1
|
Lawrence YR, Miszczyk M, Dawson LA, Diaz Pardo DA, Aguiar A, Limon D, Pfeffer RM, Buckstein M, Barry AS, Meron T, Dicker AP, Wydmański J, Zimmermann C, Margalit O, Hausner D, Morag O, Golan T, Jacobson G, Dubinski S, Stanescu T, Fluss R, Freedman LS, Ben-Ayun M, Symon Z. Celiac plexus radiosurgery for pain management in advanced cancer: a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2024; 25:1070-1079. [PMID: 39029483 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(24)00223-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2023] [Revised: 04/18/2024] [Accepted: 04/19/2024] [Indexed: 07/21/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Refractory upper abdominal pain or lower back pain (retroperitoneal pain syndrome) related to celiac plexus involvement characterises pancreatic and other upper gastrointestinal malignancies and is an unmet need. We hypothesised that ablative radiation delivered to the celiac plexus would decrease pain. METHODS This multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study was done at eight hospitals in five countries (Israel, Poland, Canada, the USA, and Portugal). Eligible patients aged 18 years or older with an average pain level of 5-10 on the Brief Pain Inventory short form (BPI-SF), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2, and either pancreatic cancer or other tumours involving the celiac axis, received a single fraction of 25 Gy of external-beam photons to the celiac plexus. The primary endpoint was complete or partial pain response based on a reduction of the BPI-SF average pain score of 2 points or more from baseline to 3 weeks after treatment. All evaluable patients with stable pain scores were included in response assessment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03323489, and is complete. FINDINGS Between Jan 3, 2018, and Dec 28, 2021, 125 patients were treated, 90 of whom were evaluable. Patients were followed up until death. Median age was 65·5 years (IQR 58·3-71·8), 50 (56%) were female and 40 (44%) were male, 83 (92%) had pancreatic cancer, and 77 (86%) had metastatic disease. Median baseline BPI-SF average pain score was 6 (IQR 5-7). Of the 90 evaluable patients at 3 weeks, 48 (53%; 95% CI 42-64) had at least a partial pain response. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events, irrespective of attribution, were abdominal pain (35 [28%] of 125) and fatigue (23 [18%]). 11 serious adverse events of grade 3 or worse were recorded. Two grade 3 serious adverse events were probably attributed to treatment by the local investigators (abdominal pain [n=1] and nausea [n=1]), and nine were possibly attributed to treatment (seven were grade 3: blood bilirubin increased [n=1], duodenal haemorrhage [n=2], abdominal pain [n=2], and progressive disease [n=2]; and two were grade 5: gastrointestinal bleed from suspected varices 24 days after treatment [n=1] and progressive disease [advanced pancreatic cancer] 89 days after treatment [n=1]). INTERPRETATION Celiac plexus radiosurgery could potentially be a non-invasive palliative option for patients with retroperitoneal pain syndrome. Further investigation by means of a randomised comparison with conventional celiac block or neurolysis is warranted. FUNDING Gateway for Cancer Research and the Israel Cancer Association.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yaacov R Lawrence
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel; School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; Department of Radiation Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| | - Marcin Miszczyk
- III Department of Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice, Poland; Collegium Medicum, Faculty of Medicine, WSB University, Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland
| | - Laura A Dawson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Artur Aguiar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Instituto Português de Oncologia, Porto, Portugal
| | - Dror Limon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| | - Raphael M Pfeffer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Assuta Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Michael Buckstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Aisling S Barry
- Cancer Research @UCC, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland; Department of Radiation Oncology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
| | - Tikva Meron
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel
| | - Adam P Dicker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Jerzy Wydmański
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice, Poland
| | - Camilla Zimmermann
- Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Ofer Margalit
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel; School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - David Hausner
- Department of Palliative Care, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel; School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Ofir Morag
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel; School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Talia Golan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel; School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Galia Jacobson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikvah, Israel
| | - Sergey Dubinski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel
| | - Teo Stanescu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Ronen Fluss
- The Biostatistics and Biomathematics Unit, The Gertner Institute for Health Policy and Epidemiology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel
| | - Laurence S Freedman
- The Biostatistics and Biomathematics Unit, The Gertner Institute for Health Policy and Epidemiology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel
| | - Maoz Ben-Ayun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel
| | - Zvi Symon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel; School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kamel R, Zhang T, Comino S, Dennis K. A 15-Year Single-Institution Retrospective Study of Primary Pancreatic Cancer Treated with Non-Ablative Palliative Radiotherapy. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:881. [PMID: 38473242 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16050881] [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: 01/25/2024] [Revised: 02/16/2024] [Accepted: 02/18/2024] [Indexed: 03/14/2024] Open
Abstract
We studied the use of palliative radiotherapy (RT) among patients with primary, non-curable, locally advanced pancreatic cancer. In this subset of patients, with very poor survival, various palliative RT dose fractionation schemes are used; but, in the absence of a guideline, practice patterns vary, and dose choice is mainly based on the physician's intuition. We divided the patients into three groups, according to the dose fractionation schedules received: low (A), intermediate (B), and high (C) dose groups, to study the potential differences in outcome between the different dose prescriptions. Cohort: n = 184. Median age: 69 years. Male: n = 105 (57%), female: n = 79 (43%). Stage IV: n = 117 (64%). T4: n = 127 (69%). Tumor location: head: n = 109 (59%), body: n = 37 (20%), tail: n = 25 (14%), neck: n = 11 (6%), and uncinate: n = 2 (1%). Prior systemic therapy: n = 66 (36%). Most common dose fractionations received: 20 Gy in five fractions n = 67 (36%), 30 Gy in 10 fractions n = 49 (27%), and 8 Gy in one fraction n = 23 (13%). Group A: n = 33 (18%), median overall survival (OS) 19 days (95% CI 4-33). Group B: n = 84 (46%), median OS 52 days (95% CI 43-60). Group C: n = 67 (36%), median OS 126 days (95% CI 77-174). Median days to in-field progression: Group A 59 days (range 7-109), Group B 96 days (range 19-173), and Group C 97 days (range 13-475). To our knowledge, this is the largest reported retrospective cohort of patients receiving non-ablative palliative RT to treat their primary pancreatic tumors. Most patients had metastatic disease, T4 tumors of the pancreatic head and had not received prior systemic therapy. A significant survival benefit was seen favoring the high dose/longer RT fractionation group, presumably due to appropriate patient selection rather than an RT effect. Despite the relatively short median overall survival, one fifth of the patients were found to experience an in-field progression following RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Randa Kamel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UZ Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Jette, 1090 Brussels, Belgium
| | - Tinghua Zhang
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Suzanne Comino
- Radiation Medicine Program, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Kristopher Dennis
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital, The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Tello Valverde CP, Ebrahimi G, Sprangers MA, Pateras K, Bruynzeel AME, Jacobs M, Wilmink JW, Besselink MG, Crezee H, van Tienhoven G, Versteijne E. Impact of Short-Course Palliative Radiation Therapy on Pancreatic Cancer-Related Pain: Prospective Phase 2 Nonrandomized PAINPANC Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 118:352-361. [PMID: 37647972 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.08.055] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2023] [Revised: 07/16/2023] [Accepted: 08/22/2023] [Indexed: 09/01/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Clinical evidence is limited regarding palliative radiation therapy for relieving pancreatic cancer-related pain. We prospectively investigated pain response after short-course palliative radiation therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe pancreatic cancer-related pain. METHODS AND MATERIALS In this prospective phase 2 single center nonrandomized trial, 30 patients with moderate-to-severe pain (5-10, on a 0-10 scale) of pancreatic cancer refractory to pain medication, were treated with a short-course palliative radiation therapy; 24 Gy in 3 weekly fractions (2015-2018). Primary endpoint was defined as a clinically relevant average decrease of ≥2 points in pain severity, compared with baseline, within 7 weeks after the start of treatment. Secondary endpoint was global quality of life (QoL), with a clinically relevant increase of 5 to 10 points (0-100 scale). Pain severity reduction and QoL were assessed 9 times using the Brief Pain Inventory and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C15-PAL, respectively. Both outcomes were analyzed using joint modeling. In addition, acute toxicity based on clinician reporting and overall survival (OS) were assessed. RESULTS Overall, 29 of 30 patients (96.7%) received palliative radiation therapy. At baseline, the median oral morphine equivalent daily dose was 129.5 mg (range, 20.0-540.0 mg), which decreased to 75.0 mg (range, 15.0-360.0 mg) after radiation (P = .021). Pain decreased on average 3.15 points from baseline to 7 weeks (one-sided P = .045). Patients reported a clinically relevant mean pain severity reduction from 5.9 to 3.8 points (P = .011) during the first 3 weeks, which further decreased to 3.2 until week 11, ending at 3.4 (P = .006) in week 21 after the first radiation therapy fraction. Global QoL significantly improved from 50.5 to 60.8 during the follow-up period (P = .001). Grade 3 acute toxicity occurred in 3 patients and no grade 4 to 5 toxicity was observed. Median OS was 11.8 weeks, with a 13.3% 1-year actuarial OS rate. CONCLUSIONS Short-course palliative radiation therapy for pancreatic cancer-related pain was associated with rapid, clinically relevant reduction in pain severity, and clinically relevant improvement in global QoL, with mostly mild toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Paola Tello Valverde
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Gati Ebrahimi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Instituut Verbeeten, The Netherlands
| | - Mirjam A Sprangers
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Konstantinos Pateras
- University of Thessaly, Faculty of Public and One Health, Laboratory of Epidemiology & Artificial Intelligence, Karditsa, Greece; Department of Data Science and Biostatistics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Julius Center of Primary Care, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Anna M E Bruynzeel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marc Jacobs
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Johanna W Wilmink
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hans Crezee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Geertjan van Tienhoven
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eva Versteijne
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Al-Mansor E, Mahoney M, Chenard-Poirier M, Ramjeesingh R, Nair V, Kennedy E, Locke G, Welch S, Berry S, Couture F, Elimova E, Pollett A, Mahmud A, Wilson B, Armstrong D, Falkson C, Asmis T, Vickers M, Goodwin R. Eastern Canadian Gastrointestinal Cancer Consensus Conference 2023. Curr Oncol 2023; 30:8172-8185. [PMID: 37754508 PMCID: PMC10527697 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30090593] [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: 06/25/2023] [Revised: 07/14/2023] [Accepted: 07/18/2023] [Indexed: 09/28/2023] Open
Abstract
The annual Eastern Canadian Gastrointestinal Cancer Consensus Conference 2023 was held in Quebec City, Quebec 2-4 February 2023. The purpose of the conference was to develop consensus statements on emerging and evolving treatment paradigms. Participants included Canadian medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists and surgical oncologists from across Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic provinces. Consensus statements were developed following rapid review presentations and discussion of available literature. The recommendations proposed here represent the consensus opinions of physicians involved in the care of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies who participated in this meeting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Essa Al-Mansor
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada (R.G.)
