The differential effect of stromal genes on gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GN) and GN/cisplatin (GCN) outcomes in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (aPDAC)
Recommended Citation
Mahadevia H, Wu S, McWilliams RR, Majeed U, Starr JS, Jones JC, MoSalem OM, O'Donnell C, Ahn DH, Xiu J, El Shawa H, Sledge Jr. GW, Philip PA, Kulkarni N, Goel S, Spetzler D, Singh H, Borad MJ, Bekaii-Saab TS, Babiker HM. The differential effect of stromal genes on gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GN) and GN/cisplatin (GCN) outcomes in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (aPDAC). 2025; (16_suppl).
Document Type
Conference Proceeding
Publication Date
5-28-2025
Abstract
Background: GN is a front-line therapy for aPDAC. A Phase I/II study demonstrated that GCN has a higher overall response rate and median overall survival (mOS). Our previous study found no difference in outcomes among patients with DNA damage repair gene mutations; however, stromal gene expression correlated with mOS in patients receiving GCN. Here, we further evaluate differences in the outcomes with GCN and GN by site of biopsy. Methods: PDAC samples (n = 4,463) were analyzed by NGS (NextSeq/NovaSeq) or RNA (NovaSeq) (Caris Life Sciences, Phx, AZ). Expression of stromal and related genes (ACTA2, ADIRF, HAS2, IL-6, MMP-2, MMP-9, SPARC, STAT3, TBGB1, TGFB2, TGFBR3, IDO1, HLA-DRB4, VEGFB) from different biopsy sites [high expression (H) >50% of RNA transcripts per million] was correlated with outcomes to GCN or GN. mOS was obtained from insurance claims and calculated from first treatment to last contact. The hazard ratio (HR) was calculated by the Cox proportional hazards model, and p-values were calculated using the log-rank test. Results: 4325 patients [primary biopsy (PT), n = 1,878; non-liver metastatic biopsy (N-LM), n = 818; Liver biopsy (LM), n = 1,629] received GN while 138 patients (PT, n = 45; N-LM, n = 28; LM, n = 65) received GCN. GCN was associated with longer mOS than GN [Δ: 5.2 months (m), HR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.92, p = 0.01]. GCN was associated with longer mOS compared to GN in LM (Δ: 5.6 m, HR: 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, p = 0.003), but it was not significant in PT (Δ: 4.6 m, p = 0.13) and N-LM (Δ: 4.4 m, p = 0.35). Median MMP2 (38.5 vs. 163.1 vs. 162.2), VEGFB (14.4 vs. 16.9 vs. 16.2) and TGFBR3 (11.4 vs. 15 vs. 16.4) expression were lower in LM compared to PT and N-LM while TGFB1 (41.6 vs. 34.5 vs. 39.8) and IL6 (1.61 vs. 1.19 vs. 1.41) expression were highest in LM (p<0.05). In LM, IL6-H (Δ: -11 m, p = 0.037) and TGFB1-H (Δ: -5.9 m, p = 0.10) were associated with worse post-GCN survival compared to GN (p = 0.82 and p = 0.57). Whereas, in N-LM, TGFBR3-H trended towards longer post-GCN survival (Δ: 12 m, p = 0.18), while ADIRF-H trended towards shorter post-GCN survival (Δ: -12 m, p = 0.056) compared to GN (p = 0.42 and p = 0.10). While in PT, MMP2-H (Δ: 11.3m, HR: 0.46, p = 0.16), TGFB1-H (Δ: 11.3 m, HR: 0.33, p = 0.09), HLA-DRB4-H (Δ: 12.9 m, HR: 0.44, p = 0.11) and VEGFB-H (Δ: 10.7, HR: 0.34, p = 0.09) trended towards longer post-GCN survival compared to GN (MMP2-H, Δ: 3.4 m, p = 0.03, TGFB1-H, p = 0.661, HLA-DRB4-H, p = 0.67, VEGFB-H, Δ: 1.3 m, p = 0.03). Conclusions: GCN is associated with improved mOS compared to GN, especially in LM.Stromal gene expression in the liver differs from that in N-LM and the pancreas. While high stromal gene expression trends towards worse post-GCN survival in LM, it is associated with improved survival in N-LM and PT. Further validation is needed to understand the impact of stromal gene expression in different tumor sites on survival outcomes and signature development.
Issue
16_suppl
