Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy with gemcitabine/cisplatin and surgery versus immediate surgery in resectable pancreatic cancer: results of the first prospective randomized phase II trial

Neoadjuvant therapy for localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a highly aggressive tumor with poor prognosis and rising incidence globally. Multimodal therapy that includes surgical resection and chemotherapy with or without radiation offers the best chance for optimal outcomes. The development of established criteria for anatomic staging of local primary tumors into potentially resectable (PR), borderline resectable (BR), and locally advanced (LA) has greatly clarified the optimal treatment strategies. While upfront surgical resection was traditionally the recommended approach for localized PDAC, increasingly neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is recommended prior to surgery. Whereas NT can lead to downstaging that facilitates surgical resection for BR/LA cancers, NT also enhances patient selection for surgery, improves margin-negative resection rates, and increases the odds of completing multimodality therapy for all patients with PDAC. Herein, we review the rationale for NT for localized PDAC and summarize existing and ongoing literature.

Adjuvant Gemcitabine Versus Neoadjuvant/Adjuvant FOLFIRINOX in Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: The Randomized Multicenter Phase II NEPAFOX Trial

BACKGROUND

Although addition of adjuvant chemotherapy is the current standard, the prognosis of pancreatic cancers still remains poor. The NEPAFOX trial evaluated perioperative treatment with FOLFIRINOX in resectable pancreatic cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This multicenter phase II trial randomized patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer without metastases into arm (A,) upfront surgery plus adjuvant gemcitabine, or arm (B,) perioperative FOLFIRINOX. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Owing to poor accrual, recruitment was prematurely stopped after randomization of 40 of the planned 126 patients (A: 21, B: 19). Overall, approximately three-quarters were classified as primarily resectable (A: 16, B: 15), and the remaining patients were classified as borderline resectable (A: 5, B: 4). Of the 12 evaluable patients, 3 achieved partial response under neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX. Of the 21 patients in arm A and 19 patients in arm B, 17 and 7 underwent curative surgery, and R0-resection was achieved in 77% and 71%, respectively. Perioperative morbidity occurred in 72% in arm A and 46% in arm B, whereas non-surgical toxicity was comparable in both arms. Median RFS/PFS was almost doubled in arm B (14.1 months) compared with arm A (8.4 months) in the population with surgical resection, whereas median OS was comparable between both arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the analysis was only descriptive owing to small patient numbers, no safety issues regarding surgical complications were observed in the perioperative FOLFIRINOX arm. Thus, considering the small number of patients, perioperative treatment approach appears feasible and potentially effective in well-selected cohorts of patients. In pancreatic cancer, patient selection before initiation of neoadjuvant therapy appears to be critical.

Reconsideration of the clinical impact of neoadjuvant therapy in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: A dual-institution collaborative clinical study

PURPOSE

We investigated true indication of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in resectable pancreatic cancer and the optimal surgical timing in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

A total of 687 patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were enrolled. Survival analysis was performed by intention-to-treat analysis and propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted.

RESULTS

In resectable disease, the NAT group showed better overall survival (OS) compared with the upfront group. Multivariate analysis identified CA19-9 level (≥100 U/mL) and lymph node metastasis to be prognostic factors, and a tumor size of 25 mm was the optimal cut-off value to predict lymph node metastasis. There was no significant survival difference between patients with a tumor size ≤25 mm and CA19-9 < 100 U/mL and those in the NAT group. In borderline resectable disease, OS in the NAT group was significantly better than that in the upfront group. CEA (≥5 ng/mL) and CA19-9 (≥100 U/mL) were identified as prognostic factors; however, the OS of patients fulfilling these factors was worse than that of the NAT group.

CONCLUSIONS

NAT could be unnecessary in patients with tumor size ≤25 mm and CA19-9 < 100 U/mL in resectable disease. In borderline resectable disease, surgery should be delayed until tumor marker levels are well controlled.

Evidence and Future Perspectives for Neoadjuvant Therapy for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Scoping Review

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a lethal disease that requires innovative therapeutic approaches to enhance the survival outcomes. Neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) has gained attention for resectable and borderline resectable PC, offering improved resection rates and enabling early intervention and patient selection. Several retrospective studies have validated its efficacy. However, previous studies have lacked intention-to-treat analyses and appropriate resectability classifications. Randomized comparative trials may help to enhance the clinical applicability of evidence. Therefore, after searching the MEDLINE database, this scoping review presents a comprehensive summary of the evidence from published (n = 14) and ongoing (n = 12) randomized Phase II and III trials. Diverse regimens and their outcomes were explored for both resectable and borderline resectable PC. While some trials have supported the efficacy of NAT, others have demonstrated no clear survival benefits for patients with resectable PC. The utility of NAT has been confirmed in patients with borderline resectable PC, but the optimal regimens remain debatable. Ongoing trials are investigating novel regimens, including immunotherapy, thereby highlighting the dynamic landscape of PC treatment. Studies should focus on biomarker identification, which may enable precision in oncology. Future endeavors aim to refine treatment strategies, guided by precision oncology.

The Oncological Stress Test of Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Systematic Review in Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Therapy Compared to Upfront Resection Approach for Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, increasingly diagnosed in the United States, has a disheartening initial resection rate of 15%. Neoadjuvant therapy, particularly FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine-based regimens, is gaining favor for its potential to improve resectability rates and achieving microscopically negative margins (R0) in borderline resectable cases, marked by intricate arterial or venous involvement. Despite surgery being the sole curative approach, actual benefit of neoadjuvant therapy remains debatable. This study scrutinizes current literature on oncological outcomes post-resection of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. A MEDLINE/PubMed search was conducted to systematically compare oncological outcomes of patients treated with either neoadjuvant therapy with intent of curative resection or an "upfront resection" approach. A total of 1293 studies were initially screened and 30 were included (n = 1714) in this analysis. All studies included data on outcomes of patients with borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma being treated with neoadjuvant therapy (n = 1387) or a resection-first approach (n = 356). Patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy underwent resection 52% of the time, achieving negative margins of 43% (n = 601). Approximately 77% of patients who received an upfront resection underwent a successful resection, with 39% achieving negative margins. Neoadjuvant therapy remains marginally efficacious in treatment of borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, as patients undergo an operation and successful resection less often when treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Rates of curative resection are comparable, despite neoadjuvant therapy being a primary recommendation in borderline resectable cases and employed more often than upfront resection. Upfront resection may offer improved resection rates by intention-to-treat, which can provide more patients with paths to curative resection.

Senolysis of gemcitabine-induced senescent human pancreatic cancer cells

INTRODUCTION

Gemcitabine (GEM) is often used to treat pancreatic cancer. Many anti-cancer drugs induce cancer cell death, but some cells survive after cell cycle arrest. Such a response to DNA damage is termed cellular senescence. Certain drugs, including the Bcl-2-family inhibitor ABT-263, kill senescent cells; this is termed senolysis. In this study, we examined the therapeutic benefits of ABT-263 in GEM-induced senescence of human pancreatic cancer cells.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Of four pancreatic cancer cell lines (PANC-1, AsPC-1, CFPAC-1, and PANC10.05), GEM induced senescent features in PANC-1 and AsPC-1 cells, including increases in the cell sizes and expression levels of mRNAs encoding interleukin (IL)-6/IL-8 and induction of β-galactosidase. Successive treatment with GEM and ABT-263 triggered apoptosis in PANC-1 and AsPC-1 cells and suppressed colony formation significantly. Senolysis of GEM-induced senescent pancreatic cancer cells by ABT-263 was triggered by a Bcl-xL inhibitor, but not by a Bcl-2 inhibitor, suggesting a central role for Bcl-xL in senolysis. In a xenograft mouse model, combined treatment with GEM and ABT-737 (an ABT-263 analog exhibiting the same specificity) suppressed in vivo growth of AsPC-1 significantly.

