scholarly journals Neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma—real effects or patient selection?

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 289-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Heinrich
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Real Effects

scholarly journals Impact of Neoadjuvant Therapy in Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreatic Body or Tail on Surgical and Oncological Outcome: A Propensity-Score Matched Multicenter Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 1986-1996 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanne Lof ◽  
◽  
Maarten Korrel ◽  
Jony van Hilst ◽  
Adnan Alseidi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Pancreatic Fistula ◽  
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Pancreatic Head ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Pancreatic Body ◽  
International Multicenter

Abstract Background Several studies have suggested a survival benefit of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in the pancreatic head. Data concerning NAT for PDAC located in pancreatic body or tail are lacking. Methods Post hoc analysis of an international multicenter retrospective cohort of distal pancreatectomy for PDAC in 34 centers from 11 countries (2007–2015). Patients who underwent resection after NAT were matched (1:1 ratio), using propensity scores based on baseline characteristics, to patients who underwent upfront resection. Median overall survival was compared using the stratified log-rank test. Results Among 1236 patients, 136 (11.0%) received NAT, most frequently FOLFIRINOX (25.7%). In total, 94 patients receiving NAT were matched to 94 patients undergoing upfront resection. NAT was associated with less postoperative major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3a, 10.6% vs. 23.4%, P = 0.020) and pancreatic fistula grade B/C (9.6% vs. 21.3%, P = 0.026). NAT did not improve overall survival [27 (95% CI 14–39) versus 31 months (95% CI 19–42), P = 0.277], as compared with upfront resection. In a sensitivity analysis of 251 patients with radiographic tumor involvement of splenic vessels, NAT (n = 37, 14.7%) was associated with prolonged overall survival [36 (95% CI 18–53) versus 20 months (95% CI 15–24), P = 0.049], as compared with upfront resection. Conclusion In this international multicenter cohort study, NAT for resected PDAC in pancreatic body or tail was associated with less morbidity and pancreatic fistula but similar overall survival in comparison with upfront resection. Prospective studies should confirm a survival benefit of NAT in patients with PDAC and splenic vessel involvement.

Morphologic Characterization of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma after Neoadjuvant Therapy

Pancreatology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. S20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lena Haeberle ◽  
Anne-Christine Kapp ◽  
Irene Esposito
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma

scholarly journals Neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: The need for patient-centered research

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 375-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan M Cloyd ◽  
Allan Tsung ◽  
John Hays ◽  
Celia E Wills ◽  
John FP Bridges
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Patient Centered

scholarly journals Neoadjuvant Treatment for Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 455-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedikt Kaufmann ◽  
Daniel Hartmann ◽  
Jan G. D’Haese ◽  
Pavel Stupakov ◽  
Dejan Radenkovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Preoperative Treatment ◽  
Resectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Borderline Resectable ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Dismal Prognosis ◽  
First Choice

One of the main reasons for the dismal prognosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is its late diagnosis. At the time of presentation, only approximately 15–20% of all patients with PDAC are considered resectable and around 30% are considered borderline resectable. A surgical approach, which is the only curative option, is limited in borderline resectable patients by local involvement of surrounding structures. In borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC), neoadjuvant treatment regimens have been introduced with the rationale to downstage and downsize the tumor in order to enable resection and eliminate ­microscopic distant metastases. However, there are no official guidelines for the preoperative treatment of BRPC. In the majority of cases, patients are administered ­Gemcitabine-based or FOLFIRINOX-based chemotherapy regimens with or without radiation. Radiologic restaging after neoadjuvant therapy has to be judged with caution when it comes to predict tumor response and resectability, since inflammation induced by neoadjuvant therapy may mimic solid tumor. Patients who do not show any disease progression during neoadjuvant therapy should be offered surgical exploration, since a high percentage is likely to undergo resection with negative margins (R0) and, thus, achieve improved overall survival although imaging judged it unlikely. Despite the promising new approaches of neoadjuvant treatment regimens during the last 2 decades, surgery remains the first choice if the tumor appears to be primary resectable at the time of diagnosis. At present, there are no international guidelines regarding the preoperative treatment of BRPC. Therefore, in order to standardize and adjust neoadjuvant treatment in the future, new guidelines have to be determined on the basis of upcoming prospective randomized studies.

scholarly journals Recurrence Patterns for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma after Upfront Resection Versus Resection Following Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 2132
Author(s):  
Bathiya Ratnayake ◽  
Alina Y. Savastyuk ◽  
Manu Nayar ◽  
Colin H. Wilson ◽  
John A. Windsor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Recurrence Rate ◽  
Locoregional Recurrence ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Resectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Recurrence Patterns ◽  
Patterns Of Recurrence

Background: Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) represents a paradigm shift in the management of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with perceived benefits including a higher R0 rate. However, it is unclear whether NAT affects the sites and patterns of recurrence after surgery. This review seeks to compare sites and patterns of recurrence after resection between patients undergoing upfront surgery (US) or after NAT. Methods: The EMBASE, SCOPUS, PubMed, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched to identify eligible studies that compare recurrence patterns between patients who had NAT (followed by resection) with those that had US. The primary outcome included site-specific recurrence. Results: 26 articles were identified including 4986 patients who underwent resection. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC, 47% 1074/2264) was the most common, followed by resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC 42%, 949/2264). The weighted overall recurrence rates were lower among the NAT group, 63.4% vs. 74% (US) (OR 0.67 (CI 0.52–0.87), p = 0.006). The overall weighted locoregional recurrence rate was lower amongst patients who received NAT when compared to US (12% vs. 27% OR 0.39 (CI 0.22–0.70), p = 0.004). In BRPC, locoregional recurrence rates improved with NAT (NAT 25.8% US 37.7% OR 0.62 (CI 0.44–0.87), p = 0.007). NAT was associated with a lower weighted liver recurrence rate (NAT 19.4% US 30.1% OR 0.55 (CI 0.34–0.89), p = 0.023). Lung and peritoneal recurrence rates did not differ between NAT and US cohorts (p = 0.705 and p = 0.549 respectively). NAT was associated with a significantly longer weighted mean time to first recurrence 18.8 months compared to US (15.7 months) (OR 0.18 (CI 0.05–0.32), p = 0.015). Conclusion: NAT was associated with lower overall recurrence rate and improved locoregional disease control particularly for those with BRPC. Although the burden of liver metastases was less, there was no overall effect upon distant metastatic disease.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document