| | - Meghan Mahoney
- Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Centre, St. John’s, NL A1B 3V6, Canadac
| | | | - Ravi Ramjeesingh
- Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, NS B3H 2Y9, Canada
| | - Vimoj Nair
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada (R.G.)
| | - Erin Kennedy
- Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON M5G 1X5, Canada; (E.K.)
| | - Gordon Locke
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada (R.G.)
| | - Stephen Welch
- London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON N6A 5W9, Canada;
| | - Scott Berry
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 5P9, Canada; (S.B.)
| | - Felix Couture
- CHU de Québec—Université Laval, Québec, QC G1R 2J6, Canada (F.C.)
| | - Elena Elimova
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada
| | - Aaron Pollett
- Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON M5G 1X5, Canada; (E.K.)
| | - Aamer Mahmud
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 5P9, Canada; (S.B.)
| | - Brooke Wilson
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 5P9, Canada; (S.B.)
| | - Dawn Armstrong
- Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Centre, St. John’s, NL A1B 3V6, Canadac
| | - Conrad Falkson
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 5P9, Canada; (S.B.)
| | - Timothy Asmis
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada (R.G.)
| | - Michael Vickers
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada (R.G.)
| | - Rachel Goodwin
- The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada (R.G.)
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Kim CA, Lelond S, Daeninck PJ, Rabbani R, Lix L, McClement S, Chochinov HM, Goldenberg BA. The impact of early palliative care on the quality of life of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: The IMPERATIVE case-crossover study. Support Care Cancer 2023; 31:250. [PMID: 37022483 PMCID: PMC10078032 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-07709-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2022] [Accepted: 03/27/2023] [Indexed: 04/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Pancreatic cancer is a lethal disease. Many patients experience a heavy burden of cancer-associated symptoms and poor quality of life (QOL). Early palliative care alongside standard oncologic care results in improved QOL and survival in some cancer types. The benefit in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) is not fully quantified. METHODS In this prospective case-crossover study, patients ≥ 18 years old with APC were recruited from ambulatory clinics at a tertiary cancer center. Patients underwent a palliative care consultation within 2 weeks of registration, with follow up visits every 2 weeks for the first month, then every 4 weeks until week 16, then as needed. The primary outcome was change in QOL between baseline (BL) and week 16, measured by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - hepatobiliary (FACT-Hep). Secondary outcomes included symptom control (ESAS-r), depression, and anxiety (HADS, PHQ-9) at week 16. RESULTS Of 40 patients, 25 (63%) were male, 28 (70%) had metastatic disease, 31 (78%) had ECOG performance status 0-1, 31 (78%) received chemotherapy. Median age was 70. Mean FACT-hep score at BL was 118.8, compared to 125.7 at week 16 (mean change 6.89, [95%CI (-1.69-15.6); p = 0.11]). On multivariable analysis, metastatic disease (mean change 15.3 [95%CI (5.3-25.2); p = 0.004]) and age < 70 (mean change 12.9 [95%CI (0.5-25.4); p = 0.04]) were associated with improved QOL. Patients with metastatic disease had significant improvement in symptom burden (mean change -7.4 [95%CI (-13.4 to -1.4); p = 0.02]). There was no difference in depression or anxiety from BL to week 16. CONCLUSION Palliative care should be integrated early in the journey for patients with APC, as it can improve QOL and symptom burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03837132.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christina A Kim
- CancerCare Manitoba Research Institute, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
- CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
- Department of Internal Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - Stephanie Lelond
- CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
- College of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
| | - Paul J Daeninck
- CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
- Department of Internal Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
- Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, Palliative Care Program, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - Rasheda Rabbani
- College of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
- George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
- Department of Community Health Sciences, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - Lisa Lix
- George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
- Department of Community Health Sciences, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - Susan McClement
- College of Nursing, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - Harvey Max Chochinov
- CancerCare Manitoba Research Institute, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
- CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
- Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, Palliative Care Program, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
- Department of Psychiatry, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - Benjamin A Goldenberg
- CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
- Department of Internal Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Buwenge M, Arcelli A, Cellini F, Deodato F, Macchia G, Cilla S, Galietta E, Strigari L, Malizia C, Cammelli S, Morganti AG. Pain Relief after Stereotactic Radiotherapy of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:2616-2629. [PMID: 35448188 PMCID: PMC9032429 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29040214] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2022] [Revised: 03/23/2022] [Accepted: 04/06/2022] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Severe pain is frequent in patients with locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDCA). Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) provides high local control rates in these patients. The aim of this review was to systematically analyze the available evidence on pain relief in patients with PDCA. We updated our previous systematic review through a search on PubMed of papers published from 1 January 2018 to 30 June 2021. Studies with full available text, published in English, and reporting pain relief after SBRT on PDCA were included in this analysis. Statistical analysis was carried out using the MEDCALC statistical software. All tests were two-sided. The I2 statistic was used to quantify statistical heterogeneity (high heterogeneity level: >50%). Nineteen papers were included in this updated literature review. None of them specifically aimed at assessing pain and/or quality of life. The rate of analgesics reduction or suspension ranged between 40.0 and 100.0% (median: 60.3%) in six studies. The pooled rate was 71.5% (95% CI, 61.6−80.0%), with high heterogeneity between studies (Q2 test: p < 0.0001; I2 = 83.8%). The rate of complete response of pain after SBRT ranged between 30.0 and 81.3% (median: 48.4%) in three studies. The pooled rate was 51.9% (95% CI, 39.3−64.3%), with high heterogeneity (Q2 test: p < 0.008; I2 = 79.1%). The rate of partial plus complete pain response ranged between 44.4 and 100% (median: 78.6%) in nine studies. The pooled rate was 78.3% (95% CI, 71.0−84.5%), with high heterogeneity (Q2 test: p < 0.0001; I2 = 79.4%). A linear regression with sensitivity analysis showed significantly improved overall pain response as the EQD2α/β:10 increases (p: 0.005). Eight papers did not report any side effect during and after SBRT. In three studies only transient acute effects were recorded. The results of the included studies showed high heterogeneity. However, SBRT of PDCA resulted reasonably effective in producing pain relief in these patients. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of SBRT in this setting based on Patient-Reported Outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Milly Buwenge
- Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy; (A.A.); (E.G.); (S.C.); (A.G.M.)
- Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine—DIMES, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Via Albertoni 15, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Alessandra Arcelli
- Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy; (A.A.); (E.G.); (S.C.); (A.G.M.)
- Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine—DIMES, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Via Albertoni 15, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Francesco Cellini
- Istituto di Radiologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Roma, Italy; (F.C.); (F.D.)
- Dipartimento di Scienze Radiologiche, Radioterapiche ed Ematologiche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, UOC di Radioterapia, 00168 Roma, Italy
| | - Francesco Deodato
- Istituto di Radiologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Roma, Italy; (F.C.); (F.D.)
- Radiotherapy Unit, Gemelli Molise Hospital, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 1, 86100 Campobasso, Italy;
| | - Gabriella Macchia
- Radiotherapy Unit, Gemelli Molise Hospital, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 1, 86100 Campobasso, Italy;
| | - Savino Cilla
- Medical Physic Unit, Gemelli Molise Hospital, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 1, 86100 Campobasso, Italy;
| | - Erika Galietta
- Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy; (A.A.); (E.G.); (S.C.); (A.G.M.)
- Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine—DIMES, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Via Albertoni 15, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Lidia Strigari
- Medical Physics, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy;
| | - Claudio Malizia
- Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy;
| | - Silvia Cammelli
- Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy; (A.A.); (E.G.); (S.C.); (A.G.M.)
- Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine—DIMES, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Via Albertoni 15, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Alessio G. Morganti
- Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy; (A.A.); (E.G.); (S.C.); (A.G.M.)
- Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine—DIMES, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Via Albertoni 15, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Jacobson G, Fluss R, Dany-BenShushan A, Golan T, Meron T, Zimmermann C, Dawson LA, Barry A, Miszczyk M, Buckstein M, Diaz Pardo D, Aguiar A, Hammer L, Dicker AP, Ben-Ailan M, Morag O, Hausner D, Symon Z, Lawrence YR. Coeliac plexus radiosurgery for pain management in patients with advanced cancer : study protocol for a phase II clinical trial. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e050169. [PMID: 35332036 PMCID: PMC8948399 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050169] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Pancreatic cancer is characterised by severe mid-back and epigastric pain caused by tumour invasion of the coeliac nerve plexus. This pain is often poorly managed with standard treatments. This clinical trial investigates a novel approach in which high-dose radiation (radiosurgery) is targeted to the retroperitoneal coeliac plexus nerve bundle. Preliminary results from a single institution pilot trial are promising: pain relief is substantial and side effects minimal. The goals of this study are to validate these findings in an international multisetting, and investigate the impact on quality of life and functional status among patients with terminal cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS A single-arm prospective phase II clinical trial. Eligible patients are required to have severe coeliac pain of at least five on the 11-point BPI average pain scale and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of two or better. Non-pancreatic cancers invading the coeliac plexus are also eligible. The intervention involves irradiating the coeliac plexus using a single fraction of 25 Gy. The primary endpoint is the complete or partial pain response at 3 weeks. Secondary endpoints include pain at 6 weeks, analgesic use, hope, qualitative of life, caregiver burden and functional outcomes, all measured using validated instruments. The protocol is expected to open at a number of cancer centres across the globe, and a quality assurance programme is included. The protocol requires that 90 evaluable patients" be accrued, based upon the assumption that a third of patients are non-evaluable (e.g. due to death prior to 3-weeks post-treatment assessment, or spontaneous improvement of pain pre-treatment), it is estimated that a total of 120 patients will need to be accrued. Supported by Gateway for Cancer Research and the Israel Cancer Association. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethic approval for this study has been obtained at eight academic medical centres located across the Middle East, North America and Europe. Results will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT03323489.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Galia Jacobson
- Radiation Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Tel Aviv, Israel
- Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Ronen Fluss
- Gertner Institute, Sheba Mediacal Center, Tel Hashomer, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Amira Dany-BenShushan
- Israeli Center for Cardiovascular Research, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Talia Golan
- Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Tel Aviv, Israel
- Sackler School of Medicine, Tel aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Tikva Meron
- Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Camilla Zimmermann
- Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Laura A Dawson
- Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Aisling Barry
- Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Marcin Miszczyk
- IIIrd Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice, Poland
| | - Michael Buckstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
| | - Dayssy Diaz Pardo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Artur Aguiar
- Radiation Oncology, Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - Liat Hammer
- Radiation Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Tel Aviv, Israel
- Radiatin Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Adam P Dicker
- Radiation Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Maoz Ben-Ailan
- Radiation Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Ofir Morag
- Cancer Pain Unit, Institute of Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - David Hausner
- Cancer Center, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Zvi Symon
- Radiation Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Tel Aviv, Israel
- Sackler School of Medicine, Tel aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Yaacov R Lawrence
- Radiation Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Tel Aviv, Israel
- Sackler School of Medicine, Tel aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
- Radiation Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Coveler AL, Mizrahi J, Eastman B, Apisarnthanarax SJ, Dalal S, McNearney T, Pant S. Pancreas Cancer-Associated Pain Management. Oncologist 2021; 26:e971-e982. [PMID: 33885205 PMCID: PMC8176967 DOI: 10.1002/onco.13796] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2020] [Accepted: 04/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Pain is highly prevalent in patients with pancreas cancer and contributes to the morbidity of the disease. Pain may be due to pancreatic enzyme insufficiency, obstruction, and/or a direct mass effect on nerves in the celiac plexus. Proper supportive care to decrease pain is an important aspect of the overall management of these patients. There are limited data specific to the management of pain caused by pancreatic cancer. Here we review the literature and offer recommendations regarding multiple modalities available to treat pain in these patients. The dissemination and adoption of these best supportive care practices can improve quantity and quality of life for patients with pancreatic cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Pain management is important to improve the quality of life and survival of a patient with cancer. The pathophysiology of pain in pancreas cancer is complex and multifactorial. Despite tumor response to chemotherapy, a sizeable percentage of patients are at risk for ongoing cancer-related pain and its comorbid consequences. Accordingly, the management of pain in patients with pancreas cancer can be challenging and often requires a multifaceted approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew L Coveler
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Jonathan Mizrahi
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Bory Eastman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | | | - Shalini Dalal
- Department of Palliative, Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | | - Shubham Pant
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Augustyn A, Reed VI, Ahmad N, Bhutani MS, Bloom ES, Bowers JR, Chronowski GM, Das P, Holliday EB, Delclos ME, Huey RW, Koay EJ, Lee SS, Nelson CL, Taniguchi CM, Koong AC, Chun SG. Implementation of a stereotactic body radiotherapy program for unresectable pancreatic cancer in an integrated community academic radiation oncology satellite network. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2021; 27:147-151. [PMID: 33665384 PMCID: PMC7907676 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2021.02.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2021] [Revised: 02/05/2021] [Accepted: 02/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
PDSA methodology was used to implement a pancreas SBRT in an academic satellite network. Oncologic outcomes were favorable with no serious adverse events. This technical note provides groundwork for safe establishment of SBRT pancreas programs.
With increasing interest in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for unresectable pancreatic cancer, quality improvement (QI) initiatives to develop integrated clinical workflows are crucial to ensure quality assurance (QA) when introducing this challenging technique into radiation practices. Materials/Methods: In 2017, we used the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) QI methodology to implement a new pancreas SBRT program in an integrated community radiation oncology satellite. A unified integrated information technology infrastructure was used to virtually integrate the planned workflow into the community radiation oncology satellite network (P – Plan/D – Do). This workflow included multiple prospective quality assurance (QA) measures including multidisciplinary evaluation, prospective scrutiny of radiation target delineation, prospective radiation plan evaluation, and monitoring of patient outcomes. Institutional review board approval was obtained to retrospectively study and report outcomes of patients treated in this program (S – Study). Results: There were 12 consecutive patients identified who were treated in this program from 2017 to 2020 with a median follow-up of 27 months. The median survival was 13 months, median local failure free survival was 12 months and median progression free survival was 6 months from SBRT. There were no acute or late Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects (CTCAE) version 5 toxicities ≥ Grade 3. Conclusion: We report the successful implementation of a community pancreas SBRT program involving multiple prospective QA measures, providing the groundwork to safely expand access to pancreas SBRT in our community satellite network (A – Act).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Augustyn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Valerie I. Reed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Neelofur Ahmad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Manoop S. Bhutani
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Division of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Elizabeth S. Bloom
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Division of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - John R. Bowers
- Department of Radiation Oncology, M.D. Anderson Albuquerque, Albuquerque, NM, United States
| | - Gregory M. Chronowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Prajnan Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Emma B. Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Marc E. Delclos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Ryan W. Huey
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Eugene J. Koay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Sunyoung S. Lee
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Christopher L. Nelson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Cullen M. Taniguchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Albert C. Koong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Stephen G. Chun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
- Corresponding author.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Abstract
OPINION STATEMENT Despite extensive research that has identified new risk factors, genetic mutations, and therapeutic options, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma continues to be a leading cause of cancer related death. Patients with pancreatic cancer, along with their clinicians, must balance realistic hope alongside a life-threatening diagnosis. As the search for treatments to reduce the morbidity and mortality continues, symptom management and quality of life remain the focus of our efforts. In addition to side effects of cancer-directed therapy, patients are at risk for malnutrition, pain, and fatigue. These factors are often overlooked in practice, so a multidisciplinary team is critical in optimizing the care of patients.