CONCLUSION

Together, our results indicate that sequential treatment with GEM and senolytic drugs effectively kill human pancreatic cancer cells.

Executive Summary of the American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Neoadjuvant Therapy for Nonmetastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Systematic Review and Guidelines

For patients with locoregionally confined pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), margin-negative surgical resection is the only known curative treatment; however, the majority of patients are not operable candidates at initial diagnosis. Among patients with resectable disease who undergo surgery alone, the 5-year survival remains poor. Adjuvant therapies, including systemic therapy or chemoradiation, are utilized as they improve locoregional control and overall survival. There has been increasing interest in the use of neoadjuvant therapy to obtain early control of occult metastatic disease, allow local tumor response to facilitate margin-negative resection, and provide a test of time and biology to assist with the selection of candidates most likely to benefit from radical surgical resection. However, limited guidance exists regarding the relative effectiveness of treatment options. In this systematic review, the American Radium Society multidisciplinary gastrointestinal expert panel convened to develop Appropriate Use Criteria evaluating the evidence regarding neoadjuvant treatment for patients with PDAC, including surgery, systemic therapy, and radiotherapy, in terms of oncologic outcomes and quality of life. The evidence was assessed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and Study (PICOS) design framework and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included phases 2 to 3 trials, meta-analyses, and retrospective analyses published between January 1, 2012 and December 30, 2022 in the Ovid Medline database. A summary of recommendations based on the available literature is outlined to guide practitioners in the management of patients with PDAC.

Neoadjuvant treatment for pancreatic cancer: Controversies and advances

Despite the advancements in the treatment of localized pancreatic cancer, several unresolved issues persist in clinical practice, especially in the neoadjuvant setting. These include determining the criteria for selecting patients for treatment, identifying the most effective chemotherapy regimens, understanding the role of radiotherapy, and accurately assessing how patients respond to treatment. Current strategies for assessing patients before surgery involve thoroughly evaluating their overall health status, analyzing tumor markers, and using advanced imaging techniques. However, existing methods for staging the disease still have limitations when it comes to accurately detecting metastatic cancer. The ongoing debate between performing surgery upfront or administering neoadjuvant therapy highlights the need for robust clinical evidence to guide treatment decisions effectively. This review analyzes the evidence regarding controversial topics in neoadjuvant pancreatic cancer treatment and discusses further research efforts to enhance patient outcomes. To improve the outcomes found with surgery alone, multimodal treatment with chemotherapy.

Comparison of neoadjuvant treatment and surgery first for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Current treatment recommendations for resectable or borderline pancreatic carcinoma support upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy. However, neoadjuvant therapy (NT) seems to increase prognosis of pancreatic carcinoma and come to everyone's attention gradually. Randomized controlled trials offering comparison with the NT are lacking and optimal neoadjuvant treatment regimen still remains uncertain. This study aims to compare both treatment strategies for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

The PRISMA checklist was used as a guide to systematically review relevant peer-reviewed literature reporting primary data analysis. We searched PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Datebase and related reviews for randomized controlled trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy with surgery first for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma. We estimated relative hazard ratios (HRs) for median overall survival and ratios risks (RRs) for microscopically complete (R0) resection among different neoadjuvant regimens and major complications. We assessed the effects of neoadjuvant therapy on R0 resection rate and median overall survival with Bayesian analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen eligible articles were included. Eight studies performed comparison neoadjuvant therapy with surgery first, and R0 resection rate was recorded in seven studies. Compared with surgery first, neoadjuvant therapy did increase the R0 resection rate (RR = 1.53, I2 = 0%, P< 0.00001), there was a certain possibility that gemcitabine + cisplatin (Gem+Cis) + Radiotherapy was the most favorable in terms of the fact that there was no significant difference concerning the results from the individual studies. In direct comparison, four studies were included and estimated that Neoadjuvant therapy improved mOS compared with upfront surgery (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.92; P = 0.012; I2 = 15%), after Bayesian analysis it seemed that regimen with Cisplatin/ Epirubicin then Gemcitabine/ Capecitabine (PEXG) was most likely the best with a relatively small sample size. The rate of major surgical complications was available for six studies and ranged from 11% to 56% with neoadjuvant therapy and 11% to 45% with surgery first. There was no significant difference between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery first, also with a high heterogeneity (RR = 0.96, 95%CI = 0.65-1.43; P = 0.85; I2 = 46%).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion neoadjuvant therapy might offer benefit over up-front surgery. Neoadjuvant therapy increased the R0 resection rate with gemcitabine + cisplatin + Radiotherapy that was the most favorable and improved mOS with Cisplatin/ Epirubicin then Gemcitabine/ Capecitabine (PEXG) that was most likely the best.

Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Literature Review and Our Experience of NAC-GS

In addition to established evidence of the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), evidence of the effects of neoadjuvant treatments (NATs), including chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy, has also been accumulating. Recent results from prospective studies and meta-analyses suggest that NATs may be beneficial not only for borderline resectable PDAC, but also for resectable PDAC, by increasing the likelihood of successful R0 resection, decreasing the likelihood of the development of lymph node metastasis, and improving recurrence-free and overall survival. In addition, response to NAT may be informative for predicting the clinical course after preoperative NAT followed by surgery; in this way, the postoperative treatment strategy can be revised based on the effect of NAT and the post-neoadjuvant therapy/surgery histopathological findings. On the other hand, the response to NAT and AC is also influenced by the tumor biology and the patient's immune/nutritional status; therefore, planning of the treatment strategy and meticulous management of NAT, surgery, and AC is required on a patient-by-patient basis. Our experience of using gemcitabine plus S-1 showed that this NAT regimen achieved tumor shrinkage and decreased the levels of tumor markers but failed to provide a survival benefit. Our results also suggested that response/adverse events to NAT may be predictive of the efficacy of AC, as well as survival outcomes.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Versus Upfront Surgery for Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: An Updated Nationwide Study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the association of survival with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

BACKGROUND

The early control of potential micrometastases and patient selection using NAC has been advocated for patients with PDAC. However, the role of NAC for resectable PDAC remains unclear.

METHODS

Patients with clinical T1 and T2 PDAC were identified in the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2017. Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox regression models were used to compare survival. To address immortal time bias, landmark analysis was performed. Interactions between preoperative factors and NAC were investigated in subgroup analyses. A propensity score analysis was performed to compare survival between multiagent NAC and upfront surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 4041 patients were treated with upfront surgery and 1,175 patients were treated with NAC (79.4% multiagent NAC, 20.6% single-agent NAC). Using a landmark time of 6 months after diagnosis, patients treated with multiagent NAC had longer median overall survival compared with upfront surgery and single-agent NAC. (35.8 vs 27.1 vs 27.4 mo). Multiagent NAC was associated with lower mortality rates compared with upfront surgery (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.85), whereas single-agent NAC was not. The association of survival with multiagent NAC were consistent in analyses using the matched data sets. Interaction analysis revealed that the association between multiagent NAC and a lower mortality rate did not significantly differ across age, facility type, tumor location, CA 19-9 levels, and clinical T/N stages.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that multiagent NAC followed by resection is associated with improved survival compared with upfront surgery.

Comparison of the upfront surgery and neoadjuvant therapy in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Pancreatic cancer is a malignant disease with a dismal prognosis. While neoadjuvant therapy has shown promise in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, its role remains a subject of controversy among physicians. We aimed to evaluate the benefits of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Eligible studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Studies comparing neoadjuvant therapy with upfront surgery (with or without adjuvant therapy) in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were included. The primary endpoint assessed was overall survival. A total of 10,022 studies were identified, and the meta-analysis finally enrolled 50 revealed studies. The meta-analysis suggested that neoadjuvant therapy significantly improved the overall survival (HR 0.74, p < 0.001) and recurrence-free survival (HR 0.75, p = 0.006) compared to the upfront surgery approach. Furthermore, neoadjuvant therapy leads to favorable postoperative outcomes, with an enhanced R0 resection rate (OR 1.90, p < 0.001) and reduced lymph node metastasis (OR 0.36, p < 0.001) and perineural invasion (OR 0.42, p < 0.001), although it is associated with a reduced resection rate (OR 0.42, p < 0.001). In addition, patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy experience superior survival benefits compared to those undergoing adjuvant therapy (HR 0.87, p = 0.019). These results are further corroborated by the subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neoadjuvant therapy has the potential to provide survival benefits and improve postoperative long-term outcomes for patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. However, to validate and reinforce these findings, further well-designed and large trials are required.

The benefits of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) was effective in improving overall survival (OS) of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. However, its application in resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. This study aimed to determine whether NAT has a greater advantage over conventional upfront surgery (US) in terms of resection rate, R0 resection rate, positive lymph node rate, and OS. We identified articles before October 7, 2022, by searching four electronic databases. The studies included in the meta-analysis all met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate the quality of the articles. OS, DFS, resection rate, R0 resection rate and positive lymph nodes rate were extracted. Odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, and sensitivity analysis and publication bias were used to assess the sources of heterogeneity. In total, 24 studies, involving 1384 (35.66%) patients assigned to NAT and 2497 (64.43%) patients assigned to US, were included in the analysis. NAT could effectively prolong OS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.82, P < 0.001) and DFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62-0.84, P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis results of 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) also showed that RPC patients could benefit from NAT in the long term (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.90, P = 0.003). NAT decreased resection rate (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.33-0.55, P < 0.001), but was associated with increased R0 resection rate (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.47-2.88, P < 0.001) and decreased positive lymph node rate (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27-0.52, P < 0.001). Although the application of NAT increases the risk of patients not being able to undergo surgical resection, it can prolong the OS and delay tumor progression in RPC. Therefore, we still expect larger and higher-quality RCTs to confirm the effectiveness of NAT.

Neo-Adjuvant Treatment in Primary Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and PRISMA-Compliant Updated Metanalysis of Oncological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in treatment, the prognosis of resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains poor. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has gained great interest in hopes of improving survival. However, the results of available studies based on different treatment approaches, such as chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy, showed contrasting results. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to clarify the benefit of NAT compared to upfront surgery (US) in primarily resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A PRISMA literature review identified 139 studies, of which 15 were finally included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. All data from eligible articles was summarized in a systematic summary and then used for the meta-analysis. Specifically, we used HR for OS and DFS and risk estimates (odds ratios) for the R0 resection rate and the N+ rate. The risk of bias was correctly assessed according to the nature of the studies included.

RESULTS

From the pooled HRs, OS for NAT patients was better, with an HR for death of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72-0.90) at a significance level of less than 1%. In the sub-group analysis, no difference was found between patients treated with chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy exclusively. The meta-analysis of seven studies that reported DFS for NAT resulted in a pooled HR for progression of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.56-0.79) with a significance level of less than 1%. A significantly lower risk of positive lymph nodes (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.32-0.63) and an improved R0 resection rate (OR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.23-2.36) were also found in patients treated with NAT, despite high heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

NAT is associated with improved survival for patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma; however, the optimal treatment strategy has yet to be defined, and further studies are required.

Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Treatments for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: The Current Status of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Treatment in Japan

Resection is the only curative treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Although the outcome of technically resectable PDAC has improved with advances in surgery and adjuvant therapy, the 5-year survival rate remains low at 20% to 40%. More effective therapy is needed. Almost 15 years ago, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines proposed a resectability classification of PDAC based on preoperative imaging. Since then, treatment strategies for PDAC have been devised based on resectability. The standard of care for resectable PDAC is adjuvant chemotherapy after R0 resection, as shown by the results of pivotal clinical trials. With regard to neoadjuvant treatment, several recent clinical trials comparing neoadjuvant treatment with upfront resection have been conducted on resectable PDAC and borderline resectable PDAC, and the benefits and efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment for pancreatic cancer has become clearer. The significance of neoadjuvant treatment for resectable PDAC remains controversial, but in borderline resectable PDAC the efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment has been further recognised, although the standard of care has not yet been established. Several promising clinical trials for PDAC are ongoing. This review presents previous and ongoing trials of perioperative treatment for resectable and borderline resectable PDAC, focusing on the difference between Asian and Western countries.

Prognostic value of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prognostic value of preoperative neoadjuvant therapy (NT) compared to upfront surgery (US) in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science were searched to collect randomized controlled trials on preoperative neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer before April 7, 2023, and data were extracted after screening according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and HRs were obtained indirectly using enguage software; Stata 12.0 software was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this study, comprising a total of 1058 cases, including 503 cases in the NT group and 555 cases in the US group. Using an intention-to-treat population (ITT) analysis, the results showed that neoadjuvant treatment improved the R0 resection rate (RR 2.71, 95% CI 1.59-4.62; P = 0.000; I2 = 46.20%) and overall survival (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.54-0.82; P = 0.000; I2 = 0.00%). In the subgroup of patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, the R0 resection rate in the NT group versus the US group (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93-1.39; P = 0.196; I2 = 0.00%) and overall survival (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64-1.24; P = 0.489; I2 = 0.00%) were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative neoadjuvant treatment is of prognostic value in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, as it increases the R0 resection rate and improves overall survival compared to upfront surgery.

Pathologic tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy in resected pancreatic cancer: does it affect prognosis?

Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) + surgical resection for pancreatic cancer (PC) has gained consensus in recent years. Pathological response (PR) is generally assessed according to the College of American Pathologists grading system, ranging from 0 (complete response) to 3 (no response). The aim of our study is to evaluate the PR in a series of resections for PC after NAT and its prognostic implication. 112 patients undergone NAT and resection for PC between 2011 and 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. PR was 0/1, 2 and 3 in 18 (15%), 79 (61%) and 29 (24%) cases, respectively. Chemotherapy regimens different from FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (OR 11.61 (2.53-53.36), p = 0.002) and lymphovascular invasion (OR 11.28 (1.89-67.23), p = 0.008) were associated to PR-3. Median follow-up was 25.8 (3.6-130.5) months. For PR-0/1, PR-2 and PR-3, median DFS was 45.8, 11.5, 4.6 months (p < 0.0001), respectively, while median OS was not reached, 27.1 and 17.5 months (p = 0.0006), respectively. At univariate analysis, PR-0/1 was significantly associated to better DFS and OS (HR 0.33 (0.17-0.67), p = 0.002; HR 0.20 (0.07-0.54), p = 0.002, respectively). At multivariate analysis, pancreaticoduodenectomy (HR 0.50 (0.30-0.84), p = 0.009), LNR (HR 27.14 (1.21-608.9), p = 0.038) and lymphovascular invasion (HR 1.99 (1.06-3.76), p = 0.033) were independently associated to DFS; pre-treatment CA 19.9 value (HR 1.00 (1.00-1.00), p = 0.025), post-treatment resectability status (HR 0.51 (0.28-0.95), p = 0.035), pancreaticoduodenectomy (HR 0.56 (0.32-0.99), p = 0.050), severe morbidity (2.99 (1.22-7.55), p = 0.017), LNR (HR 56.8 (2.08-1548.3), p = 0.017), lymphovascular invasion (HR 2.18 (1.08-4.37), p = 0.029) were independently associated to OS. PR did not reach statistical significance at multivariate analysis. A favorable PR is observed only in a limited number of cases. The prognostic role of PR, despite being promising, remains unclear and further multicentric studies are needed.

