Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Analysis of Upfront Surgery Versus Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Surgery for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma with Arterial Abutment

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved disease-free survival in pancreatic cancer patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resection

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is becoming favored for all pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Patients with seemingly resectable disease infrequently still display vascular involvement intraoperatively. Outcomes following NAC versus upfront surgery in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with vascular resection are unknown.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of PDAC patients who underwent PD with vascular resection between January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2020, within a single academic center. Clinicopathologic characteristics and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared between NAC versus upfront surgery cohorts using the Kaplan-Meier estimate and Cox proportional-hazards regression model.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients who underwent PD with vascular resection for PDAC were included. Forty-six patients (56%) received NAC. The NAC cohort more often had pathologic N0 status (47.8% vs. 8.6%, p < 0.001), had decreased vascular invasion (11% vs. 40%, p = 0.002), and completed chemotherapy (80% vs. 40%, p < 0.01). The NAC cohort demonstrated improved DFS (40.5 vs. 14.3 months, p = 0.007). In multivariable analysis, NAC remained independently associated with increased DFS (HR = 0.48, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

NAC was associated with improved clinicopathologic outcomes and DFS in PD with vascular resection. These findings demonstrate the advantage of NAC in PDAC patients undergoing PD with vascular resection.

Patterns of Failure Following Preoperative Chemotherapy and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and Resection for Patients with Borderline Resectable or Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of neoadjuvant stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is controversial and the optimal target volumes and dose-fractionation are unclear. The aim of this study is to report on treatment outcomes and patterns of failure of patients with borderline resectable (BL) or locally advanced (LA) pancreatic cancer following preoperative chemotherapy and SBRT.

METHODS

We conducted a single-institution, retrospective study of patients with BL or LA PDAC. Patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and SBRT was prescribed to 30 Gy over 5 fractions to the pancreas planning tumor volume (PTV). A subset of patients received a simultaneous integrated boost to the high risk vascular PTV and/or elective nodal irradiation (ENI). Following neoadjuvant chemoradiation, all patients underwent subsequent resection. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMPFS), and locoregional control (LRC) estimates were obtained using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients with BL (18) or LA (4) PDAC were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and SBRT followed by resection from 2011-2022. Following neoadjuvant treatment, 5 patients (23%) achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR) and 16 patients (73%) had R0 resection. At 24 months, there were no isolated locoregional recurrences (LRRs), 9 isolated distant recurrences (DRs), and 5 combined LRRs and DRs. Two LRRs were in-field, 2 LRRs were marginal, and 1 LRR was both in-field and marginal. 2-year median LRC, LRRFS, DMPFS, PFS, and OS were 77.3%, 45.5%, 31.8%, 31.8%, and 59.1%, respectively. For BL and LA cancers, 2-year LRC, DMPFS, and OS were 83% vs. 75%, (p = 0.423), 39% vs. 0% (p = 0.006), and 61% vs. 50% (p = 0.202), respectively. ENI was associated with improved LRC (p = 0.032) and LRRFS (p = 0.033). Borderline resectability (p = 0.018) and lower tumor grade (p = 0.027) were associated with improved DMPFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Following preoperative chemotherapy and SBRT, locoregional failure outside of the target volume occurred in 3 of 5 recurrences; ENI was associated with improved LRC and LRRFS. Further studies are necessary to define the optimal techniques for preoperative radiation therapy.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

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

Rubicon can predict prognosis in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Despite previous therapeutic studies on autophagy in cancer, its role in the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma remains controversial, especially regarding its effect on chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and both combined. We focused on RUN domain Beclin-1 interacting and cysteine-rich-containing protein (Rubicon) to reveal its contribution to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after chemoradiotherapy.

METHODS

To evaluate the clinical significance of Rubicon, immunohistochemistry was performed, and Rubicon expression was analyzed across 81 specimens resected from patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. A gemcitabine-resistant pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cell line was established followed by Rubicon expression and autophagy flux estimation. Finally, gemcitabine sensitivity, invasion ability, and cell viability were evaluated using Rubicon-targeting small interfering RNA.

RESULTS

Rubicon expression in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma samples after chemoradiotherapy revealed significantly worse overall survival and recurrence-free survival in the Rubicon-high expression group than in the Rubicon-low expression group (overall survival: median [years] 2.02 vs. 3.21, p = 0.0359; recurrence-free survival: median [years] 0.90 vs. 1.90, p = 0.0146). In vitro, gemcitabine-resistant pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cell lines exhibited higher Rubicon expression and lower autophagy flux than the parental cell line (p < 0.01). Transduction with small interfering RNA downregulated the expression without affecting gemcitabine sensitivity, but it reduced invasion ability and cell viability (p < 0.01) in the gemcitabine-resistant pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cell line.

