Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and patient-level meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: FOLFIRINOX is a standard treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients. The effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) remains debated. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and patient-level meta-analysis on neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in patients with BRPC. Studies with BRPC patients who received FOLFIRINOX as first-line neoadjuvant treatment were included. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, resection rate, R0 resection rate, and grade III-IV adverse events. Patient-level survival outcomes were obtained from authors of the included studies and analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: We included 24 studies (8 prospective, 16 retrospective), comprising 313 (38.1%) BRPC patients treated with FOLFIRINOX. Most studies (n = 20) presented intention-to-treat results. The median number of administered neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX cycles ranged from 4 to 9. The resection rate was 67.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 60.1% to 74.6%), and the R0-resection rate was 83.9% (95% CI = 76.8% to 89.1%). The median OS varied from 11.0 to 34.2 months across studies. Patient-level survival data were obtained for 20 studies representing 283 BRPC patients. The patient-level median OS was 22.2 months (95% CI = 18.8 to 25.6 months), and patient-level median progression-free survival was 18.0 months (95% CI = 14.5 to 21.5 months). Pooled event rates for grade III-IV adverse events were highest for neutropenia (17.5 per 100 patients, 95% CI = 10.3% to 28.3%), diarrhea (11.1 per 100 patients, 95% CI = 8.6 to 14.3), and fatigue (10.8 per 100 patients, 95% CI = 8.1 to 14.2). No deaths were attributed to FOLFIRINOX. CONCLUSIONS: This patient-level meta-analysis of BRPC patients treated with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX showed a favorable median OS, resection rate, and R0-resection rate. These results need to be assessed in a randomized trial

Neoadjuvant Treatment in Patients With Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

Approximately 20% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients have (borderline) resectable pancreatic cancer [(B)RPC] at diagnosis. Upfront resection with adjuvant chemotherapy has long been the standard of care for these patients. However, although surgical quality has improved, still about 50% of patients never receive adjuvant treatment. Therefore, recent developments have focused on a neoadjuvant approach. Directly comparing results from neoadjuvant and adjuvant regimens is challenging due to differences in patient populations that influence outcomes. Neoadjuvant trials include all patients who have (B)RPC on imaging, while adjuvant-only trials include patients who underwent a complete resection and recovered to a good performance status without any evidence of residual disease. Guidelines recommend neoadjuvant treatment for BRPC patients mainly to improve negative resection margin (R0) rates. For resectable PDAC, upfront resection is still considered the standard of care. However, theoretical advantages of neoadjuvant treatment, including the increased R0 resection rate, early delivery of systemic therapy to all patients, directly addressing occult metastatic disease, and improved patient selection for resection, may also apply to these patients. A systematic review by intention-to-treat showed a superior median overall survival (OS) for any neoadjuvant approach (19 months) compared to upfront surgery (15 months) in (B)RPC patients. A neoadjuvant approach was recently supported by three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For resectable PDAC, neoadjuvant treatment was superior in a Japanese RCT of neoadjuvant gemcitabine with S-1 vs. upfront surgery, with adjuvant S-1 in both arms (median OS: 37 vs. 27 months, p = 0.015). A Korean trial of neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy vs. upfront resection in BRPC patients was terminated early due to superiority of the neoadjuvant group (median OS: 21 vs. 12 months, p = 0.028; R0 resection: 52 vs. 26%, p = 0.004). The PREOPANC-1 trial for (B)RPC patients also showed favorable outcome for neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy vs. upfront surgery (median OS: 17 vs. 14 months, p = 0.07; R0 resection: 63 vs. 31%, p < 0.001). FOLFIRINOX is likely a better neoadjuvant regimen, because of superiority compared to gemcitabine in both the metastatic and adjuvant setting. Currently, five RCTs evaluating neoadjuvant modified or fulldose FOLFIRINOX are accruing patients

Real-world evidence of adjuvant gemcitabine plus capecitabine vs gemcitabine monotherapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

