The treatment sequence may matter in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for early stage pancreatic cancer in the era of modern chemotherapy

Treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma in relation to survival in the U.S. Military Health System

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer has a high case fatality and relatively short survival after diagnosis. Treatment is paramount to improving survival, but studies on the effects of standard treatment by surgery or chemotherapy on survival in U.S. healthcare settings is limited. Further, variability in access to care may impact treatment and outcomes for patients. We aimed to assess the relationship between standard treatment(s) and survival of pancreatic adenocarcinoma in a population with access to comprehensive healthcare.

METHODS

We used the Military Cancer Epidemiology (MilCanEpi) database, which includes data from the Department of Defense cancer registry and medical encounter data from the Military Health System (MHS), to study a cohort of 1408 men and women who were diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 1998 and 2014. Treatment with surgery or chemotherapy in relation to overall survival was examined in multivariable time-dependent Cox regression models.

RESULTS

Overall, 75 % of 441 patients with early-stage and 51 % of 967 patients with late-stage pancreatic adenocarcinoma received treatment. In early-stage disease, surgery alone or surgery with chemotherapy were both associated with statistically significant 52 % reduced risks of death, but chemotherapy alone was not. In late-stage disease, surgery alone, chemotherapy alone, or both surgery and chemotherapy significantly reduced the risk of death by 42 %, 25 %, and 52 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings from the MHS demonstrate improved survival after treatment with surgery or surgery with chemotherapy for early- or late-stage pancreatic cancer and after chemotherapy for late-stage pancreatic cancer. In the era of immunotherapy and personalized medicine, further research on treatment and survival of pancreatic cancer in observational settings is needed.

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.

Why the Treatment Sequence Matters: Interplay Between Chemotherapy Cycles Received, Cumulative Dose Intensity, and Survival in Resected Early-stage Pancreas Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To define the optimal threshold of perioperative chemotherapy completion and relative dose intensity (RDI) for patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

BACKGROUND

Many patients who undergo pancreatectomy for PDAC fail to initiate or complete recommended perioperative chemotherapy. The association between the amount of perioperative chemotherapy received and overall survival (OS) is not well-defined.

METHODS

Single-institution analysis of 225 patients who underwent pancreatectomy for stage I/II PDAC (2010-2021). Associations between OS, chemotherapy cycles completed, and RDI were analyzed.

RESULTS

Regardless of treatment sequence, completion of ≥67% of recommended cycles was associated with improved OS compared with no chemotherapy [median OS: 34.5 vs 18.1 months; hazard ratio (HR): 0.43; 95% CI: 0.25-0.74] and <67% of cycles (median OS: 17.9 months; HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.24-0.64). A near-linear relationship existed between cycles completed and the RDI received (β = 0.82). A median RDI of 56% corresponded to the completion of 67% of cycles. Receipt of ≥56% RDI was associated with improved OS compared with no chemotherapy (median OS: 35.5 vs 18.1 months; HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.23-0.84) and <56% RDI (median OS: 27.2 months; HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.20-0.96). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased odds of receiving ≥67% of recommended cycles (odds ratio: 2.94; 95% CI: 1.45-6.26) and ≥56% RDI (odds ratio: 4.47; 95% CI: 1.72-12.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with PDAC who received ≥67% of recommended chemotherapy cycles or ≥56% cumulative RDI had improved OS. Neoadjuvant therapy was associated with increased odds of receiving ≥67% of cycles and ≥56% cumulative RDI and should be considered in all patients with resectable PDAC.

Current Approaches for the Curative-Intent Surgical Treatment of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Radical resection is the only curative treatment for pancreatic cancer. However, only up to 20% of patients are considered eligible for surgical resection at the time of diagnosis. Although upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy has become the gold standard of treatment for resectable pancreatic cancer there are numerous ongoing trials aiming to compare the clinical outcomes of various surgical strategies (e.g., upfront surgery or neoadjuvant treatment with subsequent resection). Neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgery is considered the best approach in borderline resectable pancreatic tumors. Individuals with locally advanced disease are now candidates for palliative chemo- or chemoradiotherapy; however, some patients may become eligible for resection during the course of such treatment. When metastases are found, the cancer is qualified as unresectable. It is possible to perform radical pancreatic resection with metastasectomy in selected cases of oligometastatic disease. The role of multi-visceral resection, which involves reconstruction of major mesenteric veins, is well known. Nonetheless, there are some controversies in terms of arterial resection and reconstruction. Researchers are also trying to introduce personalized treatments. The careful, preliminary selection of patients eligible for surgery and other therapies should be based on tumor biology, among other factors. Such selection may play a key role in improving survival rates in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Neoadjuvant Treatment Versus Upfront Surgery in Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

PURPOSE

Pancreatic cancer (PC) has an overall 5-year survival rate of 10%. The use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation is debated in resectable disease. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by pancreaticoduodenectomy (NACRT) versus upfront pancreaticoduodenectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy (USR) in resectable PC.

