Neoadjuvant or Adjuvant Therapy for Resectable or Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Which Is Preferred?

Multimodal Approaches to Patient Selection for Pancreas Cancer Surgery

With an overall 5-year survival rate of 12%, pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive cancer that claims more than 50,000 patient lives each year in the United States alone. Even those few patients who undergo curative-intent resection with favorable pathology reports are likely to experience recurrence within the first two years after surgery and ultimately die from their cancer. We hypothesize that risk factors for these early recurrences can be identified with thorough preoperative staging, thus enabling proper patient selection for surgical resection and avoiding unnecessary harm. Herein, we review evidence supporting multidisciplinary and multimodality staging, comprehensive neoadjuvant treatment strategies, and optimal patient selection for curative-intent surgical resections. We further review data generated from our standardized approach at the Mayo Clinic and extrapolate to inform potential future investigations.

Comparison of neoadjuvant treatment and surgery first for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Current treatment recommendations for resectable or borderline pancreatic carcinoma support upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy. However, neoadjuvant therapy (NT) seems to increase prognosis of pancreatic carcinoma and come to everyone's attention gradually. Randomized controlled trials offering comparison with the NT are lacking and optimal neoadjuvant treatment regimen still remains uncertain. This study aims to compare both treatment strategies for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

The PRISMA checklist was used as a guide to systematically review relevant peer-reviewed literature reporting primary data analysis. We searched PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Datebase and related reviews for randomized controlled trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy with surgery first for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma. We estimated relative hazard ratios (HRs) for median overall survival and ratios risks (RRs) for microscopically complete (R0) resection among different neoadjuvant regimens and major complications. We assessed the effects of neoadjuvant therapy on R0 resection rate and median overall survival with Bayesian analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen eligible articles were included. Eight studies performed comparison neoadjuvant therapy with surgery first, and R0 resection rate was recorded in seven studies. Compared with surgery first, neoadjuvant therapy did increase the R0 resection rate (RR = 1.53, I2 = 0%, P< 0.00001), there was a certain possibility that gemcitabine + cisplatin (Gem+Cis) + Radiotherapy was the most favorable in terms of the fact that there was no significant difference concerning the results from the individual studies. In direct comparison, four studies were included and estimated that Neoadjuvant therapy improved mOS compared with upfront surgery (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.92; P = 0.012; I2 = 15%), after Bayesian analysis it seemed that regimen with Cisplatin/ Epirubicin then Gemcitabine/ Capecitabine (PEXG) was most likely the best with a relatively small sample size. The rate of major surgical complications was available for six studies and ranged from 11% to 56% with neoadjuvant therapy and 11% to 45% with surgery first. There was no significant difference between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery first, also with a high heterogeneity (RR = 0.96, 95%CI = 0.65-1.43; P = 0.85; I2 = 46%).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion neoadjuvant therapy might offer benefit over up-front surgery. Neoadjuvant therapy increased the R0 resection rate with gemcitabine + cisplatin + Radiotherapy that was the most favorable and improved mOS with Cisplatin/ Epirubicin then Gemcitabine/ Capecitabine (PEXG) that was most likely the best.

The Revised R Status is an Independent Predictor of Postresection Survival in Pancreatic Cancer After Neoadjuvant Treatment

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the oncological outcomes of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who had an R 0 or R 1 resection based on the revised R status (1 mm) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT).

BACKGROUND

The revised R status is an independent prognostic factor in upfront-resected PDAC; however, the significance of 1 mm margin clearance after NAT remains controversial.

METHODS

Patients undergoing pancreatectomy after NAT for PDAC were identified from 2 prospectively maintained databases. Clinicopathological and survival data were analyzed. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and pattern of recurrence in association with R 0 >1 mm and R 1 ≤1 mm resections.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-seven patients with PDAC were included after NAT and subsequent pancreatic resection. Two hundred eight patients (58.3%) received FOLFIRINOX, 41 patients (11.5%) received gemcitabine-based regimens, and 299 individuals (83.8%) received additional radiotherapy. R 0 resections were achieved in 272 patients (76.2%) and 85 patients (23.8%) had R 1 resections. Median OS after R 0 was 41.0 months, compared with 20.6 months after R 1 resection ( P = 0.002), and even longer after additional adjuvant chemotherapy ( R 0 44.8 vs R1 20.1 months; P = 0.0032). Median RFS in the R 0 subgroup was 17.5 months versus 9.4 months in the R 1 subgroup ( P < 0.0001). R status was confirmed as an independent predictor for OS ( R 1 hazard ratio: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.07-2.26) and RFS ( R 1 hazard ratio: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.14-2.0). In addition, R 1 resections were significantly associated with local but not distant recurrence ( P < 0.0005).