CONCLUSIONS

High Rubicon expression is a significant, unfavorable prognostic factor in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Downregulation of Rubicon expression improves invasion ability and cell viability in gemcitabine-resistant pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Prognosis of Pancreatic Cancer Based on Resectability: A Single Center Experience

Although conversion surgery has increasingly been performed for initially unresectable advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the rate of conversion, including that for patients who do not undergo resection, remains unclear. Patients with PDAC who were treated between January 2013 and December 2018 were classified into three groups: resectable (R), borderline resectable (BR), and unresectable (UR). We analyzed patient outcomes, including the rate of surgical resection and survival, in each of these groups. In total, 211 patients (R, 118; BR, 22; UR, 81) were selected. Among them, 117 (99%), 18 (82%), and 15 (19%) patients in the R, BR, and UR groups, respectively, underwent surgical resection. R0 resection rates were 88, 78, and 67%, whereas median overall survival (OS) from treatment initiation were 31, 18, and 11 months (p < 0.0001) in the R, BR, and UR groups, respectively. In patients who underwent surgical resection, relapse-free survival (RFS) and OS were similar among the three groups (R vs. BR vs. UR; median RFS (months), 17 vs. 13 vs. 11, p = 0.249; median OS (months), 31 vs. 26 vs. 32, p = 0.742). Lymph node metastases and incomplete adjuvant chemotherapy were identified as independent prognostic factors for OS. Although the surgical resection rate was low, particularly in the BR and UR groups, the prognosis of patients who underwent surgical resection was similar irrespective of the initial resectability status.

Clinical Outcomes of Intraoperative Radiotherapy, Postoperative Radiotherapy, and Definitive Radiotherapy for Non-metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the utility of adjuvant radiotherapy (intraoperative radiotherapy, IORT; postoperative radiotherapy, PORT), and definitive radiotherapy for non-metastatic pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Ninety-nine patients were analyzed. Thirty patients underwent IORT with surgery, 31 underwent PORT after surgery, and 38 underwent definitive radiotherapy. Tumor stage [Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) 2009] was as follows: Stage I, 7; IIA, 16; IIB, 31; III, 45. The doses for IORT, PORT, and definitive radio therapy were 20 to 30, 40 to 64.6, and 50.4 to 61.2 Gy, respectively. Associations between clinical parameters including age, gender, tumor site, stage, performance status, surgical margin, and use of chemotherapy and local control (LC) or overall survival (OS) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Follow-up periods for all patients were 1.1-145 months (median, 11). OS rate in the IORT, PORT, and definitive radiotherapy groups was 22%, 16%, and 6%, respectively, at 2 years. The 5-year OS rate was 13%, 3.2%, and 0%, respectively. Local control rate at 2 years was 33%, 35%, and 0%, respectively. No Grade ≥ 3 tox icities were observed. Distant metastasis was less common in the IORT group. Stage and surgical margin were sig nificant factors for OS after IORT. Performance status and chemotherapy were significant factors for OS after PORT and definitive radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed the safety of the three treatment modalities, but the outcomes were not satisfactory. More intensive strategies including radiotherapy should be investigated.

Hepatic artery resection in distal cholangiocarcinoma

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Therapeutic efficacy of dose-reduced adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 in patients with pancreatic cancer: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard treatment in Asia for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. The relative dose intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy influences survival in pancreatic cancer but does not precisely reflect treatment schedule modifications. We investigated the effects of total dose intensity of S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy on the survival of patients with pancreatic cancer and the permissible dose reduction.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgical resection during 2011-2019 for pancreatic cancer were selected. We determined the total dose intensity cut-off value that predicted tumor recurrence within 2 years postoperatively using receiver operating characteristic curves and compared the outcomes between the high and low total dose intensity groups.