Collapse
|
11
|
Arcelli A, Buwenge M, Macchia G, Bertini F, Guido A, Deodato F, Cilla S, Scotti V, Rosetto ME, Djan I, Parisi S, Mattiucci GC, Cellini F, Fiore M, Bonomo P, Belgioia L, Niespolo RM, Gabriele P, Di Marco M, Simoni N, Mazzarotto R, Morganti AG. Stereotactic body radiotherapy vs conventionally fractionated chemoradiation in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: A multicenter case-control study (PAULA-1). Cancer Med 2020; 9:7879-7887. [PMID: 32910549 PMCID: PMC7643643 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3330] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2020] [Revised: 06/30/2020] [Accepted: 06/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Conventionally fractionated chemoradiation (CRT) or chemotherapy (CHT) are considered as standard options in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) while stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment in this setting. The aim of this study was to compare two cohorts of LAPC patients treated with SBRT ± CHT vs CRT ± CHT in terms of local control (LC), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Eighty patients were included. Patients in the two cohorts were matched according to: age ≤/>65 years, tumor diameter (two cut-offs: </≥3.0 and </≥3.9 cm), clinical tumor stage and clinical nodal stage, neoadjuvant CHT, and adjuvant CHT. Median prescribed total dose was 30.0 Gy (range: 18.0-37.5) and 54.0 Gy (18.0-63.0) in SBRT and CRT cohorts, respectively. Toxicity was evaluated by CTCAE v4.0 scale. Survival curves were calculated by Kaplan-Meier method. For hypothesis testing an equivalence and a non-inferiority test was calculated. No statistically significant differences in terms of acute and late toxicity, DMFS, PFS, and OS were recorded among the two cohorts. Median, 1-, and 2-year LC was: 16.0 months, 53.1%, and 40.5% in the CRT cohort and 22.0 months, 80.4%, and 49.8% in the SBRT cohort, respectively (P: .017). A statistically non-inferiority significance was recorded in terms of OS between CRT and SBRT (P = .031). Patients treated with SBRT showed higher LC rate and similar OS compared to CRT. Therefore, the design of confirmatory randomized studies comparing SBRT and CRT seems justified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessandra Arcelli
- Radiation Oncology Center, Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy
| | - Milly Buwenge
- Radiation Oncology Center, Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy
| | | | - Federica Bertini
- Radiation Oncology Center, Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy
| | - Alessandra Guido
- Radiation Oncology Center, Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy
| | - Francesco Deodato
- Radiotherapy Unit, Gemelli Molise Hospital, Campobasso, Italy.,Istituto di Radiologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Savino Cilla
- Medical Physics Unit, Gemelli Molise Hospital, Campobasso, Italy
| | | | | | - Igor Djan
- Institute of Oncology Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Medical Faculty, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia
| | - Salvatore Parisi
- Unit of Radiation Therapy, IRCCS "Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza" San Giovanni Rotondo, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy
| | - Gian Carlo Mattiucci
- UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Francesco Cellini
- UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Michele Fiore
- Radiation Oncology, Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy
| | - Pierluigi Bonomo
- Radiation Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Liliana Belgioia
- Department of Radiotherapy, Policlinico San Martino, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | | | - Pietro Gabriele
- Radiation Therapy, Candiolo Cancer Institute - FPO, IRCCS Candiolo, Candiolo, Italy
| | - Mariacristina Di Marco
- Oncology Unit, Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy
| | - Nicola Simoni
- Department of Radiotherapy, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy
| | - Renzo Mazzarotto
- Department of Radiotherapy, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy
| | - Alessio Giuseppe Morganti
- Radiation Oncology Center, Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Basics and Frontiers on Pancreatic Cancer for Radiation Oncology: Target Delineation, SBRT, SIB technique, MRgRT, Particle Therapy, Immunotherapy and Clinical Guidelines. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:cancers12071729. [PMID: 32610592 PMCID: PMC7407382 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12071729] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2020] [Revised: 06/11/2020] [Accepted: 06/17/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer represents a modern oncological urgency. Its management is aimed to both distal and local disease control. Resectability is the cornerstone of treatment aim. It influences the clinical presentation’s definitions as up-front resectable, borderline resectable and locally advanced (unresectable). The main treatment categories are neoadjuvant (preoperative), definitive and adjuvant (postoperative). This review will focus on (i) the current indications by the available national and international guidelines; (ii) the current standard indications for target volume delineation in radiotherapy (RT); (iii) the emerging modern technologies (including particle therapy and Magnetic Resonance [MR]-guided-RT); (iv) stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), as the most promising technical delivery application of RT in this framework; (v) a particularly promising dose delivery technique called simultaneous integrated boost (SIB); and (vi) a multimodal integration opportunity: the combination of RT with immunotherapy.
Collapse
|
13
|
Martin-Perez E, Domínguez-Muñoz JE, Botella-Romero F, Cerezo L, Matute Teresa F, Serrano T, Vera R. Multidisciplinary consensus statement on the clinical management of patients with pancreatic cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 2020; 22:1963-1975. [PMID: 32318964 PMCID: PMC7505812 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-020-02350-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2019] [Accepted: 04/01/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer (PC) remains one of the most aggressive tumors with an increasing incidence rate and reduced survival. Although surgical resection is the only potentially curative treatment for PC, only 15–20% of patients are resectable at diagnosis. To select the most appropriate treatment and thus improve outcomes, the diagnostic and therapeutic strategy for each patient with PC should be discussed within a multidisciplinary expert team. Clinical decision-making should be evidence-based, considering the staging of the tumor, the performance status and preferences of the patient. The aim of this guideline is to provide practical and evidence-based recommendations for the management of PC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Martin-Perez
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Diego de Leon 62, 28006, Madrid, Spain.
| | - J E Domínguez-Muñoz
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | - F Botella-Romero
- Department of Endocrinology, Hospital General Universitario, Albacete, Spain
| | - L Cerezo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain
| | - F Matute Teresa
- Department of Radiology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
| | - T Serrano
- Department of Pathology, Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.,Oncology Program, CIBEREHD National Biomedical Research Institute on Liver and Gastrointestinal Diseases, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
| | - R Vera
- Department of Medical Oncology, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
De Jesus-Acosta A, Narang A, Mauro L, Herman J, Jaffee EM, Laheru DA. Carcinoma of the Pancreas. ABELOFF'S CLINICAL ONCOLOGY 2020:1342-1360.e7. [DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-323-47674-4.00078-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2025]
|
15
|
Tung S, Coburn NG, Davis LE, Mahar AL, Myrehaug S, Zhao H, Earle CC, Nathens A, Hallet J. Population-based study of the prevalence and management of self-reported high pain scores in patients with non-resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg 2019; 106:1666-1675. [PMID: 31639208 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11330] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2019] [Revised: 06/09/2019] [Accepted: 07/09/2019] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pain is a common debilitating symptom in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This cohort study examined the use of, and factors associated with, pain-directed interventions for a high pain score in patients with non-curable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS Administrative databases were linked and patients with non-resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2010 and 2016, who reported one or more Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) score, were identified. A high pain score was defined as an ESAS score of at least 4. Outcomes were pain-directed interventions: opiates (in patients aged 65 years or more with universal drug coverage), nerve block and radiation therapy for a high pain score. Reduction in pain score of at least 1 point after pain-directed intervention was also evaluated. Modified Poisson regression was used to examine factors associated with pain-directed intervention. RESULTS Among 2623 patients with a median age of 67 years, 1223 (46·6 per cent) were women, and 1621 (61·8 per cent) reported a high pain score at a median of 38 days after diagnosis. Of those with a high pain score, 75·6 per cent (688 of 910) received opiates, 13·5 per cent (219 of 1621) radiation and 1·2 per cent (19 of 1621) nerve block. The pain score decreased in 62·1 per cent of patients after administration of opiates, 73·4 per cent after radiation and all patients after nerve block. In multivariable analysis, no patient factor (age, sex, co-morbidity burden, rurality, income quintile) was associated with receipt of non-opiate pain-directed intervention for a high pain score. In patients aged at least 65 years, advanced age was associated with lower odds of opiate use. CONCLUSION Opiates are the most common pain-directed intervention for non-curable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, whereas radiation therapy and nerve blocks are seldom used. The lack of association between pain-directed interventions and patient factors points toward practice-driven patterns.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Tung
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - N G Coburn
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.,Divisions of General Surgery, Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.,Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.,Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - L E Davis
- Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - A L Mahar
- Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - S Myrehaug
- Divisions of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - H Zhao
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - C C Earle
- Divisions of Medical Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - A Nathens
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.,Divisions of General Surgery, Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.,Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.,Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - J Hallet
