A randomized phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic cancer: gemcitabine alone versus gemcitabine combined with cisplatin

Effect of chemotherapy on prognosis in patients with primary pancreatic signet ring cell carcinoma: A large real-world study based on machine learning

BACKGROUND

Primary pancreatic signet ring cell carcinoma (PSRCC), an extremely rare histologic variant of pancreatic cancer, has a poor prognosis. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of chemotherapy in PSRCC.

METHODS

Patients with PSRCC between 2000 and 2019 were identified using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. The main outcomes in this study were cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). The baseline characteristics of patients were compared using Pearson's Chi-square test. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to generate the survival curves. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), univariate and multivariate Cox regression models, and Random Survival Forest model were used to analyze the prognostic variables for OS and CSS. The variance inflation factors (VIFs) were used to analyze whether there was an overfitting problem.

RESULTS

A total of 588 patients were identified. Chemotherapy was an independent prognostic factor for OS and CSS, and significantly associated with OS (HR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.27-0.40, P <0.001) and CSS (HR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.26-0.39, P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy showed beneficial effects on OS and CSS in patients with PSRCC and should be recommended in clinical practice.

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.

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.

Efficacy of Cisplatin-Containing Chemotherapy Regimens in Patients of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The relative success of cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens for PDAC in clinical trials warrants a review of the literature to assess the cumulative results. This study aims to assess the efficacy of cisplatin-containing regimens for PDAC in terms of survival and response outcomes using a systematic review and proportional meta-analysis.

METHODS

In this study, an electronic search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar to find relevant literature. The random effects model was used to assess pooled overall response rate, stable disease rate, progressive disease rate, 1-year overall survival rate, and their 95% CIs. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot symmetry and the one-tailed Eggers' test. In all cases, p-value < 0.05 was indicative of significant results. The review is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42023459243.

RESULTS

A total of 34 studies consisting of 1599 patients were included in this review. All the included studies were of good quality. In total, 906 patients were male, and the median age of the patients was 58-69 years. Overall, 599 patients had cancer of the pancreatic head, 139 had cancer of the pancreatic body, and 102 patients had cancer of the pancreatic tail. The pooled risk ratios (RRs) revealed an overall response rate of 19.2% (95% CI, 14.6-24.2%), a stable disease rate of 42.3% (95% CI, 36.6-48.8), a 1-year overall survival rate of 40% (95% CI, 34.3-45.8), and progressive disease rate of 24.7% (95% CI, 18.8-31.2). Commonly reported adverse events were anemia, thrombocytopenia, abdominal adverse events, neutropenia, fatigue, leukopenia, alopecia, anorexia, mucositis, stomatitis, and hepatobiliary adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Cisplatin-containing regimens have shown moderate efficacy with significant improvement in overall survival at 1 year, stable disease rate, and progressive disease rate; however, only a small percentage of patients achieved an overall response rate.

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.

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.

Downstaging of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma With Either Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy Improves Survival

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) or chemoradiation (NAC+XRT) is incorporated into the treatment of localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), often with the goal of downstaging before resection. However, the effect of downstaging on overall survival, particularly the differential effects of NAC and NAC+XRT, remains undefined. This study examined the impact of downstaging from NAC and NAC+XRT on overall survival.

METHODS

The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried from 2006 to 2015 for patients with non-metastatic PDAC who received NAC or NAC+XRT. Rates of overall and nodal downstaging, and pathologic complete response (pCR) were assessed. Predictors of downstaging were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Overall survival (OS) was assessed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards modeling.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 2475 patients (975 NAC and 1500 NAC+XRT patients). Compared with NAC, NAC+XRT was associated with higher rates of overall downstaging (38.3 % vs 23.6 %; p ≤ 0.001), nodal downstaging (16.0 % vs 7.8 %; p ≤ 0.001), and pCR (1.7 % vs 0.7 %; p = 0.041). Receipt of NAC+XRT was independently predictive of overall (odds ratio [OR] 2.28; p < 0.001) and nodal (OR 3.09; p < 0.001) downstaging. Downstaging by either method was associated with improved 5-year OS (30.5 vs 25.2 months; p ≤ 0.001). Downstaging with NAC was associated with an 8-month increase in median OS (33.7 vs 25.6 months; p = 0.005), and downstaging by NAC+XRT was associated with a 5-month increase in median OS (30.0 vs 25.0 months; p = 0.008). Cox regression showed an association of overall downstaging with an 18 % reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; 95 % confidence interval, 0.71-0.95; p = 0.01) CONCLUSION: Downstaging after neoadjuvant therapies improves survival. The addition of radiation therapy may increase the rate of downstaging without affecting overall oncologic outcomes.

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 therapy for pancreatic cancer

Multimodal treatment including surgery and chemotherapy is considered the gold standard treatment of pancreatic cancer by most guidelines. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has been seen as a possible treatment option for resectable, borderline resectable and locally advanced PaC. The aim of this paper is to offer a state-of-the-art review on neoadjuvant treatments in the setting of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and Embase databases, in order to identify relevant studies published up to and including July 2021 that reported and analyzed the role of neoadjuvant therapy in the setting of pancreatic carcinoma. Most authors are concordant on the strong role of neoadjuvant therapy in the setting of borderline resectable pancreatic cancers. Recent randomized trials demonstrated improvement of R0 rate and survival after NAT in this setting. Patients with locally advanced cancers may become resectable after NAT, with better results than those obtained with palliative therapies. Even in the setting of resectable cancers, NAT is being evaluated by ongoing randomized trials. Chemotherapy regimens in the setting of NAT and response to NAT are discussed. NAT has an important role in the multimodal treatment of patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. It has a role in patients with locally advanced tumors as it can allow surgical resection in a relevant proportion of patients. For resectable pancreatic cancers, the role of NAT is under evaluation by several randomized trials.