CONCLUSIONS

The revised R status is an independent predictor of postresection survival and local recurrence in PDAC after NAT. Achieving R 0 resection with a margin of at least 1 mm should be a primary goal in the surgical treatment of PDAC after NAT.

Identification of Nectin Family Interactive Gene Panel and Stratification of Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Although patient-risk stratification is important for selecting individualized treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), predicting the oncologic outcomes after surgery remains a challenge. In this study, we identified a nectin family gene panel (NFGP) that can accurately stratify oncologic outcomes in patients with PDAC.

STUDY DESIGN

Comprehensive analysis of the expression of 9 nectin family genes identified the NFGP, which was assessed for predictive performance in 2 independent public cohorts (The Cancer Genome Atlas [TCGA] n = 176; International Cancer Genome Consortium [ICGC] n = 89). It was subsequently trained and validated for the in-house training cohort without neo-adjuvant therapy (NAT, n = 213) and the validation cohort with NAT (n = 307).

RESULTS

Using the Cox regression model, NFGP derived from 9 nectin family genes accurately stratified overall survival (OS) in TCGA (p = 0.038) and ICGC (p = 0.005). We subsequently optimized NFGP, which robustly discriminated postoperative prognosis, OS (p = 0.014) and relapse-free survival ([RFS] p = 0.006) in the training cohort. The NFGP was successfully validated in an independent validation cohort (OS: p < 0.001; RFS: p = 0.004). Multivariate analysis demonstrated the NFGP was an independent prognostic factor for OS and RFS in the training (p = 0.028 and 0.008, respectively) and validation (p < 0.001 and 0.013, respectively) cohorts. The subcohort analyses showed that the predictive performance of NFGP is applicable to the patients' subcohort according to resectability or adjuvant therapy status. Additionally, a combination model of NFGP score and CA19-9 level emerged with improved accuracy for predicting prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study established the predictive significance of NFGP for oncologic outcomes after surgery in PDAC. Our data demonstrate its clinical impact as a potent biomarker for optimal patient selection for individualized treatment strategies.

Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Surgery for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

IMPORTANCE

Only a few high-volume centers have reported on long-term oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but none of them have shown superior long-term overall survival (OS) compared with open pancreatic surgery (OPS).

OBJECTIVE

To study long-term survival after MIPS and OPS with curative intent among patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This comparative effectiveness study used a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained electronic database of patient data collected between January 2010 and December 2019. Consecutive patients from a high-volume pancreatic cancer referral center were included. Data analysis was conducted from March to October 2022. Median follow-up time was 56.8 months.

EXPOSURES

Patients were matched using propensity score models to study long-term survival.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Variables used for propensity score correction were TNM stage, tumor dimension, lymph node status, type of operation, simultaneous vascular resection, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, sex, age, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Additional corrections were made for year of surgery and type of adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching the sample of 396 patients, there were 198 patients in the MIPS group (89 [44.9%] men; median [range] age, 68 [32-87] years) and 198 in the OPS group (94 [47.5%] men; median [range] age, 67 [39-84] years). Median OS in the MIPS group was 30.7 (95% CI, 26.2-36.8) months compared with 20.3 (95% CI, 17.6-23.5) months after OPS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.87; P = .002). Median disease-free survival (DFS) after MIPS vs OPS was 14.8 (95% CI, 11.8-17.0) months vs 10.7 (95% CI, 9.0-12.1) months (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.89; P = .003). Additional corrections for year of surgery and type of adjuvant chemotherapy showed better OS (year of surgery: HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.96; P = .02; adjuvant chemotherapy: HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.90; P = .005) and DFS (year of surgery: HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-0.99; P = .04; adjuvant chemotherapy: HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.92; P = .009) for patients undergoing minimally invasive vs open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study of 396 patients with borderline resectable and resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, MIPS was associated with better OS and DFS than OPS. Centralization of MIPS should be stimulated, and pancreatic surgeons should be encouraged to pass the learning curve before implementing MIPS for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in daily clinical practice.

