Outcomes of resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer patients in rural practice.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15712-e15712
Author(s):  
Sadaf Rashad ◽  
Ajaz Bulbul ◽  
Brian Jean ◽  
Sami Gholam ◽  
Emilio Paul Araujo-Mino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Abdominal Pain ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Rural Practice ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Borderline Resectable ◽  
Biological Variables

e15712 Background: Accurate selection of patients based on radiological and biological variables is crucial to avoid over treatment and unnecessary R1 resection in pancreatic cancer (PC). Methods: We retrospectively investigated 73 patients diagnosed with PC treated between January 1998 to October 2015. We applied NCCN definitions for Resectable (RD), borderline resectable (BRD) and unresectable disease(URD). Logistic regression was used to identify significant indicators of R0 resection. Odds ratios were used to compare differences of overall survivability by R0 and No surgery. Fisher’s Exact Test was used for significance on all tabulated data. Wilcoxon Rank-Sum was used for the comparison of two medians and Kruskal-Wallis to compare more than two medians, and log-rank test was used to compare Kaplan-Meyer Curves. Results: Radiologically RD comprised 21% (15/73) of total cases, 80% (12/15) of these underwent R0 resection. URD comprised 79% (58/73). Patients presenting with abdominal pain were 2.5 times (Odds Ratio; p = 0.0275) more likely to be URD. The mean tumor size for R0 resectability was 2.28 cm (n = 12). The median CA 19-9 for URD was 1473 vs 162 for RD (p = 0.0124). Stage at presentation and resectability were statistically associated. (p = 0.0002): 100% of Stage 1 (n = 4) and, 27% of Stage 2, (11/41) were resectable. Twenty-three cases were identified as BRD, 21/23 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 47.83% had radiological PR, 28.26% had SD and 23.91% PD. There was no association between type of Neoadjuvant treatment (Chemo XRT vs Chemotherapy) and radiological response (p = 0.8798). None of the 21 BRD patients underwent surgery. Median Overall Survival for R0 resection was 22.3 months (95% CI 15.23, 36.50) vs. 5.1 who did not have surgery (95% CI 3.55, 7.57) (p = 0.0010). Conclusions: Nearly 80% patients identified as resectable on imaging underwent R0 resection. Although there were partial responses seen in BRD patients that underwent neoadjuvant treatment eventually none underwent R0 resection. Patients presenting with abdominal pain and high CA19-9 ( > 1400 U/ml) are likely to URD. Early stage and R0 resection were associated with positive outcomes.

scholarly journals Neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced unresectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: oncological outcomes at a single academic centre

ESMO Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. e000929
Author(s):  
Susana Roselló ◽  
Claudio Pizzo ◽  
Marisol Huerta ◽  
Elena Muñoz ◽  
Roberto Aliaga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Resectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Borderline Resectable ◽  
Curative Intent ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Dismal Prognosis

IntroductionPancreatic cancer (PC), even in the absence of metastatic disease, has a dismal prognosis. One-third of them are borderline resectable (BRPC) or locally advanced unresectable PC (LAUPC) at diagnosis. There are limited prospective data supporting the best approach on these tumours. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (ChT) is being increasingly used in this setting.MethodsThis is a retrospective series of consecutive patients staged as BRPC or LAUPC after discussion in the multidisciplinary board (MDB) at an academic centre. All received neoadjuvant ChT, followed by chemoradiation (ChRT) in some cases, and those achieving enough downstaging had a curative-intent surgery. Descriptive data about patient’s characteristics, neoadjuvant treatments, toxicities, curative resections, postoperative complications, pathology reports and adjuvant treatment were collected. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival was calculated with Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test.ResultsBetween August 2011 and July 2019, 49 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and all of them received neoadjuvant ChT. Fluorouracil+folinic acid, irinotecan and oxaliplatin was the most frequently used scheme (77%). The most prevalent grade 3 or 4 toxicities were neutropenia (26.5%), neurotoxicity (12.2%), diarrhoea (8.2%) and nausea (8.2%). 18 patients (36.7%) received ChRT thereafter. In total, 22 patients (44,9%) became potentially resectable and 19 of them had an R0 or R1 pancreatic resection. One was found to be unresectable at surgery and two refused surgery. A vascular resection was required in 7 (35%). No postoperative deaths were observed. Postoperative ChT was given to 12 (66.7%) of resected patients. Median OS of the whole cohort was 24,9 months (95% CI 14.1 to 35.7), with 30.6 months for resected and 13.1 months for non-resected patients, respectively (p<0.001).ConclusionA neoadjuvant approach in BRPC and LAUPC was well tolerated and allowed a curative resection in 38.8% of them with a potential improvement on OS.