Evolving pancreatic cancer treatment: From diagnosis to healthcare management

The prognosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is still the worst among solid tumors. In this review, a panel of experts addressed the main unanswered questions about the clinical management of this disease, with the aim of providing practical decision support for physicians. On the basis of the evidence available from the literature, the main topics concerning pancreatic cancer are discussed: the diagnosis, as the need for a pathological characterization and the role for germ-line and somatic molecular profiling; the therapeutic management of resectable disease, as the role of upfront surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the post-operative restaging and the optimal timing foradjuvant chemotherapy, the management of the borderline resectable and locally advanced disease; the metastatic disease and the role of surgery for the management of patients with isolated metastasis and the use of biomarkers of metastatic potential; the role of supportive care and the healthcare management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A New Standard of Care. Pooled Data From 3 Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to pool data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) limited to resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) to determine whether a neoadjuvant therapy impacts on disease-free survival (DFS) and surgical outcome.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Few underpowered studies have suggested benefits from neoadjuvant chemo (± radiation) for strictly resectable PDAC without offering conclusive recommendations.

METHODS

Three RCTs were identified comparing neoadjuvant chemo (± radio) therapy vs. upfront surgery followed by adjuvant therapy in all cases. Data were pooled targeting DFS as primary endpoint, whereas overall survival (OS), postoperative morbidity, and mortality were investigated as secondary endpoints. Survival endpoints DFS and OS were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression with study-specific baseline hazards.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients were randomized (56 in the neoadjuvant and 74 in the control group). DFS was significantly longer in the neoadjuvant treatment group compared to surgery only [hazard ratio (HR) 0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.9] (P = 0.01). Furthermore, DFS for the subgroup of R0 resections was similarly longer in the neoadjuvant treated group (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.35-0.9, P = 0.045). Although postoperative complications (Comprehensive Complication Index, CCI®) occurred less frequently (P = 0.008), patients after neoadjuvant therapy experienced a higher toxicity, but without negative impact on oncological or surgical outcome parameters.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant therapy can be offered as an acceptable standard of care for patients with purely resectable PDAC. Future research with the advances of precision oncology should now focus on the definition of the optimal regimen.

Optimal management of patients with operable pancreatic head cancer: A Markov decision analysis

INTRODUCTION

Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is an emerging strategy for operable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). While NAT increases multimodal therapy completion, it risks functional decline and treatment dropout. We used decision analysis to determine optimal management of localized PDAC and consider risks faced by elderly patients.

METHODS

A Markov cohort decision analysis model evaluated treatment options for a 60-year-old patient with resectable PDAC: (1) upfront pancreaticoduodenectomy or (2) NAT. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. A subanalysis considered the scenario of a 75-year-old patient.

RESULTS

For the base case, NAT offered an incremental survival gain of 4.6 months compared with SF (overall survival: 26.3 vs. 21.7 months). In one-way sensitivity analyses, findings were sensitive to recurrence-free survival for NAT patients undergoing adjuvant, probability of completing NAT, and probability of being resectable at exploration after NAT. On probabilistic analysis, NAT was favored in a majority of trials (97%) with a median survival benefit of 5.1 months. In altering the base case for the 75-year-old scenario, NAT had a survival benefit of 3.8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates a significant benefit to NAT in patients with localized PDAC. This benefit persists even in the elderly cohort.

A Prognostic Score for Predicting Survival in Patients With Pancreatic Head Adenocarcinoma and Distal Cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND/AIM

Survival of patients with pancreatic cancer remains poor despite improvements in therapeutic strategies. This study aims to create a novel preoperative score to predict prognosis in patients with tumors of the pancreaticobiliary head.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data on 190 patients who underwent to pancreaticoduodenectomy at Sapienza University of Rome from January 2010 to December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. After exclusion criteria, 101 patients were considered eligible for retrospective study. Preoperative biological, clinical and radiological parameters were considered.

RESULTS

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma [hazard ratio (HR)=1.995, 95% confidence intervaI (CI)=1.1-3.3; p=0.01], carbohydrate antigen 19.9 (CA 19.9) >230 U/ml (HR=2.414, 95% CI=2.4-1.5, p<0.0001) and Wirsung duct diameter >3 mm (HR=1.592, 95% CI=1.5-0.9; p=0.08) were the only parameters associated with poor prognosis. Through these parameters, a prognostic score (PHT score) was developed which predicted worst survival when exceeding 2 and better survival when ≤2.

CONCLUSION

The PHT score may have a potential impact on predicting overall survival and consequently modulate the timing and type of treatment (up-front surgery vs. neoadjuvant therapy) patients are offered.

Advances in neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer over the past two decades

In the last two decades, pancreatic cancer has been undergoing important changes in its perioperative management due to the great interest in multidisciplinary management and preoperative multimodal therapy, which in numerous studies have shown promising clinical results. Although the standard of treatment for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) today is surgery followed by adjuvant therapy, as it is a biologically aggressive disease, even with complete resection, it has high rates of local and distant relapse. Several retrospective and prospective phase I/II studies have opened the window for neoadjuvant therapy with chemotherapy (CT), chemoradiotherapy (CRT), or both, as an alternative treatment for resectable pancreatic cancer, with promising results. Neoadjuvant therapy could has some advantages, including early administration of systemic treatment, in vivo assessment of response to treatment, increase resectability rate in borderline patients, increase resection rate with negative margin and survival benefit. While it seems clear that even potentially resectable disease would benefit from preoperative multimodal therapy, the optimal neoadjuvant therapeutic strategy is still controversial and currently there are only recommendations for neoadjuvant treatment, in clinical guidelines such as the NCCN and ESMO, for borderline and/or locally advanced PDAC. This review provides an overview of recent studies available and how they relate to systemic treatment of resectable PDAC in the neoadjuvant setting.

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.

Factors Predicting Response, Perioperative Outcomes, and Survival Following Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Borderline/Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To identify predictive factors associated with operative morbidity, mortality, and survival outcomes in patients with borderline resectable (BR) or locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergoing total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT).

BACKGROUND

The optimal preoperative treatment sequencing for BR/LA PDA is unknown. TNT, or systemic chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation (CRT), addresses both occult metastases and positive margin risks and thus is a potentially optimal strategy; however, factors predictive of perioperative and survival outcomes are currently undefined.

