94
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      DNA damage repair as a target in pancreatic cancer: state-of-the-art and future perspectives

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Complex rearrangement patterns and mitotic errors are hallmarks of most pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC), a disease with dismal prognosis despite some therapeutic advances in recent years. DNA double-strand breaks (DSB) bear the greatest risk of provoking genomic instability, and DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways are crucial in preserving genomic integrity following a plethora of damage types. Two major repair pathways dominate DSB repair for safeguarding the genome integrity: non-homologous end joining and homologous recombination (HR). Defective HR, but also alterations in other DDR pathways, such as BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM and PALB2, occur frequently in both inherited and sporadic PDAC. Personalised treatment of pancreatic cancer is still in its infancy and predictive biomarkers are lacking. DDR deficiency might render a PDAC vulnerable to a potential new therapeutic intervention that increases the DNA damage load beyond a tolerable threshold, as for example, induced by poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. The Pancreas Cancer Olaparib Ongoing (POLO) trial, in which olaparib as a maintenance treatment improved progression-free survival compared with placebo after platinum-based induction chemotherapy in patients with PDAC and germline BRCA1/2 mutations, raised great hopes of a substantially improved outcome for this patient subgroup. This review summarises the relationship between DDR and PDAC, the prevalence and characteristics of DNA repair mutations and options for the clinical management of patients with PDAC and DNA repair deficiency.

          Related collections

          Most cited references129

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

          Data are lacking on the efficacy and safety of a combination chemotherapy regimen consisting of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRINOX) as compared with gemcitabine as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. We randomly assigned 342 patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1 (on a scale of 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating a greater severity of illness) to receive FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, 85 mg per square meter of body-surface area; irinotecan, 180 mg per square meter; leucovorin, 400 mg per square meter; and fluorouracil, 400 mg per square meter given as a bolus followed by 2400 mg per square meter given as a 46-hour continuous infusion, every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter weekly for 7 of 8 weeks and then weekly for 3 of 4 weeks. Six months of chemotherapy were recommended in both groups in patients who had a response. The primary end point was overall survival. The median overall survival was 11.1 months in the FOLFIRINOX group as compared with 6.8 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.73; P<0.001). Median progression-free survival was 6.4 months in the FOLFIRINOX group and 3.3 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.59; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 31.6% in the FOLFIRINOX group versus 9.4% in the gemcitabine group (P<0.001). More adverse events were noted in the FOLFIRINOX group; 5.4% of patients in this group had febrile neutropenia. At 6 months, 31% of the patients in the FOLFIRINOX group had a definitive degradation of the quality of life versus 66% in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.70; P<0.001). As compared with gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX was associated with a survival advantage and had increased toxicity. FOLFIRINOX is an option for the treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and good performance status. (Funded by the French government and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00112658.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine.

            In a phase 1-2 trial of albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) plus gemcitabine, substantial clinical activity was noted in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We conducted a phase 3 study of the efficacy and safety of the combination versus gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. We randomly assigned patients with a Karnofsky performance-status score of 70 or more (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better performance status) to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg per square meter of body-surface area) followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or gemcitabine monotherapy (1000 mg per square meter) weekly for 7 of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle 2 and subsequent cycles). Patients received the study treatment until disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival and overall response rate. A total of 861 patients were randomly assigned to nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (431 patients) or gemcitabine (430). The median overall survival was 8.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group as compared with 6.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.83; P<0.001). The survival rate was 35% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group versus 22% in the gemcitabine group at 1 year, and 9% versus 4% at 2 years. The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, as compared with 3.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.82; P<0.001); the response rate according to independent review was 23% versus 7% in the two groups (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (38% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group vs. 27% in the gemcitabine group), fatigue (17% vs. 7%), and neuropathy (17% vs. 1%). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 3% versus 1% of the patients in the two groups. In the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, neuropathy of grade 3 or higher improved to grade 1 or lower in a median of 29 days. In patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate, but rates of peripheral neuropathy and myelosuppression were increased. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00844649.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Genomic analyses identify molecular subtypes of pancreatic cancer.

              Integrated genomic analysis of 456 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas identified 32 recurrently mutated genes that aggregate into 10 pathways: KRAS, TGF-β, WNT, NOTCH, ROBO/SLIT signalling, G1/S transition, SWI-SNF, chromatin modification, DNA repair and RNA processing. Expression analysis defined 4 subtypes: (1) squamous; (2) pancreatic progenitor; (3) immunogenic; and (4) aberrantly differentiated endocrine exocrine (ADEX) that correlate with histopathological characteristics. Squamous tumours are enriched for TP53 and KDM6A mutations, upregulation of the TP63∆N transcriptional network, hypermethylation of pancreatic endodermal cell-fate determining genes and have a poor prognosis. Pancreatic progenitor tumours preferentially express genes involved in early pancreatic development (FOXA2/3, PDX1 and MNX1). ADEX tumours displayed upregulation of genes that regulate networks involved in KRAS activation, exocrine (NR5A2 and RBPJL), and endocrine differentiation (NEUROD1 and NKX2-2). Immunogenic tumours contained upregulated immune networks including pathways involved in acquired immune suppression. These data infer differences in the molecular evolution of pancreatic cancer subtypes and identify opportunities for therapeutic development.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Gut
                Gut
                gutjnl
                gut
                Gut
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0017-5749
                1468-3288
                March 2021
                27 August 2020
                : 70
                : 3
                : 606-617
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentDepartment of Internal Medicine 1 , University Hospital Ulm , Ulm, Germany
                [2 ] Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre , Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
                [3 ] Hospital de Santa Maria, Centro Hospitalar De Lisboa Norte E.P.E. (CHLN), Gastroenterology , Lisboa, Portugal
                [4 ] departmentDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Ulm University , Ulm, Germany
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Thomas Seufferlein, Department of Internal Medicine 1, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm 89081, Germany; thomas.seufferlein@ 123456uniklinik-ulm.de
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0484-0974
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0522-9800
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4930-6292
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0592-5232
                Article
                gutjnl-2019-319984
                10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319984
                7873425
                32855305
                d9369ead-e1d6-4d62-b778-d70f4a43f865
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 17 February 2020
                : 12 June 2020
                : 11 July 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001659, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft;
                Award ID: GRK 2254/1
                Award ID: HEIST RTG 2254
                Award ID: Heisenberg program
                Award ID: KL 2544/1-1
                Award ID: KL 2544/1-2
                Award ID: KL 2544/5-1
                Award ID: KL 2544/6-1
                Award ID: KL 2544/7-1
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100003042, Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung;
                Award ID: Else Kröner-Fresenius Memorial Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001665, Agence Nationale de la Recherche;
                Award ID: ANR-18-CE92-0031
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100008316, Baden-Württemberg Stiftung;
                Award ID: ExPo Chip
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001645, Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds;
                Award ID: BIU Fund
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100008977, Universität Ulm;
                Award ID: Bausteinprogramm
                Funded by: NDIMED-Verbund PancChip;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100005972, Deutsche Krebshilfe;
                Award ID: 111879
                Categories
                Recent Advances in Clinical Practice
                1506
                2312
                1240
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                pancreatic cancer,dna damage,chemotherapy
                Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                pancreatic cancer, dna damage, chemotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content173

                Cited by65

                Most referenced authors3,792