1
|
Lautenschlaeger S, Dumke C, Exeli L, Hauswald H, Engenhart-Cabillic R, Eberle F. Treatment of primary or recurrent non-resectable pancreatic cancer with proton beam irradiation combined with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2023; 199:982-991. [PMID: 37428207 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-023-02106-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2023] [Accepted: 06/04/2023] [Indexed: 07/11/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pancreatic cancer accounts for around 4.6% of cancers deaths worldwide per year. Despite many advances in treatment regimes, the prognosis is still poor. Only 20% of tumors are primarily resectable. Recurrences-both with distant metastasis as well as locoregional-are frequent. For patients with primary nonresectable localized disease or localized recurrences, we offered chemoradiation to achieve local control over a long period of time. We here report our results on combined chemoradiation of pancreatic tumors and local recurrences using proton beam therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS We report on 25 patients with localized nonresectable pancreatic cancer (15 patients) or local recurrent disease (10 patients). All patients were treated with combined proton radiochemotherapy. Overall survival, progression-free survival, local control, and treatment-related toxicity were analyzed using statistically methods. RESULTS Median RT dose was 54.0 Gy (RBE) for proton irradiation. The toxicity of treatment was acceptable. Four CTCAE grade III and IV adverse events (bone marrow disfunction, gastrointestinal [GI] disorders, stent dislocation, myocardial infarction) were recorded during or directly after the end of radiotherapy; two of them were related to combined chemoradiation (bone marrow disfunction, GI disorders). Six weeks after radiotherapy, one additional grade IV toxicity was reported (ileus, caused by peritoneal carcinomatosis, not treatment related). The median progression-free survival was 5.9 months and median overall survival was 11.0 months. The pretherapy CA19‑9 level was a statistically significant prognostic factor for enhanced overall survival. Local control at 6 months and 12 months were determined to be 86% and 80%, respectively. CONCLUSION Combined proton chemoradiation leads to high local control rates. Unfortunately, PFS and OS are driven by distant metastasis and were not improved compared to historical data and reports. With this in mind, enhanced chemotherapeutical regimes, in combination with local irradiation, should be evaluated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Lautenschlaeger
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
- Marburg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (MIT), Marburg, Germany.
| | - C Dumke
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany
- Marburg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (MIT), Marburg, Germany
| | - L Exeli
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany
- Marburg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (MIT), Marburg, Germany
| | - H Hauswald
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany
- Marburg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (MIT), Marburg, Germany
- RNS Gemeinschaftspraxis, St. Josefs-Hospital, Wiesbaden, Germany
- Klinik für Radio-Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - R Engenhart-Cabillic
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany
- Marburg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (MIT), Marburg, Germany
| | - F Eberle
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsklinikum Marburg, Marburg, Germany
- Marburg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (MIT), Marburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Falco M, Masojć B, Sulikowski T. Radiotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer: To Whom, When, and How? Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:3382. [PMID: 37444492 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15133382] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2023] [Revised: 06/17/2023] [Accepted: 06/20/2023] [Indexed: 07/15/2023] Open
Abstract
The diagnosis rate of pancreatic cancer is steadily increasing. The average age of onset is close to 70 years. In most cases, the disease is diagnosed at an advanced stage. The indications for and techniques of radiotherapy are changing over time. The aim of this thesis is to present the role and possibilities of radiotherapy from the perspective of radiation oncologist. The most common cause of treatment failure in pancreatic cancer remains generalisation. The implementation of new systemic treatment regimens contributes to improved treatment outcomes regardless of the stage of the disease. With improved treatment outcomes in terms of the incidence of distant metastases, the impact of local curability on the length and quality of life of patients increases. Modern radiotherapy offers the opportunity to achieve high local cure rates. Postoperative radiotherapy in combination with chemotherapy seems justified in the group of postoperative pancreatic cancer patients with pT3 and pN+ features. In the group of patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, the impact of radiotherapy in combination with the latest chemotherapy regimens is difficult to define clearly. In the setting of a diagnosis of advanced pancreatic cancer, radiotherapy, especially stereotactic radiotherapy, in combination with chemotherapy, contributes to improved local curability and allows to achieve a significantly reduced level of pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michał Falco
- Radiation Oncology Department, West Pomeranian Oncology Center, Strzałowska 22, 71-730 Szczecin, Poland
- Hospicjum Św. Jana Ewnagelisty, Pokoju 77, 71-740 Szczecin, Poland
| | - Bartłomiej Masojć
- Radiation Oncology Department, West Pomeranian Oncology Center, Strzałowska 22, 71-730 Szczecin, Poland
| | - Tadeusz Sulikowski
- Department of General, Minimally Invasive, and Gastroenterological Surgery, Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, 71-252 Szczecin, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Umezawa R, Nakagawa K, Mizuma M, Katsuta Y, Tanaka S, Kadoya N, Suzuki Y, Takeda K, Takahashi N, Yamamoto T, Unno M, Jingu K. Comparison of acute gastrointestinal toxicities between 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy including prophylactic regions in chemoradiotherapy with S-1 for pancreatic cancer-importance of dose volume histogram parameters in the stomach as the predictive factors. JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH 2022; 63:856-865. [PMID: 35993332 PMCID: PMC9726699 DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrac049] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2022] [Revised: 04/28/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities in patients who underwent 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with S-1 including prophylactic regions for pancreatic cancer. We also investigated the predictive factor of acute GI toxicities in dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters. Patients who received CRT with S-1 for pancreatic cancer between January 2014 and March 2021 were included. Radiotherapy (RT) with a total dose of 50-54 Gy was delivered. We examined the differences in the frequencies of acute GI toxicity of grade 2 or higher and DVH parameters of the stomach (ST) and duodenum (DU) between the 3DCRT group and the IMRT group. The RT-related predictive factors of acute GI toxicities were investigated by univariate and multivariate analyses. There were 25 patients in the 3DCRT group and 31 patients in the IMRT group. The frequencies of acute GI toxicity of G2 or higher were 36% in the 3DCRT group and 9.7% in the IMRT group (p = 0.035). ST V50 was the most predictive factor (p = 0.001), and the incidences of acute GI toxicity of G2 or higher in ST V50 ≥ 4.1 cc and < 4.1cc were 43.7% and 7.7%, respectively. ST V40 was also a significant predictive factor of acute GI toxicity (p = 0.002). IMRT could reduce acute GI toxicities in CRT with S-1 including prophylactic regions for pancreatic cancer. Acute GI toxicities may be affected by moderate to high doses to the ST.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rei Umezawa
- Corresponding author. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1, Seiryou-machi, Aobaku, Sendai 980-8574, Japan. Tel: +81-22-717-7312; Fax: +81-22-717-7316; E-mail:
| | - Kei Nakagawa
- Department of Surgery, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan
| | - Masamichi Mizuma
- Department of Surgery, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan
| | - Yoshiyuki Katsuta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan
| | - Shohei Tanaka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan
| | - Noriyuki Kadoya
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan
| | - Yu Suzuki
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan
| | - Kazuya Takeda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan
| | - Noriyoshi Takahashi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan
| | - Takaya Yamamoto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan
| | - Michiaki Unno
- Department of Surgery, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan
| | - Keiichi Jingu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lee BM, Byun HK, Seong J. Significance of lymphocyte recovery from treatment-related lymphopenia in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Radiother Oncol 2020; 151:82-87. [PMID: 32681928 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.07.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2020] [Revised: 07/01/2020] [Accepted: 07/09/2020] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Radiation-induced lymphopenia is associated with poor prognosis in resected pancreatic cancer and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, whether lymphocyte recovery contributes to pancreatic cancer prognosis has not been well-investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS We evaluated 497 locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients who underwent concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Complete blood counts of patients were obtained before, during, and after CCRT until the 12-month follow-up visit. Patients were categorized into 3 groups according to the development of and recovery from acutte severe lymphopenia (ASL): no ASL (group A, n = 198), recovery from ASL (group B, n = 141), and no recovery from ASL (group C, n = 89). Prognostic factors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined using Cox regression analyses. RESULTS In groups A, B, and C, the 2-year OS rates were 40.4%, 31.9%, and 14.6%, respectively, and the 2-year PFS rates were 23.7%, 18.4%, and 10.1%, respectively. OS and PFS were comparable between Groups A and B, while group C had poor OS and PFS (p < 0.001). Recovery from ASL was associated with superior OS (HR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.32-0.55, p < 0.001) and PFS (HR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.41-0.70, p < 0.001). The baseline lymphocyte counts and target volume independently predicted development and recovery from ASL. CONCLUSION Recovery from ASL was associated with both superior OS and PFS in patients who received CCRT for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Baseline lymphocyte counts and target volume were associated with both the development of and recovery from treatment-related ASL.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Byung Min Lee
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Hwa Kyung Byun
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jinsil Seong
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Kulkarni NM, Soloff EV, Tolat PP, Sangster GP, Fleming JB, Brook OR, Wang ZJ, Hecht EM, Zins M, Bhosale PR, Arif-Tiwari H, Mannelli L, Kambadakone AR, Tamm EP. White paper on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from society of abdominal radiology's disease-focused panel for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Part I, AJCC staging system, NCCN guidelines, and borderline resectable disease. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020; 45:716-728. [PMID: 31748823 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-019-02289-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive gastrointestinal malignancy with a poor 5-year survival rate. Accurate staging of PDAC is an important initial step in the development of a stage-specific treatment plan. Different staging systems/consensus statements convened by different societies and academic practices are currently used. The most recent version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor/node/metastases (TNM) staging system for PDAC has shifted its focus from guiding management to assessing prognosis. In order to preoperatively define the resectability of PDAC and to guide management, additional classification systems have been developed. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, one of the most commonly used systems, provide recommendations on the management and the determination of resectability for PDAC. The NCCN divides PDAC into three categories of resectability based on tumor-vessel relationship: 'resectable,' 'borderline resectable,' and 'unresectable'. Among these, the borderline disease category is of special interest given its evolution over time and the resulting variations in the definition and the associated recommendations for management between different societies. It is important to be familiar with the evolving criteria, and treatment and follow-up recommendations for PDAC. In this article, the most current AJCC staging (8th edition), NCCN guidelines (version 2.2019-April 9, 2019), and challenges and controversies in borderline resectable PDAC are reviewed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Naveen M Kulkarni
- Department of Radiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 W Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.
| | - Erik V Soloff
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA
| | - Parag P Tolat
- Department of Radiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 W Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA
| | - Guillermo P Sangster
- Department of Radiology, LSU Health - Shreveport Ochsner-LSU Health - Shreveport, 1501 Kings Highway, Shreveport, LA, 71103, USA
| | - Jason B Fleming
- Gastrointestinal Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 USF Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA
| | - Olga R Brook
- Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Avenue, Shapiro 4, Boston, MA, 02215-5400, USA
| | - Zhen Jane Wang
- Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA
| | - Elizabeth M Hecht
- Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, 622 W 168th St, PH1-317, New York, NY, 10032, USA
| | - Marc Zins
- Department of Radiology, Groupe Hospitalier Paris Saint-Joseph, 185 Rue Raymond Losserand, 75014, Paris, France
| | - Priya R Bhosale
- Abdominal Imaging Department, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1473, Houston, TX, 77030-400, USA
| | - Hina Arif-Tiwari
- Department of Radiology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, 1501 N. Campbell Ave., P.O. Box 245067, Tucson, AZ, 85724, USA
| | | | - Avinash R Kambadakone
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA
| | - Eric P Tamm
- Abdominal Imaging Department, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1473, Houston, TX, 77030-400, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Salgado M, Arévalo S, Hernando O, Martínez A, Yaya R, Hidalgo M. Management of unresectable, locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Clin Transl Oncol 2017; 20:113-118. [PMID: 28612202 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-017-1679-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2017] [Accepted: 05/15/2017] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
The diagnosis of unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LAPC) requires confirmation, through imaging tests, of the unfeasibility of achieving a complete surgical resection, in the absence of metastatic spread. The increase in overall survival (OS), together with an appropriate symptom management is the therapeutic target in LAPC, maintaining an acceptable quality of life and, if possible, increasing the time until the appearance of metastasis. Chemoradiation (CRT) improves OS compared to best support treatment or radiotherapy (RT) but with greater toxicity. No significant increase in OS has been achieved with CRT when compared to chemotherapy (QT) alone in patients without disease progression after four months of treatment with QT. However, a significantly better local control, that is, a significant increase in the time to disease progression was associated with this approach. The greater effectiveness of the schemes FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine (Gem) + Nab-paclitaxel compared to gemcitabine alone, has been extrapolated from metastatic disease to LAPC, representing a possible alternative for patients with good performance status (ECOG 0-1). In the absence of randomized clinical trials, Gem is the standard treatment in LAPC. If disease control is achieved after 4-6 cycles of QT, the use of CRT for consolidation can be considered an option vs QT treatment maintenance. Capecitabine has a better toxicity profile and effectiveness compared to gemcitabine as a radiosensitizer. After local progression, and without evidence of metastases, treatment with RT or CRT, in selected patients, can support to maintain the regional disease control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Salgado
- Department of Medical Oncology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Orense, C/Ramon Puga Noguerol, 54, 32005, Orense, Spain.