METHODS

We reviewed our experience in BR/LA patients undergoing resection from 2010 to 2017 following TNT assessing operative morbidity, mortality, and survival in order to define outcome predictors and response endpoints.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-four patients underwent resection after TNT, including 123 (63%) BR and 71 (37%) LA PDAC. FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine along with nab-paclitaxel were used in 165 (85%) and 65 (34%) patients, with 36 (19%) requiring chemotherapeutic switch before long-course CRT and subsequent resection. Radiologic anatomical downstaging was uncommon (28%). En bloc venous and/or arterial resection was required in 125 (65%) patients with 94% of patients achieving R0 margins. The 90-day major morbidity and mortality was 36% and 6.7%, respectively. Excluding operative mortalities, the median, 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) [overall survival (OS)] rates were 23.5 (58.8) months, 65 (96)%, 48 (78)%, and 32 (62)%, respectively. Radiologic downstaging, vascular resection, and chemotherapy regimen/switch were not associated with survival. Only 3 factors independently associated with prolonged survival, including extended duration (≥6 cycles) chemotherapy, optimal post-chemotherapy CA19-9 response, and major pathologic response. Patients achieving all 3 factors had superior survival outcomes with a survival detriment for each failing factor. In a subset of patients with interval metabolic (PET) imaging after initial chemotherapy, complete metabolic response highly correlated with major pathologic response.

CONCLUSION

Our TNT experience in resected BR/LA PDAC revealed high negative margin rates despite low radiologic downstaging. Extended duration chemotherapy with associated biochemical and pathologic responses highly predicted postoperative survival. Potential modifications of initial chemotherapy treatment include extending cycle duration to normalize CA19-9 or achieve complete metabolic response, or consideration of chemotherapeutic switch in order to achieve these factors may improve survival before moving forward with CRT and subsequent resection.

Theranostic Nanoparticles for Pancreatic Cancer Treatment

Pancreatic cancer is one of the low vascular permeable tumors with a high mortality rate. The five-year survival period is ~5%. The field of drug delivery is at its pace in developing unique drug delivery carriers to treat high mortality rate cancers such as pancreatic cancer. Theranostic nanoparticles are the new novel delivery carriers where the carrier is loaded with both diagnostic and therapeutic agents. The present review discusses various therapeutic and theranostic nanocarriers for pancreatic cancer.

Upfront resection versus neoadjuvant therapy for T1/T2 pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of neoadjuvant therapy remains controversial for resectable pancreatic neoplasms. We evaluated treatment outcomes for T1/T2 tumors.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients with T1/T2 (Stage I-II) pancreatic cancer within the NCDB. Treatment-sequence variables were used for classification: "surgery + chemotherapy" (S+C), "chemotherapy + surgery" (C+S), "surgery only" (SO), and "chemotherapy only" (CO).

RESULTS

13 412 patients were included; the majority had T2 tumors. 8 490 received upfront surgery; 4 922 preoperative chemotherapy. In the surgery branch, 5 684 received surgery and chemotherapy (S+C); 2 806 did not receive chemotherapy (SO). Of those intended to receive preoperative chemotherapy, 3 804 received only chemotherapy (CO); 1 118 proceeded to surgery (C+S). Median survival for S+C and C+S groups was similar (25.9 vs 26.2) [HR 0.92, p= 0.41]. Compared to the CO group, the SO group had improved median survival (13.5 vs. 10.8) [HR 0.63, p<0.001]. Branched analyses demonstrated improved median and 5-year (20.8% vs 12.7%) survival for patients receiving upfront resection [HR 0.77, p<0.001].

CONCLUSION

Patients with T1/T2 pancreatic cancer have similar survival irrespective of the timing of chemotherapy and surgery, if they receive both. Upfront resection ensures surgery is delivered, increasing the possibility of long-term survival.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Pancreatic Cancer is Associated with Improved Survival for Patients with Low-Risk Pathology

BACKGROUND

With limited evidence, the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (AT) after completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NT) and surgical resection for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma is debated. Guidelines recommend 6 months of AT for patients receiving NT. However, the patient-derived benefit from additional AT remains unknown.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database from 2006 to 2015 was used to identify patients undergoing NT. The chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify differences between those receiving only NT and those receiving NT and AT. Survival analysis using the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazard ratio model was applied to the entire cohort and to subgroups with differing lymph node ratios (LNRs), tumor sizes, grades, and surgical margin statuses.

RESULTS

Of the 3897 patients who received NT, 36.7 % received additional AT. Analysis of the entire cohort showed that associated survival was significantly improved with NT and AT compared with NT alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; p < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the survival benefit of additional AT remained significant for those with negative nodal disease, an LNR lower than 0.15, low-grade histology, and negative margin status. Overall survival did not differ between those receiving NT only and those receiving NT and AT in the group with an LNR of 0.15 or higher, high-grade histology, and positive margins.

CONCLUSION

This study identified an increasing trend in the use of AT after NT and showed an associated survival benefit for subgroups with low-risk pathologic features. These results suggest that the addition of AT after NT likely beneficial for these subgroups.

Neoadjuvant therapy is associated with lower margin positivity rates after Pancreaticoduodenectomy in T1 and T2 pancreatic head cancers: An analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for T1/T2 pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) prior to pancreaticoduodenectomy remains controversial. We compared positive margin rates in patients with clinical T1&T2 tumors who did and did not receive NAT.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) found clinical T1&T2 PDAC patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy from 2004 to 2014. Univariate and multivariate regression determined factors associated with a positive margin and survival.

RESULTS

9795 patients underwent surgery for clinical T1 or T2 pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. 8472 patients had data regarding use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies; of which, 774 (9.1%) received NAT and 435 (5.1%) received both chemotherapy and radiation therapy. NAT was found to lower positive margin rates from 21.8 to 15.5% (p < 0.0001) and when radiation was added this rate dropped to 13.4%. Positive margins were associated with worse overall survival (14.9 vs. 23.9 months; HR 1.702, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

NAT is associated with a reduced positive margin rate in patients with T1 and T2 tumors. These findings support ongoing and future clinical trials of NAT in T1 and T2, early stage PDAC to determine impacts on survival.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Propensity-Matched Analysis of Postoperative Complications Using ACS-NSQIP

BACKGROUND

The use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is increasing. While there is an association between NAT and improved post-pancreatectomy complication rates in limited patient populations, the strength of the relationship and its applicability to a broader and modern pancreatectomy cohort remains unclear.

METHODS

We used the 2014-2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project to evaluate NAT use for PDAC patients undergoing pancreatectomy. We also used propensity score matching techniques to compare 30-day postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) and delayed gastric emptying (DGE), between patients selected for NAT versus upfront surgery.

RESULTS

Patients receiving NAT were more likely to undergo vascular resections (33% vs. 16%, p < 0.001), have perioperative transfusions (18% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), and undergo longer procedures. Rates of CR-POPF (6%, vs. 10%, p < 0.001), DGE (11% vs. 13%, p = 0.016), postoperative percutaneous drainage (9% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), and SSI (15% vs. 18%, p < 0.001) were lower for patients selected for NAT. The association of NAT with CR-POPF remained statistically significant (adjusted odds ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.42-0.66) after adjustment for operative technique, gland texture, and need for vascular resection for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, but not for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Among PDAC patients undergoing resection, selection for NAT is associated with fewer CR-POPFs, postoperative procedural interventions, and infectious complications, particularly for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. These associations should be considered in discussions of multidisciplinary treatment sequencing for patients with PDAC.

Relationship between surgical R0 resectability and findings of peripancreatic vascular invasion on CT imaging after neoadjuvant S-1 and concurrent radiotherapy in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer

Background

Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) is frequently associated with positive surgical margins and a poor prognosis because the tumor is in contact with major vessels. This study evaluated the relationship between the margin-negative (R0) resection rate and findings indicating peripancreatic vascular invasion on multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) imaging after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) in patients with BRPC.

Methods

Twenty-nine BRPC patients who underwent laparotomy after neoadjuvant S-1 with concurrent radiotherapy were studied retrospectively. Peripancreatic major vessel invasion was evaluated based on the length of tumor-vessel contact on MDCT. The R0 resection rates were compared between the progression of vascular invasion (PVI) group and the non-progression of vascular invasion (NVI) group.

Results

There were 3 patients with partial responses (10%), 25 with stable disease (86%), and 1 with progressive disease (3%) according to the RECISTv1.1 criteria. Regarding vascular invasion, 9 patients (31%) were classified as having PVI, and 20 patients (69%) were classified as having NVI. Of the 29 patients, 27 (93%) received an R0 resection, and all the PVI patients received an R0 resection (9/9; R0 resection rate = 100%) while 90% (18/20) of the NVI patients underwent an R0 resection. The exact 95% confidence interval of risk difference between those R0 resection rates was − 10.0% [− 31.7–20.4%].

Conclusions

Patients with BRPC after NACRT achieved high R0 resection rates regardless of the vascular invasion status. BRPC patients can undergo R0 resections unless progressive disease is observed after NACRT.

Trial registration

UMIN-CTR, UMIN000009172. Registered 23 October 2012

Outcomes of neoadjuvant therapy for cholangiocarcinoma: A review of existing evidence assessing treatment response and R0 resection rate

Adjuvant chemotherapy for cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) has not been shown to gain significant improvements in survival. Factors contributing to suboptimal treatment response include aggressive disease biology and late clinical presentation. When feasible, surgical resection is the first line of treatment. Yet, recurrence remains high and long-term survival is rare. Neoadjuvant therapy is an appealing approach, with oncologic advantages in allowing the treatment of occult systemic disease and selection of patients most likely to benefit from radical surgery. However, given the surgery-first treatment paradigm for CCA, there is a paucity of data supporting neoadjuvant therapy. This review summarizes the current evidence on treatment response and margin-negative (R0) resection rate associated with neoadjuvant therapy for CCA.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of universal germline testing for patients with pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Historically, germline testing of patients with pancreatic cancer was performed selectively in patients with a strong family history of cancer. Current guidelines recommend universal testing because some patients may have actionable germline pathogenic variants without family history.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision-tree model to compare universal versus selective testing strategies for patients with pancreatic cancer. Costs, probabilities, and overall survival were estimated from the published literature and institutional data. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Universal germline genetic testing had an incremental cost of $310 with an increase of 0.003 life-years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $121,924/life-years. Parameters which were most impactful (sensitivity analysis) included the median overall survival of patients with advanced disease treated with personalized therapy, cost of personalized therapy for advanced disease, and the probability of receiving personalized therapy in advanced disease. A strategy of selective testing was more cost-effective in 59% of iterations when the willingness-to-pay threshold was set to $100,000/life-years.

CONCLUSION

Our model suggested that selective germline testing of patients with newly diagnosed pancreatic cancer is more cost-effective than universal testing. Additional research is needed to explore the impact of cascade testing of relatives on cost-effectiveness.

Adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

The prognosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is dismal. Hence, advances in multidisciplinary treatment strategies, including surgery, are urgently needed. Early recurrence of distant organ metastases suggests that there are occult metastases even in cases with resectable disease. Several randomized controlled trials on adjuvant chemotherapy have been conducted to prolong survival after resection. CONKO-001 study was the first to demonstrate significant improvement in disease-free survival after surgery with gemcitabine administration. The JASPAC-01 study showed the superiority of adjuvant S1 over gemcitabine in survival after resection. Based on the results, adjuvant S1 therapy is the prescribed standard of care in Japan. Recently, the PRODIGE 24/CCTG PA.6 study showed that survival of patients treated with a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen as adjuvant therapy was significantly longer than those treated with adjuvant gemcitabine therapy. Although the evidence from these trials on adjuvant chemotherapy have been the gold-standard treatment for curatively resected and fully recovered patients, resectable disease at diagnosis is not the status, resected disease after curative resection. Currently, neoadjuvant therapy is considered to be a promising alternative to surgery for pancreatic cancer. Although there are many reports regarding neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, so far there has been no solid evidence proving the advantage of this strategy versus standard up-front surgery. Newly obtained results from the Prep-02/JSAP05 randomized phase II/III study, comparing neoadjuvant therapy with up-front surgery, revealed significant improvement in overall survival with neoadjuvant chemotherapy by intention-to-treat analysis. Thus, neoadjuvant intervention might become a new standard strategy in cases undergoing planned resection for pancreatic cancer.

Systemic therapy without radiation may be appropriate as neoadjuvant therapy for localized pancreas cancer

BACKGROUND

The utility of neoadjuvant treatment for resectable pancreas cancer is yet to be determined, but has commonly included chemoradiation. We evaluated outcomes in patients with radiographically resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy without chemoradiation.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients in our institutional pancreatic cancer registry was performed, which identified 36 patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2012 and 2016.

RESULTS

Median age at diagnosis was 66.3 years. Chemotherapy regimens included gemcitabine (n=17), gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (n=8), or 5-FU/leucovorin/irinotecan/oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) (n=11). Surgical resection was performed in 69% of patients (n=25), with an R0 resection rate of 92% (n=23 patients). During chemotherapy, distant disease became apparent in 19% of patients (n=7), while no patients had evidence of local progression. Resection rates were similar between chemotherapy regimens (single agent =59%, multiple agent =79%). Median overall survival for all patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 30.3 and 34.4 months for those who underwent surgical resection. There was no difference in median survival for patients treated with gemcitabine (31.3 months) or multi-agent chemotherapy (29.7 months).

CONCLUSIONS

A short course of neoadjuvant chemotherapy without chemoradiation may improve patient selection prior to surgical resection for pancreas cancer. Further, local disease progression did not limit surgical resection in this small series.

Usefulness of 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for predicting the prognosis and treatment response of neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) for computed tomography (CT) is preoperatively used to evaluate therapeutic effects. However, it does not reflect the pathological treatment response (PTR) of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) for positron emission tomography (PET)/CT is effective in other cancers. This study aimed to confirm the usefulness of PERCIST and the prognostic utility of PET/CT for PDAC.

METHODS

Forty-two consecutive patients with PDAC who underwent neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) and pancreatectomy at our institution between 2014 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. We evaluated the treatment response and prognostic significance of PET/CT parameters and other clinicopathological factors.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients who underwent PET/CT both before and after NAT with the same protocol were included. RECIST revealed stable disease and partial response in 20 and 2 cases, respectively. PERCIST revealed stable metabolic disease, partial metabolic response, and complete metabolic response in 8, 9, and 5 cases, respectively. The PTR was G3, G2, and G1 in 8, 12, and 2 cases, respectively. For comparing the concordance rates between PTR and each parameter, PERCIST (72.7% [16/22]) was significantly superior to RECIST (36.4% [8/22]) (P = .017). The area under the curve survival values of PET/CT parameters were 0.777 for metabolic tumor volume (MTV), 0.500 for maximum standardized uptake value, 0.554 for peak standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass, and 0.634 for total lesion glycolysis. A 50% cut-off value for the MTV reduction rate yielded the largest difference in survival between responders and nonresponders. On multivariate analysis, MTV reduction rates < 50% were independent predictors for relapse-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 3.92; P = .044) and overall survival (HR, 14.08; P = .023).

CONCLUSIONS

PERCIST was more accurate in determining NAT's therapeutic effects for PDAC than RECIST. MTV reduction rates were independent prognostic factors for PDAC.

Optimal timing and treatment strategy for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

For pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), no studies have established any association between earlier treatment initiation and long-term outcomes. In addition, an optimal type of initial treatment for the localized disease remains ill-defined.

METHODS

Patients in the National Cancer Database (2004-2015) with clinical stage I (CS-I) and II (CS-II) PDAC who underwent curative-intent resection were included. Optimal time from diagnosis-to-treatment including neoadjuvant chemotherapy, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, or upfront surgery was assessed. An optimal type of treatment was evaluated. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Among 29 167 patients, starting any treatment within 0 to 6 weeks was associated with improved median OS compared with 7 to 12 weeks (21.0 vs 20.1 months; P = .004). This persisted when accounting for sex, race, and Charlson-Deyo score (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; P = 0.02) and on subset analysis for CS-I (23.5 vs 21.8 months; P = .04) and CS-II (19.4 vs 18.3 months; P = .03). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (25.6 vs 22.7 months; P < .0001) or US (25.6 vs 20.1 months; P < .0001) even when accounting for sex, race, and Charlson-Deyo score (neoadjuvant chemoradiation: HR, 0.86; P < .001; US: HR, 0.79; P < .001). This improvement persisted in subset analysis with NC compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CS-I: 28.6 vs 25.0 months; CS-II: 25.0 vs 22.9 months; both P < .0001) and to US (CS-I: 28.6 vs 22.9 months; CS-II: 24.7 vs 18.4 months; both P < .0001). On multivariable analysis for each CS-I/CS-II, NC remained associated with 20% improved survival compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiation or upfront surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

For PDAC, initiation of therapy within 6 weeks from diagnosis is associated with improved survival, with neoadjuvant chemotherapy associated with the best survival compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiation or upfront surgery.

Neoadjuvant treatment for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: What is the best protocol?

Although upfront surgery has been the gold standard for pancreatic adenocarcinoma that is planned for resection, it should be compared with the alternative strategy of neoadjuvant therapy. Despite the many reports of the efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy, most of them were not comparative. Recently Prep-02/JSAP05 study clearly demonstrated the significant survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy over upfront surgery for pancreatic adenocarcinoma that is planned for resection. These findings opened a new chapter of neoadjuvant therapy. Ongoing trials are expected to confirm the evidence. This review summarizes the past, present, and future perspectives of neoadjuvant therapy and its optimization.

The AGITG GAP Study: A Phase II Study of Perioperative Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel for Resectable Pancreas Cancer

BACKGROUND

While combination therapy with nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (nab-gem) is effective in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), its efficacy as perioperative chemotherapy is unknown. The primary objective of this multicenter, prospective, single-arm, phase II study was to determine whether neoadjuvant therapy with nab-gem was associated with higher complete resection rates (R0) in resectable PDAC, while the secondary objectives were to determine the utility of radiological assessment of response to preoperative chemotherapy and the safety and efficacy of nab-gem as perioperative therapy.

METHODS

Patients were recruited from eight Australian sites, and 42 patients with radiologically defined resectable PDAC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled. Participants received two cycles of preoperative nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m² and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 (28-day cycle) presurgery, and four cycles postoperatively. Early response to chemotherapy was measured with fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) scans on day 15.

RESULTS

Preoperative nab-gem was completed by 93% of participants, but only 63% postoperatively. Thirty-six patients had surgery: 6 (17%) were unresectable, 15 (52%) had R0 (≥ 1 mm) resections, 14 (48%) had R1 (< 1 mm) resections, and 1 patient did not have PDAC. Median progression-free survival was 12.3 months and median overall survival (OS) was 23.5 months: R0 patients had an OS of 35 months versus 25.6 months for R1 patients after surgery. Seven patients had not progressed after 43 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The GAP trial demonstrated that perioperative nab-gem was tolerable. Although the primary endpoint of an 85% R0 rate was not met, the R0 rate was similar to trials using a > 1 mm R0 resection definition, and survival rates were comparable with recent adjuvant studies.

Association Between Pancreatic Fistula and Long-term Survival in the Era of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Importance

In the past decade, the use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has increased for patients with borderline and locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Data on pancreatic fistula and related overall survival (OS) in this setting are limited.

Objective

To compare postoperative complications in patients undergoing either upfront resection or pancreatectomy following NAT, focusing on clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) and potential associations with OS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study was conducted on data from patients who underwent pancreatic resection for PDAC at the Massachusetts General Hospital from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2017.

Exposures

Pancreatic cancer surgery with or without NAT.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall morbidity and CR-POPF rates were compared between NAT and upfront resection. Factors associated with CR-POPF were assessed with univariate and multivariate analysis. Survival data were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curves and a Cox proportional hazards regression model.

Results

Of 753 patients, 364 were men (48.3%); median (interquartile range) age was 68 (61-75) years. A total of 346 patients (45.9%) received NAT and 407 patients (54.1%) underwent upfront resection. At pathologic examination, NAT was associated with smaller tumor size (mean [SD], 26.0 [15.3] mm vs 32.7 [14.4] mm; P < .001), reduced nodal involvement (102 [25.1%] vs 191 [55.2%]; P < .001), and higher R0 rates (257 [74.3%] vs 239 [58.7%]; P < .001). There were no significant differences in severe complication rate or 90-day mortality. The rate of CR-POPF was 3.6-fold lower in patients receiving NAT vs upfront resection (13 [3.8%] vs 56 [13.8%]; P < .001). In addition, factors associated with CR-POPF changed after NAT, and only soft pancreatic texture was associated with a higher risk of CR-POPF (38.5% vs 6.3%; P < .001). Survival analysis showed no differences between patients with or without CR-POPF after upfront resection (26 vs 25 months; P = .66), but after NAT, a worse overall survival rate was observed in patients with CR-POPF (17 vs 34 months; P = .002). This association was independent of other established predictors of overall survival by multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.44-5.45; P < .002).

Conclusions and Relevance

Neoadjuvant therapy may be associated with a significant reduction in the rate of CR-POPF. In addition, standard factors associated with CR-POPF appear to be no longer applicable following NAT. However, once CR-POPF occurs, it is associated with a significant reduction in long-term survival. Patients with CR-POPF may require closer follow-up and could benefit from additional therapy.

Current Clinical Strategies of Pancreatic Cancer Treatment and Open Molecular Questions

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal malignancies and is associated with a poor prognosis. Surgery is considered the only potential curative treatment for pancreatic cancer, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, but surgery is reserved for the minority of patients with non-metastatic resectable tumors. In the future, neoadjuvant treatment strategies based on molecular testing of tumor biopsies may increase the amount of patients becoming eligible for surgery. In the context of non-metastatic disease, patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma might benefit from neoadjuvant chemo- or chemoradiotherapy followed by surgeryPatients with locally advanced or (oligo-/poly-)metastatic tumors presenting significant response to (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy should undergo surgery if R0 resection seems to be achievable. New immunotherapeutic strategies to induce potent immune response to the tumors and investigation in molecular mechanisms driving tumorigenesis of pancreatic cancer may provide novel therapeutic opportunities in patients with pancreatic carcinoma and help patient selection for optimal treatment.

Perioperative Gemcitabine + Erlotinib Plus Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: ACOSOG Z5041 (Alliance) Phase II Trial

BACKGROUND

There is considerable interest in a neoadjuvant approach for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study evaluated perioperative gemcitabine + erlotinib (G+E) for resectable PDAC.

METHODS

A multicenter, cooperative group, single-arm, phase II trial was conducted between April 2009 and November 2013 (ACOSOG Z5041). Patients with biopsy-confirmed PDAC in the pancreatic head without evidence of involvement of major mesenteric vessels (resectable) were eligible. Patients (n = 123) received an 8-week cycle of G+E before and after surgery. The primary endpoint was 2-year overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints included toxicity, response, resection rate, and time to progression. Resectability was assessed retrospectively by central review. The study closed early due to slow accrual, and no formal hypothesis testing was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 114 patients were eligible, consented, and initiated protocol treatment. By central radiologic review, 97 (85%) of the 114 patients met the protocol-defined resectability criteria. Grade 3+ toxicity was reported in 60% and 79% of patients during the neoadjuvant phase and overall, respectively. Twenty-two of 114 (19%) patients did not proceed to surgery; 83 patients (73%) were successfully resected. R0 and R1 margins were obtained in 67 (81%) and 16 (19%) resected patients, respectively, and 54 patients completed postoperative G+E (65%). The 2-year OS rate for the entire cohort (n = 114) was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31-50), with a median OS of 21.3 months (95% CI 17.2-25.9). The 2-year OS rate for resected patients (n = 83) was 52% (95% CI 41-63), with a median OS of 25.4 months (95% CI 21.8-29.6).

CONCLUSIONS

For resectable PDAC, perioperative G+E is feasible. Further evaluation of neoadjuvant strategies in resectable PDAC is warranted with more active systemic regimens.

Completion of Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Upfront Surgical Resection for Pancreatic Cancer Is Uncommon Yet Associated With Improved Survival

BACKGROUND

Multiple trials have demonstrated a survival benefit for adjuvant chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This study aimed to identify the rate for completion of adjuvant chemotherapy, factors associated with completion, and its impact on survival after surgical resection.

METHODS

The Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Medicare-linked data was used to identify patients who underwent upfront resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 2004 to 2013. Billing codes were used to quantify receipt and completion of chemotherapy. Factors associated with completion of chemotherapy were identified using multivariable regression. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional-hazards modeling were used to examine survival.

