Neoadjuvant Treatment in Patients With Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer.
ABSTRACT: Approximately 20% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients have (borderline) resectable pancreatic cancer [(B)RPC] at diagnosis. Upfront resection with adjuvant chemotherapy has long been the standard of care for these patients. However, although surgical quality has improved, still about 50% of patients never receive adjuvant treatment. Therefore, recent developments have focused on a neoadjuvant approach. Directly comparing results from neoadjuvant and adjuvant regimens is challenging due to differences in patient populations that influence outcomes. Neoadjuvant trials include all patients who have (B)RPC on imaging, while adjuvant-only trials include patients who underwent a complete resection and recovered to a good performance status without any evidence of residual disease. Guidelines recommend neoadjuvant treatment for BRPC patients mainly to improve negative resection margin (R0) rates. For resectable PDAC, upfront resection is still considered the standard of care. However, theoretical advantages of neoadjuvant treatment, including the increased R0 resection rate, early delivery of systemic therapy to all patients, directly addressing occult metastatic disease, and improved patient selection for resection, may also apply to these patients. A systematic review by intention-to-treat showed a superior median overall survival (OS) for any neoadjuvant approach (19 months) compared to upfront surgery (15 months) in (B)RPC patients. A neoadjuvant approach was recently supported by three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For resectable PDAC, neoadjuvant treatment was superior in a Japanese RCT of neoadjuvant gemcitabine with S-1 vs. upfront surgery, with adjuvant S-1 in both arms (median OS: 37 vs. 27 months, p = 0.015). A Korean trial of neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy vs. upfront resection in BRPC patients was terminated early due to superiority of the neoadjuvant group (median OS: 21 vs. 12 months, p = 0.028; R0 resection: 52 vs. 26%, p = 0.004). The PREOPANC-1 trial for (B)RPC patients also showed favorable outcome for neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy vs. upfront surgery (median OS: 17 vs. 14 months, p = 0.07; R0 resection: 63 vs. 31%, p < 0.001). FOLFIRINOX is likely a better neoadjuvant regimen, because of superiority compared to gemcitabine in both the metastatic and adjuvant setting. Currently, five RCTs evaluating neoadjuvant modified or fulldose FOLFIRINOX are accruing patients.
Project description:The outcome of pancreatic cancer is poor, with a 9% 5-year survival rate. Current treatment recommendations in the 10%-20% of patients who present with resectable disease support upfront resection followed by adjuvant therapy. Until now, only early complete surgical (R0) resection and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) with either FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) or nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine have been shown to prolong the survival. However, up to 30% of patients do not receive adjuvant therapy because of the development of early recurrence, postoperative complications, comorbidities, and reduced performance status. The aims of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) are to identify rapidly progressing patients to avoid futile surgery, eliminate micrometastases, increase the feasibility of R0 resection, and ensure the completion of multimodal treatment. Neoadjuvant treatments are effective, but there is no consensus on their use in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC) because of its lack of a survival benefit over adjuvant therapy. In this review, we analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the two therapeutic approaches in RPC. We need studies that compare the two approaches and can identify the appropriate sequence of adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant treatment and surgery.
Project description:Studies comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer may report only patients who underwent resection and so survival will be skewed. The aim of this study was to report survival by intention to treat in a comparison of upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant treatment in resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting median overall survival by intention to treat in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer treated with or without neoadjuvant treatment. Secondary outcomes included overall and R0 resection rate, pathological lymph node rate, reasons for unresectability and toxicity of neoadjuvant treatment.In total, 38 studies were included with 3484 patients, of whom 1738 (49·9 per cent) had neoadjuvant treatment. The weighted median overall survival by intention to treat was 18·8?months for neoadjuvant treatment and 14·8?months for upfront surgery; the difference was larger among patients whose tumours were resected (26·1 versus 15·0?months respectively). The overall resection rate was lower with neoadjuvant treatment than with upfront surgery (66·0 versus 81·3 per cent; P?<?0·001), but the R0 rate was higher (86·8 (95 per cent c.i. 84·6 to 88·7) versus 66·9 (64·2 to 69·6) per cent; P?<?0·001). Reported by intention to treat, the R0 rates were 58·0 and 54·9 per cent respectively (P?=?0·088). The pathological lymph node rate was 43·8 per cent after neoadjuvant therapy and 64·8 per cent in the upfront surgery group (P?<?0·001). Toxicity of at least grade III was reported in up to 64 per cent of the patients.Neoadjuvant treatment appears to improve overall survival by intention to treat, despite lower overall resection rates for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016049374.
Project description:Background: Non-randomized studies have investigated multi-agent gemcitabine-based neo-adjuvant therapies (GEM-NAT) in borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR-PDAC). Treatment sequencing and specific elements of neoadjuvant treatment are still under investigation. The present meta-analysis aims to assess the effectiveness of GEM-NAT on overall survival (OS) in BR-PDAC. Patients and Methods: A meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) on GEM-NAT for BR-PDAC were performed. The primary outcome was OS after treatment with GEM-based chemotherapy. In the Individual Patient Data analysis data were reappraised and confirmed as BR-PDAC on provided radiological data. Results: Six studies investigating GEM-NAT were included in the IPD metanalysis. The IPD metanalysis was conducted on 271 patients who received GEM-NAT. Pooled median patient-level OS was 22.2 months (95%CI 19.1-25.2). R0 rates ranged between 81 and 95% (I 2 = 0%, p = 0.64), respectively. Median OS was 27.8 months (95%CI 23.9-31.6) in the patients who received NAT-GEM followed by resection compared to 15.4 months (95%CI 12.3-18.4) for NAT-GEM without resection and 13.0 months (95%CI 7.4-18.5) in the group of patients who received upfront surgery (p < 0.0001). R0 rates ranged between 81 and 95% (I 2 = 0%, p = 0.64), respectively. Overall survival in the R0 group was 29.3 months (95% CI 24.3-34.2) vs. 16.2 months (95% CI 7·9-24.5) in the R1 group (p = 0·001). Conclusions: The present study is the first meta-analysis combining IPD from a number of international centers with BR-PDAC in a cohort that underwent multi-agent gemcitabine neoadjuvant therapy (GEM-NAT) before surgery. GEM-NAT followed by surgical resection improve survival and R0 resection in BR-PDAC. Also, GEM-NAT may result in a good palliative option in non-resected patients because of progressive disease after neoadjuvant treatment. Results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are awaited to validate these findings.
Project description:Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-associated mortality in Western countries. Upfront resection with adjuvant chemotherapy is the treatment of choice in resectable tumors, offering the chance for cure. Until the 1990s, adjuvant therapy was not routinely used after resection for pancreatic cancer. During the last three decades however, enormous progress has been made in evidence-based onco-surgical management of resectable pancreatic cancer. Based on the results from multicenter randomized controlled trials, primarily initiated by the European Study Group of Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC), adjuvant chemotherapy has become the gold standard after upfront resection, while adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is not recommended. Combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and capecitabine was shown to significantly prolong median overall survival after resection compared to monotherapy with either gemcitabine or 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid. Recent data from the French-Canadian Uni-Cancer GI PRODIGE 24/CCTG PA.6 trial showed that adjuvant poly-agent chemotherapy with modified FOLFIRINOX achieved median survival times of 54.4 months in selected patients. Despite improved survival times after resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, however, recurrence occurs still in more than 75% of patients within the first 2 years after resection. Further efforts are therefore to be made in early detection tools, the evaluation of neoadjuvant strategies, the development of new drug targets, and stratification strategies to better select patients for the available therapies. This review article summarizes the body of evidence on adjuvant treatment for pancreatic cancer, identifies evidence gaps and provides future perspectives.
Project description:Current treatment recommendations for resectable pancreatic cancer support upfront resection and adjuvant therapy. Randomized controlled trials offering comparison with the emerging neoadjuvant approach are lacking. This review aims to compare both treatment strategies for resectable pancreatic cancer. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database and Cochrane Databases were searched for studies comparing neoadjuvant and surgery-first with adjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic cancer. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method. Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias, ROBINS-I and GRADE tools were used to assess quality and risk of bias of included trials. 9 studies compared neoadjuvant therapy and surgery-first with adjuvant therapy (n?=?22,285). Aggregate rate (AR) of R0 resection for neoadjuvant therapy was 0.8008 (0.3636-0.9144) versus 0.7515 (0.2026-0.8611) odds ratio (O.R.) 1.27 (95% CI 0.60-1.96). 1-year survival AR for neoadjuvant therapy was 0.7969 (0.6061-0.9500) versus 0.7481 (0.4848-0.8500) O.R. 1.38 (95% CI 0.69-2.96). 2-year survival AR for neoadjuvant therapy was 0.5178 (0.3000-0.5970) versus 0.5131 (0.2727-0.5346) O.R. 1.26 (95% CI 0.94-1.74). 5-year AR survival for neoadjuvant therapy was 0.2069 (0.0323-0.3300) versus 0.1783 (0.0606-0.2300) O.R. 1.19 (95% CI 0.65-1.73). In conclusion neoadjuvant therapy may offer benefit over surgery-first and adjuvant therapy. However, further randomized controlled trials are needed.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Even clearly resectable pancreatic cancer still has an unfavorable prognosis. Neoadjuvant or perioperative therapies might improve the prognosis of these patients. Thus, evaluation of perioperative chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic cancer in a prospective, randomized trial is warranted. A substantial improvement in overall survival of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer with FOLFIRINOX and nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine vs standard gemcitabine has been demonstrated in phase III-trials. Indeed nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine has a more favorable toxicity profile compared to the FOLFIRINOX protocol and appears applicable in a perioperative setting. METHODS:NEONAX is an interventional, prospective, randomized, controlled, open label, two sided phase II study with an unconnected analysis of the results in both experimental arms against a fixed survival probability (38% at 18?months with adjuvant gemcitabine), NCT02047513. NEONAX will enroll 166 patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (? cT3, N0 or N1, cM0) in two arms: Arm A (perioperative arm): 2?cycles nab-paclitaxel (125?mg/m2)/gemcitabine (1000?mg/m2, d1, 8 and 15 of an 28?day-cycle) followed by tumor surgery followed by 4?cycles nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine, Arm B (adjuvant arm): tumor surgery followed by 6?cycles nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine. The randomization (1:1) is eminent to avoid allocation bias between the groups. Randomization is stratified for tumor stage (ct1/2 vs. cT3) and lymph node status (cN0 vs. cN1). Primary objective is disease free survival (DFS) at 18?months after randomization. Key secondary objectives are 3-year overall survival (OS) rate and DFS rate, progression during neoadjuvant therapy, R0 and R1 resection rate, quality of life and correlation of DFS, OS and tumor regression with pharmacogenomic markers, tumor biomarkers and molecular analyses (ctDNA, transcriptome, miRNA-arrays). In addition, circulating tumor-DNA will be analyzed in patients with the best and the worst responses to the neoadjuvant treatment. The study was initiated in March 2015 in 26 centers for pancreatic surgery in Germany. DISCUSSION:The NEONAX trial is an innovative study on resectable pancreatic cancer and currently one of the largest trials in this field of research. It addresses the question of the role of intensified perioperative treatment with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in resectable pancreatic cancers to improve disease-free survival and offers a unique potential for translational research. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02047513, 08/13/2014.
Project description:The purpose of this study was to evaluate preoperative treatment with full-dose gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, and radiation therapy (RT) in patients with localized pancreatic cancer.Eligibility included confirmation of adenocarcinoma, resectable or borderline resectable disease, a performance status ?2, and adequate organ function. Treatment consisted of two 28-day cycles of gemcitabine (1 g/m(2) over 30 minutes on days 1, 8, and 15) and oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15) with RT during cycle 1 (30 Gray [Gy] in 2-Gy fractions). Patients were evaluated for surgery after cycle 2. Patients who underwent resection received 2 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy.Sixty-eight evaluable patients received treatment at 4 centers. By central radiology review, 23 patients had resectable disease, 39 patients had borderline resectable disease, and 6 patients had unresectable disease. Sixty-six patients (97%) completed cycle 1 with RT, and 61 patients (90%) completed cycle 2. Grade ?3 adverse events during preoperative therapy included neutropenia (32%), thrombocytopenia (25%), and biliary obstruction/cholangitis (14%). Forty-three patients underwent resection (63%), and complete (R0) resection was achieved in 36 of those 43 patients (84%). The median overall survival was 18.2 months (95% confidence interval, 13-26.9 months) for all patients, 27.1 months (95% confidence interval, 21.2-47.1 months) for those who underwent resection, and 10.9 months (95% confidence interval, 6.1-12.6 months) for those who did not undergo resection. A decrease in CA 19-9 level after neoadjuvant therapy was associated with R0 resection (P = .02), which resulted in a median survival of 34.6 months (95% confidence interval, 20.3-47.1 months). Fourteen patients (21%) are alive and disease free at a median follow-up of 31.4 months (range, 24-47.6 months).Preoperative therapy with full-dose gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, and RT was feasible and resulted in a high percentage of R0 resections. The current results are particularly encouraging, because the majority of patients had borderline resectable disease.
Project description:BACKGROUND:At time of diagnosis, less than 10% of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PDAC) are considered to be immediately operable (i.e. resectable). Considering their poor overall survival (OS), only tumours without vascular invasion (NCCN 2017) should be considered for resection, i.e. those for which resection with disease-free margins (R0) is theoretically possible in absence of presurgery treatment. With regard to high R1 rates and undetectable locoregional and/or metastatic spreading prior to surgery explain (at least in part) the observed 1-year relapse and mortality rates of 50 and 25%, respectively. Today, upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is the reference treatment in Europe. The main limitation of the adjuvant approach is the low rate of completion of the full therapeutic sequence. Indeed, only 47 to 60% patients received any adjuvant therapy after resection compared to more than 75% for neoadjuvant therapy. No previous prospective study has compared this approach to a neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or FOLFOX chemotherapy for resectable PDAC. METHODS:PANACHE01-PRODIGE48 is a prospective multicentre controlled randomized non comparative Phase II trial, evaluating the safety and efficacy of two regimens of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (4 cycles of mFOLFIRINOX or FOLFOX) relative to the current reference treatment (surgery and then adjuvant chemotherapy) in patients with resectable PDAC. The main co-primary endpoints are OS rate at 12 months and the rate of patients undergoing the full therapeutic sequence. DISCUSSION:The "ideal" cancer treatment for resectable PDAC would have the following characteristics: administration to the highest possible proportion of patients, ability to identify fast-progressing patients (i.e. poor candidates for surgery), a low rate of R1 resections (through optimisation of local disease control), and an acceptable toxicity profile. The neoadjuvant approach may meet all these criteria. With respect to published data on the efficacy of FOLFOX and mFOLFIRINOX, these two regimens are potential candidates for neoadjuvant use in the aim to optimising oncological outcomes in resectable PDAC. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02959879 . Trial registration date: November 9, 2016.
Project description:Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) is a potentially resectable disease but is associated with poorer survival compared to primary resectable disease. There has been no prospective trial that compare the efficacy of FOLFIRNOX and gemcitabine-based regimen for BRPC. Between February 2013 and December 2014, 18 patients with BRPC receiving FOLFIRINOX were reviewed retrospectively. For comparative analysis, data for all BRPC patients (n=18) in our previous phase 2 study of neoadjuvant fixed-dose rate-gemcitabine plus capecitabine were pooled. Patients received a median 6 cycles (range, 3-13) of FOLFIRINOX. Surgical resection was performed in 12 patients (67%) and R0 resection in 9 patients. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 16.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.4-24.2) and 21.2 (95% CI, 14.2-28.2) months, respectively. Patients who underwent surgical resection showed significantly better PFS (p=0.01) and OS (p=0.003) than those unresected. In the exploratory analysis, patients receiving FOLFIRINOX showed significantly longer PFS compared to those receiving fixed-dose rate-gemcitabine plus capecitabine (median 16.8 months [95% CI, 9.4-24.2] vs. 6.5 months [1.6-11.3]; p = 0.04). There was a trend toward improved OS in patients who received FOLFIRINOX (median 21.2 months [95% CI, 14.2-28.2]) compared to those who received fixed-dose rate-gemcitabine plus capecitabine (13.6 months [11.8-15.4]; p=0.12). FOLFIRINOX was feasible and effective as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with BRPC and may have improved efficacy compared to a gemcitabine-based regimen.
Project description:Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is currently ranked fourth place of cancer related mortality. Only a minority of 10-20% of patients with PDAC have a primarily resectable disease, while 50-60% of the patients are diagnosed with irresectable disease. A certain group of patients is defined as "borderline resectable", which is mainly relied to contact of the tumor to major abdominal vessels. For preoperative evaluation of resectability CT and MRI is commonly used. Although CT-scanning, which is the standard preoperative imaging modality, has striking limitations concerning evaluation of lymph node status as well as vessel involvement and approximately 20% of the patients are staged incorrectly. A central part of modern therapy of locally advanced or not primarily resectable PDAC is neoadjuvant therapy. Especially neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to the FOLFIRINOX protocol resulted in high resection rates of initially not resectable patients. Furthermore, treatment with FOLFIRINOX was shown to be an independent predictor of improved prognosis and resection after neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX was associated with improved survival. Neoadjuvant treatment was able to increases the rates of R0 resection, which depicts an independent prognostic factor and FOLFIRINOX outmatched other treatment regimes (e.g., gemcitabine-based radio-chemotherapy) concerning achievement of a R0 resection. While most evidence of neoadjuvant treatment of PDAC is conferred by retrospective analysis, there is growing data from randomized controlled trials, confirming the beneficial effects of neoadjuvant therapy on the prognosis of PDAC. Thus, patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced PDAC should be evaluated for neoadjuvant treatment. If there is no progression of the disease during neoadjuvant treatment exploration with the goal of R0 resection should be performed. If possible, patients should be included in well-designed randomized controlled trials at specialized pancreatic centers.