A comparison of three treatment strategies for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer

Are We Sure that Adjuvant Chemotherapy is the Best Approach for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer? Are We in the Era of Neoadjuvant Treatment? A Review of Current Literature

The outcome of pancreatic cancer is poor, with a 9% 5-year survival rate. Current treatment recommendations in the 10%–20% of patients who present with resectable disease support upfront resection followed by adjuvant therapy. Until now, only early complete surgical (R0) resection and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) with either FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) or nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine have been shown to prolong the survival. However, up to 30% of patients do not receive adjuvant therapy because of the development of early recurrence, postoperative complications, comorbidities, and reduced performance status. The aims of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) are to identify rapidly progressing patients to avoid futile surgery, eliminate micrometastases, increase the feasibility of R0 resection, and ensure the completion of multimodal treatment. Neoadjuvant treatments are effective, but there is no consensus on their use in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC) because of its lack of a survival benefit over adjuvant therapy. In this review, we analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the two therapeutic approaches in RPC. We need studies that compare the two approaches and can identify the appropriate sequence of adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant treatment and surgery.

Network meta-analysis comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiation, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and upfront surgery in patients with resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation or chemotherapy has improved the treatment efficacy of patients with resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Due to the optimal regimen remains inconclusive, we aimed to compare these treatments in terms of margin negative (R0) resection rate and overall survival (OS) with Bayesian analysis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We reviewed literature titles and abstracts comparing three treatment strategies (neoadjuvant chemoradiation, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and upfront surgery) in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ClinicalTrials.gov database from 2009 to 2018 to estimate relative odds ratios (ORs) for margin negative (R0) resection rate and hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) in all include trials.

RESULTS

A total of 14 literatures with 1056 patients were enrolled in this Bayesian analysis. In the pairwise meta-analysis from limited head-to-head studies, compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, neoadjuvant chemoradiation showed superior OS significantly (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.60-0.99, p < 0.001) and there was no significant difference in R0 resection rate (OR 1.02, 95%CI 0.45-2.33, I2 = 34.6%). However, in the network meta-analysis from all enrolled clinical trials, neoadjuvant chemoradiation showed significantly higher R0 resection rate over upfront surgery (HR 0.15, 95% CrI 0.02-0.56), whereas neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not provide better efficacy in R0 resection over upfront surgery (HR 0.42, 95% CrI 0.02-4.41). For R0 resection rate, neoadjuvant chemoradiation has the highest probability of ranking one compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or upfront surgery (79% vs 21% vs 0%). For OS, neoadjuvant chemotherapy has the highest probability of ranking one compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiation or upfront surgery (98% vs 0% vs 2%). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with higher rates of postoperative complications (rank worst: 84%), followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (13%) and upfront surgery (3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Different neoadjuvant treatment was selected based on various purposes, whether increasing R0 resection rate or not. Future clinical trials comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiation with neoadjuvant chemotherapy are warranted to confirm our results.

Long-term survival benefit of upfront chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed borderline resectable pancreatic cancer

The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation for borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (BL-PDAC) is increasing. However, the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy on the outcome of BL-PDAC remains to be elucidated. We performed a retrospective analysis of 93 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with BL-PDAC and primarily followed at Johns Hopkins Hospital between February 2007 and December 2012. Among 93 patients, 62% received upfront neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation, whereas 20% received neoadjuvant chemoradiation alone and 15% neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone. Resectability following all neoadjuvant therapy was 44%. Patients who underwent resection with a curative intent had a median overall survival (mOS) of 25.8 months, whereas those who did not undergo surgery had a mOS of 11.9 months. However, resectability and overall survival were not significantly different between the three types of neoadjuvant therapy. Nevertheless, 22% (95% CI, 0.13-0.36) of the 58 patients who received upfront chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation remained alive for a minimum of 48 months compared to none of the 19 patients who received upfront chemoradiation. Among patients who underwent curative surgical resection, 32% (95% CI, 0.19-0.55) of those who received upfront chemotherapy remained disease free at least 48 months following surgical resection, whereas none of the eight patients who received upfront chemoradiation remained disease free beyond 24 months following surgical resection. Neoadjuvant therapy with upfront chemotherapy may result in long-term survival in a subpopulation of patients with BL-PDAC.

Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone for Unresectable Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

The optimal treatment strategy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), particularly the role of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), remains debatable. We compared the clinical outcomes of CCRT and palliative chemotherapy alone (CA) in patients with unresectable LAPC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with LAPC who were consecutively treated between 2003 and 2010 were included. Resectability was evaluated according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network ver. 1.2012. The clinical outcomes for each treatment group (CCRT vs. CA) were evaluated retrospectively.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients (58.9%) and 44 patients (41.1%) were treated with CCRT and CA, respectively. The CCRT cohort included patients who were treated with CCRT with or without chemotherapy backbone (CCRT alone, induction chemotherapy-CCRT, CCRT-maintenance chemotherapy, and induction-CCRT-maintenance chemotherapy). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of all patients were 7.2 months and 13.1 months. PFS of the CCRT and CA groups was 9.0 months and 4.4 months, respectively (p=0.020). OS of the CCRT and CA groups was 15.4 months and 9.3 months, respectively (p=0.011). In multivariate analysis, the adjusted hazard ratio of CCRT was 0.536 (p=0.003) for OS and 0.667 (p=0.078) for PFS. Although the pattern of failure was similar in the CCRT and CA groups, the times to both local and distant failure were significantly longer in the CCRT group.

CONCLUSION

In patients with unresectable LAPC, those who underwent CCRT during their entire treatment courses had longer OS than patients treated with chemotherapy alone.

Prognostic value of clinicopathological characteristics in patients with pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of all clinical characteristics on the overall survival time, in order to provide a basis for determining the prognostic factor of patients with pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

A total of 103 pancreatic cancer patients were admitted to the Department of Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy of the Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, between January 2002 and December 2012. There were 68 men and 35 women; the median age was 62 years. Diagnoses of pancreatic cancer in all patients were confirmed by histopathology, cytology, or clinical diagnosis. The Kaplan-Meier method was performed to calculate the overall survival rate. The log-rank method was used to examine the univariate analysis. The Cox regression model was performed for multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The median survival time was 293 days, the 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates were 27.18%, 5.83%, and 1.94%, respectively. Cox regression analysis revealed that age (P=0.015), Karnofsky performance status (PS) (P=0.002), surgical types (P<0.001), and platelet counts (P<0.001) were independent prognostic factors affecting the overall survival of patients with pancreatic cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Pancreatic cancer had a poor prognosis, the general physical condition, age, the availability of radical surgery, and platelet counts were factors influencing the overall survival of patients with pancreatic cancer.

Molecular Targeted Intervention for Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer (PC) remains one of the worst cancers, with almost uniform lethality. PC risk is associated with westernized diet, tobacco, alcohol, obesity, chronic pancreatitis, and family history of pancreatic cancer. New targeted agents and the use of various therapeutic combinations have yet to provide adequate treatments for patients with advanced cancer. To design better preventive and/or treatment strategies against PC, knowledge of PC pathogenesis at the molecular level is vital. With the advent of genetically modified animals, significant advances have been made in understanding the molecular biology and pathogenesis of PC. Currently, several clinical trials and preclinical evaluations are underway to investigate novel agents that target signaling defects in PC. An important consideration in evaluating novel drugs is determining whether an agent can reach the target in concentrations effective to treat the disease. Recently, we have reported evidence for chemoprevention of PC. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of current updates on molecularly targeted interventions, as well as dietary, phytochemical, immunoregulatory, and microenvironment-based approaches for the development of novel therapeutic and preventive regimens. Special attention is given to prevention and treatment in preclinical genetically engineered mouse studies and human clinical studies.

Laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy and gastrojejunostomy for palliative treatment of pancreatic head cancer in 48 patients

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 80% of patients with pancreatic cancer are not candidates for curative resection at the time of diagnosis. The objective of this study is to show that although endoscopic treatment is the standard palliation, surgical laparoscopic treatment is both feasible and effective for these patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Preoperative resectability was evaluated by dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans. Endoscopic palliation was the first choice for patients with metastatic disease and for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer with bad performance status. Laparoscopic surgical palliation was indicated for patients with jaundice and locally advanced pancreatic cancer (elective palliation) and for patients with jaundice with metastatic disease and failure in the endoscopic/percutaneous treatment (necessary palliation). Elective palliation consisted of Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy and gastrojejunostomy and necessary palliation consisted of laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy alone.

RESULTS

A total of 48 patients received laparoscopic surgical palliation. Morbidity rate was 33.3% and mortality was 2.08%. There was no need for late surgeries in any of the patients.

CONCLUSION

Surgical laparoscopic palliation is a feasible treatment option for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Even though metallic stents are still the best palliation method for patients with systemic disease, if stents fail, the laparoscopic approach is a viable treatment.