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.

Objective There is little information on the impact of the colorectal multi-disciplinary team (MDT) in the United Kingdom. Our single operator presented his patients before and after the inception of an MDT meeting in June 2002. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of this on his patients' survival, and trends in the use of adjuvant chemotherapy.Method Data were collected on all patients (n = 310) undergoing colectomy for colorectal cancer by one surgeon. Excluding patients with Dukes A stage, the pre-MDT cohort from January 1997 to May 2002 was 176 and the post-MDT cohort from June 2002 to December 2005 was 134. Three-year survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier life table analysis. Prognostic factors were analysed using Cox-proportional hazard regression, and chemotherapy data analysed using the chi-squared test. Independent prognostic indicators of chemotherapy prescription were examined using binary logistic testing.Results MDT status was shown to be an independent predictor of survival on hazard regression analysis (P = 0.044). A significantly greater number of patients were prescribed adjuvant chemotherapy in the post-MDT cohort (P = 0.0002). MDT status was shown to be a significant prognostic indicator of chemotherapy prescription (P < 0.0001). Three-year survival for Dukes C patients was 58% in the pre-MDT group, and 66% in the post-MDT group (P = 0.023).Conclusion There was a significant increase in patients undergoing adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy after the inception of the MDT. This was associated with a significant survival benefit in patients with Dukes C disease. The data suggest that the MDT process has resulted in an increase in the prescription of adjuvant chemotherapy, with 3-year survival being greater after its inception.

No abstract

No abstract

There is a high prevalence of multiple, severe comorbidities in Scottish patients with lung cancer, and these vary by site and treatment group. Further research is needed to determine the relationship between comorbidity scores and survival in these patients.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to demonstrate how magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) patient position protocols influence registration quality in patients with oropharyngeal cancer undergoing radical radiotherapy and the consequences for gross tumour volume (GTV) definition and radiotherapy planning.Methods and materialsTwenty-two oropharyngeal patients underwent a computed tomography (CT), a diagnostic MRI (MRID) and an MRI in the radiotherapy position within an immobilization mask (MRIRT). Clinicians delineated the GTV on the CT viewing the MRID separately (GTVC); on the CT registered to MRID (GTVD) and on the CT registered to MRIRT (GTVRT). Planning target volumes (PTVs) were denoted similarly. Registration quality was assessed by measuring disparity between structures in the three set-ups. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) radiotherapy planning was performed for PTVC, PTVD and PTVRT. To determine the dose received by the reference PTVRT, we optimized for PTVC and PTVD while calculating the dose to PTVRT. Statistical significance was determined using the two-tailed Mann–Whitney or two-tailed paired student t-tests.ResultsA significant improvement in registration accuracy was found between CT and MRIRT versus the MRID measuring distances from the centre of structures (geometric mean error of 2.2 mm versus 6.6 mm). The mean GTVC (44.1 cm3) was significantly larger than GTVD (33.7 cm3, p value = 0.027) or GTVRT (30.5 cm3, p value = 0.014). When optimizing the VMAT plans for PTVC and investigating the mean dose to PTVRT neither the dose to 99% (58.8%) nor 95% of the PTV (84.7%) were found to meet the required clinical dose constraints of 90% and 95% respectively. Similarly, when optimizing for PTVD the mean dose to PTVRT did not meet clinical dose constraints for 99% (14.9%) nor 95% of the PTV (66.2%). Only by optimizing for PTVRT were all clinical dose constraints achieved.ConclusionsWhen oropharyngeal patients MRI scans are performed in the radiotherapy position there are significant improvements in CT-MR image registration, target definition and PTV dose coverage.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic epicentre has moved to the USA and Europe, where it is placing unprecedented demands on healthcare resources and staff availability. These service constraints, coupled with concerns relating to an increased incidence and severity of COVID-19 among patients with cancer, should lead to re-consideration of the risk–benefit balance for standard treatment pathways. This is of particular importance to pancreatic cancer, given that standard diagnostic modalities such as endoscopy may be restricted, and that disease biology precludes significant delays in treatment. In light of this, we sought consensus from UK clinicians with an interest in pancreatic cancer for management approaches that would minimise patient risk and accommodate for healthcare service restrictions. The outcomes are described here and include recommendations for treatment prioritisation, strategies to bridge to later surgical resection in resectable disease and factors that modify the risk–benefit balance for treatment in the resectable through to the metastatic settings. Priority is given to strategies that limit hospital visits, including through the use of hypofractionated precision radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy treatment approaches.

No abstract