The experience of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus upfront surgery in resectable pancreatic cancer: a cross sectional study

BACKGROUND

Upfront resection (UR) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy remains the standard treatment for resectable pancreatic cancer. There is increasing evidence suggesting favourable outcomes toward neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by surgery.

METHODS

All clinical staging with resectable pancreatic cancer patients treated at a tertiary medical centre from 2013 to 2020 were identified. The baseline characteristics, treatment course, surgery outcome and survival results of UR or NAC were compared.

RESULTS

Finally, in 159 resectable patients, 46 patients (29%) underwent NAC and 113 patients (71%) received UR. In NAC, 11 patients (24%) did not receive resection, 4 (36.4%) for comorbidity, 2 (18.2%) for patient refusal and 2 (18.2%) for disease progression. In UR, 13 patients (12%) were unresectable intraoperatively; 6 (46.2%) for locally advanced and 5 (38.5%) for distant metastasis. Overall, 97% of patients in NAC and 58% of patients in UR completed adjuvant chemotherapy. As of data cut-off, 24 patients (69%) in NAC and 42 patients (29%) in UR were still tumour free. The median recurrence-free survival in NAC, UR with adjuvant chemotherapy and without adjuvant chemotherapy were 31.3 months (95% CI, 14.4-not estimable), 10.6 months (95% CI, 9.0-14.3) and 8.5 months (95% CI, 5.8-11.8), P =0.036; and the median overall survival in each group were not reached (95% CI, 29.7-not estimable), 25.9 months (95% CI, 21.1-40.5) and 21.7 months (12.0-32.8), P =0.0053. Based on initial clinical staging, the median overall survival of NAC was not significantly different from UR with a tumour less than or equal to 2 cm, P =0.29. NAC patients had a higher R0 resection rate (83% versus 53%), lower recurrence rate (31% versus 71%) and harvested median number lymph node (23 versus 15).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that NAC is superior to UR in resectable pancreatic cancer with better survival.

Failure of a Multi-Centric Clinical Trial Investigating Neoadjuvant Radio-Chemotherapy in Resectable Pancreatic Carcinoma (NEOPA-NCT01900327)-Which Lessons Are Learnt?

BACKGROUND

A significant number of clinical trials must be prematurely discontinued due to recruitment failure, and only a small fraction publish results and a failure analysis. Based on our experience on conducting the NEOPA trial on neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma (NCT01900327-funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research-BMBF), we performed an analysis of potential reasons for recruitment failure and general problems in conducting clinical trials in Germany.

METHODS

Systematic analysis of environmental factors, trial history, conducting and funding in the background of the published literature.

RESULTS

The recruitment failure was based on various study-specific conceptional and local environmental aspects and in peculiarities of the German surgical study culture. General reservations against a neo-adjuvant study concept combined with game changing scientific progresses during the long-lasting planning and funding phase have led to a reduced interest in the trial design and recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

Trial planning and conducting should be focused, professionalized and financed on a national basis. Individual interests must be subordinated to reach the goal to perform more relevant and successful clinical trials in Germany. Bureaucratic processes must be further fastened between a trial idea and the start of a study.

The role of local treatment including pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients with isolated synchronous liver metastasis: Propensity score-matched analyses

BACKGROUND

In an era of more effective chemotherapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the paradigm of local treatment is changing. However, the efficacy of local treatment in patients with isolated liver metastasis remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of pancreatectomy ± local treatment for metastasis (cytoreductive surgery) in PDAC patients with isolated synchronous liver metastasis.

METHODS

In total, 239 patients with isolated liver metastasis were extracted from Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH). For comparison, another 12 637 patients were extracted from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Propensity score matching was performed to minimize confounding in both cohorts. Survival analyses stratified by the treatment delivered were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests.

RESULTS

In the SNUH cohort, the median (interquartile range) survival was 20.5 (13.0-42.0) months for patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery plus chemotherapy versus 12.0 (10.0-18.0) months for those who received chemotherapy alone (P < .001). With the NCDB cohort, the median (interquartile range) survival was 15.6 (8.9-31.2) months for patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery plus chemotherapy versus 7.4 (3.4-13.2) months for those who received chemotherapy alone (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients with isolated synchronous liver metastasis should be considered for cytoreductive surgery in addition to effective chemotherapy.

Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma-A Critical Review of Randomised Trials

Pancreatic cancer is rising as one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Patients often present with advanced disease, limiting curative treatment options and therefore making management of the disease difficult. Systemic chemotherapy has been an established part of the standard treatment in patients with both locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. In contrast, the use of radiotherapy has no clear defined role in the treatment of these patients. With the evolving imaging and radiation techniques, radiation could become a plausible intervention. In this review, we give an overview over the available data regarding radiotherapy, chemoradiation, and stereotactic body radiation therapy. We performed a systematic search of Embase and the PubMed database, focusing on studies involving locally advanced pancreatic cancer (or non-resectable pancreatic cancer) and radiotherapy without any limitation for the time of publication. We included randomised controlled trials involving patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer, including radiotherapy, chemoradiation, or stereotactic body radiation therapy. The included articles represented mainly small patient groups and had a high heterogeneity regarding radiation delivery and modality. This review presents conflicting results concerning the addition of radiation and modality in the treatment regimen. Further research is needed to improve outcomes and define the role of radiation therapy in pancreatic cancer.

Role of neoadjuvant therapy for nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer: Current evidence and future perspectives

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most common and lethal human cancers worldwide. Surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy offers the best chance of a long-term survival for patients with PDAC, although only approximately 20% of the patients have resectable tumors when diagnosed. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is recommended for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Several studies have investigated the role of NACT in treating resectable tumors based on the recent advances in PDAC biology, as NACT provides the potential benefit of selecting patients with favorable tumor biology and controls potential micro-metastases in high-risk patients with resectable PDAC. In such challenging cases, new potential tools, such as ct-DNA and molecular targeted therapy, are emerging as novel therapeutic options that may improve old paradigms. This review aims to summarize the current evidence regarding the role of NACT in treating non-metastatic pancreatic cancer while focusing on future perspectives in light of recent evidence.

Survival outcomes of neoadjuvant therapy followed by radical resection versus upfront surgery for stage I-III pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy remains controversial in treating resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients. This study aims to assess the impact of neoadjuvant therapy on survival in patients with PDAC according to their clinical stage.