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.,Divisions of General Surgery, Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.,Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.,Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Choe JW, Hyun JJ. [Relief of Cancer Pain in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer]. THE KOREAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY 2019; 74:81-86. [PMID: 31438659 DOI: 10.4166/kjg.2019.74.2.81] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2019] [Revised: 07/23/2019] [Accepted: 07/23/2019] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer is a dismal disease with a poor prognosis and is one of the most painful malignancies. Therefore, adequate pain control is essential to improving the patient's quality of life. Pain in pancreatic cancer has complex pathophysiologic mechanisms and different characteristics. The choice of pain management modalities should be individualized depending on the pain characteristics using a multidisciplinary approach. The treatment options available include medical treatment, chemotherapy, celiac plexus/ganglion neurolysis, radiotherapy, and endoscopic technique. This review discusses the medical and interventional options, leading to optimal pain management in patients with pancreatic cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jung Wan Choe
- Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Ansan, Korea
| | - Jong Jin Hyun
- Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Ansan, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Buwenge M, Cilla S, Cammelli S, Macchia G, Arcelli A, Farina E, Frakulli R, Panni V, Wondemagegnhu T, Uddin AFMK, Sumon MA, Deodato F, Morganti AG. Feasibility of 2D-conformal radiotherapy for pancreatic carcinoma. Oncol Lett 2018; 16:5939-5945. [PMID: 30333867 PMCID: PMC6176419 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2018.9389] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2018] [Accepted: 07/25/2018] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to propose an optimized 2D technique (2D-conformal) for radiotherapy (RT) of pancreatic cancer (CaP). This technique is based on double simulation which resolves the problems of radiographic image distortion. Five patients with locally advanced CaP were identified and enrolled. Treatment planning was simulated in 3 different ways: Two dimensional-standard (2D-SRT), 2D-conformal (2D-CRT), and three dimensional-conformal (3D-CRT) techniques for 10 MV LINAC. Simulation for a cobalt machine was also performed using only the 2D techniques. 2D-SRT technique was planned with fields definition based on anatomical landmarks (bone and duodenum). 3D-CRT was planned with standard virtual simulation technique, and 3D dose evaluation and optimization. 2D-CRT technique was based on manual information transfer from a diagnostic CT-scan to simulation radiograms. To eliminate the X-ray image distortion, a double simulation was employed and the profile of the GTV was delineated on radiographs bearing the simulator isocenter into the target center. Concerning target irradiation of either LINAC (10 MV) or cobalt source, the PTV constraints (ICRU 62) were met in all patients (Dmin >95%, Dmax <107%) with all techniques (2D-SRT, 3D-CRT, 2D-CRT). For organs at risk irradiation, in terms of Dmax to both duodenum and spinal cord, similar results were recorded with all techniques using the LINAC (10 MV). Liver and kidneys Dmean gradually improved from 2D-SRT to 2D-CRT and 3D-CRT. The 2D-CRT compared to 2D-SRT technique, halved the average dose to the liver and reduced to about 1/3 the average dose to the kidneys. With the cobalt source, using the 2D-CRT produced a reduction of Dmean to the kidneys (median from 30.7 to 16.9%) and liver (median from 33.4 to 22.3%) compared to 2D-SRT. This analysis showed better planning results in RT treatment of CaP while using a 2D-CRT compared to 2D-SRT technique and therefore presents an example for optimized 2D RT use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Milly Buwenge
- Radiation Oncology Center, Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine-DIMES, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Savino Cilla
- Medical Physic Unit, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura 'Giovanni Paolo II', Catholic University of Sacred Heart, 86100 Campobasso, Italy
| | - Silvia Cammelli
- Radiation Oncology Center, Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine-DIMES, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Gabriella Macchia
- Radiotherapy Unit, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura 'Giovanni Paolo II', Catholic University of Sacred Heart, 86100 Campobasso, Italy
| | - Alessandra Arcelli
- Radiation Oncology Center, Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine-DIMES, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Eleonora Farina
- Department of Radiation Oncology, CRO-IRCCS, National Cancer Institute, 33081 Aviano, Italy
| | - Rezarta Frakulli
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Bellaria Hospital, 40139 Bologna, Italy
| | - Valeria Panni
- Radiation Oncology Center, Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine-DIMES, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | | | - A F M Kamal Uddin
- Radiation Oncology Department, United Hospital Limited, Gulshan, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh
| | - Mostafa A Sumon
- Radiation Oncology Department, United Hospital Limited, Gulshan, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh
| | - Francesco Deodato
- Radiotherapy Unit, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura 'Giovanni Paolo II', Catholic University of Sacred Heart, 86100 Campobasso, Italy
| | - Alessio G Morganti
- Radiation Oncology Center, Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine-DIMES, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Wang Y, Timotin E, Zia W, Farrell T, Reiter H, Chan B, Wong R. Pain Palliation Using Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2018; 49:293-300. [PMID: 32074056 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmir.2018.04.033] [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: 09/03/2017] [Revised: 04/22/2018] [Accepted: 04/24/2018] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pain is a common symptom for patients with pancreatic cancer and is often treated using palliative radiation therapy. Standard palliative dose regimes typically consist of 2000 cGy to 3000 cGy in 5 to 10 fractions (fx). With the recent advancements in radiation dosimetric planning and delivery, the Juravinski Cancer Centre in Hamilton, Ontario, offers a hypofractionated dose of 2500 cGy in 5 fx for the improvement of pain and tumour control in selected pancreatic cancer patients. This project reviews the safety and efficacy of this prescription. METHODS A retrospective analysis of 24 patients diagnosed with unresectable pancreatic cancer was conducted. Patient data were collected using in-house medical record systems including MOSAIQ, Meditech, and Centricity. Nonparametric data analysis tests were conducted using Minitab17. RESULTS Nineteen of 24 patients (79%) reported a decrease in pain levels following radiation and 13 of 18 (72%) showed good local control of the tumour on a follow-up CT scan. Around 30% of patients reported nausea and vomiting and fatigue. Only 13% reported diarrhea and 8% reported constipation. Twenty-one percent reported pain flares. All patients were able to finish the entire treatment without pauses or delays. CONCLUSION A palliative radiotherapy dose regime of 2500 cGy/5 fx demonstrates a potential for the effective control of pain with limited acute toxicities in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. This study aims to indicate the need for further prospective research comparing this regime to other standard treatments in order to determine which is most beneficial for the patient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ya Wang
- McMaster University, Medical Radiation Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Emilia Timotin
- Juravinski Cancer Centre, Radiation Therapy, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Waqaas Zia
- Juravinski Cancer Centre, Radiation Therapy, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Tom Farrell
- Juravinski Cancer Centre, Medical Physics, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Harold Reiter
- Juravinski Cancer Centre, Radiation Therapy, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Juravinski Cancer Centre, Radiation Oncology, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Bonnie Chan
- McMaster University, Medical Radiation Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Raimond Wong
- Juravinski Cancer Centre, Radiation Oncology, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Skelton WP, Parekh H, Starr JS, Trevino J, Cioffi J, Hughes S, George TJ. Clinical Factors as a Component of the Personalized Treatment Approach to Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: a Systematic Literature Review. J Gastrointest Cancer 2018; 49:1-8. [PMID: 29110227 DOI: 10.1007/s12029-017-0021-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Pancreatic cancer is often diagnosed at late stages, where disease is either locally advanced unresectable or metastatic. Despite advances, long-term survival is relatively non-existent. DISCUSSION This review article discusses clinical factors commonly encountered in practice that should be incorporated into the decision-making process to optimize patient outcomes, including performance status, nutrition and cachexia, pain, psychological distress, medical comorbidities, advanced age, and treatment selection. CONCLUSION Identification and optimization of these clinical factors could make a meaningful impact on the patient's quality of life.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William Paul Skelton
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, 1600 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA.
| | - Hiral Parekh
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, 1600 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA
| | - Jason S Starr
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, 1600 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA
| | - Jose Trevino
- Department of Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Jessica Cioffi
- Department of Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Steven Hughes
- Department of Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Thomas J George
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, 1600 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Pain in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A multidisciplinary, International guideline for optimized management. Pancreatology 2018; 18:446-457. [PMID: 29706482 DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2018.04.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2018] [Revised: 04/18/2018] [Accepted: 04/20/2018] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Abdominal pain is an important symptom in most patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Adequate control of pain is often unsatisfactory due to limited treatment options and significant variation in local practice, emphasizing the need for a multidisciplinary approach. This review contends that improvement in the management of PDAC pain will result from a synthesis of best practice and evidence around the world in a multidisciplinary way. To improve clinical utility and evaluation, the evidence was rated according to the GRADE guidelines by a group of international experts. An algorithm is presented, which brings together all currently available treatment options. Pain is best treated early on with analgesics with most patients requiring opioids, but neurolytic procedures are often required later in the disease course. Celiac plexus neurolysis offers medium term relief in a substantial number of patients, but other procedures such as splanchnicectomy are also available. Palliative chemotherapy also provides pain relief as a collateral benefit. It is stressed that the assessment of pain must take into account the broader context of other physical and psychological symptoms. Adjunctive treatments for pain, depression and anxiety as well as radiotherapy, endoscopic therapy and neuromodulation may be required in selected patients. There are few comparative studies to help define which combination and order of these treatment options should be applied. New pain therapies are emerging and could for example target neural transmitters. However, until better methods are available, management of pain should be individualized in a multidisciplinary setting to ensure optimal care.