The added value of capecitabine to adjuvant gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was shown by the ESPAC-4 trial. Real-world data on the effectiveness of gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEMCAP), in patients ineligible for mFOLFIRINOX, are lacking. Our study assessed whether adjuvant GEMCAP is superior to GEM in a nationwide cohort. Patients treated with adjuvant GEMCAP or GEM after resection of PDAC without preoperative treatment were identified from The Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015-2019). The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), measured from start of chemotherapy. The treatment effect of GEMCAP vs GEM was adjusted for sex, age, performance status, tumor size, lymph node involvement, resection margin and tumor differentiation in a multivariable Cox regression analysis. Secondary outcome was the percentage of patients who completed the planned six adjuvant treatment cycles. Overall, 778 patients were included, of whom 21.1% received GEMCAP and 78.9% received GEM. The median OS was 31.4 months (95% CI 26.8-40.7) for GEMCAP and 22.1 months (95% CI 20.6-25.0) for GEM (HR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.90; logrank P =.004). After adjustment for prognostic factors, survival remained superior for patients treated with GEMCAP (HR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.92, logrank P =.009). Survival with GEMCAP was superior to GEM in most subgroups of prognostic factors. Adjuvant chemotherapy was completed in 69.5% of the patients treated with GEMCAP and 62.7% with GEM (P =.11). In this nationwide cohort of patients with PDAC, adjuvant GEMCAP was associated with superior survival as compared to GEM monotherapy and number of cycles was similar

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma:a nationwide analysis

Introduction: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided tissue acquisition (EUS + TA) is used to provide a tissue diagnosis in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. Key performance indicators (KPI) for these procedures are rate of adequate sample (RAS) and sensitivity for malignancy (SFM). Aim: assess practice variation regarding KPI of EUS + TA prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma in the Netherlands. Patients and methods: Results of all EUS + TA prior to resection of pancreatic carcinoma from 2014–2018, were extracted from the national Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). Pathology reports were classified as: insufficient for analysis (b1), benign (b2), atypia (b3), neoplastic other (b4), suspected malignant (b5), and malignant (b6). RAS was defined as the proportion of EUS procedures yielding specimen sufficient for analysis. SFM was calculated using a strict definition (malignant only, SFM-b6), and a broader definition (SFM-b5+6). Results: 691 out of 1638 resected patients (42%) underwent preoperative EUS + TA. RAS was 95% (range 89–100%), SFM-b6 was 44% (20–77%), and SFM-b5+6 was 65% (53–90%). All centers met the performance target RAS&gt;85%. Only 9 out of 17 met the performance target SFM-b5+6 &gt; 85%. Conclusion: This nationwide study detected significant practice variation regarding KPI of EUS + TA procedures prior to surgical resection of pancreatic carcinoma. Therefore, quality improvement of EUS + TA is indicated

Alterations in Somatic Driver Genes Are Associated with Response to Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in Patients with Localized Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND: There is increased use of neoadjuvant fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) in the management of localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), yet there are few validated biomarkers of treatment response. STUDY DESIGN: Consecutive patients (n = 196) with resectable, borderline resectable or locally advanced PDAC (2012-2019) receiving FOLFIRINOX as initial treatment and with targeted sequencing of a pretreatment biopsy were identified in a prospective institutional database. Genomic alterations were determined in the 4 driver mutations (KRAS, TP53, CDKN2A, SMAD4), and associations between genomic alterations and clinical outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Alterations in KRAS (n = 172, 87.8%) and TP53 (n = 131, 66.8%) were common; alterations in CDKN2A (n = 49, 25.0%) and SMAD4 (n = 36, 18.4%) were less frequently observed. A total of 105 patients (53.6%) were able to undergo resection, of whom 8 (7.6%) had a complete/near-complete pathologic response. There were no somatic alterations associated with major pathologic response. Alterations in SMAD4 were associated with a lower rate of surgical resection (27.8% vs 59.4%, p < 0.001); this was additionally observed in a multivariable regression model accounting for resectability status (OR 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.85). Thirty-three patients (16.8%) developed metastatic disease while on neoadjuvant therapy. SMAD4 alterations were associated with a significant risk of metastatic progression on therapy when controlling for resectability status (OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.44-7.60). CONCLUSIONS: SMAD4 alterations are associated with more frequent development of metastasis during neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and lower probability of reaching surgical resection. Evaluation of alternative chemotherapy regimens in patients with SMAD4 alterations will be important to distinguish whether this represents a prognostic or predictive biomarker

