Outcomes and care patterns for advanced pancreatic cancer patients treated in tertiary vs regional/community cancer centres in Northern Alberta.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 163-163
Author(s):  
Matthew Anaka ◽  
Minji Lee ◽  
Sunita Ghosh ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung ◽  
Jennifer L. Spratlin
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Palliative Chemotherapy ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Tertiary Centre ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Care Patterns ◽  
Northern Alberta ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

163 Background: Cancer care in Northern Alberta (Canada) is delivered at a single tertiary cancer centre, and 11 regional and community cancer centres (RCCC). We compared outcomes and care patterns for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC; locally advanced or metastatic) in Northern Alberta treated with palliative chemotherapy at either the tertiary centre or an RCCC. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of APC patients treated with palliative chemotherapy from 2012-2015 in Northern Alberta (Canada). Data were obtained from outpatient medical oncology and palliative care notes and the provincial cancer registry. Survival analysis used a multivariate Cox-regression model. All other tests were Chi-squared/Fisher’s Exact. Results: We identified 106 patients, 90 treated in the tertiary centre, and 16 in a RCCC. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different. There were significant differences in first line chemotherapy regimen use (P = 0.037), with patients treated at RCCC more likely to receive gemcitabine during the study period (68.8% vs 36.6%), and less likely gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (12.5% vs 36.5%) or FOLFIRINOX (18.8% vs 28.7%). Patients treated at RCCC were less likely to see an outpatient palliative care physician (P = 0.020, 6.3% vs 35.6%), or have a documented goals of care designation (P = 0.005, 12.5% vs 52.2%). There was no significant difference in overall survival in a multivariate analysis (median 199 vs 232 days, HR = 1.080, 95% CI 0.594 – 1.966). Conclusions: We found that survival was not different for APC patients treated at the tertiary vs RCCC in Northern Alberta. However there were significant differences in the use of palliative care resources and 1st line chemotherapy regimens, which represent important disparities that should be the focus for future quality improvement.

Goals of care designations in advanced pancreatic cancer patients undergoing palliative chemotherapy.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 683-683
Author(s):  
Matthew Anaka ◽  
Minji Lee ◽  
Elisa Lim ◽  
Sunita Ghosh ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Health System ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Palliative Chemotherapy ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Goals Of Care

683 Background: Discussion of goals of care (GoC) is a key part of quality care for patients with palliative cancer. Numerous studies have shown that documentation of GoC in this population remains low. In 2014, Alberta Health Services launched a health-system wide initiative to provide patients with physical copies of their GoC designation intended to be available at all health-system interactions. Here we describe rates of GoC documentation in the period surrounding this initiative. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of 240 patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with palliative chemotherapy from 2012-2015 in Alberta, Canada. Data were obtained from outpatient electronic medical record documentation and the provincial cancer registry. Results: 63.8% (153/240) of patients had a documented GoC discussion, with 60.4% (145/240) receiving a specific GoC designation. 59.6% (143/240) of patients were referred to palliative care, with 32.5% (78/240) seen by palliative care physician. Of 334 individual GoC discussions documented, 38.6% (129/334) were by medical oncologists, 2.3% (10/334) were by radiation oncologists, 27.2% (91/334) were by palliative care, and 19.2% (64/334) were by other inpatient physicians during hospital admissions. At least 9.6% (32/334) referenced discussions that occurred prior to initial consultation with an oncology physician. Conclusions: The majority of pancreatic cancer patients undergoing palliative chemotherapy had a documented GoC designation during the study period. Providing patients with physical copies of their GoC designation may therefore represent a simple but effective means of increasing GoC documentation in the outpatient oncology setting.

