Association of total neoadjuvant therapy with major pathologic response and survival in localized pancreatic cancer: A multi-institutional analysis of 504 patients.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4145-4145
Author(s):  
Jashodeep Datta ◽  
Amber Collier ◽  
Joshua Kronenfeld ◽  
Gregory Wilson ◽  
Ugwuji Maduekwe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Pathologic Complete Response ◽  
Pathologic Response ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Borderline Resectable ◽  
Total Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
To Receive

4145 Background: Despite increased utilization of neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer (PC), a substantial proportion of patients never receive adjuvant therapy. We examined if total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) would facilitate delivery of all prescribed (≥6 months) non-surgical therapy (NST: chemotherapy ± radiation) to improve oncologic outcomes. Methods: Patients receiving neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel ±radiation followed by pancreatectomy at 7 centers were reviewed. Patients receiving TNT (≥6 months NST pre-resection) were compared to those receiving < 6 months ( < TNT). Primary outcomes were major (complete/near-complete) pathologic response (MPR) and overall survival (OS). Results: Of 504 patients, 105 (21%) were selected for TNT. TNT and < TNT patients had similar performance status and rates of borderline resectable/locally advanced disease (82% vs. 80%). TNT patients were significantly more likely to receive ≥6 months NST (100% vs. 31%; p < 0.001) vs. < TNT. While selection of chemotherapy regimen (FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel) did not differ between TNT and < TNT cohorts, TNT patients were more likely to receive neoadjuvant radiation (44% vs. 25%, p < 0.001). Rates of vascular resection, postoperative complications, and mortality were similar between groups. TNT was associated with decreased rates of lymphovascular/perineural invasion (p = 0.002) and nodal positivity (p = 0.001), and increased rates of MPR (41% vs. 23%; p = 0.001) and pathologic complete response (13% vs. 6%; p = 0.02). TNT was associated with improved OS compared with < TNT (median 38 vs. 30 months; p = 0.039). Both MPR (median 38 [MPR] vs. 28 [limited response] months; p = 0.002) and ≥6 months NST (TNT or peri-operative) (median 38 [≥6m] vs. 26 [ < 6m] months; p = 0.001) were associated with improved OS. Addition of radiation was not associated with MPR or OS. Conclusions: The TNT approach allows more patients with localized PC to receive ≥6 months NST and is associated with improved rates of MPR and OS. TNT should be considered for all patients with operable PC when possible.

Local and systemic recurrence following total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) and resection for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Long-term follow up from two phase II studies.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4133-4133
Author(s):  
Grace E. Ryan ◽  
Janet E. Murphy ◽  
Christine A. Ulysse ◽  
Beow Y. Yeap ◽  
Jennifer Yon-Li Wo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Disease ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Vascular Involvement ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Borderline Resectable ◽  
Metastatic Recurrence ◽  
Total Neoadjuvant Therapy

4133 Background: With the advent of FOLFIRINOX, the management of pancreatic cancer has undergone a profound change. There has been a shift to TNT with FOLFIRINOX followed by radiation and an attempt at surgical resection. Recent trials of TNT have demonstrated an ability to resect locally advanced (LA) and borderline resectable disease. There is a lack of prospective data demonstrating local and systemic recurrence rates after TNT. Methods: Two previously reported prospective clinical trials (Murphy JE, et al, JAMA Oncol 2018, 2019) of total neoadjuvant therapy were conducted between 2012 and 2018 for borderline and LA disease (NCT01591733, NCT01821729). Patients received FOLFIRINOX for 8 cycles. Upon restaging, patients with resolution of vascular involvement received short-course chemoradiotherapy (5 Gy x 5 with protons or 3 Gy x 10 w photons) with capecitabine (N=34). Patients with persistent vascular involvement received long-course chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine (N=56). All patients were considered for resection after TNT except for those patients with metastatic or unresectable disease. Results: 97 eligible patients were enrolled and started treatment on the borderline resectable (n = 48) and locally advanced (n= 49) study. 90 patients completed therapy. 80 patients were taken to the operating room. 61 patients had R0 resection and 5 patients had R1 resection. The table shows the distribution of local recurrences, local recurrences and metastatic disease, and metastatic disease alone. With a median follow-up of 5.2 years (range: 2.4-6.0), of the 61 R0 patients, 22 patients remained alive and free of disease, 7 patients had a local recurrence, 4 patients had locoregional and metastatic recurrence, and 24 patients had a metastatic recurrence. 3 patients who underwent R0 resection died of unrelated causes. Median survival for patients undergoing R0 resection is 43.8 months. Conclusions: Total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is potentially curable and may change the pattern of spread.[Table: see text]

Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory C Wilson ◽  
Brent T Xia ◽  
Syed A Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Therapy ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Borderline Resectable

Despite decades of advancement and research into the multimodal care of pancreatic cancer, mortality after the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma remains grim. The role of adjuvant therapy following surgical resection has been well established in the literature. However, adjuvant therapy is imperfect, and outside of a clinical trial, there are high rates of omission or delayed initiation of therapy. Neoadjuvant treatment strategies continue to be explored in the management of resectable, borderline-resectable, and locally advanced unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. With improved resection rates and the possibility for tumor downstaging, neoadjuvant therapy has become standard for patients with borderline-resectable and locally advanced unresectable tumors. Additional benefits of neoadjuvant therapy in the treatment of resectable tumors include improved completion rates of systemic therapy and R0 resection rates. Future clinical trials, including the use of novel treatment agents and combination treatment strategies in both neoadjuvant and adjuvant regimens, will add value to the treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Key words: adjuvant therapy, borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer, locally advanced pancreatic cancer, neoadjuvant therapy, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, resectable disease 

Management of Borderline Resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Igor Macedo ◽  
Danny Yakoub ◽  
Vikas Dudeja ◽  
Nipun B. Merchant
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
The United States ◽  
Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Resectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Borderline Resectable ◽  
Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Number Of Patients

The incidence of pancreatic cancer continues to rise, and it is now the third-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Only 15 to 20% of patients are eligible to undergo potentially curative resection, as most tumors are deemed unresectable at the time of diagnosis because of either locally advanced disease or distant metastases. Improvements in preoperative CT imaging have enabled better determination of the extent of disease and allowed for better operative planning. Based on their relationship to the surrounding vasculature and structures and presence or absence of distant disease, pancreatic tumors are classified into four categories: resectable, borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC), locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), and metastatic. With the recent advent of more effective chemotherapy regimens, efforts have focused on using neoadjuvant therapy approaches to increase the likelihood of achieving an R0 in patients with BRPC and possibly convert unresectable, locally advanced tumors to potentially resectable tumors. Response with neoadjuvant therapy regimens has resulted in increased number of patients eligible for resection, many times requiring vascular resection. Herein, we describe recent changes in the classification, important surgical and pathologic considerations and updated multimodal therapeutic options in the complex management of BRPC and LAPC.  This review contains 5 figures, 2 tables, and 78 references. Key Words: borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, CA 19-9, FOLFIRINOX, locally advanced pancreatic cancer, nab-paclitaxel, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pancreatectomy, portal vein resection, radiation therapy, gemcitabine

Predictors of recurrence and implications for overall survival in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer patients treated with total neoadjuvant therapy: A retrospective cohort study.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16781-e16781
Author(s):  
Jori Lee Kaplan ◽  
Benjamin Powers ◽  
Wenyi Fan ◽  
Michael J. Schell ◽  
Barbara Centeno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Pathologic Complete Response ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Borderline Resectable ◽  
Risk Of Recurrence ◽  
Predictors Of Recurrence ◽  
Increased Risk

