Survival impact of neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus S-1 chemotherapy for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma with arterial contact

Prognostic impact of aberrant right hepatic artery involvement in patients with pancreatic cancer: A multicenter retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of aberrant right hepatic artery (A-RHA) involvement in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC).

METHODS

This study enrolled 474 patients who underwent upfront pancreatectomy or neoadjuvant treatment for resectable (R) or borderline resectable (BR) PC from four institutions. The patients were divided into three groups: A-RHA involvement group (n = 12), patients who had sole A-RHA involvement without major arterial involvement; BR-A group (n = 104), patients who had major arterial involvement; R/BR-PV group (n = 358), others.

RESULTS

All patients in the A-RHA involvement group underwent margin-negative resection. The median overall survival of the entire cohort in the A-RHA involvement, R/BR-PV, and BR-A groups was 41.2, 33.5, and 25.2 months, respectively. Although survival in the R/BR-PV group was significantly more favorable than that in the BR-A group (p = 0.0003), no significant difference was observed between the A-RHA involvement group and the R/BR-PV (p = 0.7332) and BR-A (p = 0.1485) groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The prognosis of patients with PC and sole A-RHA involvement was comparable to that of patients with R/BR-PV.

Comparison of the upfront surgery and neoadjuvant therapy in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Pancreatic cancer is a malignant disease with a dismal prognosis. While neoadjuvant therapy has shown promise in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, its role remains a subject of controversy among physicians. We aimed to evaluate the benefits of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Eligible studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Studies comparing neoadjuvant therapy with upfront surgery (with or without adjuvant therapy) in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were included. The primary endpoint assessed was overall survival. A total of 10,022 studies were identified, and the meta-analysis finally enrolled 50 revealed studies. The meta-analysis suggested that neoadjuvant therapy significantly improved the overall survival (HR 0.74, p < 0.001) and recurrence-free survival (HR 0.75, p = 0.006) compared to the upfront surgery approach. Furthermore, neoadjuvant therapy leads to favorable postoperative outcomes, with an enhanced R0 resection rate (OR 1.90, p < 0.001) and reduced lymph node metastasis (OR 0.36, p < 0.001) and perineural invasion (OR 0.42, p < 0.001), although it is associated with a reduced resection rate (OR 0.42, p < 0.001). In addition, patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy experience superior survival benefits compared to those undergoing adjuvant therapy (HR 0.87, p = 0.019). These results are further corroborated by the subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neoadjuvant therapy has the potential to provide survival benefits and improve postoperative long-term outcomes for patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. However, to validate and reinforce these findings, further well-designed and large trials are required.

Initial chemotherapy option for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in patients with adequate performance status

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a highly progressive lethal malignancy, with chemotherapy being the primary treatment modality. This article provides a review of the initial chemotherapy options for PDAC patients with adequate performance status, comparing FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) or modified FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NabP) regimens. The availability of limited evidence from randomized trials restricts a direct comparison between the 2 regimens. Based on our review, (m)FOLFIRINOX yields superior survival outcomes compared to GEM-NabP in metastatic PDAC. For locally advanced PDAC, either (m)FOLFIRINOX or GEM-NabP can be considered initial chemotherapy. In the neoadjuvant setting for borderline resectable PDAC, both regimens have demonstrated promising results in achieving feasible resection rates. However, mFOLFIRINOX remains the preferred choice for adjuvant chemotherapy. The selection of initial chemotherapy for PDAC depends on the disease stage, patients’ performance status, and tumor molecular alterations. Further research and clinical trials are necessary to optimize treatment approaches for PDAC patients.

Superior mesenteric vein/portal vein contact in preoperative imaging indicates biological malignancy in anatomically resectable pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer in contact with the superior mesenteric vein/portal vein is classified as resectable pancreatic cancer; however, the biological malignancy and treatment strategy have not been clarified.

METHODS

Data from 186 patients who underwent pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer were evaluated using a prospectively maintained database. The patients were classified as having resectable tumors without superior mesenteric vein/portal vein contact and with superior mesenteric vein/portal vein contact of ≤180°. Disease-free survival, overall survival, and prognostic factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

In the univariate analysis, superior mesenteric vein/portal vein contact in resectable pancreatic cancer was a significant prognostic index for disease-free survival and overall survival. In the multivariate analysis for poor disease-free survival, the superior mesenteric vein/portal vein contact remained significant (hazard ratio = 2.13, 95% confidence interval: 1.29-3.51; p < 0.01). In the multivariate analysis, superior mesenteric vein/portal vein contact was a significant independent prognostic index for overall survival (hazard ratio = 2.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.27-3.70; p < 0.01), along with sex, tumor differentiation, nodal involvement, and adjuvant chemotherapy. Portal vein resection for superior mesenteric vein/portal vein contact did not improve the overall survival (p = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Superior mesenteric vein/portal vein contact in resectable pancreatic cancer was found to be an independent predictor of disease-free survival and overall survival after elective resection. Thus, pancreatic cancer in contact with the superior mesenteric vein/portal vein may be considered as borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

Utility of Covered Self-Expanding Metal Stents for Biliary Drainage during Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to compare the utility of covered self-expanding metal stents (CSEMSs) with that of plastic stents (PSs) for biliary drainage during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Forty patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer underwent biliary stenting during neoadjuvant chemotherapy at Hiroshima University Hospital. PSs and CSEMSs were placed in 19 and 21 patients, respectively. Two gemcitabine-based regimens for chemotherapy were used. Treatment outcomes and postoperative complications were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

The incidence of recurrent biliary obstruction was significantly lower in the CSEMS group (0% vs. 47.4%, p < 0.001), and the median time to recurrent biliary obstruction in the PS group was 47 days. There was no difference in the incidence of other complications such as non-occlusive cholangitis, pancreatitis, and cholecystitis between the two groups. Delays in the chemotherapy schedule due to stent-related complications were significantly frequent in the PS group (52.6% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

CSEMSs may be the best choice for safely performing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for several months in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer with bile duct stricture.

Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Treatments for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: The Current Status of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Treatment in Japan

Resection is the only curative treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Although the outcome of technically resectable PDAC has improved with advances in surgery and adjuvant therapy, the 5-year survival rate remains low at 20% to 40%. More effective therapy is needed. Almost 15 years ago, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines proposed a resectability classification of PDAC based on preoperative imaging. Since then, treatment strategies for PDAC have been devised based on resectability. The standard of care for resectable PDAC is adjuvant chemotherapy after R0 resection, as shown by the results of pivotal clinical trials. With regard to neoadjuvant treatment, several recent clinical trials comparing neoadjuvant treatment with upfront resection have been conducted on resectable PDAC and borderline resectable PDAC, and the benefits and efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment for pancreatic cancer has become clearer. The significance of neoadjuvant treatment for resectable PDAC remains controversial, but in borderline resectable PDAC the efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment has been further recognised, although the standard of care has not yet been established. Several promising clinical trials for PDAC are ongoing. This review presents previous and ongoing trials of perioperative treatment for resectable and borderline resectable PDAC, focusing on the difference between Asian and Western countries.

Survival Benefit after Shifting from Upfront Surgery to Neoadjuvant Treatment in Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

According to the 2016 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) should receive chemotherapy as the first-line treatment. This study examined the real-world survival benefits of modifying BRPC treatment guidelines. Patients treated for BRPC at a single institution from 2013 to 2015 (pre-guideline group) and 2017 to 2019 (post-guideline group) were retrospectively reviewed. According to the treatment method used, patients were classified into upfront surgery (US), surgery after neoadjuvant treatment (NAT), and chemotherapy only (CO) groups. Overall survival (OS) was compared according to period and treatment type. Factors associated with OS were analyzed using a Cox regression model. Among the 165 patients, 63 were in the pre-guideline group and 102 patients were in the post-guideline group. The median OS was significantly improved in the post-guideline group compared to the pre-guideline group (29 vs. 13 months, p < 0.001). According to the treatment method, the median OS of the NAT group was significantly longer than that of the US and CO groups (40 vs. 16 vs. 15 months, respectively, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, tumor size, differentiation, NAT, and perineural invasion were significant prognostic factors. NAT is an important treatment option for BRPC and increased patient survival in the real world.

Current Value of Perioperative Therapies for Resectable or Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

Invasive pancreatic ductal carcinoma is a representative refractory malignant tumor, and even with the development of early diagnosis and treatment techniques, the treatment outcome has been remarkably poor. Surgical resection is the curative treatment for resectable pancreatic cancer and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. However, the survival rate in patients with pancreatic cancer treated by resection alone is low because of the high postoperative recurrence rate. In this review article, we report recent studies on perioperative treatment for pancreatic cancer. Perioperative therapy is the addition of chemotherapy or radiation therapy before or after surgery to improve resectability and curative effects. Because it is difficult to cure redsecttable pancreatic cancer by surgery alone, multidisciplinary treatment combined with perioperative adjuvant chemotherapy is the current standard of care. Although perioperative chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy have been investigated for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, the effectiveness of preoperative treatment has not been sufficiently proven. Potentially curative pancreatic cancer is treated by surgery plus perioperative therapy; treatment cannot be either alone. We regard the successful completion of surgery and perioperative care as the key to improving treatment outcomes. Therefore, ongoing randomized controlled trials for the treatment of BR-pancreatic cancer are expected to induce further improvements survival outcomes of patients with BR-pancreatic cancer.

Outcomes of neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus S-1 and radiation therapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of multidisciplinary treatment, including neoadjuvant treatment, in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) remains unclear. We assessed the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with gemcitabine and tegafu/gimearcil/oteracil (S-1) for BRPC.

METHODS

In a single center, nonrandomized prospective study, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) with gemcitabine plus S-1 was administered for BRPC (no. B090312028) in 122 patients enrolled between 2009 and 2015. Gemcitabine plus S-1 comprised gemcitabine on days 8 and 15, and daily S-1 on days 1-14. After two courses of gemcitabine plus S-1, 30 Gy radiotherapy was administered in 10 fractions with S-1.

RESULTS

Eighty-four and 38 patients had BR-PV and BR-A, respectively. No deaths occurred during NACRT. Ninety-four patients (77%) underwent resection with curative intent. R0 resection was performed in 91% of resected cases. Patients who underwent post-NACRT resection had better overall survival than did patients without resection (mean survival time [MST]: 24.7 vs 9.6 months, 5-year-survival rate (5 years): 30.3% vs 0%, P < .001). Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 73% of patients. MST and 5-year survival rate of the patients treated with NACRT followed by resection and adjuvant chemotherapy were 29.6 months and 34.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with gemcitabine and S-1 can be safely administered in BRPC and may require adjuvant chemotherapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This study was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network-Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) UMIN000006782.