| | - S Arévalo
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Donostia, San Sebastián, San Sebastián, Spain
| | - O Hernando
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro and Hospital Universitario HM Puerta del Sur, Madrid, Spain
| | - A Martínez
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
| | - R Yaya
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain
| | - M Hidalgo
- Department of Medical Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma response to chemotherapy enhanced with non-invasive radio frequency evaluated via an integrated experimental/computational approach. Sci Rep 2017; 7:3437. [PMID: 28611425 PMCID: PMC5469743 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-03040-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2017] [Accepted: 04/21/2017] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Although chemotherapy combined with radiofrequency exposure has shown promise in cancer treatment by coupling drug cytotoxicity with thermal ablation or thermally-induced cytotoxicity, limited access of the drug to tumor loci in hypo-vascularized lesions has hampered clinical application. We recently showed that high-intensity short-wave capacitively coupled radiofrequency (RF) electric-fields may reach inaccessible targets in vivo. This non-invasive RF combined with gemcitabine (Gem) chemotherapy enhanced drug uptake and effect in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), notorious for having poor response and limited therapeutic options, but without inducing thermal injury. We hypothesize that the enhanced cytotoxicity derives from RF-facilitated drug transport in the tumor microenvironment. We propose an integrated experimental/computational approach to evaluate chemotherapeutic response combined with RF-induced phenotypic changes in tissue with impaired transport. Results show that RF facilitates diffusive transport in 3D cell cultures representing hypo-vascularized lesions, enhancing drug uptake and effect. Computational modeling evaluates drug vascular extravasation and diffusive transport as key RF-modulated parameters, with transport being dominant. Assessment of hypothetical schedules following current clinical protocol for Stage-IV PDAC suggests that unresponsive lesions may be growth-restrained when exposed to Gem plus RF. Comparison of these projections to experiments in vivo indicates that synergy may result from RF-induced cell phenotypic changes enhancing drug transport and cytotoxicity, thus providing a potential baseline for clinically-focused evaluation.
Collapse
|
8
|
Johnson MD, Stone B, Thibodeau BJ, Baschnagel AM, Galoforo S, Fortier LE, Ketelsen B, Ahmed S, Kelley Z, Hana A, Wilson TG, Robertson JM, Jury RP, Wilson GD. The significance of Trk receptors in pancreatic cancer. Tumour Biol 2017; 39:1010428317692256. [PMID: 28218045 DOI: 10.1177/1010428317692256] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
This study investigated the Trk receptor family as a therapeutic target in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and assessed their prognostic significance. Global gene expression analysis was investigated in prospectively collected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas that had either undergone neoadjuvant chemoradiation or were treated by surgery. PANC-1 and MIA-PaCa-2 cell lines were investigated to establish whether fractionated radiation altered expression of four neuroendocrine genes and whether this resulted in subsequent changes in radiosensitivity. A specific inhibitor of TrkA, B, and C, AstraZeneca 1332, was investigated in vitro and in vivo in combination with radiation. A tissue microarray was constructed from 77 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients who had undergone neoadjuvant chemoradiation and the Trk receptor, and neurogenic differentiation 1 expression was assessed and correlated with overall survival. A total of 99 genes were identified that were differentially expressed in the chemoradiation patients with neuroendocrine genes and pathways, in particular the neurogenic differentiation 1 and Trk receptor family, being prominent. Fractionated radiation upregulated the expression of neuroendocrine genes, and AstraZeneca 1332 treatment in vitro enhanced radiosensitivity. No added effect of AstraZeneca 1332 was observed in vivo. Trk receptor expression varied between isoforms but did not correlate significantly with clinical outcome. Radiation treatment upregulated neuroendocrine gene expression but the Trk receptor family does not appear to be a promising treatment target.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew D Johnson
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Brandon Stone
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Bryan J Thibodeau
- 2 Beaumont BioBank, William Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Andrew M Baschnagel
- 3 Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Sandra Galoforo
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Laura E Fortier
- 2 Beaumont BioBank, William Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Billie Ketelsen
- 2 Beaumont BioBank, William Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Samreen Ahmed
- 2 Beaumont BioBank, William Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Zakiya Kelley
- 2 Beaumont BioBank, William Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Alaa Hana
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Thomas G Wilson
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - John M Robertson
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Robert P Jury
- 4 Department of General Surgery, William Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - George D Wilson
- 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Lee KJ, Yoon HI, Chung MJ, Park JY, Bang S, Park SW, Seong JS, Song SY. A Comparison of Gastrointestinal Toxicities between Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy for Pancreatic Cancer. Gut Liver 2016; 10:303-9. [PMID: 26470767 PMCID: PMC4780462 DOI: 10.5009/gnl15186] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Background/Aims Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is considered the treatment option for locally advanced pancreatic cancer, but accompanying gastrointestinal toxicities are the most common complication. With the introduction of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3-D CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), CCRT-related adverse events are expected to diminish. Here, we evaluated the benefits of radiation modalities by comparing gastrointestinal toxicities between 3-D CRT and IMRT. Methods Patients who received CCRT between July 2010 and June 2012 in Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, were enrolled prospectively. The patients underwent upper endoscopy before and 1 month after CCRT. Results A total of 84 patients were enrolled during the study period. The radiotherapy modalities delivered included 3D-CRT (n=40) and IMRT (n=44). The median follow-up period from the start of CCRT was 10.6 months (range, 3.8 to 29.9 months). The symptoms of dyspepsia, nausea/vomiting, and diarrhea did not differ between the groups. Upper endoscopy revealed significantly more gastroduodenal ulcers in the 3-D CRT group (p=0.003). The modality of radiotherapy (3D-CRT; odds ratio [OR], 11.67; p=0.011) and tumor location (body of pancreas; OR, 11.06; p=0.009) were risk factors for gastrointestinal toxicities. Conclusions IMRT is associated with significantly fewer gastroduodenal injuries among patients treated with CCRT for pancreatic cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyong Joo Lee
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea
| | - Hong In Yoon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.,Brain Korea 21 Plus Project for Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Moon Jae Chung
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jeong Youp Park
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seungmin Bang
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seung-Woo Park
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jin Sil Seong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Si Young Song
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Kishi T, Matsuo Y, Nakamura A, Nakamoto Y, Itasaka S, Mizowaki T, Togashi K, Hiraoka M. Comparative evaluation of respiratory-gated and ungated FDG-PET for target volume definition in radiotherapy treatment planning for pancreatic cancer. Radiother Oncol 2016; 120:217-21. [PMID: 27492203 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.07.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2016] [Revised: 07/15/2016] [Accepted: 07/17/2016] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of respiratory-gated positron emission tomography (4D-PET) in pancreatic cancer radiotherapy treatment planning (RTTP). MATERIALS AND METHODS Fourteen patients with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-avid pancreatic tumours were evaluated between December 2013 and March 2015. Two sets of volumes were contoured for the pancreatic tumour of each patient. The biological target volume in three-dimensional RTTP (BTV3D) was contoured using conventional respiratory un-gated PET. The BTV3D was then expanded using population-based margins to generate a series of internal target volume 3D (ITV3D) values. The ITV 4D (ITV4D) was contoured using 4D-PET. Each of the five phases of 4D-PET was used for 4D contouring, and the ITV4D was constructed by summing the volumes defined on the five individual 4D-PET images. The relative volumes and normalized volumetric overlap were computed between ITV3D and ITV4D. RESULTS On average, the FDG-avid tumour volumes were 1.6 (range: 0.8-2.3) fold greater in the ITV4D than in the BTV3D. On average, the ITV3D values were 2.0 (range: 1.1-3.4) fold larger than the corresponding ITV4D values. CONCLUSION The ITV generated from 4D-PET can be used to improve the accuracy or reduce normal tissue irradiation compared with conventional un-gated PET-based ITV.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takahiro Kishi
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Japan
| | - Yukinori Matsuo
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Japan
| | - Akira Nakamura
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Japan
| | - Yuji Nakamoto
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Japan
| | - Satoshi Itasaka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Japan
| | - Takashi Mizowaki
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Japan
| | - Kaori Togashi
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Japan
| | - Masahiro Hiraoka
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Rakhra S, Strauss JB, Robertson J, McGinn CJ, Kim T, Huang J, Blake A, Helenowski I, Hayes JP, Mulcahy M, Small W. Hypofractionated Conformal Radiotherapy with Concurrent Full-Dose Gemcitabine Versus Standard Fractionation Radiotherapy with Concurrent Fluorouracil for Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: a Multi-Institution Experience. J Gastrointest Cancer 2016; 47:196-201. [PMID: 27112332 DOI: 10.1007/s12029-016-9821-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) The purpose of this study was to compare oncologic outcomes and toxicity profile of hypofractionated conformal radiotherapy (RT) with concurrent full-dose gemcitabine versus standard fractionation RT with concurrent 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in the treatment of unresectable non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. MATERIALS/METHODS Patients with unresectable non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas treated at three institutions were included. All patients were treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) consisting of either hypofractionated RT to the gross disease concurrent with a full-dose gemcitabine-based regimen versus standard fractionation RT to the tumor and elective nodes concurrent with 5-FU. End points included rates of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities, overall survival (OS), and distant metastasis free survival (DMFS). RESULTS From January 1999 to December 2009, 170 patients were identified (118 RT/gemcitabine, 52 RT/5-FU). There were no differences in demographic or clinical factors. Acute GI toxicities (grades <3 versus ≥3) were 82.2 and 17.8 %, respectively, for patients treated with RT/gemcitabine and 78.9 and 21.2 % for those treated with RT/5-FU (p = 0.67). Late GI toxicities (grades <3 versus ≥3) were 88.1 and 11.9 %, respectively, for RT/gemcitabine and 80.8 and 19.2 % for RT/5-FU (p = 0.23). OS for RT/gemcitabine and RT/5-FU were 52 versus 36 % at 1 year and 14 versus 6 % at 2 years favoring the RT/gemcitabine group (p = 0.02). DMFS at 1 and 2 years for RT/gemcitabine were 41 and 11 % versus 24 and 4 % for RT/5-FU (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS RT/gemcitabine was equivalent in toxicity to RT/5-FU but was associated with superior OS and DMFS. When RT is used in the treatment of unresectable pancreatic cancer, hypofractionated conformal RT with concurrent full-dose gemcitabine may be the preferred approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sunpreet Rakhra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Jonathan B Strauss
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - John Robertson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Cornelius J McGinn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA
| | - Thomas Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Jiayi Huang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, MI, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Andrew Blake
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA
| | - Irene Helenowski
- Northwestern University Cancer Biostatistics Core, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - John P Hayes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Mary Mulcahy
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, The Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - William Small
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, 2160 S 1st Ave Maguire Center, Rm 2932, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Balaban EP, Mangu PB, Khorana AA, Shah MA, Mukherjee S, Crane CH, Javle MM, Eads JR, Allen P, Ko AH, Engebretson A, Herman JM, Strickler JH, Benson AB, Urba S, Yee NS. Locally Advanced, Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:2654-68. [PMID: 27247216 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2016.67.5561] [Citation(s) in RCA: 254] [Impact Index Per Article: 31.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others for treatment of patients with locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer. METHODS American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, gastroenterology, palliative care, and advocacy experts and conducted a systematic review of the literature from January 2002 to June 2015. Outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS Twenty-six randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS A multiphase computed tomography scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed. Baseline performance status and comorbidity profile should be evaluated. The goals of care, patient preferences, psychological status, support systems, and symptoms should guide decisions for treatments. A palliative care referral should occur at first visit. Initial systemic chemotherapy (6 months) with a combination regimen is recommended for most patients (for some patients radiation therapy may be offered up front) with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 and a favorable comorbidity profile. There is no clear evidence to support one regimen over another. The gemcitabine-based combinations and treatments recommended in the metastatic setting (eg, fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin and gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel) have not been evaluated in randomized controlled trials involving locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer. If there is local disease progression after induction chemotherapy, without metastasis, then radiation therapy or stereotactic body radiotherapy may be offered also with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 and an adequate comorbidity profile. If there is stable disease after 6 months of induction chemotherapy but unacceptable toxicities, radiation therapy may be offered as an alternative. Patients with disease progression should be offered treatment per the ASCO Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Treatment Guideline. Follow-up visits every 3 to 4 months are recommended. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/LAPC and www.asco.org/guidelines/MetPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edward P Balaban
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Pamela B Mangu
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Alok A Khorana
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Manish A Shah
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Somnath Mukherjee
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Christopher H Crane
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Milind M Javle
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Jennifer R Eads
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Peter Allen
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Andrew H Ko
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Anitra Engebretson
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Joseph M Herman
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - John H Strickler
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Al B Benson
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Susan Urba
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Nelson S Yee
- Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern, Chicago, IL; and Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Pilz K, Hoffmann AL, Baumann M, Troost EG. Vertebral fractures – An underestimated side-effect in patients treated with radio(chemo)therapy. Radiother Oncol 2016; 118:421-3. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.02.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2016] [Accepted: 02/18/2016] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
14
|
Induction Chemotherapy Followed by Concurrent Full-dose Gemcitabine and Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy for Borderline Resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol 2016; 39:1-7. [DOI: 10.1097/coc.0000000000000003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
|
15
|
Coveler AL, Herman JM, Simeone DM, Chiorean EG. Localized Pancreatic Cancer: Multidisciplinary Management. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2016; 35:e217-26. [PMID: 27249726 DOI: 10.1200/edbk_160827] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive cancer that continues to have single-digit 5-year mortality rates despite advancements in the field. Surgery remains the only curative treatment; however, most patients present with late-stage disease deemed unresectable, either due to extensive local vascular involvement or the presence of distant metastasis. Resection guidelines that include a borderline resectable group, as well as advancements in neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation that improve resectability of locally advanced disease, may improve outcomes for patients with more invasive disease. Multi-agent chemotherapy regimens fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) and nab-paclitaxel with gemcitabine improved response rates and survival in metastatic pancreatic cancer and are now being used in earlier stages for patients with localized potentially resectable and unresectable disease, with goals of downstaging tumors to allow margin-negative resection and reducing systemic recurrence. Chemoradiotherapy, although still controversial for both resectable and unresectable pancreatic cancer, is being used in the context of contemporary chemotherapy backbone regimens, and novel radiation techniques such as stereotactic body frame radiation therapy (SBRT) are studied on the premise of maintaining or improving efficacy and reducing treatment duration. Patient selection for optimal treatment designation is currently provided by multidisciplinary tumor boards, but biomarker discovery, in blood, tumors, or through novel imaging, is an area of intense research. Results to date suggest that some patients with unresectable disease at the outset have survival rates as good as those with initially resectable disease if able to undergo surgical resection. Long-term follow-up and improved clinical trials options are needed to determine optimal treatment modalities for patients with localized pancreatic cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew L Coveler
- From the Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Joseph M Herman
- From the Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Diane M Simeone
- From the Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - E Gabriela Chiorean
- From the Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Silvestris N, Longo V, Cellini F, Reni M, Bittoni A, Cataldo I, Partelli S, Falconi M, Scarpa A, Brunetti O, Lorusso V, Santini D, Morganti A, Valentini V, Cascinu S. Neoadjuvant multimodal treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2015; 98:309-24. [PMID: 26653573 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.11.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2015] [Revised: 09/14/2015] [Accepted: 11/19/2015] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is increasingly multidisciplinary, with neoadjuvant strategies (chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery) administered in patients with resectable, borderline resectable, or locally advanced disease. The rational supporting this management is the achievement of both higher margin-negative resections and conversion rates into potentially resectable disease and in vivo assessment of novel therapeutics. International guidelines suggest an initial staging of the disease followed by a multidisciplinary approach, even considering the lack of a treatment approach to be considered as standard in this setting. This review will focus on both literature data supporting these guidelines and on new opportunities related to current more active chemotherapy regimens. An analysis of the pathological assessment of response to therapy and the potential role of target therapies and translational biomarkers and ongoing clinical trials of significance will be discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Silvestris
- Medical Oncology Unit, National Cancer Research Centre "Giovanni Paolo II", Bari, Italy.