Development of doped ZnO-based biomimicking and tumor-targeted nanotheranostics to improve pancreatic cancer treatment

Despite different nanomaterials were developed so far against cancer, their potential drawbacks are still scarcely considered. The off-target delivery of a therapeutic compound, as well as the non-specific uptake of these nanomaterials by healthy tissues or organs, and their potential immunogenicity are some of the major issues that still have to be faced prior to a successful clinical translation. This work aims to develop an innovative theranostic, biocompatible, and drug-loaded nanoconstruct based on Gadolinium-doped Zinc Oxide (ZnO-Gd) nanocrystals (NCs), focusing on one of the most lethal diseases, i.e., pancreatic cancer. The use of zinc oxide is motivated by the huge potential of this nanomaterial already demonstrated for in vitro and in vivo applications, while the Gadolinium doping confers magnetic properties useful for diagnostics. Furthermore, an innovative biomimetic shell is here used to coat the NCs: it is composed of a lipid bilayer made from extracellular vesicles (EVs) combined with other synthetic lipids and a peptide targeting the pancreatic tumor microenvironment. To complete the nanoconstruct therapeutic function, Gemcitabine, a first-line drug for pancreatic cancer treatment, was adsorbed on the ZnO-Gd NCs prior to the coating with the above-mentioned lipidic shell. The aim of this work is thus to strongly enhance the therapeutic capability of the final nanoconstruct, providing it with high biocompatibility, colloidal stability in biological media, efficient cargo loading and release properties, as well as active targeting for site-selective drug delivery. Furthermore, the magnetic properties of the ZnO-Gd NCs core can in future allow efficient in situ bioimaging capabilities based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging technique. The obtained nanoconstructs were tested on two different pancreatic cancer cell lines, i.e., BxPC-3 and the metastatic AsPC-1, proving high cell internalization levels, mediated by the targeting peptide exposed on the nanoconstruct. Cellular cytotoxicity assay performed on both cell lines dictated ~ 20% increased cell killing efficacy of Gemcitabine when delivered through the nanoconstruct rather than as a free drug. Taken together, our designed theranostic nanoconstruct can have a significant impact on the standard treatment of pancreatic cancer.

Perioperative Serum Scoring Systems Predict Early Recurrence and Poor Prognosis of Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

Objective

Some patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are prone to rapid recurrence or metastasis after radical resection. However, evaluation methods for effectively identifying these patients are lacking. In this study, we established perioperative serum scoring systems to screen patients with early recurrence and poor prognosis.

Methods

We systematically analysed 44 perioperative serum parameters, including systemic inflammatory parameters, coagulation system parameters, tumor markers, and 18 clinicopathological characteristics of 218 patients with radical resection in our centre. Univariate Cox regression and LASSO regression models were used to screen variables. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare relapse-free survival and overall survival. Multivariate Cox regression was used to evaluate the independent risk variables. AUC and C-index were used to reveal the effectiveness of the models. In addition, the effectiveness was also verified in an independent cohort of 109 patients.

Results

Preoperative systemic immune coagulation cascade (SICC) (including increased neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, decreased lymphocyte to monocyte ratio, increased platelet and fibrinogen) and increased postoperative tumor markers (TMs) (CA199, CEA and CA242) were independent risk factors for early recurrence of resectable pancreatic cancer. On this basis, we established the preoperative SICC score and postoperative TMs score models. The patients with higher preoperative SICC or postoperative TMs score were more likely to have early relapse and worse prognosis. The nomogram based on preoperative SICC, postoperative TMs, CACI, smoking index, vascular cancer embolus and adjuvant chemotherapy can effectively evaluate the recurrence rate (AUC_{1 year}: 0.763, AUC_{2 year}: 0.679, AUC_{3 year}: 0.657) and overall survival rate (AUC_{1 year}: 0.770, AUC_{3 year}: 0.804, AUC_{5 year}: 0.763).