Randomized Controlled Trial Of Dalteparin For Primary Thromboprophylaxis For Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) In Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer (APC): Risk Factors Predictive Of VTE

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 580-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saroj Vadhan-Raj ◽  
Xiao Zhou ◽  
Gauri R. Varadhachary ◽  
Javle Milind ◽  
David Fogelman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Baseline Risk ◽  
Activation Markers ◽  
Compression Ultrasound ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
D Dimer

Abstract Background Risk of VTE is high in cancer patients, especially, in patients with APC. Treatment with chemotherapy further increases the risk. Purpose of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin in reducing the incidence of VTE in APC patients planned to start chemotherapy; and to determine the baseline risk factors/biomarkers predictive of VTE. Methods Patients with metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic cancer planned to start chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to dalteparin vs control arms, stratified for the presence of metastasis and central venous catheter (CVC). The treatment arm received dalteparin 5000 U SQ daily for 16 weeks during chemotherapy and the control arm received chemotherapy alone. Bilateral compression ultrasound of the lower extremities was performed at baseline, and during study (weeks-8 and-16). In addition, blood was collected to identify biomarkers such as, plasma D-dimer levels, platelet activation markers (P-selectin), thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT), prothrombin fragments 1 and 2 (F1+2), and cytokine levels. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis of clinical and laboratory parameters were done to identify risk factors associated with the development of VTE. Results Of 87 patients enrolled, 75 were randomized to dalteparin (38 patients) or control (37 patients) arms; 8 did not meet the eligibility criteria (including 6 found positive for incidental VTE on screening ultrasound), and 4 withdrew consents before randomization. There were 41 males and 34 females; with median age 52 (range, 36-77 years). Over half of the patients (55% dalteparin arm and 54% control arm) completed 16 weeks on study. All 75 patients were evaluable for response in an intent-to-treat analysis. During the study, the incidence of VTE was 22% [8/37 patients; 2 pulmonary emboli (PE) and 6 deep vein thrombosis (DVT)] on the control arm as compared to 5% (2/38 patients; both DVT) on the dalteparin arm (p = 0.02). In the multivariate analysis, baseline plasma levels of D-dimer, ECOG performance status, presence of CVC, and prophylaxis with dalteparin were independent factors predictive of risk for VTE, as shown below. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the two arms; however, there were higher proportion of patients with elevated baseline D-dimer levels in the dalteparin arm than the control arm (≥ 5000 ng/mL 16% vs 3%). Elevated baseline D-dimer level (≥ 5000 ng/mL) was also predictive of the presence of silent or asymptomatic VTE at screening for study entry (p=0.001), suggesting its potential value in identifying patients with silent VTE. Treatment with dalteparin was well tolerated; the main adverse events included minimal bruising (5/34, 15%), or pain (2/34, 6%) at the injection sites. There were no clinically significant bleeding episodes in the dalteparin arm. Conclusions The results of this study showed that the incidence of VTE is very high in patients with APC. Primary thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin was well tolerated and was associated with 75% reduction in the incidence of VTE in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer while receiving chemotherapy. Baseline risk factors such as elevated D-dimer levels may help identify high risk patients for primary thromboprophylaxis as well as patients with the presence of asymptomatic VTE. Disclosures: Vadhan-Raj: Eisai: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Fragmin (Dalteparin): Prophylaxis of VTE in ambulatory cancer patients while receiving chemotherapy.

Retrospective review of FOLFIRINOX in local advanced pancreatic cancer: Single institution experience.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15714-e15714
Author(s):  
Ashish Manne ◽  
Sushanth Reddy ◽  
Martin Heslin ◽  
Rojymon Jacob ◽  
Selwyn M. Vickers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Surgical Resection ◽  
Retrospective Review ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Setting ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
One Year