| | - Vito Longo
- Medical Oncology Unit, 'Mons R Dimiccoli' Hospital, Barletta, Italy
| | - Francesco Cellini
- Radiation Oncology Department, Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| | - Michele Reni
- Medical Oncology Department, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milano, Italy
| | - Alessandro Bittoni
- Medical Oncology Clinic, AOU Ospedali Riuniti, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, Ancona, Italy
| | - Ivana Cataldo
- ARC-NET Research Centre, University of Verona, Italy
| | - Stefano Partelli
- Pancreatic Unit, Department of Surgery, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Massimo Falconi
- Pancreatic Unit, Department of Surgery, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Aldo Scarpa
- ARC-NET Research Centre, University of Verona, Italy
| | - Oronzo Brunetti
- Medical Oncology Unit, National Cancer Research Centre "Giovanni Paolo II", Bari, Italy
| | - Vito Lorusso
- Medical Oncology Unit, National Cancer Research Centre "Giovanni Paolo II", Bari, Italy
| | - Daniele Santini
- Medical Oncology Unit, University Campus Biomedico, Roma, Italy
| | - Alessio Morganti
- Radiation Oncology Center, Dept. of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Valentini
- Radiation Oncology Department, Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| | - Stefano Cascinu
- Medical Oncology Clinic, AOU Ospedali Riuniti, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, Ancona, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Yang YF, Cao XH, Bao CE, Wan X. Concurrent radiotherapy with oral fluoropyrimidine versus gemcitabine in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Onco Targets Ther 2015; 8:3315-22. [PMID: 26635481 PMCID: PMC4646586 DOI: 10.2147/ott.s91292] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Gemcitabine (GEM) is the most widely utilized systemic agent in combination with radiation therapy (RT) for treating locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) in the concurrent setting. Despite recent interest in using two novel oral fluoropyrimidines (FUs), capecitabine and S-1, in this setting, there is a lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to support this approach. Methods Trials published between 1994 and 2014 were identified by an electronic search of public databases (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library). All prospective studies were independently identified by two authors for inclusion. Demographic data, treatment response, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS, respectively), and toxicities were extracted and analyzed using comprehensive meta-analysis software (version 2.0). Results Twenty-three cohorts with 843 patients were included: 497 patients were treated with GEM and 346 patients were treated with oral FU. Pooled OS was significantly higher at 1 and 2 years for S-1 plus RT than for GEM plus RT (relative risk [RR] 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–1.65; P=0.03; and RR 1.75; 95% CI, 1.18–2.60, P=0.002, respectively), while 1-year PFS and ORR were not significantly different between S-1 and GEM-based chemoradiotherapy (P=0.37 and P=0.06, respectively). Additionally, comparable efficacy was found between capecitabine and GEM-based chemoradiotherapy in terms of OS, PFS, and ORR. As for grade 3 and 4 acute toxicity, oral FU plus RT significantly reduced the risk of developing hematologic toxicities, nausea, and vomiting when compared to GEM plus RT (P<0.001). Conclusions Oral FU plus RT may be a safe and feasible regimen for patients with LAPC, with similar efficacy and low rate of toxicities compared with GEM plus RT. Our findings support the need to compare S-1 with GEM in the concurrent setting in large prospective RCTs due to its potential survival benefits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yong-Feng Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, People's Republic of China
| | - Xiao-Hui Cao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, People's Republic of China
| | - Chao-En Bao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, People's Republic of China
| | - Xin Wan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Prasad S, Cambridge L, Huguet F, Chou JF, Zhang Z, Wu AJ, O'Reilly EM, Allen PJ, Goodman KA. Intensity modulated radiation therapy reduces gastrointestinal toxicity in locally advanced pancreas cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol 2015; 6:78-85. [PMID: 26577010 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2015.09.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2015] [Revised: 09/08/2015] [Accepted: 09/18/2015] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE We compared gastrointestinal (GI) and hematologic toxicity in patients with locally advanced pancreas cancer (LAPC) undergoing definitive chemoradiation using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS We retrospectively studied 205 patients with LAPC undergoing IMRT (n = 134) and 3D-CRT (n = 71) between May 2003 and March 2012. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics and acute GI/hematology toxicity according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0, were recorded. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to test association between acute grade 2+ GI and hematologic toxicity outcomes and predictors. Propensity score analysis for grade 2+ GI toxicity was performed to reduce bias for confounding variables: age, gender, radiation dose, field size, and chemotherapy type. RESULTS Median follow-up time for survivors was 22 months and was similar between groups. Median RT dose was significantly higher for IMRT versus 3D-CRT (5600 cGy vs 5040 cGy, P < .001); concurrent chemotherapy was mainly gemcitabine (56%) or 5-fluorouracil (38%). Grade 2+ GI toxicity occurred in 34% (n = 24) of 3D-CRT compared with 16% (n = 21) of IMRT patients. Using propensity score analysis, 3D-CRT had significantly higher grade 2+ GI toxicity (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.45; P = .001). Grade 2+ hematologic toxicity was similar between IMRT and 3D-CRT groups, but was significantly greater in recipients of concurrent gemcitabine than in 5-fluorouracil (62% vs 29%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS IMRT is associated with significant lower grade 2+ GI toxicity versus 3D-CRT for patients undergoing definitive chemoradiation therapy for LAPC. Because IMRT is better tolerated at higher doses and may allow further dose escalation, potentially improving local control for this aggressive disease. Further prospective studies of dose-escalated chemoradiation using IMRT are warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shreya Prasad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Lajhem Cambridge
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Florence Huguet
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tenon Hospital, APHP, University Paris VI, Paris, France
| | - Joanne F Chou
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Zhigang Zhang
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Abraham J Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Eileen M O'Reilly
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Peter J Allen
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Karyn A Goodman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Definitive Chemoradiation With Full-dose Gemcitabine for Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: Efficacy of Involved-Field Radiotherapy. Am J Clin Oncol 2015; 40:517-522. [PMID: 26165418 DOI: 10.1097/coc.0000000000000200] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer has traditionally involved 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. Our institution has a long history of combining gemcitabine and radiotherapy (RT), and performed a retrospective review of all patients treated in this manner. MATERIALS AND METHODS We reviewed the records of 180 patients treated from 1999 to 2012. Mean RT dose was 40.9 Gy in 2.2-Gy fractions, and targeted only radiographically apparent disease. Ninety-six percent of patients received full-dose gemcitabine-based chemotherapy with RT. Kaplan-Meier was used to analyze time-to-event endpoints, and Cox regression models were used to assess significant prognostic variables. RESULTS Eighty-nine percent of patients completed RT without a toxicity-related treatment break. Median follow-up was 10.2 months. Twenty-nine percent of patients had a radiographic decrease in primary tumor size following treatment. Median overall survival was 11.8 months, time to distant metastasis (TDM) was 6.7 months, and time to local recurrence (TLR) was 8.3 months. On multivariate analysis, male sex, lower performance status, and higher posttreatment CA 19-9 level predicted for worse overall survival. Posttreatment, CA 19-9 was also associated with TDM and TLR, and radiographic tumor response was associated with better TLR. CONCLUSION Definitive chemoradiation using full-dose gemcitabine is well tolerated and achieves survival outcomes comparable to reported trials in the literature.