Conclusion

Preoperative SICC and postoperative TMs can help identify resectable PDAC patients with early recurrence and poor prognosis.

Roles and Clinical Significances of ATF6, EMC6, and APAF1 in Prognosis of Pancreatic Cancer

Background: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is prevalent among malignant tumors with poor prognosis and lacks efficient therapeutic strategies. Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress and apoptosis are associated with chronic inflammation and cancer progression. However, the prognostic value of ER stress-related, and apoptosis-related genes in PC remains to be further elucidated. Our study aimed at confirming the prognostic values of the ER stress-related genes, ATF6, EMC6, XBP1, and CHOP, and the apoptosis-related gene, APAF1, in PC patients.

Methods: Gene Expression Profiling Interactive Analysis 2 (GEPIA2) was used to evaluate prognosis value of ATF6, EMC6, XBP1, CHOP, and APAF1 in PC. Clinical data from 69 PC patients were retrospectively analyzed. Immunohistochemistry, Western blotting, and qRT-PCR were used for the assessment of gene or protein expression. The cell counting kit-8 (CCK-8) and the Transwell invasion assays were, respectively, used for the assessment of the proliferative and invasive abilities of PC cells. The prognostic values of ATF6, XBP1, CHOP, EMC6, and APAF1 in PC patients were evaluated using Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses.

Results: XBP1 and CHOP expressions were not associated with PC recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). ATF6 upregulation and EMC6 and APAF1 downregulations significantly correlated with the poor RFS, OS, and DSS of PC patients. ATF6 promoted PC cell proliferation and invasion, while EMC6 and APAF1 inhibited these events.

Conclusion: ATF6 upregulation and EMC6 and APAF1 downregulations may be valid indicators of poor prognosis of PC patients. Moreover, ATF6, EMC6, and APAF1 may constitute potential therapeutic targets in PC patients.

Neoadjuvant therapy or upfront surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Neoadjuvant therapy may improve survival compared with upfront surgery in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, but high-quality evidence is lacking.

METHODS

We systematically searched for randomised trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy with upfront surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer published since database inception until December 2020. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) by intention-to-treat with subgroup analyses for resectability status. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Seven trials with 938 patients were included. All trials included a neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemo(radio)therapy arm. None of the studies used adjuvant FOLFIRINOX. Neoadjuvant therapy improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.85; P = 0.001; I² = 46%) compared with upfront surgery. This represents an increase in median OS from 19 to 29 months. In the subgroup of resectable pancreatic cancer (i.e., venous contact ≤180°, no arterial contact), no statistically significant difference in OS was observed (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.53-1.12; P = 0.18; I² = 20%). In the subgroup of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (i.e. venous contact >180°, any arterial contact), neoadjuvant therapy improved OS (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.85; P = 0.004; I² = 59%). The GRADE certainty of evidence was high for the outcome of OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant therapy improves OS compared with upfront surgery in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. More evidence is required on whether neoadjuvant therapy improves survival for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer.

Extended lymphadenectomy benefits patients with borderline resectable pancreatic head cancer-a single-center retrospective study

Background

Whether standard lymphadenectomy or extended lymphadenectomy should be performed is still under debate during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). We aimed to compare their morbidity and mortality rates among patients with pancreatic head cancer (PHC).

Methods

In this retrospective study, a total of 322 patients were enrolled. According to the scope of intraoperative lymph node dissection, patients were divided into extended lymphadenectomy group (n=120) and standard lymphadenectomy group (n=202). Based on the resectability of the tumor, there were 198 cases of resectable PHC and 124 cases of borderline resectable PHC, respectively, in which further stratified analysis was carried out according to the extent of lymph node dissection.

Results

All patients completed the operation successfully, with a perioperative morbidity rate of 27.9% and mortality rate of 0.9%. As for the overall patients, patients in the extended lymphadenectomy group had higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), longer operation time, more intraoperative blood loss, lymph node dissection and patients with borderline resectable pancreatic head cancer (BRPHC) (P<0.05). The 1-, 2- and 3-year overall survival rates of patients with extended lymphadenectomy and standard lymphadenectomy were 71.9%, 50.6%, 30.0% and 70.0%, 32.9%, 21.5%, respectively (P=0.068). With regards to patients with BRPHC, the number of lymph node dissection in the extended lymphadenectomy group was more (P<0.05), and the 1-, 2- and 3-year overall survival rates of patients with extended lymphadenectomy and standard lymphadenectomy were 60.7%, 43.3%, 27.4% and 43.2%, 17.7%, 17.7%, respectively (P=0.007).

