Therapy For Resectable Pancreatic Cancer Research Articles

Failure to Undergo Resection Following Neoadjuvant Therapy for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of SWOG S1505.

Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is increasingly used for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and yet reasons for not undergoing subsequent pancreatectomy are poorly understood. Given the importance of completing multimodality therapy, we investigated factors associated with failure to undergo surgical resection following NT for PDAC. SWOG S1505 was a multicenter phase II randomized trial of preoperative mFOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel prior to planned pancreatectomy for patients with potentially resectable PDAC. Associations between clinical, demographic, and hospital-level characteristics and receipt of surgical resection were estimated via multiple logistic regression. Differences in overall survival from 18 weeks postrandomization (scheduled time of surgery) according to resection status were assessed via Cox regression models. Among 102 eligible patients, 73 (71.6%) underwent successful pancreatectomy, whereas 29 (28.4%) did not, primarily because of progression (n=11; 10.8%) or toxicity during NT (n=9; 8.8%). Weight loss during NT (odds ratio [OR], 0.34; 95% CI, 0.11-0.93) and the hospital's city size (small: OR, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.07-0.80] and large: OR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.10-0.79] compared with midsize) were significantly associated with a lower probability of surgical resection in adjusted models, whereas age, sex, race, body mass index, performance status, insurance type, geographic region, treatment arm, tumor location, chemotherapy delays/modifications, and hospital characteristics were not. Surgical resection following NT was associated with improved overall survival (median, 23.8 vs 10.8 months; P<.01) even after adjusting for grade 3-5 adverse events during NT, performance status, and body mass index (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.95). Failure to undergo resection following NT was relatively common among patients with potentially resectable PDAC and associated with worse survival. Although few predictive factors were identified in this secondary analysis of the SWOG S1505 randomized trial, further research must focus on risk factors for severe toxicities during NT that preclude surgical resection so that patient-centered interventions can be delivered or alternate treatment sequencing can be recommended.

ASO Author Reflections: Adjuvant Therapy for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer in the Real World-Not as Common as One Might Think.

ASO Author Reflections: Adjuvant Therapy for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer in the Real World-Not as Common as One Might Think.

Understanding Surgical Attrition for “Resectable” Pancreatic Cancer

ObjectivesWe used a novel combined analysis to evaluate various factors associated with failure to undergo surgery in non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. MethodsWe identified rates of surgery and reasons for surgical attrition from clinical trials, which studied neoadjuvant therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer. Next, we queried the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for Stage I-III, T1-3 pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients. We investigated the rates and factors associated with the receipt of surgery. Finally, we evaluated variable importance predicting the receipt of surgery. ResultsIn clinical trials, 25-30% of patients did not undergo surgery, mostly due to disease progression. In the NCDB, the overall surgical rate was only 49%, but increased to 67% in a curated cohort meant to mirror clinical trial patients. Patients treated at and low-volume institutions (OR=0.64, 95% CI: 0.61-0.67) and who were uninsured (OR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.52-0.62) and Medicaid-insured (OR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.64-0.71) were less likely to receive potentially curative surgery. ConclusionWe have identified a realistic target surgery rate of 70%-75% in potentially-resectable pancreatic cancer. While attrition to pancreatic cancer surgery is mostly due to tumor biology, our study identified the most important non-medical barriers, such as facility volume and insurance, affecting pancreatic cancer surgery.

Artificial intelligence-based quantification of residual cancer burden to evaluate the impact of neoadjuvant therapy in resected pancreatic cancer in the PREOPANC randomised trial

Artificial intelligence-based quantification of residual cancer burden to evaluate the impact of neoadjuvant therapy in resected pancreatic cancer in the PREOPANC randomised trial

Pathologic tumour response to neoadjuvant therapy in resected pancreatic cancer: does it affect prognosis?

Pathologic tumour response to neoadjuvant therapy in resected pancreatic cancer: does it affect prognosis?

Pathologic tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy in resected pancreatic cancer: does it affect prognosis?

Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) + surgical resection for pancreatic cancer (PC) has gained consensus in recent years. Pathological response (PR) is generally assessed according to the College of American Pathologists grading system, ranging from 0 (complete response) to 3 (no response). The aim of our study is to evaluate the PR in a series of resections for PC after NAT and its prognostic implication. 112 patients undergone NAT and resection for PC between 2011 and 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. PR was 0/1, 2 and 3 in 18 (15%), 79 (61%) and 29 (24%) cases, respectively. Chemotherapy regimens different from FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (OR 11.61 (2.53-53.36), p = 0.002) and lymphovascular invasion (OR 11.28 (1.89-67.23), p = 0.008) were associated to PR-3. Median follow-up was 25.8 (3.6-130.5) months. For PR-0/1, PR-2 and PR-3, median DFS was 45.8, 11.5, 4.6months (p < 0.0001), respectively, while median OS was not reached, 27.1 and 17.5months (p = 0.0006), respectively. At univariate analysis, PR-0/1 was significantly associated to better DFS and OS (HR 0.33 (0.17-0.67), p = 0.002; HR 0.20 (0.07-0.54), p = 0.002, respectively). At multivariate analysis, pancreaticoduodenectomy (HR 0.50 (0.30-0.84), p = 0.009), LNR (HR 27.14 (1.21-608.9), p = 0.038) and lymphovascular invasion (HR 1.99 (1.06-3.76), p = 0.033) were independently associated to DFS; pre-treatment CA 19.9 value (HR 1.00 (1.00-1.00), p = 0.025), post-treatment resectability status (HR 0.51 (0.28-0.95), p = 0.035), pancreaticoduodenectomy (HR 0.56 (0.32-0.99), p = 0.050), severe morbidity (2.99 (1.22-7.55), p = 0.017), LNR (HR 56.8 (2.08-1548.3), p = 0.017), lymphovascular invasion (HR 2.18 (1.08-4.37), p = 0.029) were independently associated to OS. PR did not reach statistical significance at multivariate analysis. A favorable PR is observed only in a limited number of cases. The prognostic role of PR, despite being promising, remains unclear and further multicentric studies are needed.

Current status and prospects of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is a highly malignant tumor. About 75% of patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent radical surgical resection will still experience postoperative recurrence. Neoadjuvant therapy could improve outcomes in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer,has become a consensus;however it is still controversial in resectable pancreatic cancer. Limited high-quality randomized controlled trial studies support the routine initiation of neoadjuvant therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer. With the development of new technologies, such as next-generation sequencing, liquid biopsy, imaging omics, and organoids, patients are expected to benefit from the precision screening of potential candidates for neoadjuvant therapy and individualized treatment strategy.

Alliance A021806: A phase III trial evaluating perioperative versus adjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer.

TPS4204 Background: The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic cancer has yet to be defined. Recent phase II trial results demonstrate a median overall survival time (mOS) of only 22.4 months after treatment with perioperative modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX) with 36% not reaching surgery due to disease progression during neoadjuvant therapy. While potential benefits and shortcomings of neoadjuvant chemotherapy have been well documented, to date, no phase III trial has directly compared a perioperative versus an adjuvant chemotherapy strategy in resectable pancreatic cancer. Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A021806 is an actively accruing randomized controlled phase III trial evaluating the efficacy of perioperative chemotherapy with mFOLFIRINOX in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Methods: To qualify for enrollment, patients must have biopsy-proven localized resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Patients must have good performance status (ECOG 0 or 1) and be candidates to receive mFOLFIRINOX treatment. All patients enrolled undergo central radiologic eligibility review for quality control and are then randomized to either Arm 1 which consists of 8 cycles of neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX followed by 4 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX or Arm 2 which includes upfront surgery followed by 12 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. The primary endpoint of the trial is overall survival with secondary endpoints evaluating disease-free survival, margin-negative resection rate, surgical complications, and chemotherapeutic adverse events. Additional correlative endpoints include quality of life and radiomic imaging assessments. A total enrollment of 352 patients is planned from the US and Canada; current enrollment for this trial is at 145 patients. An OS interim analysis will be performed when 50% of the events (124) are observed combining the two arms. If the trial continues after interim analysis, the final OS analysis will be performed with a total of 248 events (combined arms). If the Cox model (stratified by tumor location and ECOG PS) comparing OS between arms produces a one-sided p-value &lt; 0.05, then we will conclude that the OS of the perioperative therapy arm is superior to adjuvant therapy. The Alliance A021806 phase III trial aims to define a new standard of care for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT04340141 .

