CONTEXT: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is increasingly used in borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer to facilitate surgical resection. OBJECTIVE: To compare progression free survival and overall survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX with those receiving gemcitabine/abraxane. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: University of Colorado Hospital from 2012-2016. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. INTERVENTIONS: Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/abraxane. OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative outcomes, progression free survival, and overall survival were compared between groups. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was applied to evaluate survival outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 120 patients: 83 (69.2%) FOLFIRINOX and 37 (30.8%) gemcitabine/abraxane. The FOLIFRINOX group was younger and had a lower ECOG performance status (p<0.05). Patients in the FOLFIRINOX group were more likely to undergo surgical resection compared to gemcitabine/abraxane (66.3% vs. 32.4%, p=0.002). Among all patients, median follow up was 16.9 months and FOLFIRINOX was associated with improved PFS (15.3 vs. 8.2 months, p=0.006), but not overall survival (23.5 vs. 18.7 months, p=0.228). In these patients, insulin-dependent diabetes was associated with a worse progression free survival and overall survival and surgical resection was protective. Among surgically resected patients, median follow up was 21.1 months and there was no difference in progression free survival (19.5 vs. 15.1 months) or overall survival (27.4 vs. 19.8 months) between the FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine/abraxane groups, respectively (p>0.05). Insulin-dependent diabetes and a poor-to-moderate pathologic response was associated with worse progression free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX may improve progression free survival by increasing the proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection. Improved understanding of the role for selection bias and longer follow up are needed to better define the impact of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX on overall survival.
CONTEXT: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is increasingly used in borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer to facilitate surgical resection. OBJECTIVE: To compare progression free survival and overall survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX with those receiving gemcitabine/abraxane. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: University of Colorado Hospital from 2012-2016. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. INTERVENTIONS: Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/abraxane. OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative outcomes, progression free survival, and overall survival were compared between groups. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was applied to evaluate survival outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 120 patients: 83 (69.2%) FOLFIRINOX and 37 (30.8%) gemcitabine/abraxane. The FOLIFRINOX group was younger and had a lower ECOG performance status (p<0.05). Patients in the FOLFIRINOX group were more likely to undergo surgical resection compared to gemcitabine/abraxane (66.3% vs. 32.4%, p=0.002). Among all patients, median follow up was 16.9 months and FOLFIRINOX was associated with improved PFS (15.3 vs. 8.2 months, p=0.006), but not overall survival (23.5 vs. 18.7 months, p=0.228). In these patients, insulin-dependent diabetes was associated with a worse progression free survival and overall survival and surgical resection was protective. Among surgically resected patients, median follow up was 21.1 months and there was no difference in progression free survival (19.5 vs. 15.1 months) or overall survival (27.4 vs. 19.8 months) between the FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine/abraxane groups, respectively (p>0.05). Insulin-dependent diabetes and a poor-to-moderate pathologic response was associated with worse progression free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX may improve progression free survival by increasing the proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection. Improved understanding of the role for selection bias and longer follow up are needed to better define the impact of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX on overall survival.
Authors: Jason E Faris; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Shaunagh McDermott; Alexander R Guimaraes; Jackie Szymonifka; Mai Anh Huynh; Cristina R Ferrone; Jennifer A Wargo; Jill N Allen; Lauren E Dias; Eunice L Kwak; Keith D Lillemoe; Sarah P Thayer; Janet E Murphy; Andrew X Zhu; Dushyant V Sahani; Jennifer Y Wo; Jeffrey W Clark; Carlos Fernandez-del Castillo; David P Ryan; Theodore S Hong Journal: Oncologist Date: 2013-05-08
Authors: Thierry Conroy; Françoise Desseigne; Marc Ychou; Olivier Bouché; Rosine Guimbaud; Yves Bécouarn; Antoine Adenis; Jean-Luc Raoul; Sophie Gourgou-Bourgade; Christelle de la Fouchardière; Jaafar Bennouna; Jean-Baptiste Bachet; Faiza Khemissa-Akouz; Denis Péré-Vergé; Catherine Delbaldo; Eric Assenat; Bruno Chauffert; Pierre Michel; Christine Montoto-Grillot; Michel Ducreux Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Parvin F Peddi; Sam Lubner; Robert McWilliams; Benjamin R Tan; Joel Picus; Steven M Sorscher; Rama Suresh; A Craig Lockhart; Jian Wang; Christine Menias; Feng Gao; David Linehan; Andrea Wang-Gillam Journal: JOP Date: 2012-09-10
Authors: Michael D Chuong; Jessica M Frakes; Nicholas Figura; Sarah E Hoffe; Ravi Shridhar; Eric A Mellon; Pamela J Hodul; Mokenge P Malafa; Gregory M Springett; Barbara A Centeno Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2016-04
Authors: Michael D Chuong; Gregory M Springett; Jessica M Freilich; Catherine K Park; Jill M Weber; Eric A Mellon; Pamela J Hodul; Mokenge P Malafa; Kenneth L Meredith; Sarah E Hoffe; Ravi Shridhar Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Walid L Shaib; Andrew Ip; Kenneth Cardona; Olatunji B Alese; Shishir K Maithel; David Kooby; Jerome Landry; Bassel F El-Rayes Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-02-01
Authors: Michelle T Chan; Gareth E Lim; Søs Skovsø; Yu Hsuan Carol Yang; Tobias Albrecht; Emilyn U Alejandro; Corinne A Hoesli; James M Piret; Garth L Warnock; James D Johnson Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Malolan S Rajagopalan; Dwight E Heron; Rodney E Wegner; Herbert J Zeh; Nathan Bahary; Alyssa M Krasinskas; Barry Lembersky; Randall Brand; A James Moser; Annette E Quinn; Steven A Burton Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Caitlin A McIntyre; Noah A Cohen; Debra A Goldman; Mithat Gonen; Eran Sadot; Eileen M O'Reilly; Anna M Varghese; Kenneth H Yu; Vinod P Balachandran; Kevin C Soares; Michael I D'Angelica; Jeffrey A Drebin; T P Kingham; Peter J Allen; Alice C Wei; William R Jarnagin Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2021-10-31 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Teena Dhir; Christopher W Schultz; Aditi Jain; Samantha Z Brown; Alex Haber; Austin Goetz; Chunhua Xi; Gloria H Su; Liang Xu; James Posey; Wei Jiang; Charles J Yeo; Talia Golan; Michael J Pishvaian; Jonathan R Brody Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Cinthya Y Lowder; Teena Dhir; Austin B Goetz; Henry L Thomsett; Joseph Bender; Talar Tatarian; Subha Madhavan; Emanuel F Petricoin; Edik Blais; Harish Lavu; Jordan M Winter; James Posey; Jonathan R Brody; Michael J Pishvaian; Charles J Yeo Journal: Surg Oncol Date: 2020-02-08 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Syed A Ahmad; Mai Duong; Davendra P S Sohal; Namita S Gandhi; Muhammad Shaalan Beg; Andrea Wang-Gillam; James L Wade; Elena Gabriela Chiorean; Katherine A Guthrie; Andrew M Lowy; Philip A Philip; Howard S Hochster Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 13.787
Authors: Adam R Wolfe; Dhivya Prabhakar; Vedat O Yildiz; Jordan M Cloyd; Mary Dillhoff; Laith Abushahin; Dayssy Alexandra Diaz; Eric D Miller; Wei Chen; Wendy L Frankel; Anne Noonan; Terence M Williams Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-05-16 Impact factor: 4.452