Conclusions

Patients with BRPHC tended to have vast lymph node metastasis. Extended lymphadenectomy can improve their long-term survival.

Pre-operative radiomics model for prognostication in resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma with external validation

OBJECTIVES

In resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), few pre-operative prognostic biomarkers are available. Radiomics has demonstrated potential but lacks external validation. We aimed to develop and externally validate a pre-operative clinical-radiomic prognostic model.

METHODS

Retrospective international, multi-center study in resectable PDAC. The training cohort included 352 patients (pre-operative CTs from five Canadian hospitals). Cox models incorporated (a) pre-operative clinical variables (clinical), (b) clinical plus CT-radiomics, and (c) post-operative TNM model, which served as the reference. Outcomes were overall (OS)/disease-free survival (DFS). Models were assessed in the validation cohort from Ireland (n = 215, CTs from 34 hospitals), using C-statistic, calibration, and decision curve analyses.

RESULTS

The radiomic signature was predictive of OS/DFS in the validation cohort, with adjusted hazard ratios (HR) 2.87 (95% CI: 1.40-5.87, p < 0.001)/5.28 (95% CI 2.35-11.86, p < 0.001), respectively, along with age 1.02 (1.01-1.04, p = 0.01)/1.02 (1.00-1.04, p = 0.03). In the validation cohort, median OS was 22.9/37 months (p = 0.0092) and DFS 14.2/29.8 (p = 0.0023) for high-/low-risk groups and calibration was moderate (mean absolute errors 7%/13% for OS at 3/5 years). The clinical-radiomic model discrimination (C = 0.545, 95%: 0.543-0.546) was higher than the clinical model alone (C = 0.497, 95% CI 0.496-0.499, p < 0.001) or TNM (C = 0.525, 95% CI: 0.524-0.526, p < 0.001). Despite superior net benefit compared to the clinical model, the clinical-radiomic model was not clinically useful for most threshold probabilities.

CONCLUSION

A multi-institutional pre-operative clinical-radiomic model for resectable PDAC prognostication demonstrated superior net benefit compared to a clinical model but limited clinical utility at external validation. This reflects inherent limitations of radiomics for PDAC prognostication, when deployed in real-world settings.

KEY POINTS

• At external validation, a pre-operative clinical-radiomics prognostic model for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) outperformed pre-operative clinical variables alone or pathological TNM staging. • Discrimination and clinical utility of the clinical-radiomic model for treatment decisions remained low, likely due to heterogeneity of CT acquisition parameters. • Despite small improvements, prognosis in PDAC using state-of-the-art radiomics methodology remains challenging, mostly owing to its low discriminative ability. Future research should focus on standardization of CT protocols and acquisition parameters.

Current and emerging therapeutic strategies in pancreatic cancer: Challenges and opportunities

Pancreatic carcinoma (PC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Despite early detection and advances in therapeutics, the prognosis remains dismal. The outcome and therapeutic approach are dependent on the stage of PC at the time of diagnosis. The standard of care is surgery, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. The advent of newer drugs has changed the landscape of adjuvant therapy. Moreover, recent trials have highlighted the role of neoadjuvant therapy and chemoradiotherapy for resectable and borderline resectable PC. As we progress towards a better understanding of tumor biology, genetics, and microenvironment, novel therapeutic strategies and targeted agents are now on the horizon. We have described the current and emerging therapeutic strategies in PC.

Resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma: An Asian institution's experience

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is highly lethal. Surgery offers the only chance of cure, but 5-year overall survival (OS) after surgical resection and adjuvant therapy remains dismal. Adjuvant trials were mostly conducted in the West enrolling fit patients. Applicability to a general population, especially Asia has not been described adequately.