METHODS

Patients with resected clinical Stage I-III PDAC from 2010 to 2019 were identified in the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database. A propensity score matching method was utilized within each stage to reduce potential selection bias between patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and patients who underwent upfront surgery. An overall survival (OS) analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

A total of 13 674 patients were included in the study. The majority of the patients ( N =10 715, 78.4%) underwent upfront surgery. Patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery had significantly longer OS than those with upfront surgery. Subgroup analysis revealed that the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group's OS is comparable to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In clinical Stage IA PDAC, there was no difference in survival between the neoadjuvant treatment and upfront surgery groups before or after matching. In stage IB-III patients, neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery improved OS before and after matching compared to upfront surgery. The results revealed the same OS benefits using the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery could improve OS over upfront surgery in Stage IB-III PDAC but did not provide a significant survival advantage in Stage IA PDAC.

Neoadjuvant Treatments for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Where We Are and Where We Are Going

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) represents a challenging disease for the surgeon, oncologist, and radiation oncologist in both diagnostic and therapeutic settings. Surgery is currently the gold standard treatment, but the role of neoadjuvant treatment (NAD) is constantly evolving and gaining importance in resectable PDACs. The aim of this narrative review is to report the state of the art and future perspectives of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with PDAC.

METHODS

A PubMed database search of articles published up to September 2022 was carried out.

RESULTS

Many studies showed that FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel in a neoadjuvant setting had a relevant impact on overall survival (OS) for patients with locally advanced and borderline resectable PDAC without increasing post-operative complications. To date, there have not been many published multicentre randomised trials comparing upfront surgery with NAD in resectable PDAC patients, but the results obtained are promising. NAD in resectable PDAC showed long-term effective benefits in terms of median OS (5-year OS rate 20.5% in NAD group vs. 6.5% in upfront surgery). NAD could play a role in the treatment of micro-metastatic disease and lymph nodal involvement. In this scenario, given the low sensitivity and specificity for lymph-node metastases of radiological investigations, CA 19-9 could be an additional tool in the decision-making process.

CONCLUSIONS

The future challenge could be to identify only selected patients who will really benefit from upfront surgery despite a combination of NAD and surgery.

Neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer

Patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are best treated with surgical resection of the primary tumour and systemic chemotherapy, which provides considerably longer overall survival (OS) durations than either modality alone. Regardless, most patients will have disease relapse owing to micrometastatic disease. Although currently a matter of some debate, considerable research interest has been focused on the role of neoadjuvant therapy for all forms of resectable PDAC. Whilst adjuvant combination chemotherapy remains the standard of care for patients with resectable PDAC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy seems to improve OS without necessarily increasing the resection rate in those with borderline-resectable disease. Furthermore, around 20% of patients with unresectable non-metastatic PDAC might undergo resection following 4-6 months of induction combination chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy, even in the absence of a clear radiological response, leading to improved OS outcomes in this group. Distinct molecular and biological responses to different types of therapies need to be better understood in order to enable the optimal sequencing of specific treatment modalities to further improve OS. In this Review, we describe current treatment strategies for the various clinical stages of PDAC and discuss developments that are likely to determine the optimal sequence of multimodality therapies by integrating the fundamental clinical and molecular features of the cancer.

Top Pancreatic Tumor Articles from 2021 to Inform Your Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

More than 10,000 publications about pancreatic cancer were found on PubMed during the past year.

METHODS

To best inform patients with pancreatic cancer, the obvious, frequent questions asked during patient counseling when dealing with resectable pancreatic cancer, borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, and unresectable pancreatic cancer were considered.

RESULTS

The publications highlighted are comprehensive on the current management of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer, the addition of radiation to neoadjuvant therapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, the utility of arterial resections in unresectable pancreatic cancer, and the role of minimally invasive approach to pancreatic cancer surgical therapy.

CONCLUSION

These articles are high yield and comprehensive review on key issues facing surgical oncologists who operate on pancreatic cancer.

A Paradigm Shifts: Neoadjuvant Therapy for Clearly Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

Over the past decade, neoadjuvant therapy has become the standard of care for patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The surgical community remains divided regarding the value of neoadjuvant therapy for patients who present with clearly resectable disease. Thus far, randomized controlled trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy with conventional upfront surgical strategies for patients with clearly resectable pancreatic cancer have been plagued by poor accrual, and are often underpowered. Nonetheless, meta-analyses of the results of these trials suggest that neoadjuvant therapy can be offered as an acceptable standard of care for patients with clearly resectable pancreatic cancer. Previous trials used neoadjuvant gemcitabine, but more recent studies have demonstrated superior survival for patients who were able to tolerate neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplatin). The increased utilization of FOLFIRINOX may be shifting the treatment paradigm in favor of neoadjuvant therapy among patients with clearly resectable disease. Randomized controlled trials assessing the value of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in clearly resectable pancreatic cancer, which are expected to provide more conclusive recommendations, are still ongoing. This review outlines the rationale, considerations, and current level of evidence for the use of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with clearly resectable pancreatic cancer.

Comparison the efficacy and safety of different neoadjuvant regimens for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To date, the optimal recommended specific neoadjuvant regimens for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC or BRPC) remain an unanswered issue.

METHODS

We systematically searched the electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different neoadjuvant therapy strategies for RPC or BRPC. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Comprehensive analyses and evaluations were performed using the single-arm, paired, and network meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs involving 1279 patients with RPC or BRPC were enrolled. The paired meta-analysis showed that neoadjuvant therapy improved OS for both RPC (hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95% c.i. 0.54 to 0.87) and BRPC (HR 0.60, 0.42 to 0.86) compared with upfront surgery (UP-S). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) also improved OS for both RPC (HR 0.63, 0.47 to 0.85) and BRPC (HR 0.44, 0.27 to 0.71), while neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACR) improved OS only for BRPC (HR 0.68, 0.52 to 0.89) and not for RPC (HR 0.79, 0.54 to 1.16). Network meta-analysis found that NAC was superior to NACR in OS for RPC/BRPC (HR 0.58, 0.37 to 0.90). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on modified fluorouracil/folinic acid/irinotecan/oxaliplatin (NAC-mFFX) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on abraxane/gemcitabine (NAC-AG) ranked first and second in OS for RPC/BRPC.

CONCLUSIONS

Both RPC and BRPC could obtain OS benefits from neoadjuvant therapy compared with UP-S, and NAC improved OS both in RPC and BRPC while NACR only improved OS in BRPC. Furthermore, NAC was superior to NACR, and NAC-mFFX and NAC-AG might be recommended sequentially as the best neoadjuvant therapy strategies.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus immediate surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

We aimed to compare resection and survival outcomes of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and immediate surgery in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC) or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC). In compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. Random effects modeling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. Likelihood of type 1 or 2 errors in the meta-analysis model was assessed by trial sequential analysis. A total of 400 patients from four RCTs were included. When RPC and BRPC were analyzed together, neoadjuvant CRT resulted in a higher R0 resection rate (risk ratio [RR]: 1.55, p = 0.004), longer overall survival (mean difference [MD]: 3.75 years, p = 0.009) but lower overall resection rate (RR: 0.83, p = 0.008) compared with immediate surgery. When RPC and BRPC were analyzed separately, neoadjuvant CRT improved R0 resection rate (RR: 3.72, p = 0.004) and overall survival (MD: 6.64, p = 0.004) of patients with BRPC. However, it did not improve R0 resection rate (RR: 1.18, p = 0.13) or overall survival (MD: 0.94, p = 0.57) of patients with RPC. Neoadjuvant CRT might be beneficial for patients with BRPC, but not for patients with RPC. Nevertheless, the best available evidence does not include contemporary chemotherapy regimens. Patients with RPC and those with BRPC should not be combined in the same cohort in future studies.

