Sunhee S Kim1, Eric K Nakakura2, Zhen J Wang3, Grace E Kim4, Carlos U Corvera5, Hobart W Harris5, Kimberly S Kirkwood5, Ryutaro Hirose5, Margaret A Tempero1, Andrew H Ko6. 1. Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 2. Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. eric.nakakura@ucsf.edu. 3. Department of Radiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 4. Department of Pathology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 5. Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 6. Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. andrewko@medicine.ucsf.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No consensus exists regarding the optimal neoadjuvant treatment paradigm for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC), including the respective roles of chemotherapy and radiation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis, including detailed pathologic and radiologic review, of pancreatic cancer patients undergoing FOLFIRINOX, with or without radiation therapy (RT), prior to surgical resection at a high-volume academic center over a 4-year period. RESULTS: Of 26 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 22 (84.6%) received FOLFIRINOX alone without RT (median number of treatment cycles = 9). The majority of patients met formal radiographic criteria for BRPC, with the superior mesenteric vein representing the most common vessel involved. R0 resection rate was 90.9%, with 12 patients (54.5%) requiring vascular reconstruction. Treatment response was classified as moderate or marked in 16 patients (72.7%) according to the College of American Pathologists grading system. Estimated median disease-free and overall survival rates are 22.6 months and not reached (NR), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest series to describe the use of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX, without radiation therapy, in patients with BRPC undergoing surgical resection. Given the high R0 resection rates and favorable clinical outcomes with chemotherapy alone, this strategy should be further assessed in prospective study design. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:587-596.
BACKGROUND: No consensus exists regarding the optimal neoadjuvant treatment paradigm for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC), including the respective roles of chemotherapy and radiation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis, including detailed pathologic and radiologic review, of pancreatic cancerpatients undergoing FOLFIRINOX, with or without radiation therapy (RT), prior to surgical resection at a high-volume academic center over a 4-year period. RESULTS: Of 26 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 22 (84.6%) received FOLFIRINOX alone without RT (median number of treatment cycles = 9). The majority of patients met formal radiographic criteria for BRPC, with the superior mesenteric vein representing the most common vessel involved. R0 resection rate was 90.9%, with 12 patients (54.5%) requiring vascular reconstruction. Treatment response was classified as moderate or marked in 16 patients (72.7%) according to the College of American Pathologists grading system. Estimated median disease-free and overall survival rates are 22.6 months and not reached (NR), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest series to describe the use of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX, without radiation therapy, in patients with BRPC undergoing surgical resection. Given the high R0 resection rates and favorable clinical outcomes with chemotherapy alone, this strategy should be further assessed in prospective study design. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:587-596.
Authors: Quisette P Janssen; Stefan Buettner; Mustafa Suker; Berend R Beumer; Pietro Addeo; Philippe Bachellier; Nathan Bahary; Tanios Bekaii-Saab; Maria A Bali; Marc G Besselink; Brian A Boone; Ian Chau; Stephen Clarke; Mary Dillhoff; Bassel F El-Rayes; Jessica M Frakes; Derek Grose; Peter J Hosein; Nigel B Jamieson; Ammar A Javed; Khurum Khan; Kyu-Pyo Kim; Song Cheol Kim; Sunhee S Kim; Andrew H Ko; Jill Lacy; Georgios A Margonis; Martin D McCarter; Colin J McKay; Eric A Mellon; Sing Yu Moorcraft; Ken-Ichi Okada; Alessandro Paniccia; Parag J Parikh; Niek A Peters; Hans Rabl; Jaswinder Samra; Christoph Tinchon; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Eran van Veldhuisen; Andrea Wang-Gillam; Matthew J Weiss; Johanna W Wilmink; Hiroki Yamaue; Marjolein Y V Homs; Casper H J van Eijck; Matthew H G Katz; Bas Groot Koerkamp Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jordan M Cloyd; Huamin Wang; Michael E Egger; Ching-Wei D Tzeng; Laura R Prakash; Anirban Maitra; Gauri R Varadhachary; Rachna Shroff; Milind Javle; David Fogelman; Robert A Wolff; Michael J Overman; Eugene J Koay; Prajnan Das; Joseph M Herman; Michael P Kim; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Thomas A Aloia; Jason B Fleming; Jeffrey E Lee; Matthew H G Katz Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Douglas S Swords; Samual R Francis; Shane Lloyd; Ignacio Garrido-Laguna; Sean J Mulvihill; Joshua D Gruhl; Miles C Christensen; Gregory J Stoddard; Matthew A Firpo; Courtney L Scaife Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Jin G Choi; Ryan D Nipp; Angela Tramontano; Ayman Ali; Tiannan Zhan; Pari Pandharipande; Emily C Dowling; Cristina R Ferrone; Theodore S Hong; Deborah Schrag; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; David P Ryan; Chung Yin Kong; Chin Hur Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-12-17
Authors: Juan Glinka; Federico Diaz; Augusto Alva; Oscar Mazza; Rodrigo Sanchez Claria; Victoria Ardiles; Eduardo de Santibañes; Juan Pekolj; Martín de Santibañes Journal: Radiat Oncol J Date: 2018-09-30