Dataset Information

Neoadjuvant Treatment for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy?

ABSTRACT: Worldwide, there is a shifting paradigm from immediate surgery with adjuvant treatment to a neoadjuvant approach for patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC or BRPC). Comparison of neoadjuvant and adjuvant studies is extremely difficult because of a great difference in patient selection. The evidence from randomized studies shows that overall survival by intention-to-treat improves after neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy (various regimens), as compared to immediate surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Radiotherapy appears to play an important role in mediating locoregional effects. Yet, since more effective chemotherapy regimens are currently available, in particular FOLFIRINOX and Gemcitabine/Nab-paclitaxel, these chemotherapy regimens should be investigated in future randomized trials combined with (stereotactic) radiotherapy to further improve outcomes of RPC and BRPC.

SUBMITTER: Versteijne E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8882845 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Neoadjuvant Treatment for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy?

Versteijne Eva E de Hingh Ignace H J T IHJT Homs Marjolein Y V MYV Intven Martijn P W MPW Klaase Joost M JM van Santvoort Hjalmar C HC de Vos-Geelen Judith J Wilmink Johanna W JW van Tienhoven Geertjan G

Frontiers in oncology 20220214

Worldwide, there is a shifting paradigm from immediate surgery with adjuvant treatment to a neoadjuvant approach for patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC or BRPC). Comparison of neoadjuvant and adjuvant studies is extremely difficult because of a great difference in patient selection. The evidence from randomized studies shows that overall survival by intention-to-treat improves after neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy (various reg ...[more]

PMID: 35237500

Similar Datasets

Project description:Approximately 20% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients have (borderline) resectable pancreatic cancer [(B)RPC] at diagnosis. Upfront resection with adjuvant chemotherapy has long been the standard of care for these patients. However, although surgical quality has improved, still about 50% of patients never receive adjuvant treatment. Therefore, recent developments have focused on a neoadjuvant approach. Directly comparing results from neoadjuvant and adjuvant regimens is challenging due to differences in patient populations that influence outcomes. Neoadjuvant trials include all patients who have (B)RPC on imaging, while adjuvant-only trials include patients who underwent a complete resection and recovered to a good performance status without any evidence of residual disease. Guidelines recommend neoadjuvant treatment for BRPC patients mainly to improve negative resection margin (R0) rates. For resectable PDAC, upfront resection is still considered the standard of care. However, theoretical advantages of neoadjuvant treatment, including the increased R0 resection rate, early delivery of systemic therapy to all patients, directly addressing occult metastatic disease, and improved patient selection for resection, may also apply to these patients. A systematic review by intention-to-treat showed a superior median overall survival (OS) for any neoadjuvant approach (19 months) compared to upfront surgery (15 months) in (B)RPC patients. A neoadjuvant approach was recently supported by three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For resectable PDAC, neoadjuvant treatment was superior in a Japanese RCT of neoadjuvant gemcitabine with S-1 vs. upfront surgery, with adjuvant S-1 in both arms (median OS: 37 vs. 27 months, p = 0.015). A Korean trial of neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy vs. upfront resection in BRPC patients was terminated early due to superiority of the neoadjuvant group (median OS: 21 vs. 12 months, p = 0.028; R0 resection: 52 vs. 26%, p = 0.004). The PREOPANC-1 trial for (B)RPC patients also showed favorable outcome for neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy vs. upfront surgery (median OS: 17 vs. 14 months, p = 0.07; R0 resection: 63 vs. 31%, p < 0.001). FOLFIRINOX is likely a better neoadjuvant regimen, because of superiority compared to gemcitabine in both the metastatic and adjuvant setting. Currently, five RCTs evaluating neoadjuvant modified or fulldose FOLFIRINOX are accruing patients.

Project description:Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is currently ranked fourth place of cancer related mortality. Only a minority of 10-20% of patients with PDAC have a primarily resectable disease, while 50-60% of the patients are diagnosed with irresectable disease. A certain group of patients is defined as "borderline resectable", which is mainly relied to contact of the tumor to major abdominal vessels. For preoperative evaluation of resectability CT and MRI is commonly used. Although CT-scanning, which is the standard preoperative imaging modality, has striking limitations concerning evaluation of lymph node status as well as vessel involvement and approximately 20% of the patients are staged incorrectly. A central part of modern therapy of locally advanced or not primarily resectable PDAC is neoadjuvant therapy. Especially neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to the FOLFIRINOX protocol resulted in high resection rates of initially not resectable patients. Furthermore, treatment with FOLFIRINOX was shown to be an independent predictor of improved prognosis and resection after neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX was associated with improved survival. Neoadjuvant treatment was able to increases the rates of R0 resection, which depicts an independent prognostic factor and FOLFIRINOX outmatched other treatment regimes (e.g., gemcitabine-based radio-chemotherapy) concerning achievement of a R0 resection. While most evidence of neoadjuvant treatment of PDAC is conferred by retrospective analysis, there is growing data from randomized controlled trials, confirming the beneficial effects of neoadjuvant therapy on the prognosis of PDAC. Thus, patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced PDAC should be evaluated for neoadjuvant treatment. If there is no progression of the disease during neoadjuvant treatment exploration with the goal of R0 resection should be performed. If possible, patients should be included in well-designed randomized controlled trials at specialized pancreatic centers.

