Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy with gemcitabine/cisplatin and surgery versus immediate surgery in resectable pancreatic cancer: results of the first prospective randomized phase II trial

Basics and Frontiers on Pancreatic Cancer for Radiation Oncology: Target Delineation, SBRT, SIB technique, MRgRT, Particle Therapy, Immunotherapy and Clinical Guidelines

Pancreatic cancer represents a modern oncological urgency. Its management is aimed to both distal and local disease control. Resectability is the cornerstone of treatment aim. It influences the clinical presentation’s definitions as up-front resectable, borderline resectable and locally advanced (unresectable). The main treatment categories are neoadjuvant (preoperative), definitive and adjuvant (postoperative). This review will focus on (i) the current indications by the available national and international guidelines; (ii) the current standard indications for target volume delineation in radiotherapy (RT); (iii) the emerging modern technologies (including particle therapy and Magnetic Resonance [MR]-guided-RT); (iv) stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), as the most promising technical delivery application of RT in this framework; (v) a particularly promising dose delivery technique called simultaneous integrated boost (SIB); and (vi) a multimodal integration opportunity: the combination of RT with immunotherapy.

Synergistic Anticancer Effects of Gemcitabine with Pitavastatin on Pancreatic Cancer Cell Line MIA PaCa-2 in vitro and in vivo

Background

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a highly aggressive malignancy with an overall 5-year survival rate of 9.3%, and this malignancy is expected to become the second leading cause of cancer-related death by 2030. Gemcitabine resistance develops within weeks of PDAC patient’s chemotherapeutic initiation. Statins, including pitavastatin, have been indicated to have anticancer effects in numerous human cancer cell lines. Thus, in this study, we hypothesized that a combination of gemcitabine and pitavastatin may have a greater anticancer effect than gemcitabine alone on the human pancreatic carcinoma cell line MIA PaCa-2.

Methods

The anticancer effects of gemcitabine with pitavastatin were evaluated using human MIA PaCa-2 cell line in vitro and in vivo Balb/c murine xenograft tumor model. Cell viability was assessed with CCK-8, and cell migration was stained by crystal violet. Cell cycle distribution, apoptosis and mitochondrial membrane potential were examined by flow cytometry. Activation of drug transporters (hENTs, hCNTs), intracellular drug activating (dCK) and inhibition of inactivating enzymes (RRMs) pathways were assessed by Western blotting analysis. Molecular mechanisms and signaling pathways of apoptosis, necrosis and autophagy also were assessed by Western blotting.

Results

We observed that gemcitabine and pitavastatin synergistically suppressed the proliferation of MIA PaCa-2 cells through causing sub-G1 and S phase cell cycle arrest. Activation of apoptosis/necrosis was confirmed by annexin V/propidium iodide double staining, which showed increasing levels of active caspase 3, cleaved poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase and the RIP1–RIP3–MLKL complex. Moreover, gemcitabine–pitavastatin-mediated S phase arrest downregulated cyclin A2/CDK2 and upregulated p21/p27 in MIA PaCa-2 cells. Furthermore, this combination improved drug cellular metabolism pathway, mitochondria function and activated autophagy as part of the cell death mechanism. In vivo, gemcitabine-pitavastatin effectively inhibited tumor growth in a nude mouse mode of Mia PaCa-2 xenografts without observed adverse effect.

Conclusion

Combined gemcitabine–pitavastatin may be an effective novel treatment option for pancreatic cancer.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary resectable pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative chemotherapy has shown benefits for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has also been attempted in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC); however, its role remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the clinical difference between NAC and upfront resection (UR) in RPC.

METHODS

Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant articles from inception to February 2019 that addressed the overall survival in patients with RPC treated with or without NAC to identify eligible studies. Eleven studies were included in the final meta-analysis. The quality assessment of the included studies was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa quality scale. Data of the unresectable rate, R0 resection rate, and positive lymph node rate were also extracted in each study for further analysis. Pooled hazard ratio (HR), odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the strength of the association.