Targeted therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Mechanisms and clinical study

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive and lethal malignancy with a high rate of recurrence and a dismal 5-year survival rate. Contributing to the poor prognosis of PDAC is the lack of early detection, a complex network of signaling pathways and molecular mechanisms, a dense and desmoplastic stroma, and an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. A recent shift toward a neoadjuvant approach to treating PDAC has been sparked by the numerous benefits neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has to offer compared with upfront surgery. However, certain aspects of NAT against PDAC, including the optimal regimen, the use of radiotherapy, and the selection of patients that would benefit from NAT, have yet to be fully elucidated. This review describes the major signaling pathways and molecular mechanisms involved in PDAC initiation and progression in addition to the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment of PDAC. We then review current guidelines, ongoing research, and future research directions on the use of NAT based on randomized clinical trials and other studies. Finally, the current use of and research regarding targeted therapy for PDAC are examined. This review bridges the molecular understanding of PDAC with its clinical significance, development of novel therapies, and shifting directions in treatment paradigm.

Does neoadjuvant treatment in resectable pancreatic cancer improve overall survival? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may improve overall survival (OS) in 'borderline' resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC). Whether the results are the same in upfront RPC is unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To evaluate the association of neoadjuvant treatment and survival outcomes in RPC, a systematic literature review was carried out including prospective randomized trials of neoadjuvant treatment versus upfront surgery. Articles indexed in PubMed, Embase and Scopus were evaluated. Data regarding systemic treatment regimens, R0 resection rates, disease-free survival (DFS) and OS were extracted. The outcomes were compared using a random-effects model. The index I² and the graphs of funnel plot were used for the interpretation of the data.

RESULTS

Of 3229 abstracts, 6 randomized controlled trials were considered eligible with a combined sample size of 805 RPC patients. Among the trials, PACT-15, PREP-02/JSAP-05 and updated long-term results from PREOPANC and NEONAX trials were included. Combining the studies with meta-analysis, we could see that neoadjuvant treatment in RPC does not improve DFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71 (0.46-1.09)] or OS [HR 0.76 (0.52-1.11)], without significant heterogeneity. Interestingly, R0 rates improved ∼20% with the neoadjuvant approach [HR 1.2 (1.04-1.37)]. It is important to note that most studies evaluated gemcitabine-based regimens in the neoadjuvant setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation does not improve DFS or OS in RPC compared to upfront surgery followed by adjuvant treatment. Neoadjuvant treatment improves R0 rates by ∼20%. Randomized ongoing trials are eagerly awaited with more active combined regimens including modified FOLFIRINOX.

Current Treatment of Potentially Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Medical Oncologist's Perspective

Pancreatic cancer has traditionally been associated with a dismal prognosis, even in early stages of the disease. In recent years, the introduction of newer generation chemotherapy regimens in the adjuvant setting has improved the survival of patients treated with upfront resection. However, there are multiple theoretical advantages to deliver early systemic therapy in patients with localized pancreatic cancer. So far, the evidence supports the use of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. The benefit of this treatment sequence for patients with resectable disease remains elusive. In this review, we summarize the data on adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer and describe which evidence backs the use of neoadjuvant therapy. Additionally, we address important issues faced in clinical practice when treating patients with localized pancreatic cancer.

Routine neoadjuvant chemotherapy for all patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma? A review of the evidence

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an aggressive malignancy that carries a poor prognosis because the majority of patients present with locally advanced or metastatic disease. However, even patients who are fortunate enough to present with resectable disease are often plagued by high recurrence rates. While adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to decrease the risk of recurrence after surgery, post operative complications and poor performance status after surgery prevent up to 50% of patients from receiving it. Given the benefits of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with borderline resectable disease, it is understandable that neoadjuvant therapy has been steadily increasing in patients with resectable cancers as well. In this review paper, we highlight the rational and existing evidence of using neoadjuvant therapy in all patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for pancreatic cancer beneficial: A systematic review and meta-analysis

To examine the potential benefits and adverse events of neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) versus upfront surgery in pancreatic cancer (PC) patients. Extensive librarian-led literature searches were conducted on PubMed, Web-of-Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Central Library and Embase. The primary outcomes were resectability, adverse events, pathological and survival outcomes. Five studies, including 437 participants, were analyzed. Upfront surgery had a significantly higher resectability among PC patients than neoadjuvant CRT group (Odds ratio = -0.11, 95% CI = -0.19-0.02, P = 0.01). The neoadjuvant CRT group had a comparatively higher Ro resection rate (OR = 3.38, 95% CI = 2.03-5.62, P < 0.01), fewer severe adverse events(OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.34-0.92, P = 0.02), lower positive LN rate(OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.11-0.31, P < 0.01) and higher 2-year OS(OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.02-2.52, P = 0.04) among PC patients than control group. There was no significant difference between neoadjuvant CRT and upfront surgery among PC patients on postoperative complications(OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 0.86-2.57, P = 0.16), metastasis rate(OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.42-4.18, P = 0.64) and 1-year OS(OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 0.85-1.98, P = 0.22). This systematic review confirmed the status of neoadjuvant CRT in the PC treatment. The neoadjuvant CRT could increase the R0 resection rate, which was important to the survival and life quality of patients. The specific choice of various neoadjuvant CRT therapy needs to be further studied. Individualized neoadjuvant therapy should be suitable for each patient, and patients with PC are best managed by a multidisciplinary team.

Nationwide trends and outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer - an analysis of the Swedish national pancreatic cancer registry

OBJECTIVES

During the last decade, neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for pancreatic cancer has become more frequent. Pathological response and overall survival are promising; however, various post-operative complications have been reported. Our primary aim was to compare the complication scenario of patients receiving NAT in borderline resectable and locally advanced disease with those who had upfront pancreatic surgery (UFS) for primarily resectable cancer.

METHODS

From the Swedish National Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancer Registry, patients resected for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) between 2010 and 2018 were identified. Data on patient characteristics, neoadjuvant therapy, post-operative complications and survival were obtained. Comparisons between groups as well as survival analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Within the total cohort of 13,948 patients, 1894 (median age 69 years, 51% men) were resected for PDAC. Among these, 112 (5.9%) patients received NAT followed by surgery. The patients who received NAT were younger (67 vs 70 years, p < .001), had a lower level of CA19-9 (47 vs 108, p = .001) and had to a larger extent vascular resection (58.9 vs 26.9%, p < .001) and total pancreatectomy performed (23.2 vs 9.1%, p < .001). No difference was found for major post-operative complications and there was no significant change in survival rate between the NAT and UFS groups (median 28 vs 26 months, p = .122).

CONCLUSIONS

When analyzing data from a national registry, no difference in post-operative complications was found between resected patients receiving UFS and NAT for PDAC. Also, the survival was equal between groups. NAT is a feasible treatment option for patients with potentially curable pancreatic cancer.

Neoadjuvant therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer: A promising curative method to improve prognosis

Currently, 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been designed to investigate whether neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) benefits patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (R-PA) compared to surgery alone. Five of them have acquired results so far; however, corresponding conclusions have not been obtained. We speculated that the reason for this phenomenon could be that some prognostic factors had proven to be adverse through upfront surgery curative patterns, but some of them were not regarded as independent baseline characteristics, which is important to obtaining comparability between the NAT and upfront surgery groups. This fact could cause bias and lead to the difference in the outcomes of RCTs. In this review, we collate data about risk factors (such as tumor size, resection margin, and lymph node status) influencing the prognoses of patients with R-PA from five RCTs and discuss the possible reasons for the varying outcomes.