Collapse
|
21
|
Ebrahimi G, Rasch CRN, van Tienhoven G. Pain relief after a short course of palliative radiotherapy in pancreatic cancer, the Academic Medical Center (AMC) experience. Acta Oncol 2018; 57:697-700. [PMID: 29157074 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2017.1400692] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Gati Ebrahimi
- Department of radiation oncology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Coen R. N. Rasch
- Department of radiation oncology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Buwenge M, Marinelli A, Deodato F, Macchia G, Wondemagegnhu T, Salah T, Cammelli S, Uddin AFMK, Sumon MA, Donati CM, Cilla S, Morganti AG. Definition of fields margins for palliative radiotherapy of pancreatic carcinoma. Mol Clin Oncol 2018; 8:715-718. [PMID: 29844901 PMCID: PMC5958799 DOI: 10.3892/mco.2018.1605] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2017] [Accepted: 02/09/2018] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
The present study aimed to provide practical guidelines for palliative treatment of advanced carcinoma of the pancreas (CAP) with the 2D technique. Fifteen patients with locally advanced CAP consecutively treated with radiation therapy at the Radiation Oncology Center, Research and Care Foundation 'Giovanni Paolo II' (Campobasso, Italy) underwent computed tomography simulation in supine position. Definition of the clinical target volume (CTV) included the head and body of the pancreas, and the retropancreatic space. The planning target volume was defined by adding a margin of 14 mm to the CTV in the cranio-caudal direction and of 11 mm in radial direction. For each patient, 3 treatment plans were calculated using a cobalt source, 6 MV photons and 15 MV photons (box technique). Beams were drawn using the primary collimators without using multileaf collimators, and progressively optimized in order to respect the minimum dose (Dmin>90%) constraint. Once the final plan was achieved, distances of the fields edges from a set of reference points (bony or duodenal landmarks) were measured. Using this technique, 15 anterior-posterior and postero-anterior (AP-PA) beams and 15 pairs of lateral-lateral (LL) beams were defined for the different patients. Finally, the single minimal AP-PA and LL beams able to include the 15 sets of AP-PA and LL beams were defined. The results of this analysis are reported in tabular form. Guidelines are provided for treatment based on cobalt unit or Linear accelerator (both 6 and 15 MV photons). This study provides information regarding field size and position. A dosimetric study has been planned to identify the dose to be administered with this technique taking into account current dose-volume constraints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Milly Buwenge
- Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine-DIMES, Radiation Oncology Center, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, I-40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Alfonso Marinelli
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Research and Care Foundation 'Giovanni Paolo II', Catholic University of Sacred Heart, I-86100 Campobasso, Italy
| | - Francesco Deodato
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Research and Care Foundation 'Giovanni Paolo II', Catholic University of Sacred Heart, I-86100 Campobasso, Italy
| | - Gabriella Macchia
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Research and Care Foundation 'Giovanni Paolo II', Catholic University of Sacred Heart, I-86100 Campobasso, Italy
| | | | - Tareq Salah
- Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut 71515, Egypt
| | - Silvia Cammelli
- Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine-DIMES, Radiation Oncology Center, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, I-40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - A F M Kamal Uddin
- Radiation Oncology Department, United Hospital Limited, Gulshan, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh
| | - Mostafa A Sumon
- Radiation Oncology Department, United Hospital Limited, Gulshan, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh
| | - Constanza M Donati
- Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine-DIMES, Radiation Oncology Center, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, I-40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Savino Cilla
- Medical Physics Unit, Research and Care Foundation 'Giovanni Paolo II', Catholic University of Sacred Heart, I-86100 Campobasso, Italy
| | - Alessio G Morganti
- Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine-DIMES, Radiation Oncology Center, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, I-40138 Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Radiation Therapy in Pancreatic Cancer. Radiat Oncol 2018. [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-52619-5_43-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/28/2022] Open
|
24
|
Lu Z, Dong TH, Si PR, Shen W, Bi YL, Min M, Chen X, Liu Y. Continuous Low-dose-rate Irradiation of Iodine-125 Seeds Inhibiting Perineural Invasion in Pancreatic Cancer. Chin Med J (Engl) 2017; 129:2460-2468. [PMID: 27748339 PMCID: PMC5072259 DOI: 10.4103/0366-6999.191777] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: Perineural invasion (PNI) is a histopathological characteristic of pancreatic cancer (PanCa). The aim of this study was to observe the treatment effect of continuous low-dose-rate (CLDR) irradiation to PNI and assess the PNI-related pain relief caused by iodine-125 (125I) seed implantation. Methods: The in vitro PNI model established by co-culture with dorsal root ganglion (DRG) and cancer cells was interfered under 2 and 4 Gy of 125I seeds CLDR irradiation. The orthotopic models of PNI were established, and 125I seeds were implanted in tumor. The PNI-related molecules were analyzed. In 30 patients with panCa, the pain relief was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS). Pain intensity was measured before and 1 week, 2 weeks, and 1, 3, and 6 months after 125I seed implantation. Results: The co-culture of DRG and PanCa cells could promote the growth of PanCa cells and DRG neurites. In co-culture groups, the increased number of DRG neurites and pancreatic cells in radiation group was significantly less. In orthotopic models, the PNI-positive rate in radiation and control group was 3/11 and 7/11; meanwhile, the degrees of PNI between radiation and control groups was significant difference (P < 0.05). At week 2, the mean VAS pain score in patients decreased by 50% and significantly improved than the score at baseline (P < 0.05). The pain scores were lower in all patients, and the pain-relieving effect was retained about 3 months. Conclusions: The CLDR irradiation could inhibit PNI of PanCa with the value of further study. The CLDR irradiation could do great favor in preventing local recurrence and alleviating pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zheng Lu
- Liver Cirrhosis Diagnosis and Therapy Center, 302 Hospital of People's Liberation Army, Beijing 100039, China
| | - Teng-Hui Dong
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 307 Hospital of People's Liberation Army, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Beijing 100071, China
| | - Pei-Ren Si
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 107 Hospital of People's Liberation Army, Yantai, Shandong 264002, China
| | - Wei Shen
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 307 Hospital of People's Liberation Army, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Beijing 100071, China
| | - Yi-Liang Bi
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 307 Hospital of People's Liberation Army, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Beijing 100071, China
| | - Min Min
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 307 Hospital of People's Liberation Army, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Beijing 100071, China
| | - Xin Chen
- Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-0912, USA
| | - Yan Liu
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 307 Hospital of People's Liberation Army, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Beijing 100071, China
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
|
26
|
Individually optimized stereotactic radiotherapy for pancreatic head tumors: A planning feasibility study. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2016; 21:548-554. [PMID: 27708554 DOI: 10.1016/j.rpor.2016.09.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2016] [Revised: 06/10/2016] [Accepted: 09/01/2016] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
AIM Aim of this study was to perform a planning feasibility analysis of a 3-level dose prescription using an IMRT-SIB technique. BACKGROUND Radiation therapy of locally advanced pancreatic cancer should administer a minimum dose to the duodenum and a very high dose to the vascular infiltration areas to improve the possibility of a radical resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fifteen patients with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma and vascular involvement were included. The duodenal PTV (PTVd) was defined as the GTV overlapping the duodenal PRV. Vascular CTV (CTVv) was defined as the surface of contact or infiltration between the tumor and vessel plus a 5 mm margin. Vascular PTV (PTVv) was considered as the CTVv plus an anisotropic margin. The tumor PTV (PTVt) was defined as the GTV plus a margin including the PTVv and excluding the PTVd. The following doses were prescribed: 30 Gy (6 Gy/fraction) to PTVd, 37.5 Gy (7.5 Gy/fraction) to PTVt, and 45 Gy (9 Gy/fraction) to PTVv, respectively. Treatment was planned with an IMRT technique. RESULTS The primary end-point (PTVv Dmean > 90%) was achieved in all patients. PTVv D98% > 90% was achieved in 6 patients (40%). OARs constraints were achieved in all patients. CONCLUSIONS Although the PTVv D95% > 95% objective was achieved only in 40% of patients, the study showed that in 100% of patients it was possible to administer a strongly differentiated mean/median dose. Prospective trials based on clinical application of this strategy seem to be justified in selected patients without overlap between PTVd and PTVv.