RESULTS

A total of eleven studies (eight cohort studies and three randomized controlled trials) involving 9773 patients were included. Ten of the eleven studies followed the "intention-to-treat" principle. NAC was found to be significantly associated with a higher R0 resection rate (P < 0.0001; OR = 2.62, 95% CI 1.70-4.03) and increased negative lymph node rate (P < 0.00001; OR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.31-0.37). However, compared with the UR group, NAC was related to a lower surgical resection rate (P = 0.0004; OR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.41-3.37). Overall, the NAC group exhibited no benefits in terms of overall survival compared with that in the UR group (P = 0.10; HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.73-1.03). In the subgroup analysis, however, patients who received gemcitabine-based regimen as the NAC strategy had more favorable overall survival than that in the UR group (P = 0.04; HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

NAC may be associated with a lower resection rate; however, it is associated with an increased R0 resection rate and lymph node negative rate. Although overall survival was similar in patients with or without NAC, gemcitabine-based NAC might provide longer overall survival. Further large-volume, randomized controlled trials are needed to validate the improved prognosis of patients undergoing NAC.

Effect of neoadjuvant radiotherapy on survival of non-metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a SEER database analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy has been shown to improve marginal negative resection and local control of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, whether it improves overall survival (OS) in patients with non-metastatic PDAC remains controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the benefits of only surgery, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, adjuvant radiotherapy, and surgery plus chemotherapy for OS in patients with non-metastatic PDAC.

METHODS

PDAC diagnosed by surgical histopathology in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2004 and 2016 was selected. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare the prognosis of patients with different treatments. Cox proportional risk model was used to analyze independent predictors of OS. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to analyze the tumor prognosis of different treatment methods.

RESULTS

Before PSM analysis, the OS of surgery plus chemotherapy (HRs = 0.896, 95%CIs, 0.827-0.970; P = 0.007) were significantly better than the other three treatments for stage T1-3N0M0 PDAC patients. For stage T1-3N + M0 patients, adjuvant radiotherapy (HRs = 0.613, 95% CIs, 0.579-0.649; P < 0.001) had significantly better OS than surgery plus chemotherapy and neoadjuvant radiotherapy. For stage T4N0M0 patients, neoadjuvant radiotherapy (HRs = 0.482, 95% CIs, 0.347-0.670; P < 0.001) had significantly better OS than surgery plus chemotherapy and adjuvant radiotherapy. For stage T4N + M0 patients, neoadjuvant radiotherapy (HRs = 0.338, 95% CIs, 0.215-0.532; P < 0.001) had significantly longer OS than adjuvant radiotherapy and surgery plus chemotherapy. Even after PSM, Chemotherapy plus surgery was still the best treatment for T1-3N0M0 patients. Postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy had the best prognosis among T1-3N + M0 patients, and neoadjuvant radiotherapy was the best treatment for T4 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with non-metastatic PDAC, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, adjuvant radiotherapy and surgery plus chemotherapy were superior to only surgery in OS. For patients with stage T4 non-metastatic PDAC, neoadjuvant radiotherapy had the potential to be strongly recommended over adjuvant radiotherapy and surgery plus chemotherapy. However, neoadjuvant radiotherapy failed to benefit the survival of T1-3N0M0 stage patients, and surgery plus chemotherapy was preferred. For T1-3N + M0, neoadjuvant radiotherapy had no obvious advantage over adjuvant radiotherapy or surgery plus chemotherapy in OS, and adjuvant radiotherapy was more recommended.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy (NT) versus surgery first (SF) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial. A random-effects meta-analysis of only prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NT versus SF for potentially resectable (PR) or borderline resectable (BR) PDAC was performed. Among six RCTs including 850 patients, 411 (48.3%) received NT and 439 (51.6%) SF. In all included trials, NT was gemcitabine-based: four using chemoradiation and two chemotherapy alone. Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, NT resulted in improved overall survival (OS) compared to SF (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61–0.86). This effect was independent of anatomic classification (PR: hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.59–0.91; BR: HR 0.51 95% CI 0.28–0.93) or NT type (chemoradiation: HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61–0.98; chemotherapy alone: HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54–0.87). Overall resection rate was similar (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.82–1.04, I² = 39.0%) but NT increased the likelihood of a margin-negative (R0) resection (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.18–1.93, I² = 0%) and having negative lymph nodes (RR 2.07, 95% CI 1.47–2.91, I² = 12.3%). In this meta-analysis of prospective RCTs, NT significantly improved OS in an intention-to-treat fashion, compared with SF for localized PDAC. Randomized controlled trials using contemporary multi-agent chemotherapy will be needed to confirm these findings and to define the optimal NT regimen.