Innovative Imaging Techniques Used to Evaluate Borderline-Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

A diagnosis of pancreatic cancer carries a 5-y survival rate of less than 10%. Furthermore, the detection of pancreatic cancer occurs most often in later stages of the disease due to its location in the retroperitoneum and lack of symptoms (in most cases) until tumors become more advanced. Once diagnosed, cross-sectional imaging techniques are heavily utilized to determine the tumor stage and the potential for surgical resection. However, a major determinant of resectability is the extent of local vascular involvement of the mesenteric vessels and critical tributaries; current imaging techniques have limited capacity to accurately determine vascular involvement. Surrounding inflammation and fibrosis can be difficult to discriminate from viable tumor, making determination of the degree of vascular involvement unreliable. New innovations in fluorescence and optoacoustic imaging techniques may overcome these limitations and make determination of resectability more accurate. These imaging modalities are able to more clearly discern between viable tumor tissue and non-neoplastic inflammation or desmoplasia, allowing clinicians to more reliably characterize vascular involvement and develop individualized treatment plans for patients. This review will discuss the current imaging techniques used to diagnose pancreatic cancer, the barriers that current techniques raise to accurate staging, and novel fluorescence and optoacoustic imaging techniques that may provide more accurate clinical staging of pancreatic cancer.

Hepatic artery resection in distal cholangiocarcinoma

PURPOSE

This study aimed to elucidate the safety and oncological outcomes of surgery with hepatic artery resection (HAR) for patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma.

METHODS

The clinical data of patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma who underwent curative intent surgery at Hiroshima University between March 2009 and January 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Eligible patients were classified according to the presence or absence of HAR (HAR and non-HAR group), and clinicopathological features and disease-free survival rates were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Among the 60 patients analyzed, eight patients had received HAR, and the remaining 52 patients had not. The rate of portal vein resection, T stage, and the number of metastasized lymph nodes in the HAR group were significantly greater than those in the non-HAR group (p < 0.001, p = 0.00695, and p = 0.0480, respectively). Postoperative severe complication was confirmed in one patient, and there were no in-hospital deaths in the HAR group. Seven of 8 patients in the HAR group showed recurrence during follow-up, and of those, six patients showed early recurrence within 1 year postoperatively. The disease-free survival time in the HAR group was significantly shorter than that in the non-HAR group (median: 7.4 m vs. 34.2 m, respectively) (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that lymph node metastasis and HAR were significant risk factors for predicting the adverse disease-free survival time (hazard ratio (HR), 3.21; p = 0.0142; HR, 4.47; p = 0.0346, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma who underwent surgery with HAR tended to show early recurrences, although HAR could be performed safely.

A Prospective Multicenter Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel for Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer with Arterial Involvement

BACKGROUND

Only two clinical trials have shown the effects of neoadjuvant treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer with arterial involvement (BRPC-A). Here, we aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) for BRPC-A.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective, single-arm, multicenter phase II trial was conducted. Patients who were radiologically and histologically diagnosed with BRPC-A were enrolled. A central review was conducted to confirm the presence of BRPC-A. Patients received two to four cycles of GnP before surgery. The primary endpoint of the study was the R0 resection rate. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated in an ancillary study.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were enrolled, of whom 33 were subjected to central review and 28 were confirmed to have BRPC-A. All eligible patients with BRPC-A received neoadjuvant GnP. Nineteen patients underwent pancreatic resections. Postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo IIIa or lower were observed in 11 patients. No treatment-related mortalities were observed. R0 resection was achieved in 17 patients (89%); the R0 resection rate was 61% in eligible patients. One patient underwent curative resection after termination of the treatment protocol, resulting in an overall R0 resection rate of 64%. The median overall survival (OS) and 2-year OS rate were 24.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 19.0 months to not estimatable] and 53.6%, respectively. OS in patients with BRPC-A who achieved overall R0 resection was significantly longer than that in the other patients (p = 0.0255).

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant GnP is a safe and effective strategy for BRPC-A, providing a chance for curative resection and improved survival.

Neoadjuvant therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer: A promising curative method to improve prognosis

Currently, 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been designed to investigate whether neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) benefits patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (R-PA) compared to surgery alone. Five of them have acquired results so far; however, corresponding conclusions have not been obtained. We speculated that the reason for this phenomenon could be that some prognostic factors had proven to be adverse through upfront surgery curative patterns, but some of them were not regarded as independent baseline characteristics, which is important to obtaining comparability between the NAT and upfront surgery groups. This fact could cause bias and lead to the difference in the outcomes of RCTs. In this review, we collate data about risk factors (such as tumor size, resection margin, and lymph node status) influencing the prognoses of patients with R-PA from five RCTs and discuss the possible reasons for the varying outcomes.

Oncologic Benefits of Neoadjuvant Treatment versus Upfront Surgery in Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) has been primarily indicated for neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) in the last decade. This study is the updated meta-analysis for only patients with BRPC including recent NAT regimens such as FOLFIRINOX. The OS, R0 resection rate, and node-negativity rate was improved in NAT group compared with upfront surgery. Providing high-quality evidence is important to standardize the treatment protocol and help physicians decide the appropriate pancreatic cancer treatment.