Collapse
|
27
|
Kim D, Zhu H, Nassri A, Mokdad A, Kukreja S, Polanco P, Huerta S, Ramzan Z. Survival analysis of veteran patients with pancreatic cancer. J Dig Dis 2016; 17:399-407. [PMID: 27235863 DOI: 10.1111/1751-2980.12361] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2016] [Revised: 04/26/2016] [Accepted: 05/20/2016] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE For patients with pancreatic cancer, the identification of reliable predictors of their outcomes could be invaluable for directing the managements. This study aimed to identify clinical and laboratory factors that could be used to predict early (≤6 months) or late (>6 months) mortality. METHODS Medical records of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in the VA North Texas Health Care System from 2005 to 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses (MVA) were performed and the utility of cancer antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) test was explored. RESULTS Altogether 109 patients with pancreatic cancer, 89.0% of whom were with adenocarcinoma, were divided into early (n = 62) and late (n = 47) mortality groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a median survival of 154 days [95% confidence interval (CI) 93-194 days]. On MVA, abdominal pain (OR = 10.6, P = 0.009) and large tumor size (OR = 2.4, P = 0.028) were significantly associated with early mortality, while palliative chemotherapy (OR = 0.048, P = 0.001) and neuroendocrine tumor (OR = 0.009, P = 0.024) were significantly associated with late mortality. Subgroup analyses of adenocarcinoma and late-stage patients revealed similar results. Serum CA19-9 performed poorly as a prognostic indicator in both groups (P = 0.43), in metastatic disease at diagnosis (P = 0.32) and after treatment (P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS Abdominal pain and large tumor size portends a poor prognosis in patients with pancreatic cancer. Palliative chemotherapy and surgical intervention may prolong the patient's survival. CA19-9 is not universally reliable for predicting metastasis, survival, or the responses to chemotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas Texas, USA
| | - Hong Zhu
- Department of Clinical Science, Simmons Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas Texas, USA
| | - Ammar Nassri
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas Texas, USA
| | - Ali Mokdad
- Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
| | - Sachin Kukreja
- Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
| | - Patricio Polanco
- Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
| | - Sergio Huerta
- Department of Surgery, VA North Texas Health Care System
| | - Zeeshan Ramzan
- Department of Internal Medicine, Gastroenterology Division, VA North Texas Health Care System
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
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: 265] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.4] [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
|
29
|
Wolny-Rokicka E, Sutkowski K, Grządziel A, Dorsz Ż, Tukiendorf A, Lipiński J, Wydmański J. Tolerance and efficacy of palliative radiotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer: A retrospective analysis of single-institutional experiences. Mol Clin Oncol 2016; 4:1088-1092. [PMID: 27284450 DOI: 10.3892/mco.2016.851] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2015] [Accepted: 03/24/2016] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
This study was conducted to investigate hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. A total of 31 patients were enrolled in this study, 26 of whom had locally advanced (M0) pancreatic cancer and 5 had metastatic (M1) disease. The patients were treated with palliative RT (6-30 Gy in 1-10 fractions over a period of 1 day-2 weeks). Treatment-related toxicity was classified according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0. Early mild toxicity was observed. A total of 17 patients (55%) achieved good pain control without pharmacological therapy, and 12 patients (39%) reduced their use of analgesics; in the remaining 2 patients (6%), there was no change in analgesic use. Late high-grade (>3) toxicity was not observed. The average survival time for the 31 patients was 9 months. The 1-year overall survival rate was 16%. Palliative RT was well-tolerated and was able to prolong the survival time. The majority of the patients achieved better pain control with palliative RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edyta Wolny-Rokicka
- Department of Radiotherapy, Lubuski Center of Oncology, Regional Hospital in Zielona Góra, 65-001 Zielona Góra, Poland; Department of Radiotherapy, Center of Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Institute, Gliwice Branch, 44-101 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Krzysztof Sutkowski
- First Department and Clinic of General, Gastroenterological and Endocrinological Surgery, Wrocław Medical University, 50-369 Wrocław;, Poland
| | - Aleksandra Grządziel
- Department of Medical Physics, Center of Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Institute, Gliwice Branch, 44-101 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Żaneta Dorsz
- Department of Radiotherapy, Center of Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Institute, Gliwice Branch, 44-101 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Andrzej Tukiendorf
- Department of Epidemiology and Silesia Cancer Registry, Center of Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Institute, Gliwice Branch, 44-101 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Jakub Lipiński
- University of Zielona Góra, Faculty of Computer, Electrical and Control Engineering, 65-001 Zielona Góra, Poland
| | - Jerzy Wydmański
- Department of Radiotherapy, Center of Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Institute, Gliwice Branch, 44-101 Gliwice, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Morganti AG, Marinelli A, Buwenge M, Macchia G, Deodato F, Massaccesi M, Kigula-Mugambe J, Wondemagegnhu T, Dawotola D, Caravatta L, Sallustio G, Piermattei A, Valentini V, Cilla S. Palliative Two-Dimensional Radiotherapy of Pancreatic Carcinoma: A Feasibility Study. TUMORI JOURNAL 2013; 99:488-92. [DOI: 10.1177/030089161309900408] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Aims and background The aim of the study was to analyze the dose to be administered with two-dimensional involved-field palliative radiotherapy in advanced pancreatic carcinoma with respect to current dose-volume constraints (QUANTEC). Methods and study design The following standard regimens were evaluated: 30 Gy at 3 Gy/fraction (regimen A), 36 Gy at 2.4 Gy/fraction (regimen B), 45 Gy at 1.8 Gy/fraction (regimen C), and 50 Gy at 2 Gy/fraction (regimen D). The following constraints were considered: spinal cord Dmax <50 Gy, duodenum Dmax <55 Gy, liver Dmean <30 Gy, kidneys Dmean <15 Gy. For dose/fraction different from 1.8–2 Gy, the correction of constraints using a value of alpha/beta = 3 for late effects was considered. The calculation of dose/volume constraints was repeated for three different radiation beams: cobalt unit, 6 MV photons, and 15 MV photons. Standard field sizes were used and adapted according to the different beam types, using the parameters of our previous study. Respect of dose-volume constraints was assessed for each type of beam and treatment (dose per fractionation) in all patients. Treatments were considered acceptable in case of: 1) respect of the constraints for spinal cord and duodenum in all patients; 2) respect in >10/15 patients of constraints for kidneys and liver. Therefore, minor violations (<10%) of the constraints for these organs were accepted (in less than 5/15 patients), in consideration of the palliative aim of treatment. Results In regimen A (30 Gy, 3 Gy/fraction), evaluated constraints were respected in all patients, regardless of the type of energy. In regimen B (36 Gy, 2.4 Gy/fraction), constraints were met in all patients undergoing irradiation with 6 and 15 MV photons. However, using the cobalt unit, kidney constraint was respected only in 5 of 15 patients. In regimens C and D (45 Gy, 1.8 Gy/fraction and 50 Gy, 2 Gy/fraction, respectively), the constraint for the kidney was respected only in 2–5 patients, depending on the energy used. Furthermore, using 50 Gy, the spinal cord constraint was not respected in 2–3 patients, depending on the beam used. Therefore, only the following treatments were considered acceptable: 1) 30 Gy, 3 Gy/fraction, regardless of the energy used; 2) 36 Gy, 2.4 Gy/fraction, only for treatments performed with linear accelerator (6–15 MV). Conclusions The clinical benefits of radiotherapy in pancreatic tumors should not be withheld from patients treated in centers only with two-dimensional technology. Prospective trials, particularly in developing countries, would be useful to evaluate the efficacy in this setting of involved-field two-dimensional treatments using the dose and fractionation defined in this analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessio G Morganti
- Radiotherapy Unit, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Campobasso, Italy
- Department of Radiotherapy, Policlinico Universitario “A Gemelli”, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Alfonso Marinelli
- Radiotherapy Unit, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Milly Buwenge
- Department of Radiotherapy, Mulago Hospital, Kampala, Uganda
| | - Gabriella Macchia
- Radiotherapy Unit, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Francesco Deodato
- Radiotherapy Unit, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Mariangela Massaccesi
- Radiotherapy Unit, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Campobasso, Italy
| | | | | | - David Dawotola
- Department of Radiotherapy, Radiotherapy and Oncology Centre, Abuth, Zaria, Nigeria
| | - Luciana Caravatta
- Radiotherapy Unit, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Giuseppina Sallustio
- Radiology Unit, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Angelo Piermattei
- Medical Physics Unit, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Valentini
- Department of Radiotherapy, Policlinico Universitario “A Gemelli”, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Savino Cilla
- Medical Physics Unit, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Campobasso, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Caravatta L, Sallustio G, Pacelli F, Padula GDA, Deodato F, Macchia G, Massaccesi M, Picardi V, Cilla S, Marinelli A, Cellini N, Valentini V, Morganti AG. Clinical target volume delineation including elective nodal irradiation in preoperative and definitive radiotherapy of pancreatic cancer. Radiat Oncol 2012; 7:86. [PMID: 22691275 PMCID: PMC3494529 DOI: 10.1186/1748-717x-7-86] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2012] [Accepted: 06/05/2012] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Radiotherapy (RT) is widely used in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Currently, recommendation has been given for the delineation of the clinical target volume (CTV) in adjuvant RT. Based on recently reviewed pathologic data, the aim of this study is to propose criteria for the CTV definition and delineation including elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in the preoperative and definitive treatment of pancreatic cancer. METHODS The anatomical structures of interest, as well as the abdominal vasculature were identified on intravenous contrast-enhanced CT scans of two different patients with pancreatic cancer of the head and the body. To delineate the lymph node area, a margin of 10 mm was added to the arteries. RESULTS We proposed a set of guidelines for elective treatment of high-risk nodal areas and CTV delineation. Reference CT images were provided. CONCLUSIONS The proposed guidelines could be used for preoperative or definitive RT for carcinoma of the head and body of the pancreas. Further clinical investigations are needed to validate the defined CTVs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luciana Caravatta
- Radiotherapy Unit, Department of Oncology, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, Largo A. Gemelli 1, 86100, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Giuseppina Sallustio
- Radiology Unit, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, Largo A. Gemelli 1, 86100, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Fabio Pacelli
- Surgery Unit, Department of Oncology, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, Largo A. Gemelli 1, 86100, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Gilbert DA Padula
- Radiation Oncology Department, The Lacks Cancer Center Saint Mary’s Health Care, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
| | - Francesco Deodato
- Radiotherapy Unit, Department of Oncology, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, Largo A. Gemelli 1, 86100, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Gabriella Macchia
- Radiotherapy Unit, Department of Oncology, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, Largo A. Gemelli 1, 86100, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Mariangela Massaccesi
- Radiotherapy Unit, Department of Oncology, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, Largo A. Gemelli 1, 86100, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Picardi
- Radiotherapy Unit, Department of Oncology, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, Largo A. Gemelli 1, 86100, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Savino Cilla
- Physics Unit, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura Giovanni Paolo II, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Alfonso Marinelli
- Radiotherapy Unit, Department of Oncology, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, Largo A. Gemelli 1, 86100, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Numa Cellini
- Radiotherapy Department, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Alessio G Morganti
- Radiotherapy Unit, Department of Oncology, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II”, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, Largo A. Gemelli 1, 86100, Campobasso, Italy
- Radiotherapy Department, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Macchia G, Morganti AG, Cilla S, Ippolito E, Massaccesi M, Picardi V, Mattiucci GC, Bonomo P, Tambaro R, Pacelli F, Piermattei A, De Spirito M, Valentini V, Cellini N, Deodato F. Quality of life and toxicity of stereotactic radiotherapy in pancreatic tumors: a case series. Cancer Invest 2012; 30:149-55. [PMID: 22250589 DOI: 10.3109/07357907.2011.640649] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
AIM To analyze the results of extracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (ESRT) experience in pancreatic cancer patients. METHODS Four noncoplanar fixed beams were used in all patients. RESULTS Analysis of 16 patients was carried out. Overall response rate was 56.2%. Fifteen patients experienced local and/or distant progression of disease (median follow-up: 24 months). Two-year local progression-free, distant progression-free, and overall survivals were 85.7%, 58.7%, and 50.0%, respectively. Toxicity was less than grade 2 in all, although 1 patient had severe duodenal bleeding. Quality of life scores were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS ESRT was associated with low complication rate, and not worsening the patients' quality of life.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gabriella Macchia
- Radiotherapy Unit, Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura Giovanni Paolo II, Università-Cattolica, Campobasso, Italy.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Hameed M, Hameed H, Erdek M. Pain management in pancreatic cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2010; 3:43-60. [PMID: 24212605 PMCID: PMC3756348 DOI: 10.3390/cancers3010043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2010] [Revised: 11/25/2010] [Accepted: 12/20/2010] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
A majority of pancreatic cancer patients present with pain at the time of diagnosis. Pain management can be challenging in light of the aggressive nature of this cancer. Apart from conventional pharmacotherapy, timely treatment with neurolytic celiac plexus block (NCPB) has been shown to be of benefit. NCPB has demonstrated efficacious pain control in high quality studies with analgesic effects lasting one to two months. NCPB has also shown to decrease the requirements of narcotics, and thus decrease opioid related side effects. Another option for the control of moderate to severe pain is intrathecal therapy (IT). Delivery of analgesic medications intrathecally allows for lower dosages of medications and thus reduced toxicity. Both of the above mentioned interventional procedures have been shown to have low complication rates, and be safe and effective. Ultimately, comprehensive pancreatic cancer pain management necessitates understanding of pain mechanisms and delivery of sequential validated therapeutic interventions within a multidisciplinary patient care model.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mariam Hameed
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, 600 N. Wolfe St., Phipps 160, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA; E-Mails: (M.H.); (H.H.)
