Downstaging of pancreatic carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Strahlenther Onkol. 2009;185:557-566. [PMID: 19756421 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-009-1977-9]

Is a Pathological Complete Response Following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Associated With Prolonged Survival in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer?

OBJECTIVES

To describe the survival outcome of patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA-PDAC) who have a pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

BACKGROUND

Patients with BR/LA-PDAC are often treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation in an attempt to downstage the tumor. Uncommonly, a pCR may result.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed at a single institution. pCR was defined as no viable tumor identified in the pancreas or lymph nodes by pathology. A near complete response (nCR) was defined as a primary tumor less than 1 cm, without nodal metastasis. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were reported.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-six patients with BR/LA-PDAC underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation and subsequent pancreatectomy. Nineteen patients (10%) had a pCR, 29 (16%) had an nCR, and the remaining 138 (74%) had a limited response. Median DFS was 26 months in patients with pCR, which was superior to nCR (12 months, P = 0.019) and limited response (12 months, P < 0.001). The median OS of nCR (27 months, P = 0.003) or limited response (26 months, P = 0.001) was less than that of pCR (more than 60 months). In multivariable analyses pCR was an independent prognostic factor for DFS (HR = 0.45; 0.22-0.93, P = 0.030) and OS (HR=0.41; 0.17-0.97, P = 0.044). Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (HR=0.47; 0.26-0.87, P = 0.015) and negative lymph node status (HR=0.57; 0.36-0.90, P = 0.018) were also associated with improved survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with BR/LA-PDAC who had a pCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation had a significantly prolonged survival compared with those who had nCR or a limited response.

Clinical Characteristics of Patients Experiencing Pathologic Complete Response Following Neoadjuvant Therapy for Borderline Resectable/Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to describe clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) or locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) who achieved pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single institution clinical database for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was queried. Between 2008 and 2014 patients were identified with BRPC and LAPC, who underwent surgical resection after receiving neoadjuvant treatment. Clinical and pathologic features of the patients who achieved pCR were acquired retrospectively.

RESULTS

Six patients were identified to have pCR on pathology of the postoperative specimen. On the basis of pretreatment clinical staging, 2 patients were considered to have BRPC and 4 LAPC. Four patients received gemcitabine-based chemotherapy and 2 patients received FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and leucovorin). Five of 6 patients received radiation therapy before operative resection. Operative procedures included distal pancreatectomy (n=3) and pancreatoduodenectomy (n=3). Pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia 1 to 2 was present in 3 cases, and pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia 3 in 1 case. During a median follow-up of 21.3 months, 2 patients died, with a median survival of 11.0 months (range, 10.4 to 11.6 mo). Four patients are alive and continue to follow-up with median survival of 28.7 months (range, 20.1 to 42.4 mo).

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodality neoadjuvant therapy may lead to complete pathologic response in a small number of patients with borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. pCR to neoadjuvant therapy does not lead to cure in most cases, and the majority of patients appear to relapse locally or systemically.

Prognostic Nutritional Index After Chemoradiotherapy Was the Strongest Prognostic Predictor Among Biological and Conditional Factors in Localized Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Patients

Background: In many malignancies, including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), host-related inflammatory/immunonutritional markers, such as the prognostic nutritional index (PNI), modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS), and C-reactive protein (CRP)/albumin ratio are reported to be prognostic factors. However, the prognostic influence of these factors before and after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has not been studied in PDAC patients. Methods: Of 261 consecutive PDAC patients who were scheduled for CRT with gemcitabine or S1 plus gemcitabine between February 2005 and December 2015, participants in this study were 176 who completed CRT and had full data available on inflammatory/immunonutritional markers as well as on anatomical and biological factors for the investigation of prognostic/predictive factors. Results: In multivariate analysis, the significant prognostic factors were RECIST classification, cT category, performance status, post-CRT carcinoembryonic antigen, post-CRT C-reactive protein/albumin ratio, post-CRT mGPS, and post-CRT PNI. Post-CRT PNI (cut-off value, 39) was the strongest host-related prognostic factor according to the p-value. In the patients who underwent resection after CRT, median survival time (MST) was significantly shorter in the 12 patients with low PNI (<39) than in the 97 with high PNI (≥39), at 15.5 months versus 27.2 months, respectively (p = 0.0016). In the patients who did not undergo resection, MST was only 8.9 months in those with low PNI and 12.3 months in those with high PNI (p < 0.0001), and thus was similar to that of the resected patients with low PNI. Conclusions: Post-CRT PNI was the strongest prognostic/predictive indicator among the independent biological and conditional prognostic factors in PDAC patients who underwent CRT.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation for non-metastatic pancreatic cancer increases margin-negative and node-negative rates at resection

OBJECTIVE

To compare neoadjuvant to adjuvant chemoradiation in non-metastatic pancreatic cancer patients.

METHODS

Single-institution data were obtained for patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiation from 2011 to 2014. Univariate analyses were performed to evaluate clinical and pathological outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty-two well-matched patients were enrolled (21 underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation, 11 with adjuvant chemoradiation and 20 in the definitive group). Median tumor size was 2.6 cm pretreatment and 2.5 cm after neoadjuvant chemoradiation but 3.2 cm on pathology, with a treatment effect in 95.2% of specimens. Clinical node positivity at diagnosis for neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemoradiation groups was similar (28.6% vs 27.3%, P = 0.12). Of the 36 neoadjuvant patients, 21 (58.3%) underwent complete resection. In the neoadjuvant vs adjuvant chemoradiation groups, positive margins were decreased (4.8% vs 63.6%, P < 0.001), as was pathological nodal positivity (23.8% vs 90.9%, P < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 13.3 months, locoregional control for neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemoradiation was 7.7 and 7.2 months, respectively (P = 0.12) and the definitive group was 1.2 months (P = 0.014 compared with the surgical cohort). One-year overall survival was better with neoadjuvant than with adjuvant chemoradiation but this was not significant (94% vs 82%, P = 0.20); 1-year survival for the definitive group was 59% (P = 0.03 compared with the surgical cohort).

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation remains a promising approach for non-metastatic pancreatic cancer for improving resectability and pathological and clinical findings. Computed tomography may not fully demonstrate the effectiveness of neoadjuvant treatment.

Neoadjuvant treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 5520 patients

BACKGROUND

Recent years have seen standardization of the anatomic definitions of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and increasing utilization of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). The aim of the current review was to summarize the evidence for NAT in pancreatic adenocarcinoma since 2009, when consensus criteria for resectable (R), borderline resectable (BR), and locally advanced (LA) disease were endorsed.

METHODS

PubMed search was undertaken along with extensive backward search of the references of published articles to identify studies utilizing NAT for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Abstracts from ASCO-GI 2014 and 2015 were also searched.

RESULTS

A total of 96 studies including 5520 patients were included in the final quantitative synthesis. Pooled estimates revealed 36% grade ≥ 3 toxicities, 5% biliary complications, 21% hospitalization rate and low mortality (0%, range 0-16%) during NAT. The majority of patients (59%) had stable disease. On an intention-to-treat basis, R0-resection rates varied from 63% among R patients to 23% among LA patients. R0 rates were > 80% among all patients who were resected after NAT. Among R and BR patients who underwent resection after NAT, median OS was 30 and 27.4 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study summarizes the recent literature for NAT in pancreatic adenocarcinoma and demonstrates improving outcomes after NAT compared to those historically associated with a surgery-first approach for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Preoperative radiochemotherapy versus immediate surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC trial): study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Background

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth largest cause of cancer death in the United States and Europe with over 100,000 deaths per year in Europe alone. The overall 5-year survival ranges from 2–7 % and has hardly improved over the last two decades. Approximately 15 % of all patients have resectable disease at diagnosis, and of those, only a subgroup has a resectable tumour at surgical exploration. Data from cohort studies have suggested that outcome can be improved by preoperative radiochemotherapy, but data from well-designed randomized studies are lacking. Our PREOPANC phase III trial aims to test the hypothesis that median overall survival of patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer can be improved with preoperative radiochemotherapy.

Methods/design

The PREOPANC trial is a randomized, controlled, multicentric superiority trial, initiated by the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. Patients with (borderline) resectable pancreatic cancer are randomized to A: direct explorative laparotomy or B: after negative diagnostic laparoscopy, preoperative radiochemotherapy, followed by explorative laparotomy. A hypofractionated radiation scheme of 15 fractions of 2.4 gray (Gy) is combined with a course of gemcitabine, 1,000 mg/m²/dose on days 1, 8 and 15, preceded and followed by a modified course of gemcitabine. The target volumes of radiation are delineated on a 4D CT scan, where at least 95 % of the prescribed dose of 36 Gy in 15 fractions should cover 98 % of the planning target volume. Standard adjuvant chemotherapy is administered in both treatment arms after resection (six cycles in arm A and four in arm B). In total, 244 patients will be randomized in 17 hospitals in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint is overall survival by intention to treat. Secondary endpoints are (R0) resection rate, disease-free survival, time to locoregional recurrence or distant metastases and perioperative complications. Secondary endpoints for the experimental arm are toxicity and radiologic and pathologic response.

Discussion

The PREOPANC trial is designed to investigate whether preoperative radiochemotherapy improves overall survival by means of increased (R0) resection rates in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

Trial registration

Trial open for accrual: 3 April 2013

The Netherlands National Trial Register – NTR3709 (8 November 2012)

EU Clinical Trials Register – 2012-003181-40 (11 December 2012)

The role of neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer: a review

Controversy remains regarding neoadjuvant approaches in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Neoadjuvant therapy has several potential advantages over adjuvant therapy including earlier delivery of systemic treatment, in vivo assessment of response, increased resectability rate in borderline resectable patients and increased margin-negative resection rate. At present, there are no randomized data favoring neoadjuvant over adjuvant therapy and multiple neoadjuvant approaches are under investigation. Combination chemotherapy regimens including 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan and oxaliplatin, gemcitabine with or without abraxane, or docetaxel and capecitabine have been used in the neoadjuvant setting. Radiation and chemoradiation have also been incorporated into neoadjuvant strategies, and delivery of alternative fractionation regimens is being explored. This review provides an overview of neoadjuvant therapies for pancreatic cancer.

Role of radiotherapy in the chemotherapy-containing multidisciplinary management of patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

To analyze prognostic factors associated with long-term outcomes in patients with resected pancreatic cancer treated with chemotherapy (CT) and surgery with or without external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 1995 to December 2012, 95 patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas and locoregional disease [clinical stage IB-IIA (n = 45; 47%), IIB-IIIC (n = 50; 53%)] were treated with curative resection [R0 (n = 52; 55%), R1 (n = 43, 45%)] and CT with (n = 60; 63%) or without (n = 35; 37%) EBRT (45-50.4 Gy). Additionally, 29 patients (48%) also received a pre-anastomosis IOERT boost (applicator diameter size, 7-10 cm; dose, 10-15 Gy; beam energy, 9-18 MeV).

RESULTS

With a median follow-up of 17.2 months (range, 1-182), 2-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and locoregional control were 28, 20, and 53%, respectively. Univariate analyses showed that IIB-IIIC stage (HR, 2.23; p = 0.04), R1 margin resection status (HR, 2.09; p = 0.04), no vascular resection (HR, 0.42; p = 0.02), and not receiving external beam radiotherapy (HR, 2.70; p = 0.004) were associated with locoregional recurrence. In the multivariate analysis, only R1 margin resection status (HR, 2.63; p = 0.009) and not receiving EBRT (HR, 2.91; p = 0.002) retained significance with regard to locoregional recurrence. We observed no difference in toxicity between patients treated with or without EBRT (p = 0.44). Overall treatment mortality was 3%. No long-term treatment-related death occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Although adjuvant CT is still the standard of care for resected pancreatic tumors, OS remains modest owing to the high risk of distant metastases. Locoregional treatment needs to be tested in the context of more efficient systemic therapy.

Neoadjuvant strategies for pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is the fourth cause of cancer death in Western countries, the only chance for long term survival is an R0 surgical resection that is feasible in about 10%-20% of all cases. Five years cumulative survival is less than 5% and rises to 25% for radically resected patients. About 40% has locally advanced in PC either borderline resectable (BRPC) or unresectable locally advanced (LAPC). Since LAPC and BRPC have been recognized as a particular form of PC neoadjuvant therapy (NT) has increasingly became a valid treatment option. The aim of NT is to reach local control of disease but, also, it is recognized to convert about 40% of LAPC patients to R0 resectability, thus providing a significant improvement of prognosis for responding patients. Once R0 resection is achieved, survival is comparable to that of early stage PCs treated by upfront surgery. Thus it is crucial to look for a proper patient selection. Neoadjuvant strategies are multiples and include neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT), and the association of nCT with radiotherapy (nCRT) given as either a combination of a radio sensitizing drug as gemcitabine or capecitabine or and concomitant irradiation or as upfront nCT followed by nRT associated to a radio sensitizing drug. This latter seem to be most promising as it may select patients who do not go on disease progression during initial treatment and seem to have a better prognosis. The clinical relevance of nCRT may be enhanced by the application of higher active protocols as FOLFIRINOX.

Neoadjuvant therapy for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer: an emerging paradigm?

Although neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has been tested for more than two decades and can be safely delivered to patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer, no randomised trials have been reported until now. Here we provide an overview of the first randomised trial in patients with potentially resectable cancer and of the latest developments in neoadjuvant therapy for this group of patients. It is necessary to continue to perform clinical trials in this field to accurately identify the effect on survival and quality of life in patients with potentially resectable, borderline resectable and unresectable pancreatic cancer. Aspects of imaging for restaging and clinical prognostic factors are also discussed given they will be useful instruments for future trials.

Outcome after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and correlation with nutritional status in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients commonly suffer from weight loss since rapid tumor growth can cause catabolic metabolism and depletion of energy stores such as abdominal fat. In locally advanced pancreatic cancer this is even more pronounced due to abdominal pain, fatigue, nausea or malnutrition. In the present article, we quantify this frequently observed weight loss and assess its impact on outcome and survival.

METHODS

Data on demographics, biometrics, toxicity and survival were collected for the last 100 patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation for locally advanced pancreatic cancer at our department (45.0 Gy and boost up to 54.0 Gy plus concurrent and subsequent gemcitabine), and the subcutaneous fat area at the umbilicus level was measured by computer tomography before and after chemoradiation.

RESULTS

After chemoradiation, patients showed a highly statistically significant weight loss and reduction of the subcutaneous fat area. We could determine a very strong correlation of subcutaneous fat area to patient BMI. By categorizing patients according to their BMI based on the WHO classification as slender, normal, overweight and obese, we found improved but not statistically significant survival among obese patients. Accordingly, patients who showed less weight loss tended to survive longer.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, patients with pancreatic cancer lost weight during chemoradiation and their subcutaneous fat diminished. Changes in subcutaneous fat area were highly correlated with patients' BMI. Moreover, obese patients and patients who lost less weight had an improved outcome after treatment. Although the extent of weight loss was not significantly correlated with survival, the observed trend warrants greater attention to nutritional status in the future.

Comparison of four target volume definitions for pancreatic cancer. Guidelines for treatment of the lymphatics and the primary tumor

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Target volume definitions for radiotherapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) vary substantially. Some groups aim to treat the primary tumor only, whereas others include elective lymph nodes (eLNs). eLNs close to the primary tumor are often included unintentionally within the treatment volume, depending on the respective treatment philosophies. We aimed to measure the percentages of anatomical coverage of eLNs by comparing four different contouring guidelines.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Planning target volumes (PTVs) were contoured using planning computed tomography (CT) scans of 11 patients with PDAC based on the Oxford, RTOG (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group), Michigan, and SCALOP (Selective Chemoradiation in Advanced Localised Pancreatic Cancer trial) guidelines. Clinical target volumes (CTVs) included the peripancreatic, para-aortic, paracaval, celiac trunk, superior mesenteric, and portal vein lymph node areas. Volumetric comparisons of the coverage of all eLN regions were conducted to illustrate the differences between the four contouring strategies.

RESULTS

The PTV sizes of the RTOG and Oxford guidelines were comparable. The SCALOP and Michigan PTV sizes were similar to each other and significantly smaller than the RTOG and Oxford PTVs. A large variability of eLN coverage was found for the various subregions according to the respective contouring strategies.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to directly compare the percentage of anatomical coverage of eLNs according to four PTVs in the same patient cohort. Potential practical consequences are discussed in detail.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy planning with duodenal sparing using volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a dosimetric analysis

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) achieves excellent local control for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), but may increase late duodenal toxicity. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivers intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with a rotating gantry rather than multiple fixed beams. This study dosimetrically evaluates the feasibility of implementing duodenal constraints for SBRT using VMAT vs IMRT. Non-duodenal sparing (NS) and duodenal-sparing (DS) VMAT and IMRT plans delivering 25Gy in 1 fraction were generated for 15 patients with LAPC. DS plans were constrained to duodenal Dmax of<30Gy at any point. VMAT used 1 360° coplanar arc with 4° spacing between control points, whereas IMRT used 9 coplanar beams with fixed gantry positions at 40° angles. Dosimetric parameters for target volumes and organs at risk were compared for DS planning vs NS planning and VMAT vs IMRT using paired-sample Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Both DS VMAT and DS IMRT achieved significantly reduced duodenal Dmean, Dmax, D1cc, D4%, and V20Gy compared with NS plans (all p≤0.002). DS constraints compromised target coverage for IMRT as demonstrated by reduced V95% (p = 0.01) and Dmean (p = 0.02), but not for VMAT. DS constraints resulted in increased dose to right kidney, spinal cord, stomach, and liver for VMAT. Direct comparison of DS VMAT and DS IMRT revealed that VMAT was superior in sparing the left kidney (p<0.001) and the spinal cord (p<0.001), whereas IMRT was superior in sparing the stomach (p = 0.05) and the liver (p = 0.003). DS VMAT required 21% fewer monitor units (p<0.001) and delivered treatment 2.4 minutes faster (p<0.001) than DS IMRT. Implementing DS constraints during SBRT planning for LAPC can significantly reduce duodenal point or volumetric dose parameters for both VMAT and IMRT. The primary consequence of implementing DS constraints for VMAT is increased dose to other organs at risk, whereas for IMRT it is compromised target coverage. These findings suggest clinical situations where each technique may be most useful if DS constraints are to be employed.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation with Gemcitabine for locally advanced pancreatic cancer

Introduction

To evaluate efficacy and secondary resectability in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

Patients and methods

A total of 215 patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer were treated with chemoradiation at a single institution. Radiotherapy was delivered with a median dose of 52.2 Gy in single fractions of 1.8 Gy. Chemotherapy was applied concomitantly as gemcitabine (GEM) at a dose of 300 mg/m² weekly, followed by adjuvant cycles of full-dose GEM (1000 mg/m²). After neoadjuvant CRT restaging was done to evaluate secondary resectability. Overall and disease-free survival were calculated and prognostic factors were estimated.

Results

After CRT a total of 26% of all patients with primary unresectable LAPC were chosen to undergo secondary resection. Tumour free resection margins could be achieved in 39.2% (R0-resection), R1-resections were seen in 41.2%, residual macroscopic tumour in 11.8% (R2) and in 7.8% resection were classified as Rx. Patients with complete resection after CRT showed a significantly increased median overall survival (OS) with 22.1 compared to 11.9 months in non-resected patients. Median OS and disease-free survival (DFS) of all patients were 12.3 and 8.1 months respectively. In most cases the first site of disease progression was systemic with hepatic (52%) and peritoneal (36%) metastases.

Discussion

A high percentage of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer can undergo secondary resection after gemcitabine-based chemoradiation and has a relative long-term prognosis after complete resection.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has a potential role in pancreatic carcinoma

Pancreatic cancer has an extremely poor prognosis, only a small minority of patients undergo a resection with curative intent. Chemotherapy and/or radiochemotherapy may improve this by prolonging survival or disease-free interval and improving resectability and the proportion of microscopically complete (R0) resections. With regard to prolonging survival, both in the postoperative adjuvant setting and in locally advanced disease, chemotherapy has a positive but limited effect on survival and may be considered standard. The role of postoperative adjuvant radiochemotherapy remains debatable. For improving resectability/proportion of R0 resections, many studies suggest that the proportion of patients undergoing a resection during exploration and the proportion of R0 resections increase after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. This may improve the prognosis of patients with a resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma. The effect of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, if any, is modest. The search for better combinations, including targeted therapy, must continue. The interpretation of single-arm studies is hampered by (selection) biases. The reporting of pathology and study endpoints should be internationally standardized. To avoid biases in studies of patients with (borderline) resectable tumours, prospective parallel registration of all patients referred for surgery would help. Ultimately, randomized controlled phase III trials should establish the role of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Thus, neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy has a potential benefit in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, but better combinations are warranted.

Pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is associated with a better prognosis

In patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) who received neoadjuvant therapy and pancreatectomy, pathologic complete response (pCR) is rarely observed and the prognostic significance of pCR is not clear. In this study, we identified 11 patients with pCR (2.5%) from 442 patients with PDA who received neoadjuvant treatment and pancreatectomy from 1995 to 2010. There were 6 men and 5 women, with a median age of 61 years. Four patients had either synchronous or history of extrapancreatic cancer. Five patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation, and 6 received chemoradiation alone. Ten patients had pancreaticoduodenectomy, and 1 had distal pancreatectomy. Scar and chronic pancreatitis consistent with therapy effect were present in all cases (100%). Pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) 3/carcinoma in situ was present in 5 cases, and PanIN1 and PanIN2 in 5 cases. However, no residual invasive carcinoma or lymph node metastasis was identified in all cases. Follow-up information was available in 10 patients. Follow-up time ranges from 6 to 194 months (median, 63 months). During the follow-up, 3 patients died of other causes, and 1 developed a second primary PDA in the tail of the pancreas at 84 months after the initial pancreaticoduodenectomy and died at 105 months after the initial diagnosis of PDA. The other 6 patients were alive with no evidence of disease. Patients with pCR had a better survival than did those who had posttherapy stage I or IIA disease (P < .001). Patients with PDA who received neoadjuvant therapy and had pCR in pancreatectomy are rare but have a better prognosis.

Regional hyperthermia combined with chemoradiotherapy in primary or recurrent locally advanced pancreatic cancer : an open-label comparative cohort trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the therapeutic effect of delivering regional hyperthermia (HT) plus chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients suffering from locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer (LAPC).

METHODS

Between January 2000 and December 2008, 68 patients affected by primary (56/68) or recurrent (12/68) LAPC were treated either with CRT alone or CRT plus HT. Radiotherapy (RT) consisted of 3D conformal irradiation of tumor and regional lymph nodes (dose ranged from 30 Gy/10 fractions to 66 Gy/33 fractions). Chemotherapy (CT) consisted of gemcitabine (GEM) alone or in association with either oxaliplatin, cisplatin, or 5-FU. HT was delivered twice a week, concomitant with RT.

RESULTS

In the current study, 60 of the original 68 patients were included. Median overall survival (OS) was 15 months in the HT group versus 11 months in the control group (log-rank test: p = 0.025). HT did not increase CRT toxicity.

CONCLUSION

HT can be added safely to CRT in LAPC, thus, resulting in slightly prolonged survival in certain cases.

Outcomes after resection of locally advanced or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer after neoadjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant treatment frequently is performed in unresectable/borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare postoperative outcomes and survival of patients who underwent pancreatectomy after neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced/borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (neoadjuvant treatment group) with those of patients with resectable disease who underwent upfront surgery.

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2008, there were 403 patients who underwent pancreatic cancer resection, 41 (10.1%) patients after neoadjuvant treatment for initially unresectable tumors and 362 (89.9%) patients had upfront surgery. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Mortality/morbidity rates were similar in the 2 groups. Nodal metastases were significantly lower in the neoadjuvant treatment group (31.7% vs 86.2%; P < .001). A complete pathologic response was observed in 13.6% after neoadjuvant treatment. Median disease-specific survival from resection was 35 and 27 months in the neoadjuvant treatment and upfront groups, respectively (P = .74). In the neoadjuvant treatment group survival rates were similar in N0/N1 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative mortality and morbidity do not significantly increase after neoadjuvant treatment. Neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced pancreatic cancer can lead to an objective pathologic response, but this does not significantly improve survival after resection.