Abstract

Neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) followed by surgery is the primary treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC). However, there is limited high-level evidence supporting the efficacy of NAT in BRPC. PubMed was searched to identify studies that compared the survival between BRPC patients who underwent NAT and those who underwent upfront surgery (UFS). The overall survival (OS) was compared using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. A total of 1204 publications were identified, and 19 publications with 21 data sets (2906 patients; NAT, 1516; UFS, 1390) were analyzed. Two randomized controlled trials and two prospective studies were included. Thirteen studies performed an ITT analysis, while six presented the data of resected patients. The NAT group had significantly better OS than the UFS group in the ITT analyses (HR: 0.63, 95% CI = 0.53–0.76) and resected patients (HR: 0.68, 95% CI = 0.60–0.78). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine or S-1 and FOLFIRINOX improved the survival outcomes. Among the resected patients, the R0 resection and node-negativity rates were significantly higher in the NAT group. NAT improved the OS, R0 resection rate, and node-negativity rate compared with UFS. Standardizing treatment regimens based on high-quality evidence is fundamental for developing an optimal protocol.

Results of a Phase II Study on the Use of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (FOLFIRINOX or GEM/nab-PTX) for Borderline-resectable Pancreatic Cancer (NUPAT-01)

OBJECTIVE

Given the frequent adverse events with multidrug chemotherapy, not only the survival benefit but also the feasibility of using neoadjuvant chemotherapy to treat pancreatic cancer need to be clarified.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although the development of multidrug chemotherapy regimens has improved the survival outcomes of patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer, the benefits of these treatments in the neo-adjuvant setting remain controversial.

METHODS

Patients with borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy with either FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GEM/nab-PTX). After the completion of chemotherapy, patients underwent surgical resection when feasible. This study (NUPAT-01) was a randomized phase II trial, and the primary endpoint was the R0 resection rate.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were enrolled in this study [FOLFIRINOX (n = 26) and GEM/nab-PTX (n = 25)]. A total of 84.3% (n = 43/51) of the patients eventually underwent surgery, and R0 resection was achieved in 67.4% (n = 33/ 51) of the patients. Adverse events (grade >3) due to neoadjuvant treatment were observed in 45.1% of the patients (n = 23/51), and major surgical complications occurred in 30.0% (n = 13/43), with no mortality noted. The intention-to-treat analysis showed that the 3-year overall survival rate was 54.7%, with a median survival time of 39.4 months, and a significant difference in overall survival was not observed between the FOLFIRINOX and GEM/nab-PTX groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX or GEM/nab-PTX is feasible and well tolerated, achieving an R0 resection rate of 67.4%. The survival of patients was even found to be favorable in the intention-to-treat analysis.

Covered self-expandable metallic stent versus plastic stent for preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage in patients with pancreatic cancer: a multi-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Expanding indications for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for resectable pancreatic cancer prolong the period from diagnosis to surgery. In resectable pancreatic cancer with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), the biliary drainage method without any biliary events is ideally required to safely perform NAC as planned. Plastic stents (PS) have been traditionally used for preoperative biliary drainage; however, recently, covered self-expandable metallic stents (CSEMS) have emerged as a tool for preoperative biliary drainage.

AIMS

To compare CSEMS with PS for preoperative biliary drainage in the management of resectable pancreatic cancer with MBO.

METHODS

In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we compared CSEMS with PS for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with pancreatic cancer at three tertiary care centers between 2008 and 2019.

RESULTS

Of the 120 enrolled patients, 45 underwent CSEMS and 75 underwent PS. No significant difference was observed in the basic characteristics between the groups. The rate of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) was significantly lower and the time to RBO was significantly longer in the CSEMS group. In multivariate analysis, CSEMS was an independent factor for a longer RBO. However, pancreatitis and cholecystitis were more common in the CSEMS group. The surgery-related adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups, except for longer surgery time and time to discharge in the CSEMS group.

CONCLUSIONS

CSEMS for preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage in patients with pancreatic cancer reduced RBO, although the risk for pancreatitis or cholecystitis could be increased.

A phase II study of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel/S-1 combination neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer with arterial contact

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer with arterial contact (BRPC-A) is extremely poor, and effective preoperative treatment is indispensable. We evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, including gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel and S-1 (GAS), for patients with BRPC-A.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A multicentre, single-arm, phase II study was performed. Patients were administered 1000 mg/m² gemcitabine on day 1, 125 mg/m² nab-paclitaxel on day 1 and 60-100 mg/day S-1 on days 1-7 during a 14-day cycle. Patients were then assessed for resectability and response to treatment after six cycles. The primary end-points were 2-year overall survival (OS) rate and median OS time (trial registration: jRCTs061180045, UMIN000016630).

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients with BRPC-A were eligible for the present study. Six courses of neoadjuvant GAS regimen were completed in all eligible patients. The rate of grade III/IV toxicities occurred in 14 (30%) patients during the neoadjuvant GAS regimen. The response and disease control rates were 43% and 96%, respectively. Forty-five (96%) patients received potentially curative pancreatectomy, whereas two did not owing to disease progression. R0 resection was performed in 40 (86%) of 47 eligible patients. Eleven (24%) patients experienced postoperative major complications (>grade III), including one mortality. The 2-year OS rate and median OS time among 47 eligible patients were 70.1% and 41.0 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The neoadjuvant GAS chemotherapy regimen for BRPC-A showed good efficacy with mild toxicity, resulting in a high R0 resection rate and prolonged survival in patients with BRPC-A.

Neoadjuvant therapy contributes to nodal downstaging of pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the impact of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer (BR/LAPC) on the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) nodal status.