Pharmacokinetically-guided 5-FU dose optimization within the preoperative FOLFOXIRI regimen in resectable pancreatic cancer patients.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4636-4636
Author(s):  
Anna Vilalta ◽  
Amaia Urrizola Martínez ◽  
Azucena Aldaz ◽  
Pablo Sala Elarre ◽  
Mariano Ponz-Sarvisé ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Pharmacokinetic Parameters ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Borderline Resectable ◽  
Drug Concentrations ◽  
Grade 3

4636 Background: Neoadjuvant therapy is an increasingly used approach in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer (PC). A positive link between chemotherapy dose intensity and patients’ outcome has been suggested in PC. The aim of this study was to rule out whether 5-FU pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters correlate with outcome in resectable PC patients treated with preoperative FOLFOXIRI. Methods: Patients with resectable and borderline resectable PC treated with Oxaliplatin (85mg/m2), Leucovorin (400mg/m2), Irinotecan (150 mg/m2) and 5-FU (initial dose of 3200 mg/m2 in 46h infusion and subsequent doses based on PK-guided dose adjustements targeting an AUC of 25-30 mcg*h/ml) were included. 5-FU PK analysis was performed taking two plasma samples during 5-FU infusion in at least two cycles. Drug concentrations were analysed by High-Perfomanced Liquid Chromatography. After induction polychemotherapy (IPCT), patients with no progressive disease received chemoradiation (CRT) (50.4 Gy with concurrent Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin) followed by surgical resection 4 to 6 weeks after the completion of CRT. Subsequent follow-up until disease progression was remained. An exploratory analysis with Log-Rank test was performed to assess progression free survival (PFS) based on 5-FU AUC values. Results: From November 2012 to October 2018, 29 patients were retrospectively assessed: median age 63 (46-75); M/F rate 20/9; R0 resection rate of 90% in the intention-to-treat analysis. The pathological response according to CAP classification was 0, 1, 2 and 3 in 14, 58, 19.5 and 8.5%, respectively; and median number of resected lymph nodes was 11 (2-22), with lymph node infiltration (ypN1) in 14% of patients. Grade 3-4 IPCT related toxicities and grade 3 CRT related toxicities were reported in 40 and 30% of patients, respectively. Median PFS was 723 days (24 months) and median 5-FU AUC 28.5 mcg*h/ml (23-53). Median PFS for patients with 5-FU AUC ≥27 mcg*h/ml was 29 months versus 15 months in patients with 5-FU AUC < 27 mcg*h/ml (adjusted hazard ratio for disease progression 0.223; 95% CI = 0.059-0.848; p = 0.028; in a model controlled by age, sex and irinotecan dose intensity). Conclusions: 5-FU pharmacokinetic parameters achieving a target of AUC ≥ 27 mcg*h/ml seem to correlate with longer PFS in this subset of patients.

ESPAC-5F: Four-arm, prospective, multicenter, international randomized phase II trial of immediate surgery compared with neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEMCAP) or FOLFIRINOX or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4505-4505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Ghaneh ◽  
Daniel H. Palmer ◽  
Silvia Cicconi ◽  
Christopher Halloran ◽  
Eftychia Eirini Psarelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Recruitment Rate ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
Resectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Borderline Resectable ◽  
Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Immediate Surgery

4505 Background: Patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer have poor survival and low resection rates. Neoadjuvant therapy may improve the outcome for these patients. The aim of this trial was to determine the feasibility and efficacy of a comparison of immediate surgery versus neoadjuvant GEMCAP or FOLFIRINOX or CRT. Methods: Eligible patients with NCCN defined borderline resectable (following central review of the baseline CT scan) and biopsy proven pancreatic cancer were randomised (stratified by centre) to receive immediate surgery, or neoadjuvant therapy of either 2 cycles of GEMCAP, or 4 cycles of FOLFIRINOX or 50.4Gy capecitabine-based CRT in 28 daily fractions over 5 ½ weeks. Patients were restaged at 4-6 weeks and underwent surgical exploration if still borderline resectable. Resected patients received adjuvant therapy. Follow up was 12 months. There was quality assurance of surgery and CRT. Primary endpoints were recruitment rate and resection rate (R1/R0). Secondary endpoints included overall survival and toxicity. A target of 90 patients was set to determine feasibility and resection rates. Rates will be presented as point estimates and survival compared across treatment arms using a log-rank test. Analyses will be on an ITT basis. Results: Between August 2014 and December 2018, 90 patients were randomised with 88 included in the full analysis set (32 immediate surgery, 20 GEMCAP, 20 FOLFIRINOX, 16 CRT). Median age was 63 years, 44% were men. WHO performance status was 0 and 1 in 45% and 55% respectively. Median CA19-9 was 603 kU/L at baseline. 44 (79%) patients completed neoadjuvant therapy. Recruitment rate was 21 patients per year. Resection rate was 62% for immediate surgery and 55% for neoadjuvant therapy (p=0.668). R0 resection rate on resected patients was 15% and 23% respectively (p=0.721). One year survival rate was 40% [95% CI, 26% – 62%] for immediate surgery and 77% [95%CI, 66% - 89%] for neoadjuvant therapy. Log-rank analysis showed an HR=0.27 [95% CI, 0.13 – 0.55]; χ2 (1) = 14.91, P<0.001. 9 out of the 51 neoadjuvant patients included in the safety set reported 12 serious adverse events of grade 3 or above. Conclusions: There was no difference in resection rate between arms, however neoadjuvant therapy had a significant survival benefit compared with immediate surgery. Clinical trial information: 89500674 .

