INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is an emerging strategy for operable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). While NAT increases multimodal therapy completion, it risks functional decline and treatment dropout. We used decision analysis to determine optimal management of localized PDAC and consider risks faced by elderly patients. METHODS: A Markov cohort decision analysis model evaluated treatment options for a 60-year-old patient with resectable PDAC: (1) upfront pancreaticoduodenectomy or (2) NAT. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. A subanalysis considered the scenario of a 75-year-old patient. RESULTS: For the base case, NAT offered an incremental survival gain of 4.6 months compared with SF (overall survival: 26.3 vs. 21.7 months). In one-way sensitivity analyses, findings were sensitive to recurrence-free survival for NAT patients undergoing adjuvant, probability of completing NAT, and probability of being resectable at exploration after NAT. On probabilistic analysis, NAT was favored in a majority of trials (97%) with a median survival benefit of 5.1 months. In altering the base case for the 75-year-old scenario, NAT had a survival benefit of 3.8 months. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates a significant benefit to NAT in patients with localized PDAC. This benefit persists even in the elderly cohort.
INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is an emerging strategy for operable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). While NAT increases multimodal therapy completion, it risks functional decline and treatment dropout. We used decision analysis to determine optimal management of localized PDAC and consider risks faced by elderly patients. METHODS: A Markov cohort decision analysis model evaluated treatment options for a 60-year-old patient with resectable PDAC: (1) upfront pancreaticoduodenectomy or (2) NAT. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. A subanalysis considered the scenario of a 75-year-old patient. RESULTS: For the base case, NAT offered an incremental survival gain of 4.6 months compared with SF (overall survival: 26.3 vs. 21.7 months). In one-way sensitivity analyses, findings were sensitive to recurrence-free survival for NAT patients undergoing adjuvant, probability of completing NAT, and probability of being resectable at exploration after NAT. On probabilistic analysis, NAT was favored in a majority of trials (97%) with a median survival benefit of 5.1 months. In altering the base case for the 75-year-old scenario, NAT had a survival benefit of 3.8 months. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates a significant benefit to NAT in patients with localized PDAC. This benefit persists even in the elderly cohort.
Authors: Ammar Hashmi; Zachary Kozick; Marcus Fluck; Marie A Hunsinger; Jeffrey Wild; Tania K Arora; Mohsen M Shabahang; Joseph A Blansfield Journal: Am Surg Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 0.688
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: Ching-Wei D Tzeng; Jason B Fleming; Jeffrey E Lee; Lianchun Xiao; Peter W T Pisters; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Eddie K Abdalla; Robert A Wolff; Gauri R Varadhachary; David R Fogelman; Christopher H Crane; Aparna Balachandran; Matthew H G Katz Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; Clifford Y Ko; James S Tomlinson; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Mark S Talamonti Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-09-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: A M Nagrial; D K Chang; N Q Nguyen; A L Johns; L A Chantrill; J L Humphris; V T Chin; J S Samra; A J Gill; M Pajic; M Pinese; E K Colvin; C J Scarlett; A Chou; J G Kench; R L Sutherland; L G Horvath; A V Biankin Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 7.640