Madeline Ford; Thomas Barkley; Jin He; Matthew J Weiss; Christopher L Wolfgang; Nicholas J Roberts; Ralph H Hruban; Alison P Klein; Michael Goggins
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Authors:  Sarah S Kalia; Kathy Adelman; Sherri J Bale; Wendy K Chung; Christine Eng; James P Evans; Gail E Herman; Sophia B Hufnagel; Teri E Klein; Bruce R Korf; Kent D McKelvey; Kelly E Ormond; C Sue Richards; Christopher N Vlangos; Michael Watson; Christa L Martin; David T Miller
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  Olaparib in combination with irinotecan, cisplatin, and mitomycin C in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Mark Yarchoan; Melinda C Myzak; Burles A Johnson; Ana De Jesus-Acosta; Dung T Le; Elizabeth M Jaffee; Nilofer S Azad; Ross C Donehower; Lei Zheng; Paul E Oberstein; Robert L Fine; Daniel A Laheru; Michael Goggins
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-07-04

8.  Clinical sequencing using a next-generation sequencing-based multiplex gene assay in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Authors:  Tadayuki Kou; Masashi Kanai; Yoshihiro Yamamoto; Mayumi Kamada; Masahiko Nakatsui; Tomohiro Sakuma; Hiroaki Mochizuki; Akinori Hiroshima; Aiko Sugiyama; Eijiro Nakamura; Hidehiko Miyake; Sachiko Minamiguchi; Kyoichi Takaori; Shigemi Matsumoto; Hironori Haga; Hiroshi Seno; Shinji Kosugi; Yasushi Okuno; Manabu Muto
Journal:  Cancer Sci       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 6.716

Review 9.  Germline mutations in pancreatic cancer and potential new therapeutic options.

Authors:  Rille Pihlak; Juan W Valle; Mairéad G McNamara
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-04-20

10.  CA19-9 decrease at 8 weeks as a predictor of overall survival in a randomized phase III trial (MPACT) of weekly nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  E G Chiorean; D D Von Hoff; M Reni; F P Arena; J R Infante; V G Bathini; T E Wood; P N Mainwaring; R T Muldoon; P R Clingan; V Kunzmann; R K Ramanathan; J Tabernero; D Goldstein; D McGovern; B Lu; A Ko
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 32.976

View more
  17 in total

Review 1.  Genomic profiling in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and a pathway towards therapy individualization: A scoping review.

Authors:  Ritu R Singh; Johanna Goldberg; Anna M Varghese; Kenneth H Yu; Wungki Park; Eileen M O'Reilly
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rev       Date:  2019-03-22       Impact factor: 12.111

Review 2.  Targeting DNA damage repair pathways in pancreas cancer.

Authors:  Fionnuala Crowley; Wungki Park; Eileen M O'Reilly
Journal:  Cancer Metastasis Rev       Date:  2021-08-17       Impact factor: 9.237

Review 3.  ATM Dysfunction in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma and Associated Therapeutic Implications.

Authors:  Samantha A Armstrong; Christopher W Schultz; Ariana Azimi-Sadjadi; Jonathan R Brody; Michael J Pishvaian
Journal:  Mol Cancer Ther       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 6.261

Review 4.  BRCA mutated pancreatic cancer: A change is coming.

Authors:  Michael N Rosen; Rachel A Goodwin; Michael M Vickers
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  ATM-Mutated Pancreatic Cancer: Clinical and Molecular Response to Gemcitabine/Nab-Paclitaxel After Genome-Based Therapy Resistance.

Authors:  Candice Martino; Deep Pandya; Ronald Lee; Gillian Levy; Tammy Lo; Sandra Lobo; Richard C Frank
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 3.327

Review 6.  Surveillance of Individuals with a Family History of Pancreatic Cancer and Inherited Cancer Syndromes: A Strategy for Detecting Early Pancreatic Cancers.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Matsubayashi; Yoshimi Kiyozumi; Hirotoshi Ishiwatari; Katsuhiko Uesaka; Masataka Kikuyama; Hiroyuki Ono
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2019-10-31

7.  A Case of Pathological Complete Response Following FOLFIRINOX Therapy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma with Synchronous Distant Lymph Node Metastases.

Authors:  Masanori Tsujie; Soichi Fumita; Tomoko Wakasa; Shigeto Mizuno; Hajime Ishikawa; Kotaro Kitani; Shumpei Satoi; Kaoru Okada; Keisuke Inoue; Shuichi Fukuda; Hironobu Manabe; Noriko Ichimura; Shinya Ueda; Takao Tamura; Toshihiko Kawasaki; Masao Yukawa; Yoshio Ohta; Masatoshi Inoue
Journal:  Int J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2020-06-13

8.  Analysis of dynamic molecular networks for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma progression.

Authors:  Zongfu Pan; Lu Li; Qilu Fang; Yiwen Zhang; Xiaoping Hu; Yangyang Qian; Ping Huang
Journal:  Cancer Cell Int       Date:  2018-12-22       Impact factor: 5.722

9.  GLUT-1 as a predictor of worse prognosis in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: immunohistochemistry study showing the correlation between expression and survival.

Authors:  Mar Achalandabaso Boira; Marcello Di Martino; Carlos Gordillo; Magdalena Adrados; Elena Martín-Pérez
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 4.430

10.  Effect of Germline Mutations in Homologous Recombination Repair Genes on Overall Survival of Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Siddhartha Yadav; Pashtoon M Kasi; William R Bamlet; Thanh P Ho; Eric C Polley; Chunling Hu; Steven N Hart; Kari G Rabe; Nicholas J Boddicker; Rohan D Gnanaolivu; Kun Y Lee; Tricia H Lindstrom; Gloria M Petersen; Fergus J Couch; Robert R McWilliams
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 13.801

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.