Gemcitabine/cisplatin versus 5-fluorouracil/mitomycin C chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a retrospective analysis of 93 patients

Background

Despite of a growing number of gemcitabine based chemoradiotherapy studies in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), 5-fluorouracil based regimens are still regarded to be standard and the debate of superiority between the two drugs is going on. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate the effect of two concurrent chemoradiotherapy regimens using 5-fluorouracil or gemcitabine to compare their effect and tolerance.

Methods

We have performed a single centre retrospective analysis of 93 patients treated with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy of 55.8 Gray using either concurrent 5-fluorouracil, 1 g/m² on days 1-5 and 29-33 of radiotherapy and 10 mg/m² of mitomycin C on day 1, 29 of radiotherapy (FM group, 35 patients) versus gemcitabine (300 mg/m²) and cisplatin, (30 mg/m²) on days 1, 8, 22, and 29 (GC group, 58 patients). Primary endpoint was the median overall survival (OS) rate.

Results

The median OS rate was 12.7 months in the GC group and 9.7 months in the FM group. The 1-year OS rate was 53% versus 40%, respectively (p = 0.009). GC led to more grade 3 leukocytopenia and thrombocytopenia than FM, but not to more grade 4 myelosuppression. Thrombocytopenia was the most frequently observed grade 4 toxicity in both groups (11% after FM versus 12% after GC). No grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia was observed. Grade 3 nausea was more common in the FM group (20% versus 9%) and grade 4 nausea was observed in one patient per group only.

Conclusions

GC was superior to FM for overall survival and both regimens were similar in terms of tolerance. We conclude that GC leads to encouraging results and that the use of FM for chemoradiotherapy in LAPC cannot be recommended without concerns.

Small interfering RNA targeting HIF-1α reduces hypoxia-dependent transcription and radiosensitizes hypoxic HT 1080 human fibrosarcoma cells in vitro

BACKGROUND

Hypoxia inducible factor-1 has been identified as a potential target to overcome hypoxia-induced radioresistance The aim of the present study was to investigate whether selective HIF-1 inhibition via small interfering RNA (siRNA) targeting hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) affects hypoxia-induced radioresistance in HT 1080 human fibrosarcoma cells.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

HIF-1α expression in HT 1080 human fibrosarcoma cells in vitro was silenced using HIF-1α siRNA sequence primers. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction assay was performed to quantify the mRNA expression of HIF-1α. HIF-1α protein levels were studied by Western blotting at 20% (air) or after 12 hours at 0.1% O2 (hypoxia). Cells were assayed for clonogenic survival after irradiation with 2, 5, or 10 Gy, under normoxic or hypoxic conditions in the presence of HIF-1α-targeted or control siRNA sequences. A modified oxygen enhancement ratio (OER´) was calculated as the ratio of the doses to achieve the same survival at 0.1% O(2) as at ambient oxygen tensions. OER´ was obtained at cell survival levels of 50%, 37%, and 10%.

RESULTS

HIF-1α-targeted siRNA enhanced radiation treatment efficacy under severely hypoxic conditions compared to tumor cells treated with scrambled control siRNA. OER was reduced on all survival levels after treatment with HIF-1α-targeted siRNA, suggesting that inhibition of HIF-1 activation by using HIF-1α-targeted siRNA increases radiosensitivity of hypoxic tumor cells in vitro.

CONCLUSION

Inhibition of HIF-1 activation by using HIF-1α-targeted siRNA clearly acts synergistically with radiotherapy and increase radiosensitivity of hypoxic cells in vitro.

Patient- and treatment-related risk factors for nausea and emesis during concurrent chemoradiotherapy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the prevalence of acute nausea and emesis during concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with emphasis on the influence of patient- and treatment-related risk factors and prophylactic antiemetic medication.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 335 patients treated with different intravenous standard chemoradiotherapy protocols in the inpatient setting were included in this retrospective study. Acute nausea and emesis, scored according to the CTC (version 3.0) criteria, were evaluated during 821 chemotherapy cycles. Side effects were correlated with patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related parameters.

