contemporary ry evid idence based surgical management of
play

Contemporary ry Evid idence-Based Surgical Management of P - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Contemporary ry Evid idence-Based Surgical Management of P Pancreatic Cancer Timothy L. Fitzgerald, MD Director of Surgical Oncology Maine Medical Center Professor of Surgery Tufts University School of Medicine-Maine Medical Center


  1. Contemporary ry Evid idence-Based Surgical Management of P Pancreatic Cancer Timothy L. Fitzgerald, MD Director of Surgical Oncology Maine Medical Center Professor of Surgery Tufts University School of Medicine-Maine Medical Center Associate Medical Director of Surgical Oncology MaineHealth

  2. Outline • Not all pancreatic cancer is the same • Subtypes of resectable cancer • Locally advanced • Borderline resectable • High-risk • Imminently resectable • Optimizing care peri-operative

  3. Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreas • A majority of patients with pancreatic carcinoma die within two years of diagnosis • Curative surgical resection is the only strategy that results in long-term durable survival

  4. Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer • FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer • 342 pts FOLFIRINOX vs. Gem • Median survival 11.1 vs. 6.8 mo. • Increased Survival in Pancreatic Cancer with nab-Paclitaxel plus Gemcitabine • 861 pts nab-paclitaxel/gem vs. gem • 8.5 vs. 6.7 mo. N Engl J Med 3798:25 and N Engl J Med 369;18

  5. • Survival after pancreatectomy • Age • Tumor size • Grade/differentiation • Lymph node (LN) metastases • Adjuvant treatment • Clinical factors

  6. Survival (conditional) probability Age ≤ 65 3 Year † 5 year † Size Grade Lymph Nodes Margins Adjuvant Tx (95% CI) (95% CI) ≤2cm I/II Negative (-) Negative (-) No .55 (.53-.56) .40 (.38-.42) Yes .65 (.64-.67) .52 (.51-.54) Positive (+) No .39 (.37-.42) .25 (.22-.27) Yes .52 (.49-.54) .37 (.35-.39) Positive (+) Negative (-) No .40 (.38-.42) .25 (.23-.27) Yes .52 (.50-.54) .37 (.36-.39) Positive (+) No .24 (.22-.26) .12 (.10-.13) Yes .36 (.34-.39) .22 (.20-.24) ≤2cm III/IV Negative (-) Negative (-) No .50 (.47-.52) .33 (.31-.35) Yes .56 (.54-.58) .42 (.40-.44) Positive (+) No .29 (.26-.31) .15 (.13-.17) Yes .41 (.39-.44) .26 (.24-.29) Positive (+) Negative (-) No .29 (.27-.31) .16 (.14-.17) Yes .42 (.40-.44) .27 (.25-.29) Positive (+) No .15 (.13-.17) .06 (.05 -.07) Yes .26 (.24-.28) .13 (.11-.15) >2cm I/II Negative (-) Negative (-) No .45 (.44-.47) .31 (.29-.32) Yes .57 (.56-.58) .43 (.42-.45) Positive (+) No .30 (.28-.31) .16 (.15-.17) Yes .42- (.40-.44) .27 (.25-.29) Positive (+) Negative (-) No .30 (.29-.31) .16 (.15-.18) Yes .43 (.41-.44) .28 (.26-.29) Positive (+) No .16 (.14-.17) .06 (.05-.07) Yes .27 (.25-.28) .14 (.13-.15) >2cm III/IV Negative (-) Negative (-) No .35 (.33-.37) .20 (.19-.22) Yes .47 (.46-.49) .32 (.31-.34) Positive (+) No .20 (.18-.21) 0.09 (.07-.10) Yes .31 (.30-.33) .18 (.16-.19) Positive (+) Negative (-) No .20 (.19-.21) .09 (.08-.10) Yes .32 (.31-.33) .18 (.17-.19) Positive (+) No .08 (.07-.09) .024 (.020-.028) Yes .17 (.16-.18) .07 (.06-.08)

  7. Case: Locally advanced • 69 y.o. female stomach upset and dyspepsia • CT - ill-defined 3 cm mass in the head of the pancreas with occlusion of the SMV and involvement of the SMA • EUS 2.9 cm mass in the head/uncinate process of the pancreas with involvement of superior mesenteric artery and likely peripancreatic lymphadenopathy, duodenal invasion • Pathology- adenocarcinoma

  8. • 96 patients • 49% were taken to surgery • Type A - 62% • Type B- 24% • RO resection- 80% • Median survival 26 mo.

  9. • 254 patients who underwent resection attempts after TNT • 9% patients explored but not ultimately resected • 91 % resection • RFS and OS rates were 23.5 and 58.8 months

  10. • 3 factors associated with RFS and OS • Extended duration chemotherapy, > 6 cycles (10.3 vs 27.3 months; 23.9 vs 60.1 months, P < 0.001) • CA19-9 response (10.5 vs 29.3 months; 30.2 vs 60.5 months) • Major pathologic response (12.1 vs NYR months, 34.5 vs 72.1 months, P < 0.001) • Not associated • Anatomic classification (BR vs LA), chemotherapy regimen/switch, or radiologic downstaging

  11. • The use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy for pancreatic cancer has increased over the last decade • Neoadjuvant multiagent chemotherapy has become the standard of care for locally advanced and borderline resectable tumors • The role of radiation therapy as a part of multi-modality treatment regimens remains poorly defined

  12. : : Neoadju juvant Radia iation versus no Neoadju juvant Radiation Tumor Stage Univariable Multivariable* HR (CI, p-value ) HR (CI, p-value ) T3 0.96 (0.85 – 1.09, p=0.504) 0.98 (0.86 – 1.11, p= 0.701) T4 0.82 (0.67 – 1.01, p=0.059) 0.83 (0.67 – 1.04, p= 0.106) Combined (T3/T4) 0.93 (0.84 – 1.04, p=0.202) 0.94 (0.85 – 1.05, p= 0.301) Adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance type, geographic location, income, Charlson- Deyo Score, facility type, type of surgery performed, TNM node and tumor classifications, and surgical margin status.