RESULTS

The inclusion criteria were met by 2440 patients. Of these patients, 65% received no adjuvant chemotherapy, 28% received incomplete therapy, and 7% completed chemotherapy. The factors associated with chemotherapy completion were nodal metastases and treatment at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center (p ≤ 0.05). Comorbidities decreased the odds of completion (p ≤ 0.05). The median overall survival (OS) was 14 months for the patients who received no adjuvant chemotherapy, 17 months for those who received incomplete adjuvant chemotherapy, and 22 months for those who completed adjuvant chemotherapy (p ≤ 0.05). More recent diagnosis, comorbidities, T stage, nodal metastases, and no adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with an increased hazard ratio for death (p ≤ 0.05). Evaluation of 15 or more nodes and completion of chemotherapy decreased the hazard ratio for death (p ≤ 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Only 7% of the Medicare patients who underwent upfront resection for pancreatic cancer completed adjuvant chemotherapy, yet completion of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS. Completion of adjuvant chemotherapy should be the goal after upfront resection, but neoadjuvant chemotherapy may ensure that patients receive systemic chemotherapy.

Neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery for borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy is recommended for patients with borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC). In this study, we compare survival outcomes of neoadjuvant therapy with upfront surgery.

METHODS

From January 2011 to June 2016, 1415 patients underwent treatments for pancreatic cancer in Samsung Medical Center. Among them, 112 (7.9%) patients were categorized as BRPC by the NCCN 2016 guideline. They were classified by type of initial treatments into neoadjuvant group (NA, N.=26) and upfront surgery group (US, N.=86).

RESULTS

The median survival duration of all patients was 18.3 months. Patients in the NA group had more T4 disease than those in the US group (38.5% in NA versus 15.1% in the US group; P=0.010). Arterial involvement was more frequent in the NA group (42.3% versus 15.1%; P=0.003). In the NA group, ten (38.5%) patients underwent surgery, and seven of them had complete R0 resection. In the US group, 83 (96.5%) patients received radical surgery, and 42 (48.8%) had R0 resection. In survival analysis according to intent to treat, the overall two-year survival rate was 51.1% in the US group and 36.7% in the NA group (P=0.001). However, among patients who underwent surgery (N.=96), the two-year overall survival rate was not significantly different between the two groups (P=0.089). According to involved vessels, the survival rate was not different between patients with arterial or both arterial and venous involvement and in patients with only venous involvement (P=0.649).

CONCLUSIONS

It is necessary to demonstrate the efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy and to standardize the regimens through large-scale, multicenter, randomized controlled studies.

A Preoperative Prognostic Scoring System to Predict Prognosis for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Who Will Benefit from Upfront Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Upfront surgery is recommended in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (R-PDAC) by National Comprehensive Center Network (NCCN) guidelines. However, even among R-PDACs, there is a subset that demonstrates extremely poor prognosis. The purpose of this study was to identify preoperative prognostic factors for upfront surgical resection of R-PDACs.

METHODS

The records of 278 consecutive patients with PDAC who underwent curative resection between 2001 and 2015 in a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative factors to predict prognosis in patients with R-PDAC according to the NCCN guidelines were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 278 patients who underwent resection, 153 R-PDACs received upfront surgery with a median survival time (MST) of 26.4 months. Tumor location (pancreatic head) (odds ratio [OR] 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-3.40; P = 0.015), preoperative cancer antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) > 100 U/mL (OR 1.92, 1.31-2.80; P = 0.0009), and tumor size > 20 mm (OR 1.50, 1.02-2.19; P = 0.038) were identified as preoperative independent predictive risk factors for poor prognosis in patients with R-PDACs. In the patients with R-PDAC, 5-year survival was 60.7%, 21.5%, and 0% in patients with 0, 1 or 2, and 3 risk factors, respectively. There were significant differences in overall survival between the three groups (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

A preoperative prognostic scoring system using preoperative tumor location, tumor size, and CA19-9 enables preoperative prediction of prognosis and facilitates selection of appropriate treatment for resectable pancreatic cancer.

Use of Machine-Learning Algorithms in Intensified Preoperative Therapy of Pancreatic Cancer to Predict Individual Risk of Relapse

Background: Although surgical resection is the only potentially curative treatment for pancreatic cancer (PC), long-term outcomes of this treatment remain poor. The aim of this study is to describe the feasibility of a neoadjuvant treatment with induction polychemotherapy (IPCT) followed by chemoradiation (CRT) in resectable PC, and to develop a machine-learning algorithm to predict risk of relapse. Methods: Forty patients with resectable PC treated in our institution with IPCT (based on mFOLFOXIRI, GEMOX or GEMOXEL) followed by CRT (50 Gy and concurrent Capecitabine) were retrospectively analyzed. Additionally, clinical, pathological and analytical data were collected in order to perform a 2-year relapse-risk predictive population model using machine-learning techniques. Results: A R0 resection was achieved in 90% of the patients. After a median follow-up of 33.5 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18 months and median overall survival (OS) was 39 months. The 3 and 5-year actuarial PFS were 43.8% and 32.3%, respectively. The 3 and 5-year actuarial OS were 51.5% and 34.8%, respectively. Forty-percent of grade 3-4 IPCT toxicity, and 29.7% of grade 3 CRT toxicity were reported. Considering the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, the number of resected lymph nodes, the presence of perineural invasion and the surgical margin status, a logistic regression algorithm predicted the individual 2-year relapse-risk with an accuracy of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56–0.84, p = 0.005). The model-predicted outcome matched 64% of the observed outcomes in an external dataset. Conclusion: An intensified multimodal neoadjuvant approach (IPCT + CRT) in resectable PC is feasible, with an encouraging long-term outcome. Machine-learning algorithms might be a useful tool to predict individual risk of relapse. A small sample size and therapy heterogeneity remain as potential limitations.

Decreased serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 levels after neoadjuvant therapy predict a better prognosis for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a multicenter case-control study of 240 patients

Background

Carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19–9 levels after resection are considered to predict prognosis; however, the significance of decreased CA19–9 levels after neoadjuvant therapy has not been clarified. This study aimed to define the prognostic significance of decreased CA19–9 levels after neoadjuvant therapy in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Methods

Between 2001 and 2012, 240 consecutive patients received neoadjuvant therapy and subsequent resection at seven high-volume institutions in Japan. These patients were divided into three groups: Normal group (no elevation [≤37 U/ml] before and after neoadjuvant therapy), Responder group (elevated levels [> 37 U/ml] before neoadjuvant therapy but decreased levels [≤37 U/ml] afterwards), and Non-responder group (elevated levels [> 37 U/ml] after neoadjuvant therapy). Analyses of overall survival and recurrence patterns were performed. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to clarify the clinicopathological factors influencing overall survival. The initial metastasis sites were also evaluated in these groups.