RESULTS

Patients with total dose intensity ≥ 62.5% (n = 53) showed significantly better overall survival than those with total dose intensity < 62.5% (n = 16) (median survival time: 53.3 vs. 20.2 months, P < 0.001). The median survival of patients without adjuvant chemotherapy (total dose intensity = 0, n = 28) was 24.8 months. Univariate analysis identified lymphatic involvement (P = 0.035), lymph node metastasis (P = 0.034), and total dose intensity (P < 0.001) as factors affecting survival. On multivariate analysis, total dose intensity (P < 0.001) was an independent predictor of worse survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintaining a total dose intensity of at least 60% in S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy seems important to achieve a long postoperative survival in patients with pancreatic cancer.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Neoadjuvant therapy vs. upfront surgery for resectable pancreatic cancer: An update on a systematic review and meta-analysis

The effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) remains controversial in the treatment of pancreatic cancer (PC). Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to investigate the clinical differences between NAT and upfront surgery (US) in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC). Eligible studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The endpoints assessed were R0 resection rate, pathological T stage < 2 rate, positive lymph node rate, and overall survival. A total of 4,588 potentially relevant studies were identified, and 13 studies were included in this study. In patients with RPC, this meta-analysis showed that NAT presented an increased R0 resection rate, pathological T stage < 2 rate, and a remarkably reduced positive lymph node rate compared to US. However, patients receiving NAT did not result in a significantly increased overall survival. These findings supported the application of NAT, especially as a patient selection strategy, in the management of RPC. Additional large clinical studies are needed to determine whether NAT is superior to US.

Neoadjuvant therapy contributes to nodal downstaging of pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Pathology reporting of margin status in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: challenges and uncertainties

Chemo(radio)therapy is becoming the new standard for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. In case of tumor regression on imaging, surgical resection can be undertaken, albeit often with the need for extended procedures. Reevaluation of the current routine pathology procedures is required to establish the appropriate histopathological approach of the resulting specimens. This review focusses on margin status, which is universally considered a core data item of the pathology report, of relevance to both the management of the individual patient and the evaluation of the result of surgery in this particular patient group. As explained in this review, due to the cytoreductive effect of neoadjuvant therapy, the conventional definition of a tumor-free margin ("R0") based on 1 mm clearance is not adequate. Furthermore, the complexity of many of the specimens following extended or multivisceral en bloc surgical resection make margin assessment challenging. These large specimens require extensive sampling, which is not always easily implemented in daily practice. At present, there is marked divergence in pathology practice, and consequently, neither the true R0-rate nor the exact prognostic effect of the margin status have been definitively established for resected locally advanced pancreatic cancer. A concerted effort towards uniform and optimal margin assessment is unfortunately still lacking.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Age-Related Differences in the Prognosis of Pancreatic Cancer According to Perioperative Systemic Therapy

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we retrospectively assessed the feasibility and prognostic efficacy of perioperative chemo(radio)therapy for pancreatic cancer (PC) patients according to age.

METHODS

A total of 556 consecutive patients who underwent curative-intent pancreatectomy for PC between 2000 and 2018 were enrolled.

RESULTS

Of the 556 patients who underwent resection, 95 (17%) were elderly (age, ≥75 years). Postoperative complications did not significantly differ between the 2 age groups, and postoperative prognoses were also similar (recurrence-free survival [RFS], P = 0.68; overall survival [OS], P = 0.28). In this cohort, 103 patients (19%) underwent preoperative chemo(radio)therapy, and 417 (77%) underwent postoperative chemotherapy. Perioperative therapy was found to be significantly beneficial for younger patients (preoperative therapy: RFS, P = 0.006; OS, P < 0.001; postoperative therapy: RFS, P < 0.001; OS, P < 0.001). Conversely, no significant survival benefit of perioperative therapy was found for the elderly (preoperative therapy: RFS, P = 0.28; OS, P = 0.44; postoperative therapy: RFS, P = 0.77; OS, P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that, although perioperative therapy is feasible for selected elderly patients with PC, this approach might not be as beneficial as it is for younger PC patients.

Optimal Preoperative Multidisciplinary Treatment in Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

Simple Summary

For borderline pancreatic cancer, upfront surgery was standard in the past, and the usefulness of neoadjuvant treatment has been reported in recent years. However, few studies have been conducted to date on whether there is a difference in optimal treatment between borderline resectable pancreatic cancer invading the portal vein (BR-PV) or abutting major arteries (BR-A). The objective of this study was to investigate the optimal neoadjuvant therapy for BR-PV or BR-A. We retrospectively analyzed 88 patients with BR-PV and 111 patients with BR-A. In this study, we found that neoadjuvant treatment using new chemotherapy (FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine along with nab-paclitaxel) is essential for improving the prognosis of BR pancreatic cancer. These findings suggest that prognosis may be prolonged by maintaining good nutritional status during preoperative treatment.