  13. Pathologic Response Univariable Multivariable OR (CI, p-value) OR (CI, p-value) Complete Pathologic Response T3 3.18 (1.73 – 5.83, p<0.001) 2.58 (1.38 – 4.82, p=0.003) T4 3.66 (1.47 – 9.12, p=0.005) 4.02 (1.54 – 10.46, p=0.004) Combined (T3/T4) 3.58 (2.18 – 5.89, p<0.001) 2.89 (1.73 – 4.83, p<0.001) R0 resection T3 1.52 (1.19 – 1.95, p=0.001) 1.45 (1.13 – 1.88, p=0.004) T4 3.17 (2.11 – 4.75, p<0.001) 3.37 (2.17 – 5.24, p<0.001) Combined (T3/T4) 1.80 (1.46 – 2.22, p<0.001) 1.79 (1.44 – 2.23, p<0.001) Tumor Downstaging T3 2.90 (2.30 – 3.66, p<0.001) 2.77 (2.17 – 3.53, p<0.001) T4 2.29 (1.44 – 3.67, p=0.001) 2.15 (1.28 – 3.62, p=0.004) Combined (T3/T4) 2.89 (2.43 – 3.45, p<0.001) 2.79 (2.32 – 3.35, p<0.001) *Multivaiable model controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance type, geographic location, income, Charlson-Deyo Score, facility type, TNM node, year, and tumor classifications. ** Includes control for type of surgery performed.

  14. Conclusions • The use of multiagent of chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer increased by 33% from 2006 to 2014 • Use of neoadjuvant radiation remained stable • Administration of radiation is associated with: • Tumor downstaging • R0-resection rates • Complete pathologic response • Not associated with improved survival

  15. • Prospective consecutive surgical BR or LA PAC patients after induction FOLFIRINOX • 23 French centers between 2010 - 2015 • Treated with or without preoperative additional XRT • 203 pts • 106 BR and 97 LA • Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival, 45.4 months and 16.2 months • XRT • higher R0 resection rate (89.2% vs 76.3%; P = 0.017) • ypN0 rate (76.2% vs 48.5%) • Pathologic major response (33.3% vs 12.9%; P = 0.001) • Longer OS (57.8 vs 35.5 months; P = 0.007).

  16. Case: Locally advanced • 8 cycles FOLFRINOX • Long course XRT • ?

  17. Borderline Resectable • 64 yo patient developed painless jaundice • ERCP and EUS with placement of stent after a mass was seen involving the GDA with complete interface loss and possible invasion of the portal vein • Biopsy confirmed adenocarcinoma

  18. Definition: Borderline Resectable Tumors Lopez NE et al . Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer

  19. • 884 pts BRPC, chemotherapy gemzar, S-1 • Lower resection rates for NAT (75.1 vs. 93.3%) • Higher R0 resection rates (84 vs 70%) • Improved survival (25.7 vs. 19) • No difference in survival with addition of XRT

  20. Background • ALLIANCE trial (A021501) - Phase 2, randomized trial comparing the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemotherapy plus radiation in borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas

  21. Borderline Resectable • 8 Cycles of FOLFRINOX • CA 19-9 from 960 to 188.6. • Whipple with portal vein resection • T2NO, 3.5 cm • Scattered cells, 50% tumor response

  22. High-risk pancreatic cancer • 61 y.o. female with back pain that was lasting for several days • CT 3 cm mass that abuts the splenic vein and SMV • EUS FNA demonstrated adenocarcinoma

  23. High-risk pancreatic cancer • 4 Cycles of FOLFRINOX • Extended distal pancreatectomy with resection and reconstruction of portal vein at confluence • T1cN0, tumor spread over 4 cm, largest 1.1 cm • R0, tumor regression 60%

  24. Imminently Resectable • 68 y.o. male is with jaundice workup with an ERCP with stent placement • CT- Obvious dilatation of the pancreatic duct but no evidence of a mass in the head of the pancreas. • EUS- a small pancreatic head cancer with biopsies consistent with adenocarcinoma

  25. • PRODIGE 24/CCTG PA.6 Trial • 493 patients • Randomized phase III trial • Pancreatic adenocarcinoma curative surgery • mFOLFIRINOX vs. gemcitabine • Median survival mFOLFIRINOX- 54.4 months vs. gemcitabine- 35.0 months • ASCO • If up front surgery recommend 6 mo. postop chemo Preferred mFOLRIRINOX • Similar trial with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel vs. gemcitabine (APACT) was negative

  26. NEOADJUVANT vs. ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY FOR T1/T2 PANCREATIC CANCER Roberto J. Vidri, William T. Olsen, David E. Clark, Timothy L. Fitzgerald Division of Surgical Oncology Tufts University School of Medicine-Maine Medical Center Portland, ME 27

  27. BACKGROUND • Neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant • Neoadjuvant treatment assures receipt of chemotherapy • Neoadjuvant therapy may lead to complications that prevent surgical resection • A many as 30% never undergo resection 28

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend