Consensus on the treatment of pancreatic cancer in Spain

Long-term results of pancreaticoduodenectomy with superior mesenteric and portal vein resection for ductal adenocarcinoma in the head of the pancreas

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with superior mesenteric-portal vein resection (PVR) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) is still controversial in terms of morbidity, mortality and survival. We conducted a retrospective study to analyze outcomes of PD with PVR in a Spanish tertiary centre.

METHODS

Between 2002 and 2012, 10 patients underwent PVR (PVR+ group) and 68 standard PD (PVR- group). Morbidity, mortality, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared between PVR+ and PVR- group. Prognostic factors were identified by a Cox regression model.

RESULTS

Postoperative mortality was 5% (4/78), all patients in PVR- group. Morbidity was higher in the PVR- group compared to PVR+ (63 vs. 30%, P=.004). OS at 3 and 5 years was 43 and 43% in PVR+ group, 35 and 29% in PVR- group (P=.07). DFS at 3 and 5 years DFS were 28 and 15% in PVR+ group, 25 and 20% in PVR- group (P=.84). Median survival was 23.1 months in PVR- group, and 22.8 months in PVR+ group (P=.73). Factors related with OS were absence of adjuvant treatment (OR 2.9, 95%IC: 1.39-6.14, P=.003), R1 resection (OR 2.3, 95%IC: 1.2-4.43, P=.006), preoperative CA 19.9 level ≥ 170 UI/mL (OR 2.3, 95%IC: 1.22-4.32, P=.01). DFS risk factors were R1 resection (OR 2.6, 95%IC: 1.41-4.95, P=.002); moderate or poor tumor differentiation grade (OR 2.7, 95%IC: 1.23-6.17, P=.01); N1 lymph node status (OR 1.8, 95%IC: 1.02-3.19, P=.04); CA 19.9 level ≥ 170 UI/mL (OR 2.4, 95%IC: 1.30-4.54, P=.005).

CONCLUSIONS

PVR for PA can be performed safely. Patients with PVR have a comparable survival to patients undergoing standard PD if disease-free margins can be obtained.

Quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines on pancreatic cancer: a PRISMA-compliant article

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) play an important role in health care. The guideline development process should be precise and rigorous to ensure that the results are reproducible and not vague. To determine the quality of guidelines, the Appraisal of Guidelines and Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument was developed and introduced. The objective of this study is to assess the methodological quality of CPGs on pancreatic cancer. Five databases (included MEDLINE and EMBASE) and guideline websites were searched till April, 2014. The methodological quality of the guidelines was assessed by 4 authors independently using the AGREE II instrument. From 2526 citations, 21 relevant guidelines were included. The overall agreement among reviewers was moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.64-0.96). The mean scores were moderate for the domains "scope and purpose" and "clarity of presentation"; however, they were low for the domains "stakeholder involvement" (31.22), "rigor of development", "applicability", and "editorial independence". These domain scores were lower when compared with international levels. There are 5 (23.81%) guidelines that described the systematic methods for searching. Moreover, only 5 (23.81%) guidelines reported that methodological expertise were included in the guideline developing teams. The quality and transparency of the development process and the consistency in the reporting of pancreatic cancer guidelines need to be improved. Many other methodological disadvantages were identified. In the future, pancreatic cancer CPGs should base on the best available evidence rigorously developed and reported. Greater efforts are needed to provide high-quality guidelines that serve as a useful and reliable tool for clinical decision making in this field.

Open-label trial on efficacy and security of treatment with gemcitabine and oral modulation with tegafur and levofolinic acid (GEMTG) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

AIM

Advanced pancreatic cancer has a bad prognosis, with a median overall survival (OS) no longer than 4-6 months. Since the end of last century, monotherapy with gemcitabine has remained the elective therapy, but new schedules are needed in order to improve these results. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of tegafur and levofolinic acid (LV) associated with gemcitabine, as well as its toxicity, progression-free survival and OS in advanced pancreatic cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An open-label, multicentric, prospective, non-controlled trial was carried out on patients with advanced or disseminated pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine 1250 mg/m² was administered on the 1st and 8th days of the cycle, tegafur 750 mg/m²/day for 21 consecutive days and LV 25 mg/day continuously, every 28 days, with a maximum of six cycles. The primary variable was tumour overall response rate (ORR). Secondarily, time to progression (TTP), OS and scheme toxicity were determined.

RESULTS

Forty patients were recruited; the male/female ratio was 30:10, with a mean age of 61 years. Forty percent had a Karnofsky index of 90% or 100%. Only 11 patients (27%) completed the six cycles of treatment, but more than 50% received three or more cycles. Dose intensity was 89.56% for gemcitabine and 87.36% for tegafur. Efficacy ORR was 22.5% (CI 95%, 6-37%). TTP was 3.87 months (CI 95%, 2.1-5.6), time to treatment failure was 2.97 months (CI 95%, 2.43-4.67) and OS 6.3 months (CI 95%, 4-7). The chemotherapeutic combination was well accepted; most haematologic and non-haematologic toxicities were grade 1 or 2. The most prevalent grade 3/4 toxicities were asthenia (30%), liver biochemistry disorders (25%), diarrhoea (15%) and stomatitis (12%).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of gemcitabine, associated with oral tegafur and leucovorin, has activity against advanced pancreatic cancer, with an adequate toxicity profile.