Top Pancreatic Tumor Articles from 2021 to Inform Your Cancer Patients.

More than 10,000 publications about pancreatic cancer were found on PubMed during the past year. To best inform patients with pancreatic cancer, the obvious, frequent questions asked during patient counseling when dealing with resectable pancreatic cancer, borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, and unresectable pancreatic cancer were considered. The publications highlighted are comprehensive on the current management of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer, the addition of radiation to neoadjuvant therapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, the utility of arterial resections in unresectable pancreatic cancer, and the role of minimally invasive approach to pancreatic cancer surgical therapy. These articles are high yield and comprehensive reviewon key issues facing surgical oncologists who operate on pancreaticcancer.

Adjuvant gemcitabine+S1 as adjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer: A real-world experience in a single-center retrospective study.

673 Background: Current clinical guidelines recommended adjuvant chemotherapy for all resectable pancreatic cancer after operation. The treatment choices included Gemcitabine monotherapy, S1 monotherapy, Gemcitabine+Capecitabine or mFOLFIRINOX. However, the role of Gemcitabine+S1 combination as adjuvant chemotherapy was not clear. We aimed to investigate the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy with Gemcitabine+S1 in resectable pancreatic cancer. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with resectable pancreatic cancer who underwent curative surgery and adjuvant treatments at Taichung Veterans General Hospital (Taichung, Taiwan) between January 2014 and July 2021. The clinical characteristics and outcomes were analyzed. Results: A total of 102 patients received operation were analyzed. 73 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, including 35 patients received Gemcitabine+S1 combination. Median follow-up period was 22.7 months. The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) among patients received Gemcitabine+S1 combination were 15.5 months and 32.8 months, respectively. Compared with Gemcitabine monotherapy, there was a trend of superior DFS (10.5 months in Gemcitabine monotherapy, p = 0.071), but no OS benefits (23.1 months, p = 0.441) with Gemcitabine+S1 combination. When focusing on more advanced disease status (stage II and III), the Gemcitabine+S1 combination had statistically significant longer DFS (14.7 months vs. 8.6 months; p = 0.015) and OS (30.3 months vs. 21.7 months; p = 0.036), compared with Gemcitabine monotherapy. Conclusions: In our retrospective study, Gemcitabine+S1 combination could be another choice for resectable pancreatic cancer, especially in more advanced disease (stage II and III). Further result from prospective study (JSAP-04) is pending.

Carbon Ion Radiotherapy Versus Perioperative Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Curative Surgery for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer.

The standard treatment for resectable pancreatic cancer is preoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) + curative surgery + adjuvant chemotherapy. Although excellent local control results of carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for pancreatic cancer have been reported, no reports have compared CIRT with the standard treatment for resectable pancreatic cancer. In this study, we compared the results of CIRT for resectable pancreatic cancer with those of standard therapy and investigated the usefulness of CIRT. The subjects were 35 patients who underwent CIRT for clinical cT1-2, N0-1, and M0 cancers at Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Japan, from September 2018 to September 2021, and 110 patients who underwent standard treatment (NAC + curative surgery + adjuvant). Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (PFS) were compared between the two groups using propensity score-matching (PSM). Twenty-three CIRT monotherapy patients were matched with NAC + curative surgery + adjuvant chemotherapy patients by PSM. Although there was no significant difference in RFS between the two groups, OS was significantly poorer in the CIRT monotherapy group than in the NAC + curative surgery + adjuvant chemotherapy group. This single-centre retrospective propensity score-matched comparison of CIRT and NAC + curative resection + adjuvant chemotherapy as the standard therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer showed an inferiority of CIRT in terms of OS, but no difference in PFS. Therefore, CIRT monotherapy may be a treatment strategy for patients with contraindications for standard treatment of curative surgery plus perioperative chemotherapy.