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study was to investigate the optimal neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer invading the portal vein (BR-PV) or abutting major arteries (BR-A). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 88 patients with BR-PV and 111 patients with BR-A. Results: In BR-PV patients who underwent upfront surgery (n = 46)/NAT (n = 42), survival was significantly better in the NAT group (3-year overall survival (OS): 5.8%/35.5%, p = 0.004). In BR-A patients who underwent upfront surgery (n = 48)/NAT (n = 63), survival was also significantly better in the NAT group (3-year OS:15.5%/41.7%, p < 0.001). The prognosis tended to be better in patients who received newer chemotherapeutic regimens, such as FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel. In 36 BR-PV patients who underwent surgery after NAT, univariate analysis revealed that normalization of tumor marker (TM) levels (p = 0.028) and preoperative high prognostic nutritional index (PNI) (p = 0.022) were significantly associated with a favorable prognosis. In 39 BR-A patients who underwent surgery after NAT, multivariate analysis revealed that preoperative PNI > 42.5 was an independent prognostic factor (HR: 0.15, p = 0.014). Conclusions: NAT using newer chemotherapy is essential for improving the prognosis of BR pancreatic cancer. These findings suggest that prognosis may be prolonged by maintaining good nutritional status during preoperative treatment.

Recurrence Patterns for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma after Upfront Resection Versus Resection Following Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis

Background: Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) represents a paradigm shift in the management of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with perceived benefits including a higher R0 rate. However, it is unclear whether NAT affects the sites and patterns of recurrence after surgery. This review seeks to compare sites and patterns of recurrence after resection between patients undergoing upfront surgery (US) or after NAT. Methods: The EMBASE, SCOPUS, PubMed, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched to identify eligible studies that compare recurrence patterns between patients who had NAT (followed by resection) with those that had US. The primary outcome included site-specific recurrence. Results: 26 articles were identified including 4986 patients who underwent resection. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC, 47% 1074/2264) was the most common, followed by resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC 42%, 949/2264). The weighted overall recurrence rates were lower among the NAT group, 63.4% vs. 74% (US) (OR 0.67 (CI 0.52–0.87), p = 0.006). The overall weighted locoregional recurrence rate was lower amongst patients who received NAT when compared to US (12% vs. 27% OR 0.39 (CI 0.22–0.70), p = 0.004). In BRPC, locoregional recurrence rates improved with NAT (NAT 25.8% US 37.7% OR 0.62 (CI 0.44–0.87), p = 0.007). NAT was associated with a lower weighted liver recurrence rate (NAT 19.4% US 30.1% OR 0.55 (CI 0.34–0.89), p = 0.023). Lung and peritoneal recurrence rates did not differ between NAT and US cohorts (p = 0.705 and p = 0.549 respectively). NAT was associated with a significantly longer weighted mean time to first recurrence 18.8 months compared to US (15.7 months) (OR 0.18 (CI 0.05–0.32), p = 0.015). Conclusion: NAT was associated with lower overall recurrence rate and improved locoregional disease control particularly for those with BRPC. Although the burden of liver metastases was less, there was no overall effect upon distant metastatic disease.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Characteristics of Lung Metastasis as an Initial Recurrence Pattern After Curative Resection of Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Understanding the disparity in clinical course because of differences in initial recurrence patterns could lead to a more accurate estimation of prognosis and optimal treatment.

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection for pancreatic cancer between January 2003 and December 2016 were identified from a prospective database. We analyzed the association between clinicopathological information or survival outcomes and initial recurrence patterns.

RESULTS

The most frequent recurrence pattern was locoregional recurrence (n = 84, 31.3%), followed by simultaneous multiple recurrences (n = 65, 24.2%), liver metastasis (n = 53, 19.8%), peritoneal dissemination (n = 41, 15.3%), and lung metastasis (n = 20, 7.5%). In addition, survival outcomes were significantly longer in the lung metastasis group than in the other recurrence pattern group (recurrence-free survival, 18.2 vs 8.2 months, P < 0.001; overall survival, 86.4 vs 21.0 months, P < 0.001; and survival after recurrence, 37.1 vs 9.3 months, P < 0.001). The lung metastasis group had a significantly higher proportion of pancreatic body and tail cancer (P < 0.002) and arterial invasion (P = 0.006) than the other recurrence pattern group.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung metastasis as an initial recurrence pattern frequently occurred in patients with body and tail cancer and patients with arterial invasion.

