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 

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 

Outcomes with FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 256-256
Author(s):  
Brian A. Boone ◽  
Jennifer Steve ◽  
Alyssa M. Krasinskas ◽  
Amer H. Zureikat ◽  
Barry C. Lembersky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Biologically Active ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Borderline Resectable

256 Background: Trials examining the use of FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma demonstrate significantly higher response rates compared to gemcitabine-based regimens. These high response rates may be particularly important for patients with locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (LAPD), in which there is currently limited experience with FOLFIRINOX. We examined the outcomes of patients with LAPD treated with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX at our high volume clinic. Methods: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained pancreatic cancer database was used to identify patients who were recommended neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX. Clinical outcomes were reviewed. Resectability was determined using SSO criteria. Results: Between 2/2011 and 9/2012 FOLFIRINOX was recommended for 25 patients with LAPD, 13 (52%) unresectable (UR) and 12 (48%) borderline resectable (BR). Median age was 59. 4 patients (16%) either refused treatment or were lost to follow up. 21 patients (84%) were treated with a median of 4.7 cycles (Range: 2-8). 5 patients (24%) required dose reductions secondary to toxicity. 2 patients (9%) were unable to tolerate treatment and 3 patients (14%) had disease progression on treatment. Of the remaining 16 patients, 13 patients (62%) displayed a radiologic response allowing for surgical exploration, 4 (31%) of which were initially unresectable. 6 of these patients (29%) received additional chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy prior to surgery. Peritoneal metastases were discovered at surgery in 2 (8%) patients. Of the patients who were BR, 7/8 (88%) had a R0 resection. Of the 10 UR patients, 3 (33%) underwent surgical resection, with 2 (20%) R0 resections. Overall R0 resection rate was 43%. A total of 4 patients (19%) demonstrated a major pathologic response (2 complete responses and 2 near complete responses) and 8 other patients (73%) had some pathological response. Conclusions: FOLFIRINOX alone or as part of multimodality approach is a biologically active regimen in LAPD with encouraging R0 resection rates, especially in BR LAPD. Further research is needed to determine the utility of additional chemoradiotherapy with FOLFIRINOX and to identify predictors of response in UR patients.

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

scholarly journals Conversion Surgery for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 1945
Author(s):  
Thomas Hank ◽  
Oliver Strobel
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Palliative Therapy ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Conversion Surgery ◽  
Radiological Criteria ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Conversion Rates

While primarily unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) used to be an indication for palliative therapy, a strategy of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) and conversion surgery is being increasingly used after more effective chemotherapy regimens have become available for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. While high-level evidence from prospective studies is still sparse, several large retrospective studies have recently reported their experience with NAT and conversion surgery for LAPC. This review aims to provide a current overview about different NAT regimens, conversion rates, survival outcomes and determinants of post-resection outcomes, as well as surgical strategies in the context of conversion surgery after NAT. FOLFIRINOX is the predominant regimen used and associated with the highest reported conversion rates. Conversion rates considerably vary between less than 5% and more than half of the study population with heterogeneous long-term outcomes, owing to a lack of intention-to-treat analyses in most studies and a high heterogeneity in resectability criteria, treatment strategies, and reporting among studies. Since radiological criteria of local resectability are no longer applicable after NAT, patients without progressive disease should undergo surgical exploration. Surgery after NAT has to be aimed at local radicality around the peripancreatic vessels and should be performed in expert centers. Future studies in this rapidly evolving field need to be prospective, analyze intention-to-treat populations, report stringent and objective inclusion criteria and criteria for resection. Innovative regimens for NAT in combination with a radical surgical approach hold high promise for patients with LAPC in the future.

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.