METHODS

A decision tree model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of NACRT versus USR. Values from the published literature populate the tree: costs from Medicare (FY2021) reimbursements, and morbidity and survival data for quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma who qualified for resection were included. The ICER was the primary outcome. The model was validated using one-way and two-way deterministic, as well as probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The base case was modeled using a 65-year-old male. NACRT yielded 1.61 QALYs at $45,483.52 USD. USR yielded 1.47 QALYs at a discount of $6,840.96 USD. The ICER was $48,130 USD, which favors NACRT. One-way sensitivity analyses upheld these results except when ≤ 21.0% of NACRT patients proceeded to surgery and when ≤ 85.4% of NACRT patients were resectable at surgery. Two-way sensitivity analyses also favored NACRT except in cases when the proportion of resected disease after NACRT decreased. NACRT was favored in 94.3% of 100,000 random-sampling simulations.

CONCLUSION

It is more cost-effective to administer NACRT before surgery for patients with resectable PC. On the basis of sensitivity analyses, USR with adjuvant therapy is only favored if rates of resection and eligibility for resection after NACRT decrease. NACRT should be considered in all patients unless there is an absolute contraindication.

Concepts and Outcomes of Perioperative Therapy in Stage IA-III Pancreatic Cancer-A Cross-Validation of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and the German Cancer Registry Group of the Society of German Tumor Centers (GCRG/ADT)

(1) Background: The aim of this study is to assess perioperative therapy in stage IA-III pancreatic cancer cross-validating the German Cancer Registry Group of the Society of German Tumor Centers-Network for Care, Quality, and Research in Oncology, Berlin (GCRG/ADT) and the National Cancer Database (NCDB). (2) Methods: Patients with clinical stage IA-III PDAC undergoing surgery alone (OP), neoadjuvant therapy (TX) + surgery (neo + OP), surgery+adjuvantTX (OP + adj) and neoadjuvantTX + surgery + adjuvantTX (neo + OP + adj) were identified. Baseline characteristics, histopathological parameters, and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. (3) Results: 1392 patients from the GCRG/ADT and 29,081 patients from the NCDB were included. Patient selection and strategies of perioperative therapy remained consistent across the registries for stage IA-III pancreatic cancer. Combined neo + OP + adj was associated with prolonged OS as compared to neo + OP alone (17.8 m vs. 21.3 m, p = 0.012) across all stages in the GCRG/ADT registry. Similarly, OS with neo + OP + adj was improved as compared to neo + OP in the NCDB registry (26.4 m vs. 35.4 m, p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: The cross-validation study demonstrated similar concepts and patient selection criteria of perioperative therapy across clinical stages of PDAC. Neoadjuvant therapy combined with adjuvant therapy is associated with improved overall survival as compared to either therapy alone.

A review of response in neoadjuvant therapy for exocrine pancreatic cancer

Despite overall advances in cancer therapy, patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma continue to have a poor prognosis. While adjuvant therapy is still considered standard, there is mounting evidence that neoadjuvant therapy confers similar benefits in patients with locally advanced disease. The primary measures of response are radiographic, biochemical, margin status, and pathologic. Given overall low response rates and the need for new treatment strategies, standard metrics remain important to the investigation of new systemic agents.

Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Therapy in Operable Pancreatic Cancer: Both Honey and Milk (but No Bread?)

Pancreatic cancer has a dismal prognosis. Resection is the best option for cure, supported by multimodal therapy to treat the systemic disease. While adjuvant therapy has become standard in those who are fit and who can tolerate the given regimen, the concept of perioperative (neoadjuvant) therapy is building momentum. The concepts of “borderline” and “locally advanced” have changed the previous dichotomized “resectable/non-resectable” into subcategories for which new algorithms have emerged, with neoadjuvant therapy discussed both for upfront resectable pancreatic cancer, for those deemed borderline resectable, and as “induction or conversion” therapy for locally advanced disease. The purpose of this invited commentary is to discuss some of the changing paradigms in multimodal therapy for operable pancreatic cancer. The PREOPANC trial presented randomized data on the role of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable and borderline cancers, but new questions have emerged. The role of combination therapy in the preoperative setting is discussed in the light of this trial. FOLFIRINOX has emerged as the most potent treatment regimen in the metastatic and adjuvant setting, but with no level I data to support neoadjuvant use yet. Several trials are ongoing to arrive at the best answer.