scholarly journals Added Value of Radiotherapy Following Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quisette P. Janssen ◽  
Jacob L. van Dam ◽  
Isabelle G. Kivits ◽  
Marc G. Besselink ◽  
Casper H. J. van Eijck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pathologic Complete Response ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Added Value ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
Resectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Borderline Resectable ◽  
Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

Abstract Background The added value of radiotherapy following neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer ((B)RPC) is unclear. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare outcomes of patients who received neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX alone or combined with radiotherapy. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in Embase, Medline (ovidSP), Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. The primary endpoint was pooled median overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included resection rate, R0 resection rate, and other pathologic outcomes. Results We included 512 patients with (B)RPC from 15 studies, of which 7 were prospective nonrandomized studies. In total, 351 patients (68.6%) were treated with FOLFIRINOX alone (8 studies) and 161 patients (31.4%) were treated with FOLFIRINOX and radiotherapy (7 studies). The pooled estimated median OS was 21.6 months (range 18.4–34.0 months) for FOLFIRINOX alone and 22.4 months (range 11.0–37.7 months) for FOLFIRINOX with radiotherapy. The pooled resection rate was similar (71.9% vs. 63.1%, p = 0.43) and the pooled R0 resection rate was higher for FOLFIRINOX with radiotherapy (88.0% vs. 97.6%, p = 0.045). Other pathological outcomes (ypN0, pathologic complete response, perineural invasion) were comparable. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, radiotherapy following neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX was associated with an improved R0 resection rate as compared with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX alone, but a difference in survival could not be demonstrated. Randomized trials are needed to determine the added value of radiotherapy following neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in patients with (B)PRC.

scholarly journals Are We Sure that Adjuvant Chemotherapy is the Best Approach for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer? Are We in the Era of Neoadjuvant Treatment? A Review of Current Literature

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 1922 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oneda ◽  
Zaniboni
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Adjuvant Therapy ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Early Recurrence ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages

The outcome of pancreatic cancer is poor, with a 9% 5-year survival rate. Current treatment recommendations in the 10%–20% of patients who present with resectable disease support upfront resection followed by adjuvant therapy. Until now, only early complete surgical (R0) resection and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) with either FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) or nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine have been shown to prolong the survival. However, up to 30% of patients do not receive adjuvant therapy because of the development of early recurrence, postoperative complications, comorbidities, and reduced performance status. The aims of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) are to identify rapidly progressing patients to avoid futile surgery, eliminate micrometastases, increase the feasibility of R0 resection, and ensure the completion of multimodal treatment. Neoadjuvant treatments are effective, but there is no consensus on their use in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC) because of its lack of a survival benefit over adjuvant therapy. In this review, we analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the two therapeutic approaches in RPC. We need studies that compare the two approaches and can identify the appropriate sequence of adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant treatment and surgery.

scholarly journals Current Clinical Strategies of Pancreatic Cancer Treatment and Open Molecular Questions

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (18) ◽  
pp. 4543 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maximilian Brunner ◽  
Zhiyuan Wu ◽  
Christian Krautz ◽  
Christian Pilarsky ◽  
Robert Grützmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Pancreatic Carcinoma ◽  
Molecular Mechanisms ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Molecular Testing ◽  
Borderline Resectable ◽  
Tumor Biopsies

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal malignancies and is associated with a poor prognosis. Surgery is considered the only potential curative treatment for pancreatic cancer, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, but surgery is reserved for the minority of patients with non-metastatic resectable tumors. In the future, neoadjuvant treatment strategies based on molecular testing of tumor biopsies may increase the amount of patients becoming eligible for surgery. In the context of non-metastatic disease, patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma might benefit from neoadjuvant chemo- or chemoradiotherapy followed by surgeryPatients with locally advanced or (oligo-/poly-)metastatic tumors presenting significant response to (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy should undergo surgery if R0 resection seems to be achievable. New immunotherapeutic strategies to induce potent immune response to the tumors and investigation in molecular mechanisms driving tumorigenesis of pancreatic cancer may provide novel therapeutic opportunities in patients with pancreatic carcinoma and help patient selection for optimal treatment.

