Caroline J Rieser1, Mazen Zenati2, Sowmya Narayanan1, Nathan Bahary3, Kenneth K Lee1, Alessandro Paniccia1, David L Bartlett4, Amer H Zureikat5. 1. Division of GI Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Pancreatic Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 2. Department of Surgery and Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 4. AHN Cancer Institute, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. Division of GI Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Pancreatic Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. zureikatah@upmc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is a growing strategy for patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Elderly patients are at increased risk of treatment withdrawal due to functional decline, and the benefit of NAT in this cohort remains to be studied. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of elderly patients with resectable head PDAC who underwent NAT or a surgery-first (SF) approach. METHODS: All patients 75 years of age and older with radiographically resectable (National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria) PDAC who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy at a single institution from 2008 to 2017 were analyzed. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were compared between the SF and NAT cohorts. Recurrence-free survival and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by treatment strategy. RESULTS: Overall, 158 patients were identified: SF cohort = 90 (57%) and NAT cohort = 68 (43%). Patients in the SF cohort were older (80 vs. 78 years; p = 0.01) but there were no differences in preoperative comorbidities or frailty indices. SF patients had a trend toward higher rates of major complications (38% vs. 24%; p = 0.06) with higher Comprehensive Complication Index totals (20.9 vs. 20; p = 0.03). There were similar rates of adjuvant therapy. NAT was associated with significantly longer OS (24.6 vs. 17.6 months; p = 0.01) in both the intent-to-treat and resected cohorts. On multivariable analysis (MVA), NAT remained an independent predictor of OS (hazard ratio 0.60; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: NAT is safe and effective for elderly patients with PDAC. This study suggests NAT is associated with fewer complications after surgery, equal rates of adjuvant therapy receipt, and increased OS over a surgery-first approach.
INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is a growing strategy for patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Elderly patients are at increased risk of treatment withdrawal due to functional decline, and the benefit of NAT in this cohort remains to be studied. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of elderly patients with resectable head PDAC who underwent NAT or a surgery-first (SF) approach. METHODS: All patients 75 years of age and older with radiographically resectable (National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria) PDAC who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy at a single institution from 2008 to 2017 were analyzed. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were compared between the SF and NAT cohorts. Recurrence-free survival and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by treatment strategy. RESULTS: Overall, 158 patients were identified: SF cohort = 90 (57%) and NAT cohort = 68 (43%). Patients in the SF cohort were older (80 vs. 78 years; p = 0.01) but there were no differences in preoperative comorbidities or frailty indices. SF patients had a trend toward higher rates of major complications (38% vs. 24%; p = 0.06) with higher Comprehensive Complication Index totals (20.9 vs. 20; p = 0.03). There were similar rates of adjuvant therapy. NAT was associated with significantly longer OS (24.6 vs. 17.6 months; p = 0.01) in both the intent-to-treat and resected cohorts. On multivariable analysis (MVA), NAT remained an independent predictor of OS (hazard ratio 0.60; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: NAT is safe and effective for elderly patients with PDAC. This study suggests NAT is associated with fewer complications after surgery, equal rates of adjuvant therapy receipt, and increased OS over a surgery-first approach.
Authors: Abhishek D Parmar; Gabriela M Vargas; Nina P Tamirisa; Kristin M Sheffield; Taylor S Riall Journal: Surgery Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Thierry Conroy; Pascal Hammel; Mohamed Hebbar; Meher Ben Abdelghani; Alice C Wei; Jean-Luc Raoul; Laurence Choné; Eric Francois; Pascal Artru; James J Biagi; Thierry Lecomte; Eric Assenat; Roger Faroux; Marc Ychou; Julien Volet; Alain Sauvanet; Gilles Breysacher; Frédéric Di Fiore; Christine Cripps; Petr Kavan; Patrick Texereau; Karine Bouhier-Leporrier; Faiza Khemissa-Akouz; Jean-Louis Legoux; Béata Juzyna; Sophie Gourgou; Christopher J O'Callaghan; Claire Jouffroy-Zeller; Patrick Rat; David Malka; Florence Castan; Jean-Baptiste Bachet Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-12-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lola Rahib; Benjamin D Smith; Rhonda Aizenberg; Allison B Rosenzweig; Julie M Fleshman; Lynn M Matrisian Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 12.701
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: 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: Vincent P Groot; Georgios Gemenetzis; Alex B Blair; Roberto J Rivero-Soto; Jun Yu; Ammar A Javed; Richard A Burkhart; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; I Quintus Molenaar; John L Cameron; Matthew J Weiss; Christopher L Wolfgang; Jin He Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 13.787
Authors: Maikel J Bakens; Lydia G van der Geest; Magreet van Putten; Hanneke W van Laarhoven; Geert-Jan Creemers; Marc G Besselink; Valery E Lemmens; Ignace H de Hingh Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 4.452