| | - Haroon Hameed
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, 600 N. Wolfe St., Phipps 160, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA; E-Mails: (M.H.); (H.H.)
| | - Michael Erdek
- Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, 550 North Broadway St., Suite 301, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
|
35
|
Abstract
The prognosis for locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma remains dismal despite advances in chemotherapy and radiotherapy over the past few decades. The use of radiotherapy for pancreatic carcinoma is often disputed because of the hypothesis that patients with pancreatic cancer die from distant metastases. It is well accepted that the greatest chance for cure of pancreatic cancer involves surgical resection of the primary tumor. However, there is much controversy about the role of radiotherapy in local disease control. The aim of this Review is to discuss data from the available studies, both prospective and retrospective, that evaluate treatment options for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. We focus on the benefits associated with local therapies, including radiotherapy and surgical resection, as they relate to improved local disease control, prolonged overall survival and improved symptom control.
Collapse
|
36
|
Wan J, Milosevic M, Brade AM. Use of palliative radiotherapy trials for clinical biomarker development. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2008; 27:435-43. [PMID: 18392923 DOI: 10.1007/s10555-008-9132-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Approximately one quarter of all cancer patients will require palliative radiation treatment at some point during the course of their disease, but only a minority of these patients are entered in clinical trials. ETHICAL ASSESSMENT OF BIOMARKERS IN PALLIATIVE RADIOTHERAPY TRIALS We review the literature debating the ethics of inclusion of "palliative" patients on clinical trials. We suggest that these patients provide a potentially valuable resource that can be leveraged to facilitate the discovery and validation of biomarkers predictive of radiation response and toxicity. In addition, this patient population offers valuable opportunities to test combination of radiation and targeted therapies to screen for activity, toxicity and biomarkers in a relatively safe manner. CONCLUSION Patients undergoing palliative radiation therapy may provide new opportunities for the development and testing of predictive radiotherapy biomarkers as well as affording opportunities to test combinations of radiation and targeted therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan Wan
- Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Hirschbein MJ, Collins S, Jean WC, Chang SD, Adler JR. Treatment of intraorbital lesions using the Accuray CyberKnife system. Orbit 2008; 27:97-105. [PMID: 18415869 DOI: 10.1080/01676830601177471] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/26/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The goal of this study was to better understand the safety and efficacy of CyberKnife image-guided radiosurgery for lesions immediately adjacent to the optic nerves. METHODS This retrospective, non-comparative, interventional case series included 16 patients (6 women and 10 men) with lesions located wholly within the orbit. Thirteen cases involved tumors (31% benign and 69% malignant), two cases presented with chronic orbital inflammation and one patient had intraorbital tissue growth secondary to Graves disease. Staged radiosurgical ablation was performed using CyberKnife image-guided technology. The main outcome measures analyzed were change in tumor/neoplasm size, pain, visual field preservation and visual acuity, which were followed for up to 15 months. RESULTS Twelve patients had a postoperative MRI, which revealed either a decrease or stabilization of tumor size. In the five lymphoma cases there was complete disappearance of the tumor. Pretreatment pain resolved in all 10 patients who reported it before the procedure; improvement in pain typically occurred within 1-2 weeks of radiosurgery. All 16 patients had a visual evaluation performed after the procedure: of these, 15 had no change in their visual field and one reported improvement. Visual acuity was preserved in 13 patients and improved in two, while one patient developed diplopia. CONCLUSIONS Staged CyberKnife radiosurgery is an effective option for the treatment of intraorbital lesions that controls tumor size, relieves pain, and preserves vision. The long-term safety of this treatment remains to be confirmed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marc J Hirschbein
- Department of Ophthalmology, Krieger Eye Institute, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
Reyes-Gibby CC, Chan W, Abbruzzese JL, Xiong HQ, Ho L, Evans DB, Varadhachary G, Bhat S, Wolff RA, Crane C. Patterns of self-reported symptoms in pancreatic cancer patients receiving chemoradiation. J Pain Symptom Manage 2007; 34:244-52. [PMID: 17513082 PMCID: PMC2084477 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.11.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2006] [Revised: 11/13/2006] [Accepted: 11/29/2006] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer is a lethal disease characterized by multiple disease-related symptoms. Chemoradiation therapy is a standard of treatment for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Although shown to prolong survival, there is little information about treatment-related symptoms or the palliative benefits of chemoradiation. We assessed symptoms of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer receiving chemoradiation to determine the prevalence, and co-occurrence, of symptoms and to identify the extent to which symptoms interfered with function. Forty-eight patients were treated with chemoradiation on a Phase I protocol. Patients received radiotherapy (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions), capecitabine (median dose 825 mg/m(2) twice daily), and bevacizumab (2.5-10 mg/kg). Symptom severity and its interference with function were prospectively assessed (at presentation, during, and after chemoradiation) in 43 consenting patients using the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Results showed that 95% of patients reported at least one of the 13 symptoms assessed at presentation. The most commonly reported symptoms of moderate to severe (>or=5 on a 0-10 scale) intensity at presentation were lack of appetite (24%), pain (19%), fatigue (19%), and sleep disturbance (10%). We observed an increase in patients reporting moderate to severe fatigue, nausea, and sleep disturbance during chemoradiation. McNemar tests for paired binary observations showed the proportion of patients reporting moderate to severe symptoms significantly (P<0.001) decreased after chemoradiation at 94 days follow-up (lack of appetite=7%, pain=7%, fatigue=13%, sleep disturbance=7%). This study demonstrates the feasibility and usefulness of symptom assessment in chemoradiation protocols. Future studies with larger cohorts are needed to further characterize multiple symptoms associated with chemoradiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cielito C Reyes-Gibby
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030-4009, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Abstract
Cancer pain often presents in a body region. This review summarizes articles from 1999-2004 relevant to cancer pain syndromes in the head and neck, chest, back, abdomen, pelvis, and limbs. Although the evidence is limited, progress is being made in further development of the evidence base to support and guide current practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victor T Chang
- UMDNJ, VA New Jersey Health Care System, East Orange, New Jersey 07018, USA.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Hung AY, Canning CA, Patel KM, Holland JM, Kachnic LA. Radiation therapy for gastrointestinal cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2006; 20:287-320. [PMID: 16730296 DOI: 10.1016/j.hoc.2006.01.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
This article has reviewed the current role of radiation in the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies and discussed the data supporting its use. Radiation treatment in this setting continues to evolve with the increasing implementation of more conformal delivery techniques. Further scientific investigation is needed to establish the optimal role of radiation and to better define its integration with novel systemic and biologic modalities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arthur Y Hung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239-3098, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Nebbia J, Ortholan C, Gerard J. Radiotherapy in cancer pain management. EJC Suppl 2005. [DOI: 10.1016/s1359-6349(05)80265-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2022] Open
|