e16781 Background: Borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR PDAC) is a subset of pancreatic cancer with unique prognostic implications. A multimodality, neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) approach has known benefits such as downstaging tumors, reducing the risk of a positive margin, and treating micrometastatic disease. Patient selection and therapy sequencing are controversial owing to the high risk of recurrence. Therefore, we aimed to identify factors predicting recurrence and overall survival (OS) in BR PDAC patients undergoing NAT. Methods: We identified BR PDAC patients treated with NAT followed by surgery at Moffitt Cancer Center between 2008-2015. We evaluated clinical, demographic, and perioperative factors to identify predictors of recurrence and OS. Statistical analyses were performed with univariate and multivariable Cox regression models. Results: 117 patients with BR PDAC who received NAT were evaluated; 53 (45%) were female and 64 (55%) were male. Of those, 91 (78%) received gemcitabine/xeloda/taxotere and the remainder received other gemcitabine or 5FU regimens. 107 (91%) patients received neoadjuvant radiation, mainly 5-day dose painted SBRT. Post- NAT CA 19-9 normalized in 39 (33%) and 11 (9%) additional patients normalized after surgery. Pathologic treatment effect was appreciated in 85 (73%) patients and pathologic complete response (pCR) was seen in 18 (15%). 95 (81%) patients initiated adjuvant therapy. In multivariable analysis, the strongest predictor of recurrence was higher log(10) post-operative CA 19-9 (HR 2.29; 95% CI, 1.40-3.75). Time from initiation of NAT to surgery ≥ 5 months also predicted recurrence (HR 2.08; 95% CI, 1.16-3.72). In OS analysis, 71 patients had recurrence after multimodality treatment; 61 (86%) died and 10 (14%) were alive. In multivariable analysis, the strongest predictors of prolonged OS from recurrence were female gender (HR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.84) and presence of a treatment effect (HR 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15-0.93). Conclusions: We observed treatment effects and pCR comparable to other institutions, supporting a multimodality approach to BR PDAC. Higher post-operative CA 19-9 and time to surgery ≥ 5 months from initiation of NAT were associated with an increased risk of recurrence. These data suggest that timely receipt of surgery after completion of NAT may impact recurrence and OS in BR PDAC.

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.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and intraoperative electron irradiation for locally unresectable/borderline resectable pancreas adenocarcinoma.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 327-327
Author(s):  
Jonathan Ben Ashman ◽  
Adyr A Moss ◽  
Matthew D. Callister ◽  
Kunam S Reddy ◽  
David C Mulligan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Electron Irradiation ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Local Therapy ◽  
Borderline Resectable ◽  
Pancreas Adenocarcinoma ◽  
The Impact

327 Background: The use of preoperative therapy for pancreatic cancer remains controversial. This study reviews our experience using neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation (CRT) followed by surgery with intraoperative electron irradiation (IOERT) for patients with borderline resectable (BR) or unresectable (UR) tumors. Methods: A retrospective review identified 48 patients (pts) with primary BR/UR pancreas adenocarcinoma treated with preop CRT with intent to proceed to curative surgery with IOERT. Seventeen patients did not undergo attempted resection and are excluded (disease progression, 12; medically inoperable, 3; declined surgery, 2). Thirty-one patients proceeded to resection attempt and are the subject of this analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed using log rank test for significance. Median follow up was 19 months (mo). Results: Complete resection (R0) was achieved in 11 pts, R1 in 5, and R2 or not resected (IOERT alone) in 15 patients. Twenty-six pts died (23 of disease, 2 unrelated causes, 1 uncertain). Median overall survival (OS) was 19 mo for all pts. Local progression was detected in only 5 patients (16%) while distant disease developed in 24 (77%). Resection status significantly correlated with OS; R0/R1 patients had a median survival of 23 mo vs. 10 mo for R2/unresected tumors (p = 0.002). Three-year OS was 35% vs. 0%, respectively. Survival was not influenced by tumor location, CA19-9 baseline or response, tumor size, or initial judgment of resectability (BR vs. UR). BR tumors were resectable after neoadjuvant therapy in 9 of 11 patients (R0, 8; R1, 1) while 8 of 20 initially UR tumors underwent resection (R0, 3; R1, 4; R2, 1). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant therapy combined with IOERT has the possibility to improve patient selection for surgical resection and to optimize local therapy. Although the prognosis for locally advanced pancreatic cancer remains poor, survival was superior among patients for whom R0 or R1 resection was achieved. Distant metastasis remained the dominant pattern of failure, and novel systemic agents are needed. Prospective evaluation of the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, CRT, and IOERT is warranted.

Pathologic assessment of tumor regression after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced/borderline resectable pancreatic cancer

Pancreatology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. S92-S93
Author(s):  
Yoko Matsuda ◽  
Jennifer Y. Wo ◽  
Carlos Fernández-del Castillo ◽  
Lawrence S. Blaszkowsky ◽  
Cristina R. Ferrone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Tumor Regression ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Resectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Borderline Resectable ◽  
Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Pathologic Assessment
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document