e15714 Background: Although combination of fluorouracil, irinotecan, Leucovorin and oxaliplatin [FOLFIRINOX] significantly increases survival in metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) compared to gemcitabine based on ACCORD trial, the efficacy and toxicities may be different in non-metastatic setting. We reviewed our institution’s experience with FOLFIRINOX in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Methods: We performed a retrospective review of clinical outcomes in patients diagnosed with LAPC and receiving between June 2010 and July 2015, with at least one year of follow up from diagnosis, at University of Alabama at Birmingham. Results: Total of 41 patients with ECOG performance scale of 0 or 1, who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX were assessed for clinical and pathological characteristics. Median age was 61 years (range 38-81) with 23 (56.1%) males, 28 (68.3%) Caucasians and 16 (39.0%) underwent surgery (whipple operation) post-neoadjuvant. Median OS (time of diagnosis to last follow up/death) is 83.5 months for whole cohort, survival rates are 94.9% at 1 year, 58.4% at 2 year, and 33.3% at 5 year.Median OS for those who underwent surgical resection following the chemotherapy is 38.6 months; 100% at one year, 85.1% at 2 year, 55.3% at 5 year; while median OS for those who did not undergo surgery is 21.8 months; 91.7% at one year, 41.5% at 2 year, 20.7% at 5 years. Among those who underwent surgery, the median recurrence free survival (time from surgery to relapse/progression) is 19.9 months with liver being common recurrence site (81%). There was no post-operative mortality in 30 days. Grade 3-4 toxicity occurred in 46% ( vomiting (12%), fatigue (28%) and neutropenia (54%), febrile neutropenia (9%)). There is a significant difference between surgery and non-surgery groups (p = 0.012) for improved OS by log-rank test. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX treatment associated with high response rates leading to surgical resection in our cohort. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by resection for LAPC have statistically significant improved OS compared to those who did not.

Arterial resections during pancreatectomy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) are feasible and superior to palliative chemotherapy

Pancreatology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. S73
Author(s):  
Marco Del Chiaro ◽  
Zeeshan Ateeb ◽  
Srinivas Sanjeevi ◽  
Sofia Westermark ◽  
Elena Rangelova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Palliative Chemotherapy ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

A phase III trial of virulizin plus gemcitabine vs. gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer: Results of subgroup analysis

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4116-4116 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Wright ◽  
J. Osterlee ◽  
S. Fekete ◽  
Y. Lee ◽  
A. H. Young
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive

4116 Background: Virulizin (V) is a novel antitumor immune modulator that improves survival in pancreatic cancer patients (pts) as monotherapy. A double-blind, multicenter, randomized, phase III study was conducted to evaluate the survival benefits and safety of V in combination with gemcitabine (G) in pts with advanced pancreatic cancer. Methods: Chemo-naive pts with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer with ECOG Performance Status (PS) of 0, 1 or 2 were enrolled. Pts were randomized to receive intramuscular injections of either V or placebo (P) 3 times weekly + G (1,000 mg/m2 weekly ×7 with 1 week rest, then weekly ×3 q4w). Randomization was stratified according to ECOG PS (0 or 1, and 2) and extent of disease (locally advanced and metastatic). Pts who showed no clinical benefit or were intolerant to G entered 2nd-line therapy (stage 3), in which pts continued to receive either V or P alone or with 5-FU, or best supportive care. The primary endpoint was survival, defined as time from baseline/treatment day 1 to time of death from any cause. Results: The intent to treat (ITT) population comprised 434 pts, of which 377 were efficacy evaluable (EE). Median overall survival for V + G was 6.3 months for the ITT population (6.8 months for EE pts) and 6 months for P + G for both ITT and EE pts. While differences in survival times were not statistically significant, exploratory analysis showed encouraging results in specific subgroups treated with V + G ( table ). Importantly, a significant difference was found in stage 3 pts who received V in a salvage setting compared to pts who received P. Conclusions: Pancreatic cancer pts with either low ECOG PS or metastatic cancer showed a survival benefit when treated with V + G, which was significant in pts who continued to receive V as a salvage therapy. Further studies in these targeted patient populations are being considered. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Comparing recist and Choi’s criteria to evaluate radiological response to chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15069-e15069
Author(s):  
Silvia Vecchiarelli ◽  
Marina Macchini ◽  
Elisa Grassi ◽  
Fabio Ferroni ◽  
Federica Ciccarese ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Response To Chemotherapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Radiological Response

e15069 Background: Assessment of response after chemotherapy (CTH) for pancreatic cancer (PC) is currently based on RECIST criteria. In 2007 Choi et al. published a new classification system.The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of these classification systems for radiological response to CTH in patients with advanced PC. Methods: From 2006 to 2012, 66 untreated patients with advanced PC underwent palliative CTH. Fourty (60 %) had a locally advanced PC and 26 (40%) a metastatic disease. All patients were treated with a GEM-based CTH or FOLFIRINOX. We assessed radiological response after three months of first-line therapy applying both RECIST criteria, which evaluate differences in CT size, and Choi’s criteria, which consider changes both in size and in density at CT. We evaluated the accuracy in restaging, comparing the class of response with overall survival (OS). OS was calculated with Kaplan-Meier method. The accuracy in restaging was assessed through log rank test and multivariate analysis with Cox Regression. Results: At restaging, using RECIST criteria, we registered 7 (10.6 %) patients with partial response (PR), 32 (48.5 %) with stable disease (SD), and 27 (40.9 %) with disease progression (PD). Instead Choi’s criteria assessed 19 PR (28.8 %), 12 SD (18.2%) and 35 PD (53.0%). Comparing each classification with OS, we observed that patients with different prognosis were better stratified with Choi’s criteria. Using RECIST criteria we found a borderline significant difference in OS between patients with PR (13.47 months), SD (13.67 months) and PD (9.97 months) (p=0.05). Instead we found a significant statistical difference in OS using Choi’s criteria between patient with PR (14 months), SD (16.37 months), PD (9.7 months; p=0.004). Multivariate analysis showed a statistically significant difference in OS between Disease Control Rate (DCR, PR+SD) and PD patients (14.47 vs. 9.67 months, p=0.02), only using Choi’s criteria. Conclusions: In our experience, Choi’s criteria seem to better assess radiological response of CTH in PC patients than RECIST criteria. Due to the small number of patients, larger prospective studies are needed.

Comparison of concurrent chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy alone for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 351-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Younak Choi ◽  
Tae-Yong Kim ◽  
Do-Youn Oh ◽  
Kyubo Kim ◽  
Eui Kyu Chie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Palliative Chemotherapy ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Positive Lymph Node ◽  
Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity

351 Background: The optimal treatment strategy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), especially the role of chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), is still in debate. We compared the clinical outcomes of CCRT and palliative chemotherapy alone (CA) in patients with LAPC. Methods: We consecutively enrolled LAPC patients treated between 2003 and 2010. AJCC 7th edition was followed for the diagnostic criteria of LAPC. We retrospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes according to treatment groups (CCRT vs CA). Results: A total of 86 patients were enrolled. Median age was 60 years. ECOG PS was 0-1 in 77 (89.5%) and 2 in 9 (10.5%). Forty five patients (52.3%) were treated with CCRT and 41 patients (47.7%) with CA. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between CCRT and CA group. In the CCRT group, gemcitabine (n=7, 15.6%), 5-FU (n=10, 22.2%), and capecitabine (n=28, 62.2%) were concurrently used with radiation. Radiation was delivered with 55.8Gy/ 31fraction. All of the CA group patients were treated with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. Median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of whole patients were 6.9 months [95%CI 4.8-9.0] and 12.7 months [95%CI 11.6-14.3]. PFS and OS of CCRT versus CA was 8.9 months [95%CI 6.8-11.0] vs 3.7 months [95%CI 2.9-4.5] (p<0.001) and 15.8 months [95%CI 13.5-18.1] vs 11.3 months [95%CI 9.3-13.3] (p=0.017). In multivariate analysis, tumor size (≥3cm), positive lymph node, elevated CA 19-9, decreased serum albumin and CCRT was significant for PFS and OS (adjusted hazard ratio of CCRT was 0.424 (p=0.002) in PFS and 0.472 (p=0.014) in OS). Grade 3-4 hematologic toxicity was less frequent during CCRT period (p=0.002). Conclusions: In LAPC, patients who received CCRT show better OS and PFS compared with patients who were treated with palliative chemotherapy alone. It’s worthy to further study the role of CCRT in LAPC.

FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine nab-paclitaxel for advanced pancreatic cancer: KU Cancer Center experience.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15744-e15744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anup Kasi ◽  
Akshay Middinti ◽  
An Cao ◽  
Pratikkumar Vekaria ◽  
Devangi Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Pancreatic Head ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Disease Rate ◽  
First Line ◽  
Significant Difference

e15744 Background: FOLFIRINOX (FFN) and Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GN) have been established as first line chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). But there is no head-to-head randomized trial data available to support preferable first line choice between these two regimens. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 154 chemotherapy-naïve locally advanced and metastatic PC patients treated with FFN or GN at KU Cancer Center between January 2011 and November 2016. FFN consisted of Oxaliplatin 85mg/m2, Irinotecan 180mg/m2, 5-FU 400mg/m2 as a bolus and 2,400 mg/m2over 46 hour on days 1 and 15 every 4 weeks. GN consisted of Gemcitabine 1000mg/m2 plus nab-paclitaxel 125mg/m2 day1,8,15 every 4 weeks. We compared characteristics, efficacy and adverse events between FFN and GN. Results: 107 patients were treated with FFN and 47 patients with GN as first line therapy. Demographic and baseline characteristics (FFN/GN) were as follows: Median age 61/63 years, ECOG performance status (0-1): 90% / 83%, Gender (male): 57% / 54%, distant metastases: 52%/70%, biliary stenting: 41%/20%, locally advanced tumor: 48%/30%, pancreatic head tumors: 63%/55%, median number of cycles: 4/4 respectively. Objective response rate (13% vs. 10%), Stable disease rate (76% vs 82%) and disease control rate (89% vs. 92%, p = 0.5) were similar in FFN and in GN. Median PFS was 11.7 months (95% CI: 7.2-16.1) in FFN and 5.7 months (95% CI: 2.7-8.8) in GN [p = 0.07]. Median OS was 15.9 months (95% CI: 13.7-18.1) in FFN and 10.8 months (95% CI: 7.1 – 14.5) in GN [p = 0.17]. Incidences of grade 3 or higher adverse effects were neutropenia (33% vs. 17%), anemia (14% vs 31%), thrombocytopenia (28% vs 6%), elevated creatinine (2.8% vs 4%), elevated transminases (3.7% vs 6%), diarrhea (5% vs. 0%), and peripheral neuropathy (6% vs. 6%) respectively. Conclusions: Patients treated with FFN showed statistically better PFS compared to GN. However this difference in PFS did not translate into statistically significant difference in OS. Response rates were similar. Incidences of adverse events were relatively more with FFN compared to GN as expected.

Dosimetric benefits of dynamic wave arc over co-planar volumetric modulated radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alshaymaa Abdelghaffar ◽  
Noriko Kishi ◽  
Ryo Ashida ◽  
Yukinori Matsuo ◽  
Hideaki Hirashima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Passing Rate ◽  
Delivery Technique ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Gamma Passing Rate ◽  
Dynamic Wave

Abstract Background: Dose reduction to the duodenum is important to decrease gastrointestinal toxicities in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) treated with definitive radiotherapy. We aimed to investigate whether dynamic wave arc (DWA), a volumetric-modulated beam delivery technique with simultaneous gantry/ring rotations passing the waved trajectories, is superior to coplanar VMAT (co-VMAT) with respect to dose distributions in LAPC. Methods: DWA and co-VMAT plans were created for 13 patients with LAPC in the pancreatic head or body. The prescribed dose was 45.6 or 48 Gy in 15 fractions. The dose volume indices (DVIs) for the gross tumor volume, planning target volume (PTV), stomach, duodenum, small bowel, large bowel, kidney, liver, and spinal cord were compared between the corresponding plans. The values of the gamma passing rate, monitor unit (MU), and beam-on time were also compared. Results: DWA significantly reduced the volumes of the duodenum receiving 39, 42, and 45 Gy by 1.1, 0.8, and 0.2 cm3, respectively. However, the mean liver dose and maximal dose of the spinal cord were increased in DWA by 1.0 and 1.1 Gy, respectively. Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in the target volumes except for dose irradiated to 2% of PTV (PTV D2%) (110.4% in DWA vs. 109.6% in co-VMAT). There were also no significant differences in the other DVIs. Further, the gamma passing rate was similar in both plans. The MU and beam-on time increased in DWA by 31 MUs and 15 seconds, respectively. Conclusion: Compared with co-VMAT, DWA generated significantly lower duodenal doses with acceptable trade-offs in LAPC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document