Hao Liu1, Mazen S Zenati2, Caroline J Rieser1, Amr Al-Abbas1, Kenneth K Lee1, Aatur D Singhi3, Nathan Bahary4, Melissa E Hogg5, Herbert J Zeh6, Amer H Zureikat7. 1. Division of Gastrointestinal Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 2. Department of Surgery and Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 3. Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, NorthShore University Health System, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA. 7. Division of Gastrointestinal Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. zureikatah@upmc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is increasingly utilized for pancreatic cancer, however the added benefit of adjuvant therapy (AT) in this setting is unknown. We hypothesized that the magnitude of CA19-9 response to NAT can guide the need for further AT in resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: CA19-9 secretors who received NAT for pancreatic cancer during 2008-2016 at a single institution were analyzed and CA19-9 response (difference between pre- and post-NAT values) was measured. Kaplan-Meier estimators and Cox proportional hazard ratio models were used to determine the optimal CA19-9 response at which AT ceases to confer any additional survival benefit after NAT. RESULTS: A total of 241 patients (mean age 65.4 years, 50% female) with complete CA19-9 data who underwent NAT followed by resection were analyzed. In a cohort of patients (n = 78) in whom CA19-9 normalized with a decrease > 50% after NAT (optimal responders), AT was not associated with additional survival benefit (40.6 vs. 39.0 months, p = 0.815). Conversely, in the cohort of patients (n = 163) in whom NAT was not associated with normalization and a decrease of ≤ 50% in CA19-9 (suboptimal responders), receipt of AT was associated with a survival benefit (34.5 vs. 19.1 months, p < 0.001) following NAT. A Cox proportional hazards model confirmed CA19-9 normalization and decrease > 50% during NAT to predict no additional survival benefit from AT. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of CA19-9 response to NAT may predict the need for further AT in resected pancreatic cancer. Prospective studies are needed to elucidate the optimal interplay of NAT and AT in pancreatic cancer.
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is increasingly utilized for pancreatic cancer, however the added benefit of adjuvant therapy (AT) in this setting is unknown. We hypothesized that the magnitude of CA19-9 response to NAT can guide the need for further AT in resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: CA19-9 secretors who received NAT for pancreatic cancer during 2008-2016 at a single institution were analyzed and CA19-9 response (difference between pre- and post-NAT values) was measured. Kaplan-Meier estimators and Cox proportional hazard ratio models were used to determine the optimal CA19-9 response at which AT ceases to confer any additional survival benefit after NAT. RESULTS: A total of 241 patients (mean age 65.4 years, 50% female) with complete CA19-9 data who underwent NAT followed by resection were analyzed. In a cohort of patients (n = 78) in whom CA19-9 normalized with a decrease > 50% after NAT (optimal responders), AT was not associated with additional survival benefit (40.6 vs. 39.0 months, p = 0.815). Conversely, in the cohort of patients (n = 163) in whom NAT was not associated with normalization and a decrease of ≤ 50% in CA19-9 (suboptimal responders), receipt of AT was associated with a survival benefit (34.5 vs. 19.1 months, p < 0.001) following NAT. A Cox proportional hazards model confirmed CA19-9 normalization and decrease > 50% during NAT to predict no additional survival benefit from AT. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of CA19-9 response to NAT may predict the need for further AT in resected pancreatic cancer. Prospective studies are needed to elucidate the optimal interplay of NAT and AT in pancreatic cancer.
Authors: Linda M Youngwirth; Daniel P Nussbaum; Samantha Thomas; Mohamed A Adam; Dan G Blazer; Sanziana A Roman; Julie A Sosa Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Susanna W L de Geus; Gyulnara G Kasumova; Mariam F Eskander; Sing Chau Ng; Tara S Kent; A James Moser; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Mark P Callery; Jennifer F Tseng Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: John P Neoptolemos; Daniel H Palmer; Paula Ghaneh; Eftychia E Psarelli; Juan W Valle; Christopher M Halloran; Olusola Faluyi; Derek A O'Reilly; David Cunningham; Jonathan Wadsley; Suzanne Darby; Tim Meyer; Roopinder Gillmore; Alan Anthoney; Pehr Lind; Bengt Glimelius; Stephen Falk; Jakob R Izbicki; Gary William Middleton; Sebastian Cummins; Paul J Ross; Harpreet Wasan; Alec McDonald; Tom Crosby; Yuk Ting Ma; Kinnari Patel; David Sherriff; Rubin Soomal; David Borg; Sharmila Sothi; Pascal Hammel; Thilo Hackert; Richard Jackson; Markus W Büchler Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: John P Neoptolemos; Deborah D Stocken; Claudio Bassi; Paula Ghaneh; David Cunningham; David Goldstein; Robert Padbury; Malcolm J Moore; Steven Gallinger; Christophe Mariette; Moritz N Wente; Jakob R Izbicki; Helmut Friess; Markus M Lerch; Christos Dervenis; Attila Oláh; Giovanni Butturini; Ryuichiro Doi; Pehr A Lind; David Smith; Juan W Valle; Daniel H Palmer; John A Buckels; Joyce Thompson; Colin J McKay; Charlotte L Rawcliffe; Markus W Büchler Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-09-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Knut J Labori; Matthew H Katz; Ching W Tzeng; Bjørn A Bjørnbeth; Milada Cvancarova; Bjørn Edwin; Elin H Kure; Tor J Eide; Svein Dueland; Trond Buanes; Ivar P Gladhaug Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-07-25 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Helmut Oettle; Peter Neuhaus; Andreas Hochhaus; Jörg Thomas Hartmann; Klaus Gellert; Karsten Ridwelski; Marco Niedergethmann; Carl Zülke; Jörg Fahlke; Michael B Arning; Marianne Sinn; Axel Hinke; Hanno Riess Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Douglas B Evans; Gauri R Varadhachary; Christopher H Crane; Charlotte C Sun; Jeffrey E Lee; Peter W T Pisters; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Huamin Wang; Karen R Cleary; Gregg A Staerkel; Chusilp Charnsangavej; Elizabeth A Lano; Linus Ho; Renato Lenzi; James L Abbruzzese; Robert A Wolff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ryan P Merkow; Karl Y Bilimoria; James S Tomlinson; Jennifer L Paruch; Jason B Fleming; Mark S Talamonti; Clifford Y Ko; David J Bentrem Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Samer AlMasri; Mazen Zenati; Abdulrahman Hammad; Ibrahim Nassour; Hao Liu; Melissa E Hogg; Herbert J Zeh; Brian Boone; Nathan Bahary; Aatur D Singhi; Kenneth K Lee; Alessandro Paniccia; Amer H Zureikat Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-06-01
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: Sivesh K Kamarajah; Steven A White; Samer A Naffouje; George I Salti; Fadi Dahdaleh Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 5.344