Defining the Optimal Duration of Neoadjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Time for a Personalized Approach?

ABSTRACT

Despite recent advances, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) continues to be associated with dismal outcomes, with a cure evading most patients. While historic treatment for PDAC has been surgical resection followed by 6 months of adjuvant therapy, there has been a recent shift toward neoadjuvant treatment (NAT). Several considerations support this approach, including the characteristic early systemic spread of PDAC, and the morbidity often surrounding pancreatic resection, which can delay recovery and preclude patients from starting adjuvant treatment. The addition of NAT has been suggested to improve margin-negative resection rates, decrease lymph node positivity, and potentially translate to improved survival. Conversely, complications and disease progression can occur during preoperative treatment, potentially eliminating the chance of curative resection. As NAT utilization has increased, treatment durations have been found to vary widely between institutions with an optimal duration remaining undefined. In this review, we assess the existing literature on NAT for PDAC, reviewing treatment durations reported across retrospective case series and prospective clinical trials to establish currently used approaches and seek the optimal duration. We also analyze markers of treatment response and review the potential for personalized approaches that may help clarify this important treatment question and move NAT toward a more standardized approach.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy-Chemoradiation for Borderline-Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A UK Tertiary Surgical Oncology Centre Series

Background: Patients with borderline-resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR-PDAC) have historically poor survival, even after curative pancreatic resection and adjuvant chemotherapy. Emerging evidence suggests that neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCR) improves R0 resection rates in BR-PDAC patients. We evaluated the R0 resection rate, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in our patients who underwent NCR for BR-PDAC at our institution. Methods: All patients who underwent NCR for BR-PDAC from January 2010 to March 2020 were included in the study. The patients received a variety of NCR regimens during the study period, and in patients with radiological evidence of tumour stability or regression, pancreatic resection was performed. The primary endpoint was the OS, and the secondary endpoints included patient morbidity, the R0 resection rate, histological parameters and the DFS. Results: The study included 29 patients (16 men and 13 women), with a median age of 65 years (range 46–74 years). Of these 29 patients, 17 received FOLFIRINOX and 12 received gemcitabine (GEM)-based NCR regimens. All patients received chemoradiation at the end of chemotherapy (range 45–56 Gy). R0 resection was achieved in 75% of the patients, with a higher rate noted in the FOLFIRINOX group. The median DFS was 22 months for the whole cohort but higher in the FOLFIRINOX group (34 months). The median OS for the cohort was 29 months, with a higher median OS noted for the FOLFIRINOX cohort versus the GEM cohort (42 versus 28 months). Conclusion: NCR, particularly FOLFIRINOX-based treatment, for BR-PDAC results in higher rates of R0 resection and an increased median DFS and OS, supporting its continued use in this patient group.

Trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials on neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer

INTRODUCTION

Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence but can suffer from type I (false-positive) and II (false-negative) errors, which can be estimated through trial sequential analysis (TSA) demonstrating eventual credibility of results. Aim of the study was to establish through TSA which strategy between neoadjuvant approach or upfront surgery provides best results when treating potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RCTs were searched until September 2021. Intention-to-treat (ITT) overall survival, resection rate, ITT R0 and N0 rates and per-protocol R0 and N0 rates were the outcomes considered. Fixed-effect model was applied. TSA assumed an alpha = 5% and a power = 80%.

RESULTS

Four RCTs were identified accruing 325 patients for the ITT analyses and 242 for the per-protocol analyses. Neoadjuvant did not improve survival (p = 0.167) and TSA supported that this result was underpowered, requiring additional 1514 patients to prove credibility. Neoadjuvant reduced resection rate (p = 0.044) but type I error was not avoided. Neoadjuvant credibly increased per-protocol R0 and N0 rates (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001), and TSA showed that these were true-positive findings. Neoadjuvant did not increase ITT R0 rate since randomization (p = 0.169) but TSA showed lack of power. Neoadjuvant credibly increased the ITT N0 rate (p < 0.001) and TSA supported that this was a true positive finding.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant strategy credibly demonstrated superiority over upfront surgery in determine per-protocol R0 resection and N0 rates, as well as ITT N0 rate. For the remaining outcomes, TSA suggested the need of larger samples to exclude type I and II errors.

ITGA2 overexpression inhibits DNA repair and confers sensitivity to radiotherapies in pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a dismal disease with a 5-year survival rate of less than 10%, despite the recent advances in chemoradiotherapy. The sensitivity of the PDAC patients to chemoradiotherapy varies widely, especially to radiotherapy, suggesting the need for more elucidation of the underlying mechanisms. In this study, a novel function of the nuclear ITGA2, the alpha subunit of transmembrane collagen receptor integrin alpha-2/beta-1, regulating the DNA damage response (DDR), was identified. First, analyzing The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) PDAC data set indicated that the expression status of ITGA2 was negatively correlated with the genome stability parameters. The study further demonstrated that ITGA2 specially inhibited the activity of the non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) pathway and conferred the sensitivity to radiotherapy in PDAC by restraining the recruitment of DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit (DNA-PKcs) to Ku70/80 heterodimer during DDR. Considering the overexpression of ITGA2 and its associated with the poor prognosis of PDAC patients, this study suggested that the ITGA2 expression status could be used as an indicator for radiotherapy and DNA damage reagents, and the radiotherapy in combination with the overexpression of ITGA2 might be a viable treatment strategy for the PDAC patients.

Trends in the surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer in the last 30 years

Pancreatic cancer has the poorest prognosis among digestive cancers. During the 1990s, the 5-year survival rate of surgical patients with pancreatic cancer was 14% in Japan. However, survival rates have increased to 40% in the 2020s due to the refinement of surgical procedures and the introduction of perioperative chemotherapy. Several pivotal randomized controlled trials have played an indispensable role to establish each standard treatment strategy. Resectability of pancreatic cancer can be classified into resectable, borderline resectable, and unresectable based on the anatomic configuration, and multidisciplinary treatment strategies for each classification have been revised rapidly. Investigation of superior perioperative adjuvant treatments for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer and the establishment of optimal conversion surgery for unresectable pancreatic cancer are the progressive subjects.

Surgical resection is associated with improved long-term survival of patients with resectable pancreatic head cancer compared to multiagent chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Standard of care for resectable pancreatic cancer is a combination of surgical resection (SR) and multiagent chemotherapy (MCT). We aim to determine whether SR or MCT is associated with superior survival for patients receiving only single-modality therapy.

METHODS

Patients with stage I-IIb pancreatic head adenocarcinoma who received either MCT or SR were identified in the NCDB (2013-2015). Following a piecewise approach to estimating hazards over the course of follow-up, conditional overall survival (OS) at 30, 60, and 90 days after treatment initiation was estimated using landmark analyses.

RESULTS

3103 patients received MCT alone (60.3%) and 2043 underwent SR alone (39.7%). SR had an OS disadvantage at 30 (HR 3.99, 95% CI 3.12-5.11) and 60 days (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.4-2.45), but an OS advantage after 90 days (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.55-0.64). In a landmark analysis conditioned on 90 days survival post treatment initiation, median OS was improved for SR (17.0 vs. 12.2 months, p < 0.0001); SR improved 3-year OS by 21.3% (p < 0.05), despite patients being older (median 72 vs. 67 years, p < 0.0001) with higher Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores (≥2: 11.2 vs. 8.6%, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

For patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, SR is associated with superior long-term survival compared to MCT.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Where Do We Go?