Collapse
|
20
|
Durante M, Tommasino F, Yamada S. Modeling Combined Chemotherapy and Particle Therapy for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer. Front Oncol 2015. [PMID: 26217585 PMCID: PMC4492201 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2015.00145] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is the only cancer for which deaths are predicted to increase in 2014 and beyond. Combined radiochemotherapy protocols using gemcitabine and hypofractionated X-rays are ongoing in several clinical trials. Recent results indicate that charged particle therapy substantially increases local control of resectable and unresectable pancreas cancer, as predicted from previous radiobiology studies considering the high tumor hypoxia. Combination with chemotherapy improves the overall survival (OS). We compared published data on X-ray and charged particle clinical results with or without adjuvant chemotherapy calculating the biological effective dose. We show that chemoradiotherapy with protons or carbon ions results in 1 year OS significantly higher than those obtained with other treatment schedules. Further hypofractionation using charged particles may result in improved local control and survival. A comparative clinical trial using the standard X-ray scheme vs. the best current standard with carbon ions is crucial and may open new opportunities for this deadly disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Durante
- Department of Biophysics, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung , Darmstadt , Germany ; Department of Physics, Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Applications (TIFPA), National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN), University of Trento , Trento , Italy
| | - Francesco Tommasino
- Department of Biophysics, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung , Darmstadt , Germany ; Department of Physics, Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Applications (TIFPA), National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN), University of Trento , Trento , Italy
| | - Shigeru Yamada
- Research Center Hospital for Charged Particle Therapy, National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) , Chiba , Japan
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Sherman WH, Chu K, Chabot J, Allendorf J, Schrope BA, Hecht E, Jin B, Leung D, Remotti H, Addeo G, Postolov I, Tsai W, Fine RL. Neoadjuvant gemcitabine, docetaxel, and capecitabine followed by gemcitabine and capecitabine/radiation therapy and surgery in locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer 2015; 121:673-80. [PMID: 25492104 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2014] [Revised: 09/07/2014] [Accepted: 09/08/2014] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This prospective study was undertaken to assess toxicity, resectability, and survival in pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients presenting with locally advanced, unresectable disease treated with neoadjuvant gemcitabine, docetaxel, and capecitabine (GTX) and gemcitabine and capecitabine (GX)/radiation therapy (RT). METHODS All patients presenting to the Pancreas Center were evaluated for eligibility. Forty-five patients (mean age, 64 years; range, 44-83 years)-34 patients deemed unresectable because of arterial involvement and 11 patients deemed unresectable because of extensive venous involvement-were treated with 6 cycles of GTX. Those with arterial involvement were treated with GX/RT after chemotherapy. RESULTS The GTX and GX/RT treatments were tolerated with the expected drug-related toxicities. There were no bowel perforations, cases of pancreatitis, or delayed strictures. Among those with arterial involvement, 29 underwent subsequent resection, with 20 (69%) achieving R0 resections. All 11 patients with venous-only involvement underwent resection, with 8 achieving R0 resections and 3 achieving complete pathologic responses. For the arterial arm, the 1-year survival rate was 71% (24 of 34 patients), and the median survival was 29 months (95% confidence interval, 21-38 months). Thirteen patients (38%) have not relapsed (range, 5-49+ months). For the venous arm, the median survival has not been reached at more than 42 months. Six patients (55%) in the venous arm did not experience recurrence (range, 6.2-42+ months). CONCLUSIONS GTX plus GX/RT is an effective neoadjuvant regimen that can be safely administered to patients up to at least the age of 83 years. It is associated with a high response rate, a high rate of R0 resections, and prolonged overall survival.
Collapse
|
22
|
Hirata T, Teshima T, Nishiyama K, Ogawa K, Otani K, Kawaguchi Y, Konishi K, Tomita Y, Takahashi H, Ohigashi H, Ishikawa O. Histopathological effects of preoperative chemoradiotherapy for pancreatic cancer: an analysis for the impact of radiation and gemcitabine doses. Radiother Oncol 2015; 114:122-7. [PMID: 25614389 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.01.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2014] [Revised: 01/03/2015] [Accepted: 01/04/2015] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Histopathological findings of patients who underwent resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PC) after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) reportedly showed beneficial effects. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the correlation between histopathological effects (HE) of preoperative CRT and treatment parameters [radiation and gemcitabine (GEM) doses]. MATERIAL AND METHODS HE of CRT were assessed on 158 primary lesions of 157 patients with PC who underwent pancreatic resection after preoperative CRT with GEM between January 2006 and December 2011. The radiation dose delivered to the primary tumor site and surrounding regional nodal areas was 50 Gy until September 2009 followed by the dose escalation of a 10 Gy boost added for delivery with the field-in-field technique to the roots of the celiac and superior mesenteric arteries. Intravenous administration of GEM (1000 /m(2)) was initiated concurrently on days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks and generally repeated for 3 cycles. HE of CRT on the primary tumor were categorized based on the number of tumor cells destroyed. RESULTS The median overall survival time was 74.5 months and 3-year and 5-year survival rates were 64.3% and 54.5%, respectively. Dose-volume parameters of radiation such as D33 with a cut-off value of 51.6 Gy were correlated significantly with HE (p=.0230). Lesions having received GEM>7625 mg/m(2) before surgical resection more frequently showed positive HE (p=.0002). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that both D33 and cumulative GEM dose were significant predictors of definite HE (p=.0110 and <.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Our retrospective analysis showed that dose intensity of radiation and GEM is significantly related to HE of preoperative CRT for PC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takero Hirata
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
| | - Teruki Teshima
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan.