The evolving role of radiation in pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. Chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic cancer has improved survival by 10-20%. It only converted 10-30% of the borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancers to be surgically resectable. Radiation therapy has a documented role in managing localized pancreatic cancer, more so for borderline and locally advanced pancreatic cancer, where it can potentially improve the resectability rate of a given neoadjuvant treatment. The role of radiation therapy in resected pancreatic cancer is controversial, but it is used routinely to treat positive margins after pancreatic cancer surgery. Radiation therapy paradigms continue to evolve with advancements in treatment modalities, delivery techniques, and combination approaches. Despite the advances, there continues to be a controversy on the role of radiation therapy in managing this disease. In this review article, we discuss the recent updates, delivery techniques, and motion management in radiation therapy and dissect the applicability of this therapy in pancreatic cancer.

Neoadjuvant therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer: A promising curative method to improve prognosis.

Currently, 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been designed to investigate whether neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) benefits patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (R-PA) compared to surgery alone. Five of them have acquired results so far; however, corresponding conclusions have not been obtained. We speculated that the reason for this phenomenon could be that some prognostic factors had proven to be adverse through upfront surgery curative patterns, but some of them were not regarded as independent baseline characteristics, which is important to obtaining comparability between the NAT and upfront surgery groups. This fact could cause bias and lead to the difference in the outcomes of RCTs. In this review, we collate data about risk factors (such as tumor size, resection margin, and lymph node status) influencing the prognoses of patients with R-PA from five RCTs and discuss the possible reasons for the varying outcomes.

Neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer: a narrative review

The use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma remains controversial and limited. Therefore, this literature review aimed to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of this treatment. A database search of peer-reviewed articles published in English between January 1990 and June 2021 in PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Web of Science was performed. Original articles, review articles, and meta-analyses relevant to the topic were selected. We found 2 to 4 cycles with FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine plus S-1, or gemcitabine alone were the most acceptable treatments. Considering the risk of adverse events and cancer progression, NAT is considered safe and tolerable, with a comparable resection rate. Although NAT can result in moderate tumor responses and some extent of local control (improvement of complete resection rate and negative lymph node metastases), no obvious survival benefit is observed. To date, the survival benefits of NAT for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have been very limited. It is too early to say that NAT is the best treatment option for resectable pancreatic cancer.

Trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials on neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer

IntroductionMeta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence but can suffer from type I (false-positive) and II (false-negative) errors, which can be estimated through trial sequential analysis (TSA) demonstrating eventual credibility of results. Aim of the study was to establish through TSA which strategy between neoadjuvant approach or upfront surgery provides best results when treating potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Materials and methodsRCTs were searched until September 2021. Intention-to-treat (ITT) overall survival, resection rate, ITT R0 and N0 rates and per-protocol R0 and N0 rates were the outcomes considered. Fixed-effect model was applied. TSA assumed an alpha = 5% and a power = 80%. ResultsFour RCTs were identified accruing 325 patients for the ITT analyses and 242 for the per-protocol analyses. Neoadjuvant did not improve survival (p = 0.167) and TSA supported that this result was underpowered, requiring additional 1514 patients to prove credibility. Neoadjuvant reduced resection rate (p = 0.044) but type I error was not avoided. Neoadjuvant credibly increased per-protocol R0 and N0 rates (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001), and TSA showed that these were true-positive findings. Neoadjuvant did not increase ITT R0 rate since randomization (p = 0.169) but TSA showed lack of power. Neoadjuvant credibly increased the ITT N0 rate (p < 0.001) and TSA supported that this was a true positive finding. ConclusionsNeoadjuvant strategy credibly demonstrated superiority over upfront surgery in determine per-protocol R0 resection and N0 rates, as well as ITT N0 rate. For the remaining outcomes, TSA suggested the need of larger samples to exclude type I and II errors.

The role of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer remains uncertain.

The role of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer remains uncertain.