Results

The Responder group received a better prognosis than the Non-responder group (3-year overall survival: 50.6 and 41.6%, respectively, P = 0.026), but the prognosis was comparable to the Normal group (3-year overall survival: 54.2%, P = 0.934). According to the analysis of the receiver operating characteristic curve, the CA19–9 cut-off level defined as no elevation after neoadjuvant therapy was ≤103 U/ml. The multivariate analysis revealed that a CA19–9 level ≤ 103 U/ml, (P = 0.010, hazard ratio: 1.711; 95% confidence interval: 1.133–2.639), tumor size ≤27 mm (P = 0.040, 1.517; (1.018–2.278)), a lack of lymph node metastasis (P = 0.002, 1.905; (1.276–2.875)), and R0 status (P = 0.045, 1.659; 1.012–2.627) were significant predictors of overall survival. Moreover, the Responder group showed a lower risk of hepatic recurrence (18%) compared to the Non-responder group (31%), though no significant difference in loco-regional, peritoneal or other distant recurrence were observed between groups (P = 0.058, P = 0.700 and P = 0.350, respectively).

Conclusions

Decreased CA19–9 levels after neoadjuvant therapy predicts a better prognosis, with low incidence of hepatic recurrence after surgery.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5460-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Primarily resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma - to operate or to refer the patient to an oncologist?

The aim of this work is to investigate the optimal therapeutic sequence of resectable pancreatic cancer - primary surgery with adjuvant therapy or neoadjuvant followed by resection. Application of the neoadjuvant approach in routine treatment of pancreatic cancer is rapidly growing every year, despite the lack of final results from randomized trials. Recent advancements in the adjuvant therapy, due to the more effective chemotherapy regimens, favor the upfront surgery strategy. On the other hand, theoretical background and metaanalyses favor the neoadjuvant strategy. Currently, primary resection with adjuvant chemotherapy remains the standard approach in resectable pancreatic cancer, but the first recommendations considering the neoadjuvant approach as an option seem to arise among the scientific societies with a global impact. Preliminary results of Prodige 24 study and PREOPANC-1 trial demonstrates that both options are worth further evaluation in clinical trials. Their results should soon provide more answers to this important clinical questions.

Neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer: A Markov decision analysis

Background

Neoadjuvant therapy has emerged as an alternative treatment strategy for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer. In the absence of large randomized controlled trials offering a direct comparison, this study aims to use Markov decision analysis to compare efficacy of traditional surgery first (SF) and neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) pathways for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer.

Methods

An advanced Markov decision analysis model was constructed to compare SF and NAT pathways for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer. Transition probabilities were calculated from randomized control and Phase II/III trials after comprehensive literature search. Utility outcomes were measured in overall and quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) on an intention-to-treat basis as the primary outcome. Markov cohort analysis of treatment received was the secondary outcome. Model uncertainties were tested with one and two-way deterministic and probabilistic Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis.

Results

SF gave 23.72 months (18.51 QALMs) versus 20.22 months (16.26 QALMs). Markov Cohort Analysis showed that where all treatment modalities were received NAT gave 35.05 months (29.87 QALMs) versus 30.96 months (24.86QALMs) for R0 resection and 34.08 months (29.87 QALMs) versus 25.85 months (20.72 QALMs) for R1 resection. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that NAT was superior if the resection rate was greater than 51.04% or below 75.68% in SF pathway. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that pathway superiority depended on obtaining multimodal treatment in either pathway.

Conclusion

Whilst NAT is a viable alternative to traditional SF approach, superior pathway selection depends on the individual patient’s likelihood of receiving multimodal treatment in either pathway.

Chemotherapy Versus Chemoradiation as Preoperative Therapy for Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score Adjusted Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Although the use of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is increasing, the optimal preoperative treatment regimen remains poorly defined.

METHODS

All patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who received preoperative chemotherapy alone (12%) or chemoradiation therapy (CRT) alone (88%) before pancreatectomy between 1999 and 2014 were included. Propensity score matching with inverse probability weighting was conducted based on age, baseline carbohydrate antigen 19-9, and procedure type.

RESULTS

Patients who received preoperative CRT were more likely to undergo a margin negative (91% vs 79%, P < 0.01) and node negative (53% vs 23%, P < 0.01) resection and experience less locoregional recurrence (LR; 16% vs 33%, P < 0.01) but similar median overall survival (OS; 33.6 vs 26.4 months, P = 0.09). On multivariate analysis, carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (hazard ratio, 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.3) and positive lymph nodes (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2) were associated with OS, whereas tumor size (odds ratio [OR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.8), positive lymph nodes (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.8-5.6), and preoperative chemotherapy (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) were associated with LR.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative CRT is associated with less margin and lymph node positivity, reduced LR, and similar OS compared with preoperative chemotherapy.

Comparison of neoadjuvant therapy and upfront surgery in resectable pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Objective

The role of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC) remains controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical differences between NAT and upfront surgery in RPC.

Materials and methods

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases. Only patients with RPC who underwent tumor resection and received adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment were enrolled. The OR or HR and 95% CIs were calculated employing fixed-effects or random-effects models. The HR and its 95% CI were extracted from each article that provided survival curve. Publication bias was estimated using funnel plots and Egger’s regression test.

Results

In total, eleven studies were included with 9,386 patients. Of these patients, 2,508 (26.7%) received NAT. For patients with RPC, NAT resulted in an increased R0 resection rate (OR=1.89; 95% CI=1.26–2.83) and a reduced positive lymph node rate (OR=0.34; 95% CI=0.31–0.37) compared with upfront surgery. Nevertheless, patients receiving NAT did not exhibit a significantly increased overall survival (OS) time (HR=0.91; 95% CI=0.79–1.05).

Conclusion

In patients with RPC, R0 resection rate and positive lymph node rate after NAT were superior to those of patients with upfront surgery. The NAT group exhibited no significant effect on OS time when compared with the upfront surgery group. However, this conclusion requires more clinical evidence to improve its credibility.