Project description:BackgroundThere is no agreed upon standard of care for borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) or locally-advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) patients regarding the benefit of chemotherapy or radiation alone or in combination.Patients and methodsWe completed a retrospective cohort analysis of BRPC and LAPC patients at a cancer center with expertise in multi-disciplinary pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treatment over a 5-year period from 03/01/2014 to 03/01/2019 (cut-off date). The total evaluable newly diagnosed, treatment naïve, BRPC, and LAPC patients with adequate organ function and ability to obtain treatment after multidisciplinary review was 52 patients. After analysis, patients were evaluated for rates of resection, extent of resection (R0 or R1), median progression-free survival (mPFS), and median overall survival (mOS).ResultsPatients were treated with chemotherapy alone (gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel = 77% (20/26); FOLFIRINOX = 19% (5/26); single agent gemcitabine 3.8% (1/26)), or chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation (gemcitabine +5 Gy × 5 weeks), or chemoradiation alone prior to re-staging and potential resection. Of the 29% (15/52) of patients who went on to surgical resection, 73% (11/15) achieved R0 resection. An R0 resection was achieved in 35% (9/26) of patients treated with chemotherapy alone, 7.6% (1/13) in a patient treated with chemotherapy followed by radiation, and 7.6% (1/13) with concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone. Chemotherapy alone achieved a mPFS of 16.4 months (p < 0.0025) and mOS of 26.2 months (p < 0.0001), chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation was 13.0 months and 14.9 months respectively, while concurrent chemoradiotherapy was 6.9 months and 7.3 months.Conclusions and relevanceBRPC and LAPC patients capable of surgery after only receiving neoadjuvant treatment with chemotherapy had higher rates of R0 resection with prolonged median PFS and OS compared with any patient needing combination chemotherapy with radiotherapy.

Project description:BackgroundNeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy can provide downstaging and improve margin negativity for borderline resectable and resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma [(B)RPC]. Little is known about the relative efficacy of capecitabine (CAPE)-based vs. gemcitabine (GEM)-based 3-week chemoradiation (3WCRT) with 36 Gy in 15 fractions. This study aimed to compare the odds of achieving surgical resection, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS) of patients treated with 3WCRT with concurrent CAPE versus GEM.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted, examining medical records from a single center for patients with (B)RPC treated with 3WCRT between 1/2009-12/2020. Odd ratios (OR) of achieving surgical resection were estimated using logistic regression for univariable and multivariable analyses. Median TTP (mTTP) and median OS (mOS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards analysis was conducted to estimate hazard ratios (HR) of progression and survival in univariable and multivariable analyses.ResultsThirty-one patients were included in the analysis. Twenty-two (71%) patients were treated with CAPE, while 9 (29%) were treated with GEM. All patients in the GEM group were borderline resectable, vs. 18 (82%) patients in the CAPE group, P=0.30. Nineteen (86%) patients in the CAPE group were treated with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX, vs. 4 (44%) patients in the GEM group, P=0.03. The CAPE group had higher odds of achieving surgical resection [OR =9.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.50-58.20]. Adjusting for covariates, the odds of achieving surgical resection were still statistically higher in the CAPE group vs. the GEM group (OR =25.34; 95% CI: 1.14-563.72). The CAPE group had superior mTTP compared to the GEM group (15.4 months, 95% CI: 4.9-71.1 vs. 4.0 months, 95% CI: 0.4-14.5; P=0.01), corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.33 (95% CI: 0.14-0.81). Adjusting for covariates this effect persisted; the adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) for progression was 0.24 (95% CI: 0.08-0.77). Cox proportional hazards analysis also demonstrated that the CAPE group had superior OS compared to the GEM group in unadjusted (HR =0.13; 95% CI: 0.04-0.40) and adjusted models (HR =0.13, 95% CI: 0.03-0.52).ConclusionsFor neoadjuvant 3WCRT, this hypothesis-generating study suggests concurrent CAPE may be a more effective radiosensitizer than GEM for patients with (B)RPC.

Dataset Information

Neoadjuvant Treatment for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy?

Publications

Neoadjuvant Treatment for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets