PURPOSE: Although established in the postresection setting, the prognostic value of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) in unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) is less clear. We examined the prognostic utility of CA19-9 in patients with unresectable LAPC treated on a prospective trial of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose escalation with concurrent gemcitabine. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-six patients with unresectable LAPC were treated at the University of Michigan on a phase 1/2 trial of IMRT dose escalation with concurrent gemcitabine. CA19-9 was obtained at baseline and during routine follow-up. Cox models were used to assess the effect of baseline factors on freedom from local progression (FFLP), distant progression (FFDP), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Stepwise forward regression was used to build multivariate predictive models for each endpoint. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were eligible for the present analysis. On univariate analysis, baseline CA19-9 and age predicted OS, CA19-9 at baseline and 3 months predicted PFS, gross tumor volume (GTV) and black race predicted FFLP, and CA19-9 at 3 months predicted FFDP. On stepwise multivariate regression modeling, baseline CA19-9, age, and female sex predicted OS; baseline CA19-9 and female sex predicted both PFS and FFDP; and GTV predicted FFLP. Patients with baseline CA19-9 ≤ 90 U/mL had improved OS (median 23.0 vs 11.1 months, HR 2.88, P<.01) and PFS (14.4 vs 7.0 months, HR 3.61, P=.001). CA19-9 progression over 90 U/mL was prognostic for both OS (HR 3.65, P=.001) and PFS (HR 3.04, P=.001), and it was a stronger predictor of death than either local progression (HR 1.46, P=.42) or distant progression (HR 3.31, P=.004). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with unresectable LAPC undergoing definitive chemoradiation therapy, baseline CA19-9 was independently prognostic even after established prognostic factors were controlled for, whereas CA19-9 progression strongly predicted disease progression and death. Future trials should stratify by baseline CA19-9 and incorporate CA19-9 progression as a criterion for progressive disease.
PURPOSE: Although established in the postresection setting, the prognostic value of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) in unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) is less clear. We examined the prognostic utility of CA19-9 in patients with unresectable LAPC treated on a prospective trial of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose escalation with concurrent gemcitabine. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-six patients with unresectable LAPC were treated at the University of Michigan on a phase 1/2 trial of IMRT dose escalation with concurrent gemcitabine. CA19-9 was obtained at baseline and during routine follow-up. Cox models were used to assess the effect of baseline factors on freedom from local progression (FFLP), distant progression (FFDP), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Stepwise forward regression was used to build multivariate predictive models for each endpoint. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were eligible for the present analysis. On univariate analysis, baseline CA19-9 and age predicted OS, CA19-9 at baseline and 3 months predicted PFS, gross tumor volume (GTV) and black race predicted FFLP, and CA19-9 at 3 months predicted FFDP. On stepwise multivariate regression modeling, baseline CA19-9, age, and female sex predicted OS; baseline CA19-9 and female sex predicted both PFS and FFDP; and GTV predicted FFLP. Patients with baseline CA19-9 ≤ 90 U/mL had improved OS (median 23.0 vs 11.1 months, HR 2.88, P<.01) and PFS (14.4 vs 7.0 months, HR 3.61, P=.001). CA19-9 progression over 90 U/mL was prognostic for both OS (HR 3.65, P=.001) and PFS (HR 3.04, P=.001), and it was a stronger predictor of death than either local progression (HR 1.46, P=.42) or distant progression (HR 3.31, P=.004). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with unresectable LAPC undergoing definitive chemoradiation therapy, baseline CA19-9 was independently prognostic even after established prognostic factors were controlled for, whereas CA19-9 progression strongly predicted disease progression and death. Future trials should stratify by baseline CA19-9 and incorporate CA19-9 progression as a criterion for progressive disease.
Authors: Woong Sub Koom; Jinsil Seong; Yong Bae Kim; Hae Ok Pyun; Si Young Song Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-08-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James D Murphy; Claudia Christman-Skieller; Jeff Kim; Sonja Dieterich; Daniel T Chang; Albert C Koong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-04-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Patrick J Loehrer; Yang Feng; Higinia Cardenes; Lynne Wagner; Joanna M Brell; David Cella; Patrick Flynn; Ramesh K Ramanathan; Christopher H Crane; Steven R Alberts; Al B Benson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Edgar Ben-Josef; Mathew Schipper; Isaac R Francis; Scott Hadley; Randall Ten-Haken; Theodore Lawrence; Daniel Normolle; Diane M Simeone; Christopher Sonnenday; Ross Abrams; William Leslie; Gazala Khan; Mark M Zalupski Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sunil Krishnan; Vishal Rana; Nora A Janjan; James L Abbruzzese; Morris S Gould; Prajnan Das; Marc E Delclos; Shana Palla; Sushovan Guha; Gauri Varadhachary; Douglas B Evans; Robert A Wolff; Christopher H Crane Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue; Baojin Fu; Shinichi Yachida; Mingde Luo; Hisashi Abe; Clark M Henderson; Felip Vilardell; Zheng Wang; Jesse W Keller; Priya Banerjee; Joseph M Herman; John L Cameron; Charles J Yeo; Marc K Halushka; James R Eshleman; Marian Raben; Alison P Klein; Ralph H Hruban; Manuel Hidalgo; Daniel Laheru Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jonathan M Hernandez; Sarah M Cowgill; Sam Al-Saadi; Amy Collins; Sharona B Ross; Jennifer Cooper; Desireé Villadolid; Emmanuel Zervos; Alexander Rosemurgy Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2008-10-30 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Adam C Berger; Miguel Garcia; John P Hoffman; William F Regine; Ross A Abrams; Howard Safran; Andre Konski; Alan B Benson; John MacDonald; Christopher G Willett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-11-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mohamed A Khalil; Wei Qiao; Peter Carlson; Binsah George; Milind Javle; Michael Overman; Gauri Varadhachary; Robert A Wolff; James L Abbruzzese; David R Fogelman Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2013-05-04 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Jae Woo Lee; Yong-Tae Kim; Sang Hyub Lee; Jun Hyuk Son; Jin Woo Kang; Ji Kon Ryu; Dong Kee Jang; Woo Hyun Paik; Ban Seok Lee Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 4.519
Authors: David B Shultz; Jonathan Pai; Wayland Chiu; Kendall Ng; Madeline G Hellendag; Gregory Heestand; Daniel T Chang; Dongsheng Tu; Malcolm J Moore; Wendy R Parulekar; Albert C Koong Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sebastian Zschaeck; Bibiana Blümke; Peter Wust; David Kaul; Marcus Bahra; Hanno Riess; Fritz Klein; Marianne Sinn; Uwe Pelzer; Volker Budach; Pirus Ghadjar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 3.240