| | - Kinji Nishiyama
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan
| | - Kazuhiko Ogawa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
| | - Keisuke Otani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
| | - Yoshifumi Kawaguchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan
| | - Koji Konishi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan
| | - Yasuhiko Tomita
- Department of Pathology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan
| | - Hidenori Takahashi
- Department of Surgery, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan
| | - Hiroaki Ohigashi
- Department of Surgery, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan
| | - Osamu Ishikawa
- Department of Surgery, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Comparison of toxicity after IMRT and 3D-conformal radiotherapy for patients with pancreatic cancer – A systematic review. Radiother Oncol 2015; 114:117-21. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2014.11.043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2014] [Revised: 11/24/2014] [Accepted: 11/25/2014] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
|
24
|
Mian OY, Ram AN, Tuli R, Herman JM. Management options in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 2014; 16:388. [PMID: 24740136 DOI: 10.1007/s11912-014-0388-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is a highly lethal cancer that is rarely curable at the time of presentation. Unfortunately, most patients are diagnosed with either metastatic or locally advanced disease, which is not amenable to surgery owing to the high likelihood of incomplete resection. Given the generally poor prognosis with propensity for metastatic failure greater than that for local failure, treatment options are variable, and include chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapies, and combinations thereof. This review summarizes the current evidence for definitive management of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, as well as the role of palliative therapies. Future directions, including the development of predictive biomarkers and novel systemic agents, are also discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Omar Y Mian
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 401 North Broadway, Weinberg Suite, 1440, Baltimore, MD, 21231, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Huguet F, Mukherjee S, Javle M. Locally advanced pancreatic cancer: the role of definitive chemoradiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2014; 26:560-8. [PMID: 25001636 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2014.06.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2014] [Revised: 05/13/2014] [Accepted: 06/04/2014] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
At the time of diagnosis, around 20% of patients with pancreatic cancer present at a resectable stage, 50% have metastatic disease and 30% have locally advanced tumour, non-metastatic but unresectable because of superior mesenteric artery or coeliac encasement. Despite advances in chemoradiotherapy and improved systemic chemotherapeutic agents, patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer suffer from high rates of distant metastatic failure and from local progression, with a median survival time ranging from 5 to 11 months. In the past 30 years, modest improvements in median survival have been attained for these patients treated by chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy protocols. The optimal therapy for patients with locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma remains controversial. This review aims to evaluate the role of radiotherapy for these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F Huguet
- Service d'Oncologie Radiothérapie, Hôpital Tenon, Hôpitaux Universitaires Est Parisien, Paris, France.
| | - S Mukherjee
- Gray Institute for Radiation Oncology and Biology, University of Oxford, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK
| | - M Javle
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Kang H, Chang JS, Oh TG, Chung MJ, Park JY, Park SW, Seong J, Song SY, Chung JB, Bang S. Full-Dose Gemcitabine Is a More Effective Chemotherapeutic Agent Than 5-Fluorouracil for Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy as First-Line Treatment in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer. Chemotherapy 2014; 60:191-9. [DOI: 10.1159/000375402] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2014] [Accepted: 01/19/2015] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
<b><i>Objectives:</i></b> To compare the efficacy of full-dose gemcitabine-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (FG-CCRT) and conventional 5-fluorouracil CCRT (5FU-CCRT) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> 109 LAPC cases treated with FG-CCRT (n = 89) or 5FU-CCRT (n = 20) were reviewed retrospectively. The FG-CCRT group was composed of a full-dose gemcitabine monotherapy (1,000 mg/m<sup>2</sup>) arm and a combination therapy with cisplatin (70 mg/m<sup>2</sup>) arm. The 5FU-CCRT group used a radiosensitizing dose of 5-FU (500 mg/m<sup>2</sup>) plus leucovorin (20 mg/m<sup>2</sup>). Concurrent radiotherapy was targeted at the tumor with a 5-mm margin without lymph node irradiation. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) was significantly higher in the FG-CCRT group (ORR: 32.6 vs. 5%, p = 0.013; DCR: 79.8 vs. 50.0%, p = 0.006). FG-CCRT showed remarkable superiority to 5FU-CCRT for suppressing distant metastasis (18.0 vs. 45.0%, p = 0.017). Neutropenia (34.8 vs. 10%, p = 0.032) and thrombocytopenia (21.3 vs. 0.0%, p = 0.021) were more frequent in the FG-CCRT group as originally expected. When dividing the FG-CCRT group to gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) and gemcitabine plus cisplatin, toxicities of the GEM subgroup were not different than those of the 5FU-CCRT group. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> FG-CCRT, especially full-dose gemcitabine monotherapy-based CCRT was more effective for the initial control of LAPC than 5FU-CCRT, and also relatively safe.
Collapse
|
27
|
Cattaneo GM, Passoni P, Longobardi B, Slim N, Reni M, Cereda S, di Muzio N, Calandrino R. Dosimetric and clinical predictors of toxicity following combined chemotherapy and moderately hypofractionated rotational radiotherapy of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Radiother Oncol 2013; 108:66-71. [PMID: 23726116 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.05.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2012] [Revised: 04/17/2013] [Accepted: 05/09/2013] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is limited by the tolerance of adjacent normal tissues. A better understanding of the influence of dosimetric variables on the rate of toxicity after RT must be considered an important goal. METHODS AND MATERIALS Sixty-one patients with histologically proven locally advanced disease (LAPD) were analyzed. The therapeutic strategy consisted of induction chemotherapy (ChT) followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In 39 out of 61 patients the target volume was based on a four-dimensional CT (4D-CT) procedure. Delivered dose was 44.25Gy in 15 fractions to PTV2, which consisted of pancreatic tumor and regional lymph nodes considered radiologically involved; 23 out of 61 patients received a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to a tumor sub-volume infiltrating the great abdominal vessels (PTV1) with dose in the range of 48-58Gy. RT was delivered with Helical Tomotherapy. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) were collected for analysis. The predictive value of clinical/dosimetric parameters was tested by univariate/multivariate analyses. RESULTS The crude incidence of acute gastrointestinal (GI) grade 2 toxicity was 33%. The 12-month actuarial rate of "anatomical" (gastro-duodenal mucosa damage) toxicity was 13% (95% CI: 4-22%). On univariate analysis, several stomach and duodenum DVH endpoints are predictive of toxicity after moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. Multivariate analysis confirmed that baseline performance status and the stomach V20[%] were strong independent predictors of acute GI grade ⩾2 toxicity. The high-dose region of duodenum DVH (V45[%]; V40[%]) was strongly correlated with grade ⩾2 "anatomical" toxicity; the best V40[%] and V45[%] cut-off values were 16% and 2.6% respectively. CONCLUSION Regarding dosimetric indices, stomach V20[%] correlates with a higher rate of acute toxicity; more severe acute and late anatomical toxicities are related to the high dose region of duodenum DVH.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giovanni M Cattaneo
- Medical Physics Department, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Habermehl D, Brecht IC, Bergmann F, Welzel T, Rieken S, Werner J, Schirmacher P, Büchler MW, Debus J, Combs SE. Chemoradiation in patients with isolated recurrent pancreatic cancer - therapeutical efficacy and probability of re-resection. Radiat Oncol 2013; 8:27. [PMID: 23369246 PMCID: PMC3570445 DOI: 10.1186/1748-717x-8-27] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2012] [Accepted: 01/22/2013] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Background In the present retrospective analysis we analysed the therapeutic outcome of a set of patients, who were treated with chemoradiation (CRT) for recurrent pancreatic cancer (RPC) in a single institution. Patients and Methods Forty-one patients had a history of primary resection for pancreatic cancer. In case of an unresectable recurrency patients were treated with CRT at our institution between 2002 and 2010 with a median dose of 48.4 Gy (range 39.6–54 Gy). Concurrent chemotherapy regimes included Gemcitabine (GEM) in 37/41 patients (90%) and Fluorouracil (FU) or Capecitabine (CAP) in 4/41 patients (10%). Patients were re-evaluated after CRT with computed tomography and/or explorative laparotomy. During re-resection or laparotomy 15 patients received an additional intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) with a median dose of 15 Gy (range 12–15 Gy). Median age was 65 years (range 39–76 years) and there were 26 male and 15 female patients. Results The median overall survival (mOS), local control (LC) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 16.1, 13.8 and 6.9 months respectively for all patients after the first day of CRT. Re-resection was possible in five patients (12%) and a complete remission (CR) as defined by tumor-free biopsy was seen in 6 patients (15%). When re-resection could be achieved after CRT mOS was improved to 28.3 months (n = 5 patients, 95%-CI 10.2 – 46.3 months). Patients receiving IORT had a significantly improved mOS compared to no IORT (p = 0.034). Fifteen patients (37%) experienced a local tumour progression and main site of distant metastasis was the liver (11 patients, 27%).Overall treatment-related toxicity was mild, grade III hematologic toxicity was observed in 11 patients (27%). Conclusion In summary we observed a good therapeutic response with mild to moderate toxicity levels for CRT in RPC. Overall survival and PFS were clearly improved in case of induction of a complete remission (tumor-free biopsies) or after achieving a re-resection, thus providing a curative intended therapy even in case of disease recurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Habermehl
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Tunceroglu A, Park JH, Balasubramanian S, Poppe M, Anker CJ, Poplin E, Moss RA, Yue NJ, Carpizo D, Gannon CJ, Haffty BG, Jabbour SK. Dose-painted intensity modulated radiation therapy improves local control for locally advanced pancreas cancer. ISRN ONCOLOGY 2012; 2012:572342. [PMID: 23119186 PMCID: PMC3483817 DOI: 10.5402/2012/572342] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2012] [Accepted: 09/13/2012] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Background. To evaluate the outcomes, adverse events, and therapeutic role of Dose-Painted Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (DP-IMRT) for locally advanced pancreas cancer (LAPC). Methods. Patients with LAPC were treated with induction chemotherapy (n = 25) and those without metastasis (n = 20) received DP-IMRT consisting of 45 Gy to Planning Treatment Volume 1 (PTV1) including regional lymph nodes with a concomitant boost to the PTV2 (gross tumor volume + 0.5 cm) to either 50.4 Gy (n = 9) or 54 Gy (n = 11) in 25 fractions. DP-IMRT cases were compared to three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) plans to assess the potential relationship of radiation dose to adverse events. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to calculate survival probabilities. The Fisher exact test and t-test were utilized to investigate potential prognostic factors of toxicity and survival. Results. Median overall and progression-free survivals were 11.6 and 5.9 months, respectively. Local control was 90%. Post-RT CA-19-9 levels following RT were predictive of survival (P = 0.02). Grade 2 and ≥grade 3 GI toxicity were 60% and 20%, respectively. In comparison to 3D-CRT, DP-IMRT plans demonstrated significantly lower V45 values of small bowel (P = 0.0002), stomach (P = 0.007), and mean liver doses (P = 0.001). Conclusions. Dose-escalated DP-IMRT offers improved local control in patients treated with induction chemotherapy for LAPC. Radiation-related morbidity appears reduced with DP-IMRT compared to 3D-CRT techniques, likely due to reduction in RT doses to organs at risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ahmet Tunceroglu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, G2N45, 195 Little Albany Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Mornex F, Hatime M, Touch S, Elmorabit B, Pigne G, Enachescu C, Diaz O, Elkhoti Y. Radiotherapy of the pancreas: state of the art in 2012. Recent Results Cancer Res 2012; 196:89-103. [PMID: 23129368 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-31629-6_6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- F Mornex
- Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Huang J, Robertson JM, Ye H, Margolis J, Nadeau L, Yan D. Dose-volume analysis of predictors for gastrointestinal toxicity after concurrent full-dose gemcitabine and radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 83:1120-5. [PMID: 22099048 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.09.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2011] [Revised: 08/10/2011] [Accepted: 09/11/2011] [Indexed: 10/15/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To identify dosimetric predictors for the development of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LAPC) treated with concurrent full-dose gemcitabine and radiotherapy (GemRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS From June 2002 to June 2009, 46 LAPC patients treated with definitive GemRT were retrospectively analyzed. The stomach and duodenum were retrospectively contoured separately to determine their dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters. GI toxicity was defined as Grade 3 or higher GI toxicity. The follow-up time was calculated from the start of RT to the date of death or last contact. Univariate analysis (UVA) and multivariate analysis (MVA) using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models were performed to identify risk factors associated with GI toxicity. The receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were used to determine the best DVH parameter to predict for GI toxicity. RESULTS Of the patients, 28 (61%) received concurrent gemcitabine alone, and 18 (39%) had concurrent gemcitabine with daily erlotinib. On UVA, only the V(20Gy) to V(35Gy) of duodenum were significantly associated with GI toxicity (all p ≤ 0.05). On MVA, the V(25Gy) of duodenum and the use of erlotinib were independent risk factors for GI toxicity (p = 0.006 and 0.02, respectively). For the entire cohort, the V(25Gy) of duodenum is the best predictor for GI toxicity (AUC = 0.717), and the 12-month GI toxicity rate was 8% vs. 48% for V(25Gy) ≤ 45% and V(25Gy) > 45%, respectively (p = 0.03). However, excluding the erlotinib group, the V(35Gy) is the best predictor (AUC = 0.725), and the 12-month GI toxicity rate was 0% vs. 41% for V(35Gy) ≤ 20% and V(35Gy) > 20%, respectively (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS DVH parameters of duodenum may predict Grade 3 GI toxicity after GemRT for LAPC. Concurrent use of erlotinib during GemRT may increase GI toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiayi Huang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|