Neoadjuvant therapy or upfront surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Introduction: Neoadjuvant therapy may improve survival compared with upfront surgery in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, but high-quality evidence is lacking. Methods: We systematically searched for randomised trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy with upfront surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer published since database inception until December 2020. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) by intention-to-treat with subgroup analyses for resectability status. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: Seven trials with 938 patients were included. All trials included a neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemo(radio)therapy arm. None of the studies used adjuvant FOLFIRINOX. Neoadjuvant therapy improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52–0.85; P = 0.001; I2 = 46%) compared with upfront surgery. This represents an increase in median OS from 19 to 29 months. In the subgroup of resectable pancreatic cancer (i.e., venous contact ≤180°, no arterial contact), no statistically significant difference in OS was observed (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.53–1.12; P = 0.18; I2 = 20%). In the subgroup of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (i.e. venous contact >180°, any arterial contact), neoadjuvant therapy improved OS (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44–0.85; P = 0.004; I2 = 59%). The GRADE certainty of evidence was high for the outcome of OS. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant therapy improves OS compared with upfront surgery in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. More evidence is required on whether neoadjuvant therapy improves survival for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer

Sensitivity of CT, MRI, and EUS-FNA/B in the preoperative workup of histologically proven left-sided pancreatic lesions

Background and objectives: Left-sided pancreatic lesions are often treated surgically. Accurate diagnostic work-up is therefore essential to prevent futile major abdominal surgery. Large series focusing specifically on the preoperative work-up of left-sided pancreatic lesions are lacking. This surgical cohort analysis describes the sensitivity of CT, MRI, and EUS-FNA/B in the diagnostic work-up of left-sided pancreatic lesions. Methods: We performed a post-hoc analysis of patients who underwent surgery for a left-sided pancreatic lesion between April 2010 and August 2017 and participated in the randomized CPR trial. Primary outcome was the sensitivity of CT, MRI, and EUS-FNA/B. Sensitivity was determined as the most likely diagnosis of each modality compared with the postoperative histopathological diagnosis. Additionally, the change in sensitivity of EUS versus EUS-FNA/B (i.e., cyst fluid analysis, and/or tissue acquisition) was measured. Results: Overall, 181 patients were included (benign: 23%, premalignant: 27%, malignant: 50%). Most patients had solid lesions (65%). Preoperative imaging included CT (86%), MRI (41%), EUS (68%). Overall, CT and EUS-FNA/B reached a sensitivity of both 71%, compared with 66% for MRI. When EUS was combined with FNA/B, sensitivity rose from 64% to 71%. For solid lesions, CT reached the highest sensitivity (75%) when compared with MRI (70%) and EUS-FNA/B (69%). For cystic lesions, EUS-FNA/B reached the highest sensitivity (75%) when compared with CT and MRI (both 62%). Conclusions: CT is the most sensitive diagnostic modality for solid and EUS-FNA/B for cystic left-sided pancreatic lesions. EUS-FNA/B was associated with an increased sensitivity when compared to EUS alone

Serum CEA as a Prognostic Marker for Overall Survival in Patients with Localized Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma and Non-Elevated CA19-9 Levels Treated with FOLFIRINOX as Initial Treatment:A TAPS Consortium Study

