Leila T Tchelebi1, Eric J Lehrer2, Daniel M Trifiletti3, Navesh K Sharma1, Niraj J Gusani4,5, Christopher H Crane6, Nicholas G Zaorsky1,5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. 4. Department of Surgery, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to characterize the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy (CFRT) for the definitive treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The primary outcome measure was efficacy, defined by 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were incidence of any grade 3/4 toxicity and 1-year OS. METHODS: A PICOS/PRISMA/MOOSE selection protocol was used to identify eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were: 1) patients diagnosed with locally advanced N0-1 M0 pancreatic cancer; 2) CFRT 1.8 to 2.0 Gy/fraction with chemotherapy per protocol or SBRT ≥5 Gy/fraction in ≤5 fractions; 3) either no control group or another definitive chemotherapy or radiation therapy arm; 4) at least 1 of the outcome measures reported; and 5) single or multi-arm phase 2/3 prospective study for CFRT and/or phase 1/2 or retrospective study for SBRT. Neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy was prescribed per protocol specifications. Weighted random effects meta-analyses were conducted using the DerSimonian and Laird method to characterize summary effect sizes for each outcome. RESULTS: A total of 470 studies were initially screened; of these, 9 studies assessed SBRT and 11 studies assessed CFRT. For SBRT, the median dose was 30 Gy, and the most common regimen was 30 Gy/5 fractions. For CFRT, doses ranged from 45 to 54 Gy in 1.8- to 2.0-Gy fractions, with the majority of studies delivering 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with concurrent gemcitabine. The random effects estimate for 2-year OS was 26.9% (95% CI, 20.6%-33.6%) for SBRT versus 13.7% (95% CI, 8.9%-19.3%) for CFRT and was statistically significant in favor of SBRT. The random effects estimate for 1-year OS was 53.7% (95% CI, 39.3%-67.9%) for SBRT versus 49.3% (95% CI, 39.3%-59.4%) for CFRT, and was not statistically significant. The random effects estimate for acute grade 3/4 toxicity was 5.6% (95% CI, 0.0%-20.0%) for SBRT versus 37.7% (95% CI, 24.0%-52.5%) for CFRT and was statistically significant in favor of SBRT. The random effects estimate for late grade 3/4 toxicity was 9.0% for SBRT (95% CI, 3.3%-17.1%) versus 10.1% (95% CI, 1.8%-23.8%) for CFRT, which was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that SBRT for LAPC may result in a modest improvement in 2-year OS with decreased rates of acute grade 3/4 toxicity and no change in 1-year-OS or late toxicity. Further study into the use of stereotactic body radiation therapy for these patients is needed.
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to characterize the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy (CFRT) for the definitive treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The primary outcome measure was efficacy, defined by 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were incidence of any grade 3/4 toxicity and 1-year OS. METHODS: A PICOS/PRISMA/MOOSE selection protocol was used to identify eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were: 1) patients diagnosed with locally advanced N0-1 M0 pancreatic cancer; 2) CFRT 1.8 to 2.0 Gy/fraction with chemotherapy per protocol or SBRT ≥5 Gy/fraction in ≤5 fractions; 3) either no control group or another definitive chemotherapy or radiation therapy arm; 4) at least 1 of the outcome measures reported; and 5) single or multi-arm phase 2/3 prospective study for CFRT and/or phase 1/2 or retrospective study for SBRT. Neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy was prescribed per protocol specifications. Weighted random effects meta-analyses were conducted using the DerSimonian and Laird method to characterize summary effect sizes for each outcome. RESULTS: A total of 470 studies were initially screened; of these, 9 studies assessed SBRT and 11 studies assessed CFRT. For SBRT, the median dose was 30 Gy, and the most common regimen was 30 Gy/5 fractions. For CFRT, doses ranged from 45 to 54 Gy in 1.8- to 2.0-Gy fractions, with the majority of studies delivering 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with concurrent gemcitabine. The random effects estimate for 2-year OS was 26.9% (95% CI, 20.6%-33.6%) for SBRT versus 13.7% (95% CI, 8.9%-19.3%) for CFRT and was statistically significant in favor of SBRT. The random effects estimate for 1-year OS was 53.7% (95% CI, 39.3%-67.9%) for SBRT versus 49.3% (95% CI, 39.3%-59.4%) for CFRT, and was not statistically significant. The random effects estimate for acute grade 3/4 toxicity was 5.6% (95% CI, 0.0%-20.0%) for SBRT versus 37.7% (95% CI, 24.0%-52.5%) for CFRT and was statistically significant in favor of SBRT. The random effects estimate for late grade 3/4 toxicity was 9.0% for SBRT (95% CI, 3.3%-17.1%) versus 10.1% (95% CI, 1.8%-23.8%) for CFRT, which was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that SBRT for LAPC may result in a modest improvement in 2-year OS with decreased rates of acute grade 3/4 toxicity and no change in 1-year-OS or late toxicity. Further study into the use of stereotactic body radiation therapy for these patients is needed.
Authors: Quisette P Janssen; Jacob L van Dam; Laura R Prakash; Deesje Doppenberg; Christopher H Crane; Casper H J van Eijck; Susannah G Ellsworth; William R Jarnagin; Eileen M O'Reilly; Alessandro Paniccia; Marsha Reyngold; Marc G Besselink; Matthew H G Katz; Ching-Wei D Tzeng; Amer H Zureikat; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Alice C Wei Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2022-07 Impact factor: 12.693
Authors: Sung Jun Ma; Lucas M Serra; Austin J Bartl; Hye Ri Han; Fatemeh Fekrmandi; Austin J Iovoli; Kavitha M Prezzano; Gregory M Hermann; Han Yu; Anurag K Singh Journal: J Radiother Pract Date: 2021-04-14
Authors: Robert Hawranko; James J Sohn; Keith Neiderer; Ed Bump; Timothy Harris; Emma C Fields; Elisabeth Weiss; William Y Song Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Asmita Chopra; Jacob C Hodges; Adam Olson; Steve Burton; Susannah G Ellsworth; Nathan Bahary; Aatur D Singhi; Brian A Boone; Joal D Beane; David Bartlett; Kenneth K Lee; Melissa E Hogg; Michael T Lotze; Alessandro Paniccia; Herbert Zeh; Amer H Zureikat Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Amelia Barcellini; Viviana Vitolo; Lorenzo Cobianchi; Francesca Valvo; Barbara Vischioni; Maria Bonora; Maria Rosaria Fiore; Alberto Iannalfi; Giulia Riva; Sara Ronchi; Elena Tornari; Ester Orlandi Journal: Pancreatology Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 3.996