Optimal Upfront Treatment in Surgically Resectable Pancreatic Cancer Candidates: A High-Volume Center Retrospective Analysis

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.

Preoperative assessment of peripheral vascular invasion of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma based on high-resolution MRI

OBJECTIVES

Preoperative imaging of vascular invasion is important for surgical resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, whether MRI and CT share the same evaluation criteria remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution MRI (HR-MRI), conventional MRI (non-HR-MRI) and CT for PDAC vascular invasion.

METHODS

Pathologically proven PDAC with preoperative HR-MRI (79 cases, 58 with CT) and non-HR-MRI (77 cases, 59 with CT) were retrospectively collected. Vascular invasion was confirmed surgically or pathologically. The degree of tumour-vascular contact, vessel narrowing and contour irregularity were reviewed respectively. Diagnostic criteria 1 (C1) was the presence of all three characteristics, and criteria 2 (C2) was the presence of any one of them. The diagnostic efficacies of different examination methods and criteria were evaluated and compared.

RESULTS

HR-MRI showed satisfactory performance in assessing vascular invasion (AUC: 0.87-0.92), especially better sensitivity (0.79-0.86 vs. 0.40-0.79) than that with non-HR-MRI and CT. HR-MRI was superior to non-HR-MRI. C2 was superior to C1 on CT evaluation (0.85 vs. 0.79, P = 0.03). C1 was superior to C2 in the venous assessment using HR-MRI (0.90 vs. 0.87, P = 0.04) and in the arterial assessment using non-HR-MRI (0.69 vs. 0.68, P = 0.04). The combination of C1-assessed HR-MRI and C2-assessed CT was significantly better than that of CT alone (0.96 vs. 0.86, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

HR-MRI more accurately assessed PDAC vascular invasion than conventional MRI and may contribute to operative decision-making. C1 was more applicable to MRI scans, and C2 to CT scans. The combination of C1-assessed HR-MRI and C2-assessed CT outperformed CT alone and showed the best efficacy in preoperative examination of PDAC.

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.

Neoadjuvant therapy vs. upfront surgery for resectable pancreatic cancer: An update on a systematic review and meta-analysis

The effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) remains controversial in the treatment of pancreatic cancer (PC). Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to investigate the clinical differences between NAT and upfront surgery (US) in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC). Eligible studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The endpoints assessed were R0 resection rate, pathological T stage < 2 rate, positive lymph node rate, and overall survival. A total of 4,588 potentially relevant studies were identified, and 13 studies were included in this study. In patients with RPC, this meta-analysis showed that NAT presented an increased R0 resection rate, pathological T stage < 2 rate, and a remarkably reduced positive lymph node rate compared to US. However, patients receiving NAT did not result in a significantly increased overall survival. These findings supported the application of NAT, especially as a patient selection strategy, in the management of RPC. Additional large clinical studies are needed to determine whether NAT is superior to US.