Neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer.
ABSTRACT Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Surgical resection offers the only hope of cure, though the addition of chemoradiation in the adjuvant setting has been shown to improve survival over surgery alone. Many patients are unable to receive adjuvant therapy due to prolonged postoperative recovery. For this reason, administration of chemoradiation preoperatively (neoadjuvant) has been proposed as an alternative to postoperative treatment. In patients with resectable disease, neoadjuvant therapy results in similar survivals compared to postoperative therapy, with a greater proportion of patients able to complete treatment. For selected patients with borderline or unresectable disease, neoadjuvant therapy offers the potential for tumor downstaging and increasing the likelihood of a margin-negative resection. This article reviews the use of neoadjuvant therapy in the treatment of pancreatic cancer.
- SourceAvailable from: ucla.edu[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Neoadjuvant treatment has proven beneficial for many gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies, but no phase III trials have been completed examining this approach in pancreatic cancer. This meta-analysis examines the best available phase II trials using neoadjuvant treatment for resectable and borderline/unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Phase II trials were identified using a MEDLINE search, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1960 to July 2010. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Patients with initially resectable tumors (group A), and patients with borderline/unresectable tumors (group B). Primary outcome measures were rate of resection and survival. Pooled proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models based on the heterogeneity of included studies. A total of 14 phase II clinical trials including 536 patients were analyzed. After treatment, resectability was 65.8% (95% CI, 55.4-75.6%) compared with 31.6% in group B (95% CI, 14.0-52.5%). A partial response was observed in patients with borderline/unresectable tumors; 31.8 (95% CI, 24.2-39.8%) in group B and 9.5% (95% CI, 2.9-19.4%) in group A (P = .003). Progressive disease was seen in 17.0% (95% CI, 11.9-22.7) of patients in group A versus 21.8% (95% CI, 10.1-36.5%) in group B (P = .006). Median survival in resected patients was 23 months for group A and 22 months for group B. Neoadjuvant treatment seems to have some activity in patients with borderline/unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Nearly one third of tumors initially deemed marginal for operative intervention were able to be ultimately resected after treatment. Until more effective targeted chemotherapeutics are developed, the only group of patients with pancreatic cancer that may benefit from neoadjuvant treatment are those with locally advanced disease.Surgery 09/2011; 150(3):466-73. · 3.37 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a safe and accurate technique for diagnosing pancreatic cancer. However, its impact for management of these patients is poorly investigated. To investigate the diagnostic yield and the therapeutic impact of EUS-FNA in the management of solid pancreatic masses. One hundred consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for a solid pancreatic mass were included. Aspirates were placed onto glass slides for cytological examination and microbiopsies were fixed in formaldehyde for histology. The impact on clinical management was analysed retrospectively according to different endpoints, such as its impact on indications for chemotherapy, surgery or appropriate follow-up modality. Eight procedures were considered failures and two patients were lost to follow-up. A final diagnosis was obtained in 90 patients. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of combined cytology and histology for the diagnosis of malignant or potentially-malignant tumours were 78%, 75%, and 78% respectively. The sensitivity and accuracy of cytology alone were significantly higher than those of histology alone (P = 0.0003). By intention-to-diagnose analysis, EUS-FNA directly influenced the management strategy in 62 of 100 patients. In patients with pancreatic mass and suspected malignancy, EUS-FNA provides an accurate diagnosis in approximately 80% of cases. EUS-FNA directly influences the management in two-thirds of patients.Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 10/2009; 30(10):1070-7. · 4.55 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer are at high risk of having positive surgical margins due to involvement of the tumor with adjacent vasculature. This article reviews the management of this subset of pancreatic cancer patients. The authors review the current definitions of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer and how it is diagnosed and staged. The history, current approaches, and future directions in neoadjuvant therapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer are also reviewed with emphasis on various chemotherapy regimens that have been used. The application of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and image-guided radiation therapy that accounts for respiratory motion to targeting the gross tumor volume in the pancreas are discussed, and the promise of integrating targeted therapies in neoadjuvant treatment programs is highlighted. The use of neoadjuvant treatment programs that employ gemcitabine-based chemotherapy regimens followed by chemoradiation increases the likelihood of subsequent margin-negative resection in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. There has been progress in the imaging, staging, surgical technique, and the use of chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy in the management of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Patients can benefit from multidisciplinary management at high-volume pancreatic cancer treatment centers.Cancer control: journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center 11/2008; 15(4):295-307. · 3.59 Impact Factor