Neoadjuvant therapy in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: Outcomes in the era of changing practices and evolving evidence

Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is increasingly being used in the management of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC). We compared the outcomes of patients with BRPC treated either with upfront surgery (UPS) or NAT to assess whether increased use of NAT has helped improve perioperative and long-t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgery 2022-05, Vol.171 (5), p.1388-1395
Hauptverfasser: Chaudhari, Vikram A., Mitra, Abhishek, Gupta, Vikas, Ostwal, Vikas, Ramaswamy, Anant, Engineer, Reena, Sirohi, Bhawna, Shetty, Nitin, Bal, Munita, DeSouza, Ashwin, Bhandare, Manish S., Shrikhande, Shailesh V.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is increasingly being used in the management of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC). We compared the outcomes of patients with BRPC treated either with upfront surgery (UPS) or NAT to assess whether increased use of NAT has helped improve perioperative and long-term outcomes. Prospectively maintained database of 201 consecutive patients with BRPC treated at Tata Memorial Center, India, from 2007–2019 was analyzed. NAT was offered to 148 patients and 53 were planned for UPS. Progression on NAT was seen in 47 (31.8%) patients. Resection was performed in 103 patients (51.24%). The resection rate was significantly lower after NAT as compared with upfront explorations (42.56% vs 75.47%, P = .00) however, R0 resection rate after NAT was significantly better (74.6% vs 42.5%, P = .001). NAT group showed a significant decrease in the pT stage (P = .004), node positivity (60%–31.7%, P = .005%), and perineural invasion (70%–41.6% P = .026). There was no significant difference in the median overall survival (OS) of patients offered NAT versus UPS on an intention-to-treat basis (15 vs 18 months P = .431). However, OS (22 vs 19 months, P = .205) and disease-free survival (DFS) (16 vs 11 months, P = .135) were higher for resected patients in the NAT group and OS was significantly superior in patients completing the course of treatment (34 vs 22 months, P = .010) The progression rate with NAT in patients with BPRC was 31.8%. NAT was associated with significant pathologic downstaging, improvement in R0 resection rate, and survival in resected patients.
ISSN:0039-6060
1532-7361
DOI:10.1016/j.surg.2021.10.018