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

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

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

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

Clinical impact of additional therapy for residual pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to explore the prognostic significance of the resection margin (R) status of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) or adjuvant chemotherapy (AC).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 427 consecutive patients, and the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed based on the R status by a propensity score analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

The R0 ratio of the NAT (+) group was significantly higher than that of the NAT (-) group (97.2% vs. 69.6%, P < 0.0001). Local recurrence was well controlled in the NAT (+) group compared to the NAT (-) group (15.3% vs. 34.1%, P = 0.0013). The PSA revealed no significant survival difference between R0 and R1 resection among those treated with AC (median survival time [MST]: 43.0 vs. 33.3 months, matching hazard ratio [HR]: 1.212, P = 0.5708). Furthermore, the DFS in R0 and R1 resection followed by AC was identical (MST: 20.6 vs. 17.7 months, matching HR: 1.020, P = 0.9482).

CONCLUSIONS

NAT was a significant predictor of R0 resection. When patients completed AC, there were no marked differences in the OS or DFS between R0 and R1 resection. Our results demonstrated that the clinical impact of the R1 status has waned in the current era of PDAC management.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Purpose

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

Patients and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Contemporary management of borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains one of the most aggressive tumors, with a low rate of survival, likely due to the tendency of the tumor for early local and distant spread. Pancreatic cancer accounts for about 3% of all cancers in the US and about 7% of all cancer deaths. Surgical resection still represents the best curative treatment for PDAC, although only 10–20% of patients are upfront resectable at diagnosis, 50% has metastatic disease and 35% locally advanced cancer. The 5-year overall survival (OS) after curative resection is limited to 20%. Moreover among patients who undergo surgery, 30% develop early recurrence while most of them will eventually relapse. The risk of early failure after surgery could be associated with inadequate preoperative radiological staging, lack of radical surgery and differences in tumor aggressiveness. In recent years, more accurate patient categorization due to sophisticated imaging tools and techniques increase the survival rate while neoadjuvant treatment can help surgeons select patients who will benefit most from surgery. Neoadjuvant therapy includes chemotherapy alone, chemoradiotherapy, chemotherapy with chemoradiation and targeted therapies. The aim of this review is to present the available data concerning the management of patients with borderline PDAC.

HPV vaccine status and sexual behavior among young sexually-active women in the US: evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2007-2014

Concern has been expressed that human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs might promote risky sexual behavior through mechanisms such as risk compensation, behavioral disinhibition, or perceived endorsement of sexual activity. This study assesses whether HPV vaccination status is associated with any differences in selected sexual behaviors among young sexually-active women in the US. Our dataset includes young, adult female respondents from questionnaire data collected in the National Center for Health Statistics' National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2007 to 2014. The empirical approach implements a doubly robust estimation procedure, based on inverse probability of treatment weighting. For robustness, we implement several specifications for the propensity model and the outcomes model. We find no consistent association between HPV vaccination and condom usage or frequency of sex. Specifically, we find no evidence that HPV vaccination is associated with condom usage or with whether a person had sex more than 52 or more than 104 times per year. We find inconsistent evidence that HPV vaccination is associated with a person having sex more than 12 times per year. As in previous research, HPV vaccination does not appear to have a substantive effect on sexual behavior among young sexually-active women in the US.

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

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

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel for Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer Potentially Improves Survival and Facilitates Surgery

BACKGROUND

Accumulation of evidence suggests that neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves the outcomes of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC). Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) has been widely accepted as systemic chemotherapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer and reportedly results in remarkable tumor shrinkage. This study was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy using neoadjuvant GnP for BRPC.

METHODS

The medical records of 57 patients who underwent treatment of BRPC from 2010 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The patient characteristics and short- and intermediate-term outcomes were compared between the GnP and upfront surgery (UFS) groups.

RESULTS

The GnP group comprised 31 patients and the UFS group comprised 26 patients. The patient characteristics were comparable with the exception of a higher prevalence of arterial involvement in the GnP group. Twenty-seven of the 31 patients (87%) in the GnP group and all 26 patients in the UFS group underwent resection. The GnP group showed a significantly shorter operation time (429 vs. 509.5 min, p = 0.0068), less blood loss (760 vs. 1324 ml, p = 0.0115), and a higher R0 resection rate (100% vs. 77%, p = 0.0100) than the UFS group. Postoperative complications and hospital stay were comparable between the two groups, and no treatment-related mortality occurred in either group. Both the disease-free survival and overall survival times were significantly longer in the GnP group (p = 0.0018 and p = 0.0024, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant GnP is a safe and effective treatment strategy for BRPC. It potentially improves patients' prognosis and facilitates surgical procedures.

Neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer: A Markov decision analysis

Background

Neoadjuvant therapy has emerged as an alternative treatment strategy for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer. In the absence of large randomized controlled trials offering a direct comparison, this study aims to use Markov decision analysis to compare efficacy of traditional surgery first (SF) and neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) pathways for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer.

Methods

An advanced Markov decision analysis model was constructed to compare SF and NAT pathways for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer. Transition probabilities were calculated from randomized control and Phase II/III trials after comprehensive literature search. Utility outcomes were measured in overall and quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) on an intention-to-treat basis as the primary outcome. Markov cohort analysis of treatment received was the secondary outcome. Model uncertainties were tested with one and two-way deterministic and probabilistic Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis.

Results

SF gave 23.72 months (18.51 QALMs) versus 20.22 months (16.26 QALMs). Markov Cohort Analysis showed that where all treatment modalities were received NAT gave 35.05 months (29.87 QALMs) versus 30.96 months (24.86QALMs) for R0 resection and 34.08 months (29.87 QALMs) versus 25.85 months (20.72 QALMs) for R1 resection. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that NAT was superior if the resection rate was greater than 51.04% or below 75.68% in SF pathway. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that pathway superiority depended on obtaining multimodal treatment in either pathway.

Conclusion

Whilst NAT is a viable alternative to traditional SF approach, superior pathway selection depends on the individual patient’s likelihood of receiving multimodal treatment in either pathway.

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

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016049374.

Improved survival with neoadjuvant treatment

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Meta-analysis of the impact of neoadjuvant therapy on patterns of recurrence in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Background

Neoadjuvant therapy may increase the rate of radical tumour resection in patients with pancreatic cancer. Its impact on tumour recurrence has not been investigated fully. This study aimed to assess the impact of neoadjuvant therapy on patterns of recurrence.

Methods

A systematic review was performed of articles identified through the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Ovid and Google Scholar databases that analysed the relationship between neoadjuvant therapy and recurrence published to January 2016. The main endpoint was overall tumour recurrence. Other endpoints included local recurrence, any kind of distant, hepatic, pulmonary or peritoneal metastasis.

Results

A total of 4257 citations were reviewed. Twelve observational studies comprising 1365 patients were analysed. Neoadjuvant therapy significantly reduced the risk of overall (risk ratio (RR) 0·82, 95 per cent c.i. 0·74 to 0·90; P < 0·001) and local (RR 0·42, 0·32 to 0·55; P < 0·001) recurrence. Neoadjuvant therapy did not reduce the risk of any kind of distant (RR 1·02, 0·91 to 1·14; P = 0·78), hepatic (RR 0·86, 0·68 to 1·10; P = 0·23), pulmonary (RR 0·99, 0·37 to 2·66; P = 0·98) or peritoneal (RR 0·88, 0·57 to 1·38; P = 0·58) metastasis.

Conclusion

Neoadjuvant therapy reduced the risk of local recurrence but not that of distant metastasis.

International consensus on definition and criteria of borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma 2017

This statement was developed to promote international consensus on the definition of borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR-PDAC) which was adopted by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) in 2006, but which has changed yearly and become more complicated. Based on a symposium held during the 20th meeting of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) in Sendai, Japan, in 2016, the presenters sought consensus on issues related to BR-PDAC. We defined patients with BR-PDAC according to the three distinct dimensions: anatomical (A), biological (B), and conditional (C). Anatomic factors include tumor contact with the superior mesenteric artery and/or celiac artery of less than 180° without showing stenosis or deformity, tumor contact with the common hepatic artery without showing tumor contact with the proper hepatic artery and/or celiac artery, and tumor contact with the superior mesenteric vein and/or portal vein including bilateral narrowing or occlusion without extending beyond the inferior border of the duodenum. Biological factors include potentially resectable disease based on anatomic criteria but with clinical findings suspicious for (but unproven) distant metastases or regional lymph nodes metastases diagnosed by biopsy or positron emission tomography-computed tomography. This also includes a serum carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 level more than 500 units/ml. Conditional factors include the patients with potentially resectable disease based on anatomic and biologic criteria and with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or more. The definition of BR-PDAC requires one or more positive dimensions (e.g. A, B, C, AB, AC, BC or ABC). The present definition acknowledges that resectability is not just about the anatomic relationship between the tumor and vessels, but that biological and conditional dimensions are also important. The aim in presenting this consensus definition is also to highlight issues which remain controversial and require further research.