Phase II study evaluating trimodal therapy with cetuximab intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and gemcitabine for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer [ISRCTN56652283]

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4100-4100 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. C. Krempien ◽  
M. W. Münter ◽  
C. Timke ◽  
P. E. Huber ◽  
H. Friess ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Trimodal Therapy ◽  
Tumor Bleeding

4100 Background: The induction of EGFR targeting with cetuximab in radiation based therapy of solid tumors has yielded promising results. Thus, we initiated a prospective Phase II trial designed to analyze the feasibility and effectivity of trimodal therapy with gemcitabine-based chemoradiation and cetuximab in locally advanced inoperable pancreatic cancer. Methods: In this phase 2 study, pts with locally advanced pancreatic cancer without prior cytotoxic therapy were treated with radiotherapy (RT), gemcitabine weekly (300 mg/m2), and cetuximab weekly (loading dose 400 mg/m2 day 1, and concomitant with radiation day 8,15,22,29,36 250 mg/m2). RT was delivered by using an integrated IMRT boost concept (54 Gy GTV, 45 Gy CTV) over 5 weeks. RT was followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) weekly × 3 in 4 weeks. Response evaluation using computed tomography followed at week 12. All amenable patients were intended for surgical treatment between week 12–15. Results: 24 pts were enrolled until now. Preliminary results are presented on 20 pts with the following characteristics: pancreatic adenocarcinoma c2 T4 N1 20/20, median age = 63.5 (range 51–79); M/F = 13/7; ECOG PS 0/1/2 = 2/12/6; median days on treatment: 90 (range 70–100). Treatment-related toxicities were observed in 16 pts. Grade 3 toxicities included diarrhea (n = 4), fatigue (n = 2), nausea (n = 3), neutropenia (n = 6), thrombocytopenia (n = 2), and vomiting (n = 2). 18/20 pts developed some acneiforme rush during therapy. No omittance of cetuximab therapy was necessary. 1 patient died during RT due to tumor bleeding. Median follow-up at present is 6 month, median survival has not been reached. Partial remissions 8/20, stable disease 9/20, progressive disease 3/20. 12/20 patients were amenable for secondary potentially curative resection. 4 patients could be resected, while 3 patients were found to have abdominal metastatic spread. Conclusions: Early data from trimodal therapy in pancreatic adenocarcinoma with chemoradiation (IMRT), gemcitabine, and cetuximab indicate feasibility without increased toxicity profile. The local response appears to be very promising in pancreatic cancer, potentially allowing neoadjuvant treatment. [Table: see text]

A phase II study of neoadjuvant gemcitabine/5-fluorouracil followed by 5-fluorouracil/oxaliplatin concurrent with radiation in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 259-259
Author(s):  
C. Lin ◽  
B. M. Kos ◽  
A. R. Sasson ◽  
J. L. Meza ◽  
J. L. Grem
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Continuous Infusion ◽  
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Borderline Resectable ◽  
R1 Resection

259 Background: We designed this phase II trial to determine the efficacy and safety of a neoadjuvant regimen involving gemcitabine, infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), oxaliplatin and radiation therapy (RT) in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma Methods: Induction chemotherapy (CT) consisted of two 3-week cycles of weekly gemcitabine with 24-hour continuous infusion of 5 FU for 2 of 3 weeks. Chemoradiation (CRT) consisted of RT of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions or 50 Gy in 25 fractions and weekly oxaliplatin with 24-hour continuous infusion of 5 FU throughout RT. The first 7 patients also received celecoxib 200 mg BID throughout induction CT and CRT. Upon completion of CRT, surgical candidates underwent a pancreatoduodenectomy. Response rate was assessed according to RECIST criteria 4 weeks after the end of CRT. CTC AE v3 was used to grade the acute side effects. The failure-free survival (FFS), overall survival (OS) and median survival were analyzed by the Kaplan Meier method. Results: Twenty-nine patients who had borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma at the UNMC were enrolled and received induction CT. Twenty-four patients completed CRT. Nineteen patients had surgical exploration: 4 were unresectable, 6 had intra-abdominal metastases, and 9 had resection (seven had R0 resection, 2 had R1 resection, and 6 had negative nodes). The median follow up was 27 months. There were maximum 48% acute grade 3-4 toxicities during induction CT and CRT. The median FFS and OS were 7 and 10 months and the 2-year FFS and OS were 17% and 28%. Median OS and FFS for patients with and without resection was 26 vs. 9 months, p=0.06; and 19 vs. 5 months, p=0.01. Patients with CA19-9 above 90 U/L throughout treatment had significantly shorter FFS and OS than patients with CA19-9 less than 90 throughout treatment or had a decline from baseline to less than 90 after treatment. Conclusions: Induction gemcitabine/5-FU followed by 5-FU/oxaliplatin concurrent with RT led to down staging in 31% patients with subsequent resection. Further innovative strategies are needed to improve the outcome of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document