The incidence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has been on the rise in recent years; however, its clinical diagnosis and treatment remain challenging. Although surgical resection remains the only chance for long-term patient survival, the likelihood of initial resectability is no higher than 20%. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in PDAC aims to transform the proportion of inoperable PDACs into operable cases and reduce the likelihood of recurrence to improve overall survival. Ongoing phase 3 clinical trial aims to validate the role of NAT in PDAC therapy, including prolongation of survival, increased R0 resection, and a higher proportion of negative lymph nodes. Controversies surrounding the role of NAT in PDAC treatment include applicability to different stages of PDAC, chemotherapy regimens, radiation, duration of treatment, and assessment of effect. This review aims to summarize the current progress and controversies of NAT in PDAC.

Consensus Statement on Mandatory Measurements for Pancreatic Cancer Trials for Patients With Resectable or Borderline Resectable Disease (COMM-PACT-RB): A Systematic Review and Delphi Consensus Statement

Importance

Pancreatic cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death; however, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of survival in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer lack mandatory measures for reporting baseline and prognostic factors, which hampers comparisons between outcome measures.

Objective

To develop a consensus on baseline and prognostic factors to be used as mandatory measurements in RCTs of resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

Evidence Review

We performed a systematic literature search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, and Embase for RCTs on resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer with overall survival as the primary outcome. We produced a systematic summary of all baseline and prognostic factors identified in the RCTs. A Delphi panel that included 13 experts was surveyed to reach a consensus on mandatory and recommended baseline and prognostic factors.

Findings

The 42 RCTs that met inclusion criteria reported a total of 60 baseline and 19 prognostic factors. After 2 Delphi rounds, agreement was reached on 50 mandatory baseline and 20 mandatory prognostic factors for future RCTs, with a distinction between studies of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant treatment.

Conclusion and Relevance

This findings of this systematic review and international expert consensus have produced this Consensus Statement on Mandatory Measurements in Pancreatic Cancer Trials for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Disease (COMM-PACT-RB). The baseline and prognostic factors comprising the mandatory measures will facilitate better comparison across RCTs and eventually will enable improved clinical practice among patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy versus upfront surgery for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC) has yet to be defined. This review aims to analyze the benefit of NC in RPC compared with upfront surgery (US) in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

PubMed, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), and Embase were systematically reviewed until 3 November 2021. Abstract proceedings and virtual meeting presentations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society of Medical Oncology conferences, reference articles of published clinical trials, and review articles were considered. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing NC administration with or without radiotherapy previous with surgery (experimental arm) versus US followed by adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy (control arm) for RPC were included.

RESULTS

A total of 1135 studies were screened. Of these, 1117 studies were primarily excluded. Of the remaining 18 studies, 5 were excluded because of no adequate trial design for this work and 7 others had no available results. Finally, 6 trials with 469 patients with pancreatic cancer randomized to NC (n = 212) or US (n = 257) were selected. Compared with US, NC significantly improved OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-0.98; P = 0.033] and DFS (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.59-0.89; P = 0.002). While the NC approach was not significantly associated with lower resection rate [relative risk (RR) 0.92; 95% CI 0.84-1.01; P = 0.069], the R0 resection rate was significantly higher for NC than for US (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.13-1.52; P = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

This is the first meta-analysis of RCTs showing that NC improves OS for RPC compared with US followed by adjuvant therapy. Ongoing RCTs should confirm these findings with FOLFIRINOX to generalize the indication of NC.

Prognostic Implications of Portal Venous Circulating Tumor Cells in Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are a promising prognostic biomarker for cancers. However, the paucity of CTCs in peripheral blood in early-stage cancer is a major challenge. Our study aimed to investigate whether portal venous CTCs can be a biomarker for early recurrence and poor prognosis in pancreatic cancer. Patients who underwent upfront curative surgery for resectable pancreatic cancer were consecutively enrolled in this prospective study. Intraoperatively, 7.5 mL of portal and peripheral blood was collected, and CTC detection and identification were performed using immunofluorescence staining. Peripheral blood CTC sampling was performed in 33 patients, of which portal vein CTC sampling was performed in 28. The median portal venous CTCs (2.5, interquartile ranges (IQR) 1−7.75) were significantly higher than the median peripheral venous CTCs (1, IQR 0−2, p < 0.001). Higher stage and regional lymph node metastasis were related with a larger number of CTCs (≥3) in portal venous blood. Patients with low portal venous CTCs (≤2) showed better overall (p = 0.002) and recurrence-free (p = 0.007) survival than those with high portal venous CTCs (≥3). If validated, portal CTCs can be used as a prognostic biomarker in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer.

Neoadjuvant Treatment in Resectable Pancreatic Cancer. Is It Time for Pushing on It?

Pancreatic resection still represents the only curative option for patients affected by pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, the association with modern chemotherapy regimens is a key factor in improving the inauspicious oncological outcome. The benefit of neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) for borderline resectable/locally advanced PDAC has been demonstrated; this evidence raises the question of whether even resectable PDAC should undergo NAT rather than upfront surgery. NAT may avoid futile surgery because of undetected distant metastases or aggressive tumor biology, providing more effective systemic control of the disease, which is hampered when adjuvant chemotherapy is delayed or precluded. However, recent data show controversial results regarding the efficacy and safety of NAT in resectable PDAC compared to upfront surgery. Although several prospective studies and meta-analyses indicate better oncologic outcomes after NAT, there are some biases, such as the methodological approaches used to capture the events of interest, which could make these results hardly reproducible. For instance, per-protocol studies, considering only the postoperative outcomes, tend to overestimate the performance of NAT by excluding patients who will never be suitable for surgery due to the development of chemotoxicity or tumor progression. To draw reliable conclusions, the studies should capture the events of interest of both strategies (NAT/upfront surgery) from the time of allocation to a specific treatment in an intention-to-treat fashion. This critical review highlights the current literature data concerning the use of NAT in resectable PDAC, summarizing the results of high-quality studies and focusing on the methodological issues of the most recent pieces of evidence.

External Validity of the Multicenter Randomized PREOPANC Trial on Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer: Outcome of Eligible but Nonrandomized Patients

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the accrual proportion and patients' reasons for not participating in the PREOPANC trial on neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus immediate surgery in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, and to compare these patients' outcomes with those of patients who had been randomized in the trial.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The external validity of multicenter randomized trials in cancer treatment has been criticized for suboptimal non-representative inclusion. In trials, it is unclear how outcomes compare between randomized and nonrandomized patients.

METHODS

At 8 of 16 participant centers, this multicenter observational study identified validation patients, who had been eligible but not randomized during recruitment for the PREOPANC trial. We assessed the accrual proportion, investigated their most common reasons for not participating in the trial, and compared resection rates, radical (R0) resection rates, and overall survival between the validation patients and PREOPANC patients, who had been randomized in the trial to immediate surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 455 patients had been eligible during the recruitment period, 151 of whom (33%) had been randomized. Fifty-five percent of the 304 validation patients had refused to participate. Median overall survival in the validation group was 15.2 months, against 15.5 months in the PREOPANC group (P = 1.00). The respective resection rates (76% vs 73%) and R0 resection rates (51% vs 46%) did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The PREOPANC trial included a reasonable percentage of 33% of eligible patients. In terms of the outcomes survival, resection rate, and R0 resection rate, this appeared to be a representative group.