mir-329 restricts tumor growth by targeting grb2 in pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal malignancies worldwide. To illustrate the pathogenic mechanism(s), we looked into the expression and function of miR-329 associated with pancreatic cancer development. It was found that miR-329 expression was downregulated in the pancreatic cancer patients who demonstrated significantly shorter overall survival than the patients having upregulated expression. Also, more advanced pT stage cases were observed in the low miR-329 expression group of patients. Interestingly, our studies uncovered that miR-329 overexpression inhibited proliferation and induced apoptosis of pancreatic cancer cells, in contrast the miR-329 inhibitor reversed this phenomenon dramatically. Additionally, overexpression of miR-329 significantly limited tumor growth in the xenograft model. In the mechanistic study, we identified GRB2 as a direct target of miR-329 in pancreatic cancer cells, and expression of GRB2 was inversely correlated with miR-329 expression in pancreatic cancer patients. Furthermore, GRB2 overexpression in cell line and xenograft model dramatically diminished miR-329 mediated anti-proliferation and apoptosis induction, indicating that GRB2/pERK pathway was mainly downregulated by miR-329 expression. In general, our study has shed light on miR-329 regulated mechanism and, miR-329/GRB2/pERK is potential to be targeted for pancreatic cancer management.

Recent Advances in Pancreatic Cancer Surgery

OPINION STATEMENT

Pancreatic cancer surgery is a continuously evolving field. Despite tremendous advances in perioperative outcomes, pancreatic resection is still associated with substantial morbidity, and mortality is not nil. Institutional caseload is a well-established determinant of patient outcomes, and centralization to experienced centers is essential to the safety and oncological appropriateness of the resection. Minimally invasive approaches are increasingly applied for pancreatic resection, even in cancer patients. Nevertheless, the level of evidence in this field remains low. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy appears potentially beneficial towards some perioperative outcomes, although its oncological results remain incompletely studied. Data regarding perioperative and oncologic outcomes for minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple's resection) is even less mature, but suggest that similar results as the open approach can be achieved in selected, high-volume centers. Conversely, its indiscriminate adoption by inexperienced surgeons and institutions has potential deleterious effects given its steep learning curve. Newer neoadjuvant treatment protocols display enhanced ability to downstage advanced tumors, increasing candidates for potentially curative surgery. Conversely, putative benefits of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with technically resectable tumors have not been reliably demonstrated and its optimal indications remain highly controversial.

Reassessment of the clinical significance of portal-superior mesenteric vein invasion in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

The principal objective of this study is to clarify the prognostic significance of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC). The second objective is to evaluate the prognostic impact of the depth of pathological venous invasion.

METHODS

The study included 122 pancreatic cancer patients who underwent curative surgery. All computed tomography scans of the patients were retrospectively interpreted and classified according to the NCCN guidelines, version 1.2016, as resectable (-) or borderline resectable (+) in each arterial (BR-A) and venous (BR-PV) involvement.

RESULTS

The overall survival (OS) rate was significantly higher in BR-A(-) patients (n = 94) than in BR-A(+) patients (n = 28) (P = 0.001), whereas there was no difference between BR-PV(-) (n = 101) and BR-PV(+) patients (n = 21) (P = 0.257). In a multivariate analysis, the independent predictors of OS included BR-A(+) (P = 0.002), lymph node metastasis (P = 0.008), pathological venous invasion (P = 0.003), and adjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.001). Of 39 patients who underwent venous resection, no significant difference was observed between BR-PV(-) (n = 20) and BR-PV(+) patients (n = 19) in resection rate, lymph node metastasis, the presence of extrapancreatic nerve invasion, recurrence rate, frequency of initial recurrence at a liver or local site, and OS. Pathological venous invasion was significantly deeper in BR-PV(+) patients. However, the depth of invasion was not associated with OS.

CONCLUSION

The definition of venous involvement in the current guidelines predicted the depth of pathological venous invasion but not OS in BRPC patients. Further prospective, randomized studies are needed to establish treatment strategies for BRPC patients with isolated venous involvement.

Prognostic impact of normalization of serum tumor markers following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma with arterial contact

PURPOSE

The survival benefit of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma has been reported recently. However, prognostic factors for this strategy have not been clearly elucidated. The aim of this study was to clarify prognostic factors for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

Medical records of 66 patients with pancreatic carcinoma with arterial contact who intended to undergo tumor resection following neoadjuvant chemotherapy were analyzed retrospectively. Prognostic factors were investigated by analyzing the clinicopathological factors with univariate and multivariate survival analyses.