Multimodality therapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: A single-institution experience.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 280-280
Author(s):  
Jose Mario Pimiento ◽  
Tai Hutchinson ◽  
Jill M. Weber ◽  
Manish R. Patel ◽  
Pamela Joy Hodul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Multimodality Therapy ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
Resectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Borderline Resectable ◽  
Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

280 Background: Multimodality therapy has been advocated for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRCP); however, specific regimens vary widely by institution. Outcomes of these interventions need to be examined to inform future investigation of the optimal therapy for these patients. This study represents the experience of multimodality therapy for BRPC at an NCI designated cancer center. Methods: We identified all patients (pts) with operable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) from 2006 to 2011. Patients were divided into two groups: resectable group and BRPC group as per the NCCN and AHPBA consensus guidelines. Primary outcomes were resection rate, microscopic negative margin (R0) resection rate, overall survival (OS), and disease free survival (DFS). Fisher's exact and chi-square were used for group comparison while Kaplan-Meier estimates was used for survival analysis. Results: 160pts were identified with operable PDA. 100 (63%) pts had resectable tumors, and 60 (37%) pts had borderline resectable tumors. Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) was administered to 0% in the group with resectable tumors, and 100% in the group with borderline resectable tumors. The resection rate was 100% in pts with resectable tumors and 58% in pts with borderline resectable tumors. R0 resection rates were 80% in the resectable tumors and 97% in the borderline resectable tumors following NT. Perioperative mortality was <1% (1/125) for resectable tumors and 0% in borderline resectable tumors. Median OS was 22.6 months (m) for pts that had resectable tumors and 13.9m for all pts with borderline resectable tumors (p=0.017); however, the median OS for resected pts with borderline resectable tumors was 21.5m (p=0.6). Improved DFS was seen in patients with resectable tumors when compared with resected borderline resectable tumors (15 vs. 9.5m; p=0.04). Conclusions: Multimodality therapy leads to high rates of R0 resections in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer; however 42% of patients progressed during NT. The overall survival for patients with resected borderline resectable pancreatic cancer following NT is similar to patients who undergo resection for resectable pancreatic cancer.

Prognostic factors of pancreatic neck cancer.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 355-355
Author(s):  
Seiko Hirono ◽  
Masaji Tani ◽  
Manabu Kawai ◽  
Ken-Ichi Okada ◽  
Motoki Miyazawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Celiac Trunk ◽  
Ct Imaging ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Borderline Resectable ◽  
Pancreatic Neck

355 Background: Pancreatic neck cancer is surrounded by common hepatic artery (CHA), gastroduodenal artery (GDA) and portal vein (PV), and easily invades nerve plexus around main arteries, such as CHA, celiac trunk, and superior mesenteric artery (SMA). Therefore, the resectablity of pancreatic neck cancer is low, and the biological behaviors have been unclear. In this study, we reviewed 59 resected pancreatic neck cancer cases to identify the prognostic factors. Methods: From 2000 to 2012, 305 patients with pancreatic cancer underwent surgical resection, and in 59 patients (19%) among them with pancreatic neck cancer, 49 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy, 5 subtotal pancreatectomy, 4 distal pancreatectomy with en-bloc celiac axis, and 1 total pancreatectomy. We defined borderline resectable pancreatic cancer as tumor abutted CHA, celiac trunk, or SMA, and classified radiographic types of PV invasion into A (normal), B (unilateral), C (bilateral), or D (complete obstruction) by CT imaging. We analyzed retrospectively clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic factors for pancreatic neck cancer. Results: Pancreatic neck cancer was smaller than other located pancreatic cancer (21.1±7.0 vs. 32.0±13.5 mm, P<0.01), and the rate of pathological PV invasion was higher in pancreatic neck cancer (36 vs. 20%, P=0.01). In patients with pancreatic neck cancer, pathological PV invasion was observed in 0% of type A (0/9), 14% of type B (3/22), 48% of type C (10/21), and 86% of type D (6/7), and 37 patients (63%) had lymph node metastasis. In 32 patients with borderline resectable pancreatic neck cancer, neoadjuvant chemo(radiation)therapy (NAC) reduced the R1 rates (P=0.04) Pathological PV invasion, tub2/3 and lymph node ratio >0.1 were independent poor prognostic factors for pancreatic neck cancer (P<0.01, P=0.03, and P=0.03, odds ratio; 7.1, 2.8, and 3.1, respectively). Conclusions: Pancreatic neck cancer often had PV invasion even if CT imaging showed unilateral abutment, indicating that combined PV resection may be necessary for R0 resection of pancreatic neck cancer with radiological PV abutment. NAC may improve R0 resection rates and postoperative survival for pancreatic neck cancer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document