The role of stereotactic body radiation therapy for the elderly with advanced or medically inoperable pancreatic cancer was still debated. Therefore, we evaluated the value of stereotactic body radiation therapy and its association with survival of those patients. A total of 417 elderly patients were retrospectively reviewed from 2012 to 2015. Overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), local recurrence‐free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS), and toxicities were analyzed. Prescription doses ranged from 30–46.8 Gy in 5–