RESULTS

Gemcitabine plus S-1 was generally used as neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The objective response rate was 24%, and normalization of serum tumor markers following neoadjuvant chemotherapy was achieved in 29 patients (44%). Of the 66 patients, 60 patients underwent tumor resection and the remaining six patients did not due to distant metastases following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. For all 66 patients, overall 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival rates were 87.8, 54.5, and 20.5%, respectively (median survival time, 27.1 months) and multivariate analysis revealed that normalization of serum tumor markers was found to be an independent prognostic factor of better overall survival (P = 0.023). Moreover, for 60 patients who undergo tumor resection, normalization of serum tumor markers (P = 0.005) was independently associated with better overall survival by multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with pancreatic carcinoma with arterial contact who undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy and experience normalization of serum tumor markers thereafter may be good candidates for tumor resection.

The impact of neoadjuvant therapy on the histopathological features of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to increased rates of curative tumor resections exceeding 60% after FOLFIRINOX-treatment, neoadjuvant therapy/NTx is increasingly recognized as an effective therapy option for downstaging borderline or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma/PDAC. Yet, the effects of NTx on the common histopathological features of PDAC have not been systematically analysed. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to assess the impact of NTx on relevant histopathological features of PDAC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Biomedical databases were systematically screened for predefined searching terms related to NTx and PDAC. The Preferred-Reporting-Items-for-Systematic-review-and-Meta-Analysis/PRISMA-guidelines were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis. Articles meeting the predefined criteria were analysed on relevance, and a meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 9031 studies could be identified that analysed the effect of NTx on PDAC. Only 35 studies presented comparative data on the histological features of neoadjuvantly treated vs. upfront resected PDAC patients. In meta-analyses, the beneficial effect of NTx was reflected by reduced tumor size (T1/2: RR 2.87, 95%-CI: 1.52-5.42, P=0.001, T3/4: RR 0.78, 95%-CI: 0.69-0.89, P=0.0002), lower N-Stage (N0: RR 2.14, 95%-CI: 1.85-2.46, P<0.00001, N1: RR 0.59, 95%-CI: 0.53-0.65, P<0.00001), higher R0-rates (R0: RR 1.13, 95%-CI: 1.08-1.18, P<0.00001, R1: RR 0.66, 95%-CI: 0.58-0.76, P<0.00001), less perineural invasion (Pn1: RR 0.78, 95%-CI: 0.73-0.83, P<0.00001), less lymphatic vessel invasion (RR: 0.50, 95%-CI: 0.36-0.70, P<0.0001) and fewer G3-tumors (RR 0.82, 95%-CI: 0.71-0.94, P=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

NTx in PDAC seems to exert its beneficial effect in borderline or locally advanced PDAC over genuine tumor downstaging. Thus, although at least 40% of all NTx treated patients remain unresectable even with modern NTx regimes, neoadjuvantly treated PDAC showed not only increasing resectability rates especially after FOLFIRINOX, but even reach a lower tumor stage than primarily resected PDAC.

Clinical benefits of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head: an observational study using inverse probability of treatment weighting

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) and subset of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients who are most likely to benefit from this strategy remain elusive. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of NACRT in patients with resectable (R) or borderline resectable (BR) adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head. BR diseases were classified into two groups: lesions involving exclusively the portal vein system (BR-PV) and those abutting the major artery (BR-A).

METHODS

A total of 504 patients treated with curative intent for PDAC were analyzed (R, n = 273; BR-PV, n = 129; BR-A, n = 102). Patients who underwent upfront surgery and those who underwent NACRT followed by surgery were compared using propensity score-matched and inverse probability of treatment-weighted analyses (UMIN000019719).

RESULTS

No significant differences were noted in the incidences of curative resection among the three categories (R, BR-PV and BR-A). Propensity score-weighted logistic regression analysis revealed that the incidence of pathologically positive resection margins was reduced by NACRT only for BR patients. Among the propensity score-matched patients, NACRT rather than upfront surgery significantly prolonged the median survival time of BR-PV patients (28.4 vs. 20.1 months; P = 0.044) but not that of R-PDAC patients (28.6 vs. 33.7 months; P = 0.960). NACRT prolonged the median survival time of BR-A patients (18.1 vs. 10.0 months; P = 0.046), but the results remained unsatisfactory.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that NACRT improves R0 rates and increases the survival of patients with BR-PV adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head but not that of patients with R-PDAC.