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.

Neoadjuvant Treatment in Pancreatic Cancer

Thanks to the development of modern chemotherapeutic regimens, survival after surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has improved and pancreatologists worldwide agree that the treatment of PDAC demands a multidisciplinary approach. Neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) plays a major role in the treatment of PDAC since only about 20% of patients are considered resectable at the time of diagnosis. Moreover, increasing data demonstrating the benefits of NAT for borderline resectable/locally advanced PDAC are driving a shift from up-front surgery to NAT in the multidisciplinary treatment of even resectable PDAC. Our understanding of the role of NAT in PDAC has evolved from tumor shrinkage to controlling potential micrometastases and selecting patients who may benefit from radical resection. The present review gives an overview on the current literature of NAT concepts for BR/LA PDAC and resectable PDAC.

Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy Versus Immediate Surgery for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Results of the Dutch Randomized Phase III PREOPANC Trial

PURPOSE

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy may improve the radical resection rate for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, but the overall benefit is unproven.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this randomized phase III trial in 16 centers, patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned to receive preoperative chemoradiotherapy, which consisted of 3 courses of gemcitabine, the second combined with 15 × 2.4 Gy radiotherapy, followed by surgery and 4 courses of adjuvant gemcitabine or to immediate surgery and 6 courses of adjuvant gemcitabine. The primary end point was overall survival by intention to treat.

RESULTS

Between April 2013 and July 2017, 246 eligible patients were randomly assigned; 119 were assigned to preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 127 to immediate surgery. Median overall survival by intention to treat was 16.0 months with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 14.3 months with immediate surgery (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.05; P = .096). The resection rate was 61% and 72% (P = .058). The R0 resection rate was 71% (51 of 72) in patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 40% (37 of 92) in patients assigned to immediate surgery (P < .001). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was associated with significantly better disease-free survival and locoregional failure-free interval as well as with significantly lower rates of pathologic lymph nodes, perineural invasion, and venous invasion. Survival analysis of patients who underwent tumor resection and started adjuvant chemotherapy showed improved survival with preoperative chemoradiotherapy (35.2 v 19.8 months; P = .029). The proportion of patients who suffered serious adverse events was 52% versus 41% (P = .096).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer did not show a significant overall survival benefit. Although the outcomes of the secondary end points and predefined subgroup analyses suggest an advantage of the neoadjuvant approach, additional evidence is required.

Neoadjuvant Therapy is Essential for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Awareness of the benefits of neoadjuvant therapy is increasing, but its use as an initial therapeutic option for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial, especially for those patients without high-risk prognostic features. Even for patients with high-risk features who are candidates to receive neoadjuvant therapy, no standard regimen exists.

METHODS

In this review, we examined available data on the neoadjuvant therapy in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, including prospective studies, retrospective studies, and ongoing clinical trials, by searching PubMed/MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The characteristics and results of screened studies were described.

RESULTS

Retrospective and prospective studies with reported results and ongoing randomized studies were included. For patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, neoadjuvant therapy provides benefits such as increased survival, decreased risk of comorbidities and mortality, and improved cost-effectiveness due to an increased completion rate of multimodal treatment. Highly active regimens such as FOLFIRINOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are considered acceptable therapeutic regimens. Additionally, platinum-containing regimens other than FOLFIRINOX are acceptable for selected patients. Other therapies, such as chemoradiation treatment, immuno-oncology agents, and targeted therapies are being explored and the results are highly anticipated.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the benefits of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer. Some regimens are currently acceptable, but need more evidence from well-designed clinical trials or should be used after being carefully examined by a multidisciplinary team.

Neoadjuvant Treatment in Patients With Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

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.

Neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: The need for patient-centered research

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an aggressive cancer with high recurrence rates following surgical resection. While adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival, a significant proportion of patients are unable to initiate or complete all intended therapy following pancreatectomy due to postoperative complications or poor performance status. The administration of chemotherapy prior to surgical resection is an alternative strategy that ensures its early and near universal delivery as well as improves margin-negative resection rates and potentially improves long-term survival outcomes. Neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly being recommended to patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, however, patient-centered research on its use is lacking. In this review, we highlight opportunities to focus research efforts in the domains of patient preferences, patient-reported outcomes, patient experience, and survivorship. Novel research in these areas may identify relevant barriers and facilitators to the use of neoadjuvant therapy thereby increasing its utilization, improve shared-decision making for patients and providers, and optimize the experience of those undergoing neoadjuvant therapy.

Does neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma increase postoperative morbidity? A systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis

Neoadjuvant treatment (NT) for pancreatic head cancer may allow some patients to undergo curative resection, but its impact on postoperative complications remains unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare overall postoperative morbidity, pancreatic fistula, and mortality between patients who underwent upfront surgery and those who underwent neoadjuvant therapy first. Forty-five studies with 3359 patients were included. No significant differences in morbidity and mortality rates associated with NT for pancreatic head cancer were detected in this study.

Recent advances in chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer: evidence from Japan and recommendations in guidelines

The prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer continues to remain dismal, even though numerous trials have been conducted to establish more effective therapies in Japan and throughout the world. Recent advances in treatment have been characterized by the use of novel combinations of conventional cytotoxic chemotherapies. Especially in Japan, S-1 has become one of the most widely used cytotoxic agents for the treatment of pancreatic cancer, after clinical evidence was established of the survival benefit offered by this drug for patients with resectable or unresectable pancreatic cancer. Unfortunately, with the exception of erlotinib, no targeted treatment strategies have been approved for pancreatic cancer. However, following an increase in interest in drug development in recent years, proactive attempts have been made to develop new therapeutic strategies, including neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, multi-agent combination chemotherapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, and therapies with new targeted agents or immuno-oncologic agents for patients with pancreatic cancer bearing specific gene mutations.

Survival benefits of neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy versus surgery first in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a highly lethal malignancy. Neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy [NAC(R)T] is recommended to use for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) and high-risk resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC), but no high-level evidence exists.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library to identify trials comparing survival data of NAC(R)T with SF for RPC or BRPC. Overall survival (OS) was synthesized in analysis of all the patients (intention-to-treat [ITT] analysis) and resected patients respectively.

Results

The meta-analysis included 17 trials with 2286 participants. For BRPC, NAC(R)T improved OS both in ITT analysis (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37–0.65; P < 0.001) and in analysis of resected patients (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51–0.85; P = 0.001) in comparison to SF, accompanied with comparable overall resection rate [odds ratio (OR), 0.69; 95% Cl, 0.41–1.16; P = 0.159]. Disease-free survival, R0 rate, and recurrence were also in favor of NAC(R)T. For RPC, OS in analysis of resected patients was higher with NAC(R)T (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63–0.89; P = 0.001), but OS in ITT analysis was similar (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.85–1.22; P = 0.818). The overall resection rate (OR, 0.50; 95% Cl, 0.25–0.99; P = 0.048) was lower, but R0 rate was higher with NAC(R)T. No differences in disease-free survival and recurrence between NAC(R)T and SF. Survival benefits of NAC(R)T basically persisted across sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrates that NAC(R)T can provide survival benefits in BRPC patients and a subgroup of RPC patients compared with SF. Future research should focus on investigating the potential biomarkers to screen the subgroup of RPC patients who can benefit from neoadjuvant therapy.

Trial registration

CRD42018103086.

Impact of Neoadjuvant Therapy in Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreatic Body or Tail on Surgical and Oncological Outcome: A Propensity-Score Matched Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested a survival benefit of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in the pancreatic head. Data concerning NAT for PDAC located in pancreatic body or tail are lacking.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of an international multicenter retrospective cohort of distal pancreatectomy for PDAC in 34 centers from 11 countries (2007-2015). Patients who underwent resection after NAT were matched (1:1 ratio), using propensity scores based on baseline characteristics, to patients who underwent upfront resection. Median overall survival was compared using the stratified log-rank test.

RESULTS

Among 1236 patients, 136 (11.0%) received NAT, most frequently FOLFIRINOX (25.7%). In total, 94 patients receiving NAT were matched to 94 patients undergoing upfront resection. NAT was associated with less postoperative major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3a, 10.6% vs. 23.4%, P = 0.020) and pancreatic fistula grade B/C (9.6% vs. 21.3%, P = 0.026). NAT did not improve overall survival [27 (95% CI 14-39) versus 31 months (95% CI 19-42), P = 0.277], as compared with upfront resection. In a sensitivity analysis of 251 patients with radiographic tumor involvement of splenic vessels, NAT (n = 37, 14.7%) was associated with prolonged overall survival [36 (95% CI 18-53) versus 20 months (95% CI 15-24), P = 0.049], as compared with upfront resection.

CONCLUSION

In this international multicenter cohort study, NAT for resected PDAC in pancreatic body or tail was associated with less morbidity and pancreatic fistula but similar overall survival in comparison with upfront resection. Prospective studies should confirm a survival benefit of NAT in patients with PDAC and splenic vessel involvement.

Neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery in resectable pancreatic cancer according to intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) remains unclear in resectable pancreatic cancer (PC) as compared with upfront surgery (US). The aim of this study was to investigate the survival gain of NAT over US in resectable PC. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for studies comparing survival outcomes between NAT and US for resectable PC until June 2018. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed according to treatment strategy (NAT versus US) and analytic methods (intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) and per-protocol analysis (PP)). In 14 studies, 2,699 and 6,992 patients were treated with NAT and US, respectively. Although PP analysis showed the survival gain of NAT (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.68-0.76), ITT analysis did not show the statistical significance (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82-1.12). However, NAT completed with subsequent surgery showed better survival over US completed with adjuvant therapy (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.93). In conclusion, the supporting evidence for NAT in resectable PC was insufficient because the benefit was not demonstrated in ITT analysis. However, among the patients who completed both surgery and chemotherapy, NAT showed survival benefit over adjuvant therapy. Therefore, NAT could have a role of triaging the patients for surgery even in resectable PC.

Eastern Canadian Gastrointestinal Cancer Consensus Conference 2018

The annual Eastern Canadian Gastrointestinal Cancer Consensus Conference was held in Halifax, Nova Scotia, 20-22 September 2018. Experts in radiation oncology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, and pathology who are involved in the management of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies participated in presentations and discussion sessions for the purpose of developing the recommendations presented here. This consensus statement addresses multiple topics in the management of pancreatic cancer, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours, hepatocellular cancer, and rectal and colon cancer, including ■ surgical management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma,■ adjuvant and metastatic systemic therapy options in pancreatic adenocarcinoma,■ the role of radiotherapy in the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma,■ systemic therapy in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours,■ updates in systemic therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma,■ optimum duration of adjuvant systemic therapy for colorectal cancer, and■ sequence of therapy in oligometastatic colorectal cancer.

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.

A Qualitative Review of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched to identify relevant original articles investigating neoadjuvant therapy in resectable PDAC. Qualitative analyses were performed to investigate patient selection, disease stage, impact on perioperative outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Forty-three studies met inclusion criteria for this review. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for upfront resectable PDAC is cost-effective, safe, may result in lower stage disease and has potential survival advantages. With proper patient selection, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an appropriate approach for upfront resectable PDAC. Nevertheless, the risk for disease progression and losing a curative surgical window highlights the need for appropriate patient identification, further discovery of superior biomarkers or molecular profiles representative of positive treatment response, and additional prospective comparative study.

Systemic neoadjuvant chemotherapy in modern pancreatic cancer treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma remains a disease with a poor prognosis despite advances in surgery and systemic therapies. Neoadjuvant therapy strategies are a promising alternative to adjuvant chemotherapy. However, their role remains controversial. This meta-analysis aims to clarify the benefits of neoadjuvant therapy in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing neoadjuvant therapy with a surgery first approach (with or without adjuvant therapy) in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were included. The primary outcome assessed was overall survival. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, together with pooling of unadjusted Kaplan-Meier curve data.

RESULTS

A total of 533 studies were identified that analysed the effect of neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Twenty-seven studies were included in the final data synthesis. Meta-analysis suggested beneficial effects of neoadjuvant therapy with prolonged survival compared with a surgery-first approach, (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.76). In addition, R0 resection rates were significantly higher in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy (relative risk 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.55). Individual patient data analysis suggested that overall survival was better for patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that neoadjuvant chemotherapy has a beneficial effect on overall survival in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in comparison with upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy. Further trials are needed to address the need for practice change.

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.

Surgery with adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment vs surgery alone for resectable pancreatic cancer: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most common and lethal malignancies worldwide. The common treatment options for resectable pancreatic cancer include surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT), adjuvant CT, and adjuvant CRT. However, the optimal treatment is still controversial.

AIM

To identify the most effective approach for pancreatic cancer using network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Eligible studies were searched from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane database, and Google scholar. We searched and included randomized controlled trials reporting on neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies. For direct comparisons, standard pairwise meta-analysis was performed using the inverse variance DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. For indirect comparisons, Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to combine direct and indirect evidence. We used relative hazard ratios (HRs) to estimate death difference of different treatments, and relative odds ratios (ORs) for toxic effects. Treatment effects were ranked based on their efficacy for improving survival or reducing toxicity using rankogram. The quality of evidence of estimates from direct comparison and network meta-analysis was evaluated following the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included 13 high quality trials with 1591 participants in this network meta-analysis. Compared with surgery alone [pooled HR = 0.7, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.62-0.79] and surgery with adjuvant CRT (pooled HR = 0.6, 95%CI: 0.54-0.72), surgery with adjuvant CT had a higher rate of overall survival. In contrast, standard pairwise meta-analysis showed a statistically significant survival advantage of surgery with adjuvant CT compared with surgery alone (pooled HR = 0.75, 95%CI: 0.63-0.89; P < 0.001). Rankogram showed that surgery with adjuvant CT was most likely to rank the best in terms of overall survival (probability: 94.2%), followed by surgery alone (probability: 5.8%). No significant differences in overall toxicity or haematological toxicity were found between all the therapies. High quality evidence supported surgery with adjuvant CT over surgery alone for increasing overall survival. Moderate quality evidence supported surgery with adjuvant CT over surgery with adjuvant CRT for increasing overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Surgery with adjuvant CT prolongs overall survival compared with surgery alone and surgery with adjuvant CRT, suggesting surgery with adjuvant CT is the optimal 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.

Long-term outcome following neoadjuvant therapy for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer compared to upfront surgery: a meta-analysis of comparative studies by intention-to-treat analysis

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of neoadjuvant therapy on long-term survival in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. A meta-analysis was conducted using the reported randomized, controlled trials and retrospective studies using an intention-to-treat analysis to compare upfront surgery and neoadjuvant therapy in resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer patients. Six comparative studies consisting of two randomized, controlled trials and four retrospective studies were included. The overall pooled hazard ratio was 0.66 (95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.87, P = 0.003), indicating that patients in the neoadjuvant group had better long-term survival than those in the upfront surgery group. However, considerable inter-study heterogeneity was observed (I² = 62%). This meta-analysis focusing on comparative studies analyzed by intention-to-treat analysis showed that neoadjuvant therapy for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer tends to improve patients' long-term outcomes. However, the evidence level remains too low for a firm conclusion. The well-designed, randomized, controlled trials now ongoing will provide the definite evidence needed in the future.

Upfront Surgery versus Neoadjuvant Therapy for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

Current treatment recommendations for resectable pancreatic cancer support upfront resection and adjuvant therapy. Randomized controlled trials offering comparison with the emerging neoadjuvant approach are lacking. This review aims to compare both treatment strategies for resectable pancreatic cancer. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database and Cochrane Databases were searched for studies comparing neoadjuvant and surgery-first with adjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method. Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias, ROBINS-I and GRADE tools were used to assess quality and risk of bias of included trials. 9 studies compared neoadjuvant therapy and surgery-first with adjuvant therapy (n = 22,285). Aggregate rate (AR) of R0 resection for neoadjuvant therapy was 0.8008 (0.3636–0.9144) versus 0.7515 (0.2026–0.8611) odds ratio (O.R.) 1.27 (95% CI 0.60–1.96). 1-year survival AR for neoadjuvant therapy was 0.7969 (0.6061–0.9500) versus 0.7481 (0.4848–0.8500) O.R. 1.38 (95% CI 0.69–2.96). 2-year survival AR for neoadjuvant therapy was 0.5178 (0.3000–0.5970) versus 0.5131 (0.2727–0.5346) O.R. 1.26 (95% CI 0.94–1.74). 5-year AR survival for neoadjuvant therapy was 0.2069 (0.0323–0.3300) versus 0.1783 (0.0606–0.2300) O.R. 1.19 (95% CI 0.65–1.73). In conclusion neoadjuvant therapy may offer benefit over surgery-first and adjuvant therapy. However, further randomized controlled trials are needed.

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.

Circulating Biomarkers for Prediction of Objective Response to Chemotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer Patients

Pancreatic cancer is a lethal disease with increasing incidence. Most patients present with advanced disease, for which palliative systemic chemotherapy is the only therapeutic option. Despite improved median survival rates with FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine chemotherapy compared to the best supportive care, many individual patients may not benefit from chemotherapy. Biomarkers are needed to predict who will benefit from chemotherapy and to monitor a patient’s response to chemotherapy. This review summarizes current research and future perspectives on circulating biomarkers for systemic chemotherapy response.

[Diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic head cancer followed by mesenteric-portal vein invasion]

AIM

To evaluate the outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy with mesenteric-portal vein resection for pancreatic head cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis included 124 patients with pancreatic head cancer for the period 2010-2017. Mesenteric-portal vein (MPV) invasion was diagnosed in 37 (29.8%) patients, tumor contact with superior mesenteric artery as a borderline resectable state was noted in 11 cases. All patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy with mesenteric-portal vein resection.

RESULTS

Vein invasion was histologically confirmed in 19 (51.3%) out of 37 patients. At the same time, arterial invasion was absent in 11 patients with a borderline resectable tumor. CT-associated overdiagnosis of venous wall invasion was 6.4%, intraoperative overdiagnosis - 87.5%. R0-resection was achieved in 88.5% after conventional pancreaticoduodenectomy and in 78.4% after pancreaticoduodenectomy followed by MPV resection. Median survival was 17 months, 2-year survival - 41%. Among 11 patients with a borderline resectable tumor median survival was 11 months. Pancreaticoduodenectomy without vein resection was followed by 2-year survival near 68.1%. Differences were significant (p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Pancreaticoduodenectomy followed by MPV resection as the first stage of combined treatment of pancreatic head cancer is absolutely justified if circumferential involvement of the vein and contact with superior mesenteric artery or celiac trunk do not exceed 50%. Vein resection can provide R0-surgery in these cases.

Recent advances in radiation therapy of pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer has a dismal prognosis with an overall survival outcome of just 5% at five years. However, paralleling our improved understanding of the biology of pancreatic cancer, treatment paradigms have also continued to evolve with newer advances in surgical techniques, chemotherapeutic agents, radiation therapy (RT) techniques, and immunotherapy paradigms. RT dose, modality, fraction size, and sequencing are being evaluated actively, and the interplay between RT and immune effects has opened up newer avenues of research. In this review, we will emphasize recent advances in RT for pancreatic cancer, focusing on preoperative chemoradiation, RT dose escalation, sparing of the spleen to reduce lymphopenia, and combination of RT with immunotherapy.

Resectable Distal Pancreas Cancer: Time to Reconsider the Role of Upfront Surgery

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is increasingly utilized to optimize survival in proximal pancreatic adenocarcinoma. However, few studies have explored the impact of NAC in distal pancreas cancer.

METHODS

Patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma of the body or tail treated with either upfront pancreatectomy or NAC followed by surgery were identified in the 2006-2014 National Cancer Database. Trends in utilization, predictors of use, and impact of NAC on overall survival were determined.

RESULTS

Of 1485 patients, 176 (11.9%) received NAC. Use of NAC increased from 9.3% in 2006 to 16.9% in 2013 [odds ratio 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.24; p = 0.001]. NAC patients were younger, had higher clinical stage, and preoperative CA 19-9 levels (all p < 0.05). After adjustment for patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factors, increased clinical stage was the greatest independent predictor of neoadjuvant approach (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, survival benefit from NAC did not reach threshold of significance (95% CI 0.66-1.04; p = 0.10) for the entire cohort. However, NAC was associated with a significant survival advantage in clinical stage III with a 51% decreased yearly risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio 0.49; 95% CI 0.25-0.98; p = 0.04). A trend towards improved survival with NAC was observed among stage IIA (p = 0.09) and IIB (p = 0.07) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved overall survival in Stage III distal pancreatic adenocarcinoma and shows promise in earlier stage disease. However, only a small percentage of patients receive NAC. Prospective evaluation of NAC in distal pancreatic adenocarcinoma is warranted based on these findings.

Pancreatic Cancer CT: Prediction of Resectability according to NCCN Criteria

Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of CT in the determination of pancreatic cancer resectability according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria to predict R0 resection. Materials and Methods Structured reports of pancreatic CT clinically prepared by board-certified abdominal radiologists from January 2014 to March 2017 were retrospectively reviewed to assess resectability (resectable, borderline resectable, or unresectable) according to NCCN criteria (version 1.2017) in 616 patients (369 men, 247 women; mean age, 63 years ± 10 [standard deviation]) with pancreatic cancer. Negative resection margin (R0) rates were assessed based on CT resectability status in patients who underwent upfront surgery. R0 resection-associated factors were identified by using logistic regression analysis. Results In 371 patients who underwent surgery, R0 resection rates were 73% (171 of 235), 55% (57 of 104), and 16% (five of 32) for resectable, borderline resectable, and unresectable disease, respectively (P < .001). At multivariable analysis, tumor diameter larger than 4 cm (P < .001) and abutment to the portomesenteric vein (P < .001) were significantly associated with margin-positive resection in patients with resectable disease at CT. R0 resection rates were 80% (123 of 154) for resectable disease without portomesenteric vein abutment, 59% (48 of 81) for resectable disease with portomesenteric vein abutment, 83% (57 of 69) for resectable disease 2 cm or smaller, and 29% (five of 17) for tumors larger than 4 cm. Conclusion CT resectability is used to stratify patients with pancreatic cancer according to the possibility of R0 resection. Larger tumor size and tumor abutment to the portomesenteric vein are associated with margin-positive resection in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Fowler in this issue.