Clinical Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Chemoradiotherapy in Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Analysis of 884 Patients at Facilities Specializing in Pancreatic Surgery
- 131 Downloads
The efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), including neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (NACRT), for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) has not been elucidated. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy of NAC and NACRT for patients with BRPC.
The study analyzed the treatment outcomes of 884 patients treated for BRPC from 2011 to 2013. Treatment results were compared between upfront surgery and NAT and between NAC and NACRT using propensity score-matching analysis. Overall survival (OS) was calculated via intention-to-treat analyses.
The overall resection rates for the patients who underwent NAT were significantly lower than for the patients who underwent upfront surgery (75.1% vs 93.3%; p < 0.001). However, the R0 resection rate was significantly higher for NAT than for upfront surgery (p < 0.001). Additionally, the OS for the patients who received NAT was significantly longer than for those who underwent upfront surgery (median survival time [MST], 25.7 vs 19.0 months; p = 0.015). The lymph node rate for the patients with NACRT was significantly lower than for those who underwent NAC (p < 0.001). However, the resection rate for the NACRT cases was significantly lower than for the NAC cases (p = 0.041). The local recurrence rate for the NACRT cases was significantly lower than for the NAC cases (p = 0.002). However, OS did not differ significantly between NAC and NACRT (MST, 29.2 vs 22.5 months; p = 0.130).
The study showed that NAT has potential benefit for patients with BRPC. Compared with NAC, NACRT decreased the rates for lymph node metastasis and local recurrence but did not improve the prognosis.
We are especially grateful to the 63 leading Japanese institutions that kindly participated in the survey. The study was registered in the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR: UMIN000021799).
This study was supported by the Japanese Society of Pancreatic Surgery and Tokyo Medical University
There are no conflicts of interest.
This study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. This study was also approved by the relevant institutional review boards.
- 1.National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Practice guidelines in oncology for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, version 2. 2017.Google Scholar
- 7.Mellon EA, Strom TJ, Hoffe SE, et al. Favorable perioperative outcomes after resection of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer treated with neoadjuvant stereotactic radiation and chemotherapy compared with upfront pancreatectomy for resectable cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2016;7:547–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Landry JC, Yang GY, Ting JY, Staley CA, Torres W, Esiashvili N, Davis LW. Treatment of pancreatic cancer tumors with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using the volume at risk approach (VARA): employing dose-volume histogram (DVH) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) to evaluate small bowel toxicity. Med Dosim. 2002;27:121–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Nagakawa Y, Hosokawa Y, Nakayama H, et al. A phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with intensity-modulated radiotherapy combined with gemcitabine and S-1 for borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer with arterial involvement. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2017;79:951–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Japan Pancreas Society. Classification of pancreatic carcinoma. 4th English Edition. Tokyo, Kanehara Press; 2017.Google Scholar
- 12.Kondo S, Katoh H, Shimizu T, et al. Preoperative embolization of the common hepatic artery in preparation for radical pancreatectomy for pancreas body cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 2000;47:1447–9.Google Scholar