METHODS

The medical records of BR/LAPC patients who underwent surgery with curative intent were retrospectively reviewed. The nodal status was compared between patients who underwent upfront surgery (UFS) and those who received NAT. Moreover, clinicopathological factors and prognostic factors for overall survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

In all, 200 patients with BR/LAPC, 78 with UFS, and 122 with NAT were enrolled. The nodal status was significantly lower in patients after NAT than after UFS (p = 0.011). A multivariate analysis of overall survival showed that UFS (hazard ratio (HR) 1.61, p = 0.024) and N2 status (HR 2.69, p < 0.001) were independent poor prognostic factors. The median serum carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 level after NAT in N2 patients was 105 U/mL, which was significantly higher than that of patients with N0 (p = 0.004) and N1 (p = 0.008) status.

CONCLUSION

Patients with BR/LAPC who underwent surgery after NAT had significantly lower N2 status and better prognosis than patients who underwent UFS. Elevated CA19-9 levels after NAT indicated a higher nodal status.

Distal pancreatectomy with celiac artery resection acquires satisfactory survival for locally advanced pancreatic neck-body cancer

BACKGROUND

s As a curative surgical procedure for pancreatic neck-body cancer with invasion to celiac artery (CA), the security and efficacy of distal pancreatectomy (DP) with en bloc resection of the celiac artery (DP-CAR) remain controversial. The purpose of this study was to identify the postoperative outcomes of DP-CAR.

METHODS

A retrospectively analysis between January 2010 and January2019 was performed in a single center. 21 patients who underwent DP-CAR and 71 patients who underwent traditional DP for pancreatic neck-body cancer were included. Postoperative morbidity, mortality, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in major complications and mortality between two groups. The patients in DP-CAR group had more T4 tumor (61.9 vs 7.0%, P < 0.001). DP-CAR group had similar R0 resection compared with DP group (71.4% vs 87.3%, P = 0.090). The patients in DP-CAR group suffered more gastric ulcer, DGE and elevated levels of postoperative hepatic enzymes. OS (27.4 vs 32.6 months) and DFS (14.9 vs 19.5 months) between DP-CAR and DP groups were comparative (P = 0.305; P = 0.065).

CONCLUSIONS

For the patients who had pancreatic neck-body cancer with invasion to CA, DP-CAR is safety and could achieve satisfactory R0 resection, OS, and DFS.

Preoperative risk factors for para-aortic lymph node positivity in pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify the preoperative risk factors for para-aortic lymph node (PALN) positivity, including micrometastasis, in pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Medical records of patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent curative resection were retrospectively reviewed, and the relationships between preoperative risk factors and PALN positivity were identified. Clinicopathological and prognostic factors for overall survival were analyzed. Micrometastasis was investigated by immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

400 patients were enrolled. PALN positivity by hematoxylin and eosin staining, micrometastasis, and negative were found in 46 (11%), 32 (8%), and 322 (81%) patients, respectively. The median overall survival times of patients with PALN positivity, including micrometastasis, was 22.5 months. Multivariate logistic regression identified borderline or locally advanced status (p=0.037), elevated preoperative carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 level (p<0.001), larger tumor size ≥30 mm (p=0.001) and larger PALN size ≥10 mm (p=0.019) as independent preoperative risk factors of PALN positivity. Multivariate overall survival analysis demonstrated borderline or locally advanced status (p=0.013), elevated preoperative CA19-9 level (p<0.001) and PALN positivity (p=0.048) were independent poor prognostic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Borderline or locally advanced status, elevated preoperative CA19-9 level, and larger tumor and PALN size were risk factors for PALN positivity, and thus, they may contribute to the optimization of preoperative treatments for patients with potential PALN positivity.

Survival impact of distal pancreatectomy with en bloc celiac axis resection combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic body carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The survival benefit associated with distal pancreatectomy with en bloc celiac axis resection (DP-CAR) for patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic body carcinoma is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of DP-CAR following neoadjuvant chemotherapy on survival in patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic body carcinoma.

METHODS

Medical records of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP, n = 102) and DP-CAR following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n = 32) between 2008 and 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

All patients who underwent DP-CAR had tumor contact with the celiac axis. Of these, 30 patients underwent preoperative embolization of the common hepatic artery. The pretreatment tumor size of patients who underwent DP-CAR was larger (P < 0.001), and rates of blood transfusion (P = 0.003) and postoperative complications (P = 0.016) were higher in patients who underwent DP-CAR compared with patients who underwent DP. The 5-year survival rate of patients who underwent DP and DP-CAR were 50.6% and 41.1%, respectively (median survival time, 65.9 vs 37.0 months). For all 134 patients, pretreatment serum CA19-9 levels (P < 0.001), adjuvant chemotherapy (P < 0.001), and lymph node status (P = 0.035) were independent prognostic factors of overall survival by multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

DP-CAR following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic body carcinoma may bring the same survival impact as DP, despite increased morbidity.

Comparison of plastic stent versus metal stent in preoperative biliary drainage for pancreatic head cancer with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

BACKGROUND

While neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) for pancreatic head cancer are effective, preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) is necessary for managing obstructive jaundice and cholangitis during the preoperative waiting period. Nevertheless, ideal choice of stent type is unclear. We compared plastic stents (PS) and metal stents (MS) in these situations.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 43 patients who successfully underwent preoperative EBD prior to NACRT for pancreatic head cancer at a single institution. We divided patients into PS (n = 22) and MS (n = 21) groups. The primary outcome was the rate of re-interventional drainage rate before surgery. Secondary outcomes were rates of EBD-associated and postoperative complications and total costs in the pre- and perioperative periods.