AIM

We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes, prognostic factors of survival, pattern, and timing of recurrence after curative resection in an Asian institution.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The clinicopathologic and survival outcomes of 165 PDAC patients who underwent curative resection between 1998 and 2013 were reviewed retrospectively. Median age at surgery was 62.0 years. 55.2% were male, and 73.3% had tumors involving the head of pancreas. The median OS of the entire cohort was 19.7 months. Median OS of patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy was 23.8 months. Negative predictors of survival include lymph node ratio (LNR) of >0.3 (HR = 3.36, P = .001), tumor site involving the body or tail of pancreas (HR = 1.59, P = .046), presence of perineural invasion (PNI) (HR = 2.36, P = .018) and poorly differentiated/undifferentiated tumor grade (HR = 1.86, P = .058). The median time to recurrence was 8.87 months, with 66.1% and 81.2% of patients developing recurrence at 12 months and 24 months respectively. The most common site of recurrence was the liver.

CONCLUSION

The survival of Asian patients with resected PDAC who received adjuvant chemotherapy is comparable to reported randomized trials. Clinical characteristics seem similar to Western patients. Hence, geographical locations may not be a necessary stratification factor in RCTs. Conversely, lymph node ratio and status of PNI ought to be incorporated.

CA19.9 Serum Level Predicts Lymph-Nodes Status in Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis

Background

The choice between upfront surgery or neoadjuvant treatments (NAT) for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (R-PDAC) is controversial. R-PDAC with potential nodal involvement could benefit from NT. Ca (Carbohydrate antigen) 19.9 and serum albumin levels, alone or in combination, have proven their efficacy in assessing PDAC prognosis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the role of Ca 19.9 serum levels in predicting nodal status in R-PDAC.

Methods

Preoperative Ca 19.9, as well as serum albumin levels, of 165 patients selected for upfront surgery have been retrospectively collected and correlated to pathological nodal status (N), resection margins status (R) and vascular resections (VR). We further performed ROC curve analysis to identify optimal Ca 19.9 cut-off for pN+, R+ and vascular resection prediction.

Results

Increased Ca 19.9 levels in 114 PDAC patients were significantly associated with pN+ (p <0.001). This ability, confirmed in all the series by ROC curve analysis (Ca 19.9 ≥32 U/ml), was lost in the presence of hypoalbuminemia. Furthermore, Ca 19.9 at the cut off >418 U/ml was significantly associated with R+ (87% specificity, 36% sensitivity, p 0.014). Ca 19.9, at the cut-off >78 U/ml, indicated a significant trend to predict the need for VR (sensitivity 67%, specificity 53%; p = 0.059).

Conclusions

In R-PDAC with normal serum albumin levels, Ca 19.9 predicts pN+ and R+, thus suggesting a crucial role in deciding on NAT.

Landmark Series: Neoadjuvant Treatment in Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) is frequently encountered in high-volume centers. It has various definitions among different societies or institutions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this landmark series review, we summarize the critical randomized controlled studies that have defined the neoadjuvant and surgical management of BRPC.

RESULTS

Surgical resection after neoadjuvant treatment is the mainstay of treatment and should involve margin-negative resection with regional lymphadenectomy. Several recently completed randomized controlled clinical trials have defined the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with BRPC. The utilization of chemoradiation remains controversial.

CONCLUSIONS

The definition of BRPC goes beyond the anatomic relationship between the tumor and vessels. We need to include biological and conditional dimensions. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery are associated with improved outcomes of BRPC. Understanding the molecular features of pancreatic cancer should lead to the discovery of novel biomarkers as well as a more personalized approach to guide individualized therapy.

Pancreatic cancer treatment: better, but a long way to go

Remarkable progress has been made in treating pancreatic cancer over the past century, including refinement of our surgical techniques and improvements in adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies. Despite these advances, the incidence of pancreatic cancer is rising globally, and it remains a deadly disease. In this review, we highlight the historical perspectives of pancreatic cancer treatment and outline the areas of future advancement that will assist progression towards better outcomes. Areas of future advancement include improving prevention strategies and early detection, refining our molecular understanding of pancreatic cancer, identifying more effective systemic therapies, and improving quality of life and surgical outcomes. Furthermore, systems need to be put in place to ensure all patients with pancreatic cancer receive high quality care and are given the appropriate options and sequence of therapy. This is best achieved through multidisciplinary care.