RESULTS

Overall, at least one episode of acute nausea occurred in 48% of the patients and at least one episode of vomiting occurred in 25% of patients. The emetogenic level of the applied chemotherapy protocol was the most significant risk factor for developing nausea and emesis (p < 0.0001). The site of irradiation - namely the thorax (p = 0.0110) and head and neck (p = 0.0415) - was also confirmed as a risk factor. Patient-related parameters, e.g., female gender (p = 0.0003), young age (< 40 years; p = 0.0029), weight loss > 5% (p = 0.0004), and the presence of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG; p = 0.0071), were associated with higher rates of nausea and emesis, while a history of alcohol abuse showed a protective effect (p = 0.0553). In high emetogenic chemotherapy protocols, prophylaxis with 5-HT3 antagonist plus dexamethasone was superior to 5-HT3 antagonist alone (p = 0.0383).

CONCLUSION

Future studies should evaluate more effective prophylaxis protocols in CRT in order to reduce the high rates of nausea and emesis.

Current and emerging therapies for the treatment of pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma carries a dismal prognosis and remains a significant cause of cancer morbidity and mortality. Most patients survive less than 1 year; chemotherapeutic options prolong life minimally. The best chance for long-term survival is complete resection, which offers a 3-year survival of only 15%. Most patients who do undergo resection will go on to die of their disease. Research in chemotherapy for metastatic disease has made only modest progress and the standard of care remains the purine analog gemcitabine. For resectable pancreatic cancer, presumed micrometastases provide the rationale for adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation (CRT) to supplement surgical management. Numerous randomized control trials, none definitive, of adjuvant chemotherapy and CRT have been conducted and are summarized in this review, along with recent developments in how unresectable disease can be subcategorized according to the potential for eventual curative resection. This review will also emphasize palliative care and discuss some avenues of research that show early promise.

The role of radiotherapy in multimodal treatment of pancreatic carcinoma

Pancreatic ductal carcinoma is one of the most lethal malignancies, but in recent years a number of positive developments have occurred in the management of pancreatic carcinoma. This article aims to give an overview of the current knowledge regarding the role of radiotherapy in the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The results of meta-analyses, phase III-studies, and phase II-studies using chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy for resectable and non-resectable PDAC were reviewed. The use of radiotherapy is discussed in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings as well as in the locally advanced situation. Whenever possible, radiotherapy should be performed as simultaneous chemoradiotherapy. Patients with PDAC should be offered entry into clinical trials to identify optimal treatment results.

Long-term outcome of mitomycin C- and 5-FU-based primary radiochemotherapy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

For definitive radiochemotherapy, 5-fluorouracil/cisplatin protocols have been considered the standard of care for esophageal carcinoma over the last 2 decades. By contrast, most patients treated at the University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany, received 5-fluorouracil/mitomycin C. The objective of this retrospective analysis was to determine the value of 5-fluorouracil/mitomycin-C-based therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Tumor stage, treatment received, and outcome data of patients treated for esophageal cancer between 1982 and 2007 were collected; endpoint of the analysis was overall survival.

RESULTS

298 patients with inoperable cancer of the esophagus were identified (16.8% adenocarcinoma, 77.5% squamous cell carcinoma). At diagnosis, 61.7% (184/298) had UICC stage III-IV, 54.4% (162/298) positive lymph nodes, and 26.5% (79/298) metastatic disease. 74.5% of all patients (222/298) received radiation doses between 55 and 65 Gy, 65.8% (196/298) were subjected to concomitant chemotherapy. The median follow-up period (patients alive) was 4.1 years. A significant increase of overall survival (p < 0.0001) in the radiochemotherapy versus the radiotherapy-alone group was observed. 52% (102/196) in the 5-fluorouracil/ mitomycin C group had tumor stages comparable to the RTOG 85-01 study cohort (T1-3 N0-1 M0). The median survival in this subgroup was 18.2 months, 3- and 5-year survival rates were 22.7% (21/102) and 15.0% (13/102), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Despite being nominally inferior to platinum-based radiochemotherapy, the overall survival rates are in a similar range. Thus, the mitomycin-C-based radiochemotherapy approach may considered to be as effective as the standard therapy. However, there is no randomized trial available in order to prove the equality.