RESULTS

The re-intervention rate was significantly greater in the PS group than in the MS group (95% vs 4.8%, respectively, P < 0.05). EBD-associated and postoperative complications were significantly less common in the MS group (P < 0.05). The average total preoperative medical costs were significantly lower in the MS group (PS vs MS: 528,597 vs 395,891 JPY, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

MS can be the first choice for EBD in patients undergoing NACRT for pancreatic head cancer. MS may be less costly overall.

A Prospective Multicenter Study of Partially Covered Metal Stents in Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: BTS-NAC Study

Background/Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of partially covered self-expandable metallic stents (PCSEMS) in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemo(radio) therapy (NAC) for pancreatic cancer (PC).

Methods

This was a prospective multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PCSEMS in patients receiving NAC for resectable and borderline resectable PC. The primary endpoint was the rate of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO).

Results

Twenty-six patients with PC (three with resectable PC and 23 with borderline resectable PC) who underwent NAC at seven Japanese centers were included in the analysis. Both the technical and functional success rates of PCSEMS placement were 100%. Early stent-related complications were observed in three patients (11.5%): mild pancreatitis (n=2) and mild liver abscess (n=1). The median time to surgery or palliation was 4.0 months. Surgical resection was eventually performed in 73.1% of patients, and stent removal during surgery was successful in all patients. RBO was observed in nine patients (34.6%): seven with stent occlusion, one with kinking and one with migration. The RBO rates in resected cases and nonresected cases were 36.8% and 28.6%, respectively.

Conclusions

Biliary drainage by PCSEMS was safe and feasible in patients undergoing NAC for resectable and borderline resectable PC.

Essential updates 2018/2019: Current topics in the surgical treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is highly malignant. While cancers in other organs have shown clear improvements in 5-year survival, the 5-year survival rate of pancreatic cancer is approximately 10%. Early relapse and metastasis are not uncommon, making it difficult to achieve an acceptable prognosis even after complete surgical resection of the pancreas. Studies have been performed on various treatments to improve the prognosis of PDAC, and multidisciplinary approaches including non-surgical treatments have led to gradual improvement. In the present literature review, we have described the significance of anatomical and biological resectability criteria, the concept of R0 resection in surgical treatment, the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery, the remarkable development of perioperative chemotherapy, the effectiveness of conversion surgery for unresectable PDAC, and ongoing challenges in PDAC treatment. We also provide an essential update on these subjects by focusing on recent trends and topics.

Clinical Implications of Pre- and Postoperative Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients with Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The clinical implications of pre- and postoperative KRAS-mutated circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) present in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have remained an unresolved issue. This study sought to investigate the clinical significance of pre- and postoperative ctDNA analyses and their impact on the prognosis of PDAC patients.

METHODS

Digital droplet polymerase chain reaction detected ctDNA in pre- and postoperative plasma samples prospectively obtained from patients with resectable and borderline-resectable PDAC. Its associations with recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. The patients were sorted according to the presence of pre- and postoperative ctDNA, and its ability to stratify prognosis was evaluated.

RESULTS

The study analyzed 97 patients. Both pre- and postoperative ctDNA were detected in 9 patients, and neither was detected in 55 patients. Whereas 15 patients harbored only preoperative ctDNA, 18 patients had only postoperative ctDNA. The multivariate analysis showed that the presence of preoperative ctDNA was associated with poorer OS (P = 0.008) and that postoperative ctDNA was not associated with either RFS or OS. Survival did not differ significantly between the patients with a positive shift in ctDNA status and those without detectable pre- or postoperative ctDNA.

CONCLUSIONS

For the patients with PDAC, the presence of preoperative ctDNA was significantly associated poor OS, whereas postoperative ctDNA was not associated with poor survival. A positive change in ctDNA did not affect patients' survival.

Radiographic Splenic Artery Involvement Is a Poor Prognostic Factor in Upfront Surgery for Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Body and Tail Cancer

PURPOSE

The prognostic impact of radiographic splenic vessel involvement in pancreatic cancer remains unclear. We evaluate its oncological significance in resectable pancreatic body/tail cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively review 102 cases of resectable pancreatic cancer and 51 of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) who underwent pancreatectomy for pancreatic body/tail cancer. Resectable pancreatic body/tail cancer was classified into one of three categories based on radiographic splenic vessel involvement.

RESULTS

Among 102 cases of resectable pancreatic cancer, 37 (36.3%), 35 (34.3%), and 30 cases (29.4%) were classified as no splenic vessel involvement (R_none), splenic vein involvement (RV), and splenic artery involvement (RA), respectively. Disease-free survival (DFS) among patients with R_none, RV, RA, and BRPC was 58.5, 18.4, 10.8, and 9.2 months, respectively. Patients with RV and RA had significantly poorer DFS than patients with R_none (P = 0.010, P < 0.001, respectively). Median survival among R_none, RV, RA, and BRPC was 80.6, 23.4, 15.1, and 21.3 months, respectively. Patients with RV and RA had significantly poorer survival than patients with R_none (P = 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively) and had short survival similar to that of those with BRPC. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis detected preoperative CA19-9 ≥ 37 IU/L, radiologic splenic vein involvement, radiologic splenic artery involvement, intraoperative bleeding ≥ 500 ml, transfusion, positive washing cytology, and noncompletion of adjuvant therapy as independent prognostic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiographic splenic artery involvement is a poor prognostic factor in resectable pancreatic body/tail cancer and may have a role in stratification of treatment strategy.

Neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer: an intention-to-treat analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to reassess the duration of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC).

METHODS

The medical records of patients with BRPC who received NAT before intended curative resection were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, clinicopathological factors, and prognostic factors for overall survival were analyzed. The serum carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 level was examined monthly during NAT.

RESULTS

A total of 118 patients with BRPC were enrolled. The median survival time and 5-year overall survival were 28.0 months and 31%, respectively. Three months after NAT, the CA19-9 levels were normal in 57% of the patients, and 92% underwent resection. Multivariate analysis showed that radiological partial response (hazard ratio (HR), 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.26-0.99; p = 0.047); a normal CA19-9 level after NAT (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.22-0.66; p = 0.006); and tumor resection (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.67; p = 0.005) were independent predictors of better survival. The median CA19-9 level and the rate of normal CA19-9 levels before and after NAT were 256 (interquartile range (IQR), 23-1197) U/mL and 33%, and 27 (IQR, 7-176) U/mL and 57%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A normal CA19-9 level after NAT was an independent predictor of better survival in patients with BRPC. A longer NAT duration might contribute to improved prognosis of patients with elevated CA19-9 levels.

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.

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

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

Contemporary Review of Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presents challenges in definition and treatment. Many different definitions exist for this disease. Some are based on anatomy alone, while others include factors such as disease biology and patient performance status. Regardless of definition, evidence suggests that borderline resectable PDAC is a systemic disease at the time of diagnosis. There is high-level evidence to support the use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in these cases. Evidence to support the use of radiation therapy is ongoing. There are ongoing trials investigating the available neoadjuvant therapies for borderline resectable PDAC that may provide clarity in the future.

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

Purpose

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

Patients and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Long-term 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.

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.

Clinical Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Chemoradiotherapy in Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Analysis of 884 Patients at Facilities Specializing in Pancreatic Surgery

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), including neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (NACRT), for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) has not been elucidated. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy of NAC and NACRT for patients with BRPC.

METHODS

The study analyzed the treatment outcomes of 884 patients treated for BRPC from 2011 to 2013. Treatment results were compared between upfront surgery and NAT and between NAC and NACRT using propensity score-matching analysis. Overall survival (OS) was calculated via intention-to-treat analyses.

RESULTS

The overall resection rates for the patients who underwent NAT were significantly lower than for the patients who underwent upfront surgery (75.1% vs 93.3%; p < 0.001). However, the R0 resection rate was significantly higher for NAT than for upfront surgery (p < 0.001). Additionally, the OS for the patients who received NAT was significantly longer than for those who underwent upfront surgery (median survival time [MST], 25.7 vs 19.0 months; p = 0.015). The lymph node rate for the patients with NACRT was significantly lower than for those who underwent NAC (p < 0.001). However, the resection rate for the NACRT cases was significantly lower than for the NAC cases (p = 0.041). The local recurrence rate for the NACRT cases was significantly lower than for the NAC cases (p = 0.002). However, OS did not differ significantly between NAC and NACRT (MST, 29.2 vs 22.5 months; p = 0.130).

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that NAT has potential benefit for patients with BRPC. Compared with NAC, NACRT decreased the rates for lymph node metastasis and local recurrence but did not improve the prognosis.

The maximum chemiluminescence intensity predicts severe neutropenia in gemcitabine-treated patients with pancreatic or biliary tract cancer

PURPOSE

To assess the predictive ability of the maximum chemiluminescence intensity (CI_max) for severe neutropenia (SN) during neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy [NAC(RT)] in patients with advanced pancreatic or biliary tract cancer.

METHODS

Clinicopathological variables and blood test data before NAC(RT) were evaluated in 64 patients with advanced pancreatic or biliary tract cancer who received gemcitabine plus tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil as NAC(RT).

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients (60.9%) developed Grade 3-4 SN. The median time between commencing NAC(RT) and the onset of SN was 15 (range 10-36) days. SN occurred during the NAC period, not the RT period. The CI_max, neutrophil count, serum interleukin-6 level, C-reactive protein level, complement C3 titer, serum complement titer, and 50.0% hemolytic unit of complement before NAC(RT) were significantly lower in patients with SN than in those without SN (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis confirmed the CI_max to be the sole independent predictor of SN (P < 0.05). The optimal threshold for the CI_max was 46,000 RLU/s. The sensitivity and specificity were 46.2% and 80.0%, respectively. Majority of the patients (81.8%) with a low CI_max before NAC(RT) experienced SN during NAC(RT).

CONCLUSIONS

CI_max before NAC(RT) predicts SN during NAC(RT) in patients with advanced pancreatic or biliary tract cancer.

Optimal resection area for superior mesenteric artery nerve plexuses after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma

Recently, several reports demonstrated the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) or chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) for patients with borderline resectable (BRPC) and locally advanced unresectable pancreatic carcinoma (LAPC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the treatment response after NACRT, especially for nerve plexuses, and the optimal resection area for superior mesenteric artery nerve plexuses in BRPC and LAPC patients after NACRT.A total of 17 patients with BRPC and LAPC received preoperative gemcitabine-based NACRT. The numbers of BRPC and LAPC patients were 13 and 4, respectively. We evaluated nerve plexus invasion by CT before and after NACRT, decided on the resection area of plexus invasion in SMA before NACRT, and compared the preoperative evaluation and clinicopathological findings.In the plexus of the supra-mesenteric artery (pl-SMA), arterial nerve plexus invasion, in cases <90°, all patients showed the absence of residual cancer in the resected specimen after NACRT. In cases between 90° and 180°, 1 of 2 patients (50%) showed nerve plexus invasion. In cases over 180°, all patients showed nerve plexus invasion. We could perform R0 resection in all 10 cases, and pl-SMA invasion disappeared in 6 of 7 BRPC patients.We demonstrated the relationship between the angle of nerve plexus tumor invasion and treatment effect after NACRT. We could perform R0 resection in all pl-SMA invasion cases, deciding on the resection area of pl-SMA based on CT before NACRT.

Prognostic impact of postoperative complication after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma stratified by the resectability status

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic impact of postoperative complications after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) stratified by resectability status.

METHODS

Medical records of 226 patients with pancreatic head carcinoma who underwent PD, including 115 with resectable (R) and 111 with borderline resectable/unresectable (BR/UR) PDAC, were reviewed retrospectively. Major complications were defined as grade III or IV based on the Clavien-Dindo classification system. The prognostic impact of major complications on overall survival (OS) was analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses with stratification by resectability status.

RESULTS

A multivariate analysis in the BR/UR group identified R1 resection (P = 0.03), T 3/4 stage (P = 0.03), and incidence of major complications (P = 0.03) as independent risk factors for poor survival, whereas major complications did not affect survival in the R group. Initiation of adjuvant gemcitabine plus S-1 chemotherapy occurred significantly less frequently for patients with major complications than for those without major complications in the BR/UR group (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

A negative prognostic impact of postoperative major complications after PD was observed in patients with BR/UR PDAC, whereas the prognostic impact was unclear in patients with R PDAC.

Meta-analysis comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer

Background

Studies comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer may report only patients who underwent resection and so survival will be skewed. The aim of this study was to report survival by intention to treat in a comparison of upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant treatment in resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting median overall survival by intention to treat in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer treated with or without neoadjuvant treatment. Secondary outcomes included overall and R0 resection rate, pathological lymph node rate, reasons for unresectability and toxicity of neoadjuvant treatment.

Results

In total, 38 studies were included with 3484 patients, of whom 1738 (49·9 per cent) had neoadjuvant treatment. The weighted median overall survival by intention to treat was 18·8 months for neoadjuvant treatment and 14·8 months for upfront surgery; the difference was larger among patients whose tumours were resected (26·1 versus 15·0 months respectively). The overall resection rate was lower with neoadjuvant treatment than with upfront surgery (66·0 versus 81·3 per cent; P < 0·001), but the R0 rate was higher (86·8 (95 per cent c.i. 84·6 to 88·7) versus 66·9 (64·2 to 69·6) per cent; P < 0·001). Reported by intention to treat, the R0 rates were 58·0 and 54·9 per cent respectively (P = 0·088). The pathological lymph node rate was 43·8 per cent after neoadjuvant therapy and 64·8 per cent in the upfront surgery group (P < 0·001). Toxicity of at least grade III was reported in up to 64 per cent of the patients.

Conclusion

Neoadjuvant treatment appears to improve overall survival by intention to treat, despite lower overall resection rates for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016049374.

Improved survival with neoadjuvant treatment

Neoadjuvant radiation followed by resection versus upfront resection for locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients: a propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To compare cancer-specific survival (CSS) between patients who received neoadjuvant radiation followed by resection (NRR) and those who received upfront resection (UR) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).

METHODS

A total of 772 LAPC patients who underwent curative-intent surgical resection with or without neoadjuvant radiation from 2004 to 2013 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to eliminate possible bias. Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze long-term outcome. Independent risk factors of CSS were predicted by Cox proportional hazards model. Subgroup analyses were done according to 5 variables.

RESULTS

The propensity score model matched 196 patients from the whole cohort. Neoadjuvant radiation was an independent predictor of CSS no matter before or after PSM. After PSM, the 1-, 3-, 5-year CSS rates of NRR group were 82.7%, 39.2% and 17.1%, while 64.3%, 19.9% and 12.4% for UR group. The median CSS for NRR group was 25 months, while 17 months for UR group. In subgroup analyses, CSS rates or median CSS of NRR group were still superior to those of UR group in married, unmarried, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, G1+G2, G3+G4, N0 stage, N1 stage and M0 stage subgroups, but no differences were found in other histological types and M1 stage subgroups. Other predictors of CSS included histological type, tumor grade and marital status.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant radiation followed by resection has a significant survival benefit compared with upfront resection in LAPC patients. Therapeutic strategy for LAPC patients should be further explored.

Management of Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

With the rapid development of imaging modalities and surgical techniques, the clinical entity representing tumors that are intermediate between resectable and unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma has been identified has been termed "borderline resectable" (BR). These tumors are generally amenable for resection but portend an increased risk for positive margins after surgery and commonly necessitate vascular resection and reconstruction. Although there is a lack of consensus regarding the appropriate definition of what constitutes a BR pancreatic tumor, it has been demonstrated that this intermediate category carries a particular prognosis that is in between resectable and unresectable disease. In order to downstage the tumor and increase the probability of clear surgical margins, neoadjuvant therapy is being increasingly utilized and studied. There is a lack of high-level evidence to establish the optimal treatment regimen for BR tumors. When resection with negative margins is achieved after neoadjuvant therapy, the prognosis for BR tumors approaches and even exceeds that for resectable disease. This review presents the current definitions, different treatment approaches, and the clinical outcomes of BR pancreatic cancer.