Upfront surgery vs. neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer: a narrative review of available evidence

Though the use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is increasing in the setting of borderline resectable (BRPC) and locally advance pancreatic cancer (LAPC), the role of NAT in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC) remains uncertain. This is a narrative review, summarising the contemporary evidence and emerging studies comparing neoadjuvant therapy to upfront resection and adjuvant therapy in RPC. Upfront resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is currently the standard of care for RPC. Though BRPC and LAPC have reported significant overall survival benefits with NAT, those results have yet to be translated to RPC. Downstaging is only reported in a small proportion of patients who receive NAT; most have stable disease and a small number have progression. Preliminary trial data have largely been consistent with that observed in the past whereby a modest improvement in R0 resection rates and pathological findings is observed with NAT, however rates of distant recurrence and overall survival remain similar to upfront resection. A significant proportion further fail to achieve resection due to the side effects, deconditioning and delays to surgery. Most international recommendations have been guided by non-randomised data sets and long-term data from emerging phase III trials are yet to be published. Although we have observed improved R0 resection rates with NAT, this has yet to translate to a robust improvement in overall survival. Concerns regarding delays to resection, and limited response to NAT remain a topic of ongoing investigation.

Disparities in Access to Oncologic Care in Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Pancreatic cancer care is complex, and multiple disparities in receipt of therapies have been documented. The authors aimed to conduct a systematic review of the literature to critically assess and summarize disparities in access to oncologic therapies for pancreatic cancer. A search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were performed for studies reporting disparities in access to oncologic care for pancreatic cancer. Primary research articles published in the United States from 2000 to 2020 were included. Data were independently extracted, and risk of bias was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The inclusion criteria were met by 47 studies. All the studies used retrospective data, with 70 % involving national database studies, 41 assessing the impact of race/ethnicity, 22 assessing the impact of socioeconomic status, 18 assessing the impact of insurance status, 23 assessing the impact of gender, 26 assessing the impact of age, and 3 assessing the impact of location on the delivery of cancer-directed therapies. Race, socioeconomic status, insurance status, gender, and age- based disparities in receipt of surgical resection, treatment at high-volume facilities and multimodal therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer, receipt of systemic chemotherapy for metastatic cancer, and receipt of expected standard-of-care treatment are reported. Significant sociodemographic disparities in access to equitable oncologic care exist along the continuum of pancreatic cancer care. Multiple patient, provider, and systemic factors contribute to these disparities. The ongoing study of these disparities is important to elucidate processes that may be targeted to improve access to equitable oncologic care for patients with pancreatic cancer.

Utility of circulating tumor DNA for predicting prognosis in the management of resectable pancreatic cancer

Background: The measurement of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been studied in several malignancies, including metastatic pancreatic cancer, but less is known about its utility in monitoring treatment response and recurrence in resectable pancreatic cancer. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature examining the association of ctDNA with overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival. Results: Five articles met our exclusion criteria. Baseline and/or postoperative ctDNA was found to be associated with decreased OS and recurrence-free survival. Discussion: ctDNA has the potential to be used as a prognostic biomarker and to guide therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A New Standard of Care. Pooled Data From 3 Randomized Controlled Trials.

The aim of this study was to pool data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) limited to resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) to determine whether a neoadjuvant therapy impacts on disease-free survival (DFS) and surgical outcome. Few underpowered studies have suggested benefits from neoadjuvant chemo (± radiation) for strictly resectable PDAC without offering conclusive recommendations. Three RCTs were identified comparing neoadjuvant chemo (± radio) therapy vs. upfront surgery followed by adjuvant therapy in all cases. Data were pooled targeting DFS as primary endpoint, whereas overall survival (OS), postoperative morbidity, and mortality were investigated as secondary endpoints. Survival endpoints DFS and OS were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression with study-specific baseline hazards. A total of 130 patients were randomized (56 in the neoadjuvant and 74 in the control group). DFS was significantly longer in the neoadjuvant treatment group compared to surgery only [hazard ratio (HR) 0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.9] (P = 0.01). Furthermore, DFS for the subgroup of R0 resections was similarly longer in the neoadjuvant treated group (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.35-0.9, P = 0.045). Although postoperative complications (Comprehensive Complication Index, CCI®) occurred less frequently (P = 0.008), patients after neoadjuvant therapy experienced a higher toxicity, but without negative impact on oncological or surgical outcome parameters. Neoadjuvant therapy can be offered as an acceptable standard of care for patients with purely resectable PDAC. Future research with the advances of precision oncology should now focus on the definition of the optimal regimen.