Elena Rangelova1,2, Agnes Wefer1,2, Saga Persson1,2, Roberto Valente1,2,3, Kimitaka Tanaka1,2,4, Nicola Orsini5, Ralf Segersvärd1,2,6, Urban Arnelo1,2, Marco Del Chiaro1,2,7. 1. Department of Clinical Science, Intervention, and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 4. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery II, Hokkaido University, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido, Japan. 5. Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. Regional Cancer Center, Stockholm-Gotland, Sweden. 7. Department of Surgery, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has become part of the multimodality treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) and locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: It is currently uncertain which are the preferable NAT regimens, who benefits from surgery, and whether more aggressive surgical strategy is motivated. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed for all patients with BRPC/LAPC discussed and planned for NAT at multidisciplinary conference at Karolinska University Hospital from 2010 to 2017. RESULTS: Of 233 patients eligible, 168 (72%) received NAT and were reevaluated for possibility of resection. A total of 156 (67%) patients (mean 64 yrs, 53% male) had pancreatic adenocarcinoma, comprising the study group for survival analysis. LAPC was diagnosed in 132 patients (85%), BRPC in 22 (14%), and resectable tumor in 2 (1.3%). Fifty patients (40.3%) received full-dose NAT. Only 54 (34.6%) had FOLFIRINOX. The overall survival among resected patients was similar for BRPC and LAPC (median survival 15.0 vs 14.5 mo, P = 0.4; and 31.9 vs 21.8 mo, P = 0.7, respectively). Resected patients had better survival than nonresected, irrespective of the type or whether full-dose NAT was given (median survival 22.4 vs 12.7 mo; 1-, 3-, and 5-yr survival: 86.4%, 38.9%, 26.9% vs 52.2%, 1.5%, 0%, respectively (P < 0001). For all preoperative values of Ca 19-9, surgical resection had positive impact on survival. CONCLUSIONS: All patients with BRPC/LAPC who do not progress during NAT should be considered for surgical resection, irrespective of the type or dose of NAT given. Higher levels of Ca 19-9 should not be considered an absolute contraindication for resection.
OBJECTIVE: Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has become part of the multimodality treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) and locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: It is currently uncertain which are the preferable NAT regimens, who benefits from surgery, and whether more aggressive surgical strategy is motivated. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed for all patients with BRPC/LAPC discussed and planned for NAT at multidisciplinary conference at Karolinska University Hospital from 2010 to 2017. RESULTS: Of 233 patients eligible, 168 (72%) received NAT and were reevaluated for possibility of resection. A total of 156 (67%) patients (mean 64 yrs, 53% male) had pancreatic adenocarcinoma, comprising the study group for survival analysis. LAPC was diagnosed in 132 patients (85%), BRPC in 22 (14%), and resectable tumor in 2 (1.3%). Fifty patients (40.3%) received full-dose NAT. Only 54 (34.6%) had FOLFIRINOX. The overall survival among resected patients was similar for BRPC and LAPC (median survival 15.0 vs 14.5 mo, P = 0.4; and 31.9 vs 21.8 mo, P = 0.7, respectively). Resected patients had better survival than nonresected, irrespective of the type or whether full-dose NAT was given (median survival 22.4 vs 12.7 mo; 1-, 3-, and 5-yr survival: 86.4%, 38.9%, 26.9% vs 52.2%, 1.5%, 0%, respectively (P < 0001). For all preoperative values of Ca 19-9, surgical resection had positive impact on survival. CONCLUSIONS: All patients with BRPC/LAPC who do not progress during NAT should be considered for surgical resection, irrespective of the type or dose of NAT given. Higher levels of Ca 19-9 should not be considered an absolute contraindication for resection.
Authors: Jaewoo Park; Hae Young Kim; Hee Young Na; Jun Suh Lee; Jong-Chan Lee; Jin Won Kim; Yoo-Seok Yoon; Jin-Hyeok Hwang; Ho-Seong Han; Jaihwan Kim Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Hae Young Kim; Yoon Jin Lee; Won Chang; Jungheum Cho; Ji Hoon Park; Jong-Chan Lee; Jaihwan Kim; Jin-Hyeok Hwang; Young Hoon Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-01-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Georgios Gemenetzis; Alex B Blair; Minako Nagai; William R Burns; Christopher L Wolfgang; Jin He; Vincent P Groot; Ding Ding; Ammar A Javed; Richard A Burkhart; Elliot K Fishman; Ralph H Hruban; Matthew J Weiss; John L Cameron; Amol Narang; Daniel Laheru; Kelly Lafaro; Joseph M Herman; Lei Zheng Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Thomas F Stoop; Eran van Veldhuisen; L Bengt van Rijssen; Remy Klaassen; Oliver J Gurney-Champion; Ignace H de Hingh; Olivier R Busch; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Krijn P van Lienden; Jaap Stoker; Johanna W Wilmink; C Yung Nio; Aart J Nederveen; Marc R W Engelbrecht; Marc G Besselink Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2022-10-15 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Mustafa Suker; Joost J Nuyttens; Ferry A L M Eskens; Brigitte C M Haberkorn; Peter-Paul L O Coene; Erwin van der Harst; Bert A Bonsing; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; J Sven D Mieog; Rutger Jan Swijnenburg; Daphne Roos; B Groot Koerkamp; Casper H J van Eijck Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2019-11-19