Introduction: About 25% of patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma have non-elevated serum carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 levels at baseline, hampering evaluation of response to preoperative treatment. Serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is a potential alternative. Methods: This retrospective cohort study from five referral centers included consecutive patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma (2012–2019), treated with one or more cycles of (m)FOLFIRINOX, and non-elevated CA19-9 levels (i.e., &lt; 37 U/mL) at baseline. Cox regression analyses were performed to assess prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), including CEA level at baseline, restaging, and dynamics. Results: Overall, 277 patients were included in this study. CEA at baseline was elevated (≥5 ng/mL) in 53 patients (33%) and normalized following preoperative therapy in 14 patients (26%). In patients with elevated CEA at baseline, median OS in patients with CEA normalization following preoperative therapy was 33 months versus 19 months in patients without CEA normalization (p = 0.088). At time of baseline, only elevated CEA was independently associated with (worse) OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04–1.98). At time of restaging, elevated CEA at baseline was still the only independent predictor for (worse) OS (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04–1.98), whereas elevated CEA at restaging (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.77–1.77) was not. Conclusions: Serum CEA was elevated in one-third of patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma having non-elevated CA19-9 at baseline. At both time of baseline and time of restaging, elevated serum CEA measured at baseline was the only predictor for (worse) OS. Therefore, serum CEA may be a useful tool for decision making at both initial staging and time of restaging in patients with non-elevated CA19-9.</p

Genomic Biomarkers Associated with Response to Induction Chemotherapy in Patients with Localized Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE: There is increasing use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the management of localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), yet there are few validated biomarkers to guide therapy selection. We aimed to determine whether somatic genomic biomarkers predict response to induction FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This single-institution cohort study included consecutive patients (N = 322) with localized PDAC (2011-2020) who received at least one cycle of FOLFIRINOX (N = 271) or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (N = 51) as initial treatment. We assessed somatic alterations in four driver genes (KRAS, TP53, CDKN2A, and SMAD4) by targeted next-generation sequencing, and determined associations between these alterations and (1) rate of metastatic progression during induction chemotherapy, (2) surgical resection, and (3) complete/major pathologic response. RESULTS: The alteration rates in driver genes KRAS, TP53, CDKN2A, and SMAD4 were 87.0%, 65.5%, 26.7%, and 19.9%, respectively. For patients receiving first-line FOLFIRINOX, SMAD4 alterations were uniquely associated with metastatic progression (30.0% vs. 14.5%; P = 0.009) and decreased rate of surgical resection (37.1% vs. 66.7%; P < 0.001). For patients receiving induction gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, alterations in SMAD4 were not associated with metastatic progression (14.3% vs. 16.2%; P = 0.866) nor decreased rate of surgical resection (33.3% vs. 41.9%; P = 0.605). Major pathologic response was rare (6.3%) and not associated with type of chemotherapy regimen. CONCLUSIONS: SMAD4 alterations were associated with more frequent development of metastasis and lower probability of reaching surgical resection during neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX but not gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. Confirmation in a larger, diverse patient cohort will be important before prospective evaluation of SMAD4 as a genomic biomarker to guide treatment selection

FOLFIRINOX as Initial Treatment for Localized Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Retrospective Analysis by the Trans-Atlantic Pancreatic Surgery Consortium

Background: Large pragmatic studies of patients who received 5-fluorouracil with leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin ([m]FOLFIRINOX) as initial treatment for localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are lacking. This study aimed to provide realistic estimates of oncologic outcomes in these patients. Methods: This international retrospective cohort study included all consecutive patients presenting with localized PDAC who received at least 1 cycle of (m)FOLFIRINOX as initial treatment in 5 referral centers from the United States and the Netherlands (2012-2019). Primary outcome was median overall survival (OS), calculated from the date of tissue diagnosis, assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Log-rank test was used to compare OS between groups. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to assess prognostic baseline factors for OS. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: Overall, 1835 patients were included, of whom 958 (52.2%) had locally advanced (LA), 531 (28.9%) had borderline resectable (BR), and 346 (18.9%) had potentially resectable (PR) PDAC. The median number of (m)FOLFIRINOX cycles was 6 (interquartile range = 4-8). Subsequent treatment included second chemotherapy (12.9%), radiotherapy (49.0%), and resection (37.9%). The resection rate was 17.6% for LA, 53.1% for BR, and 70.5% for PR PDAC (P 1 mm) was 55.2% for LA, 62.6% for BR, and 79.2% for PR PDAC (P 500 U/mL, and body mass index ≤18.5 kg/m2. Conclusions: This large international cohort study provides realistic estimates of resection rates and survival in patients with LA, BR, and PR PDAC who started (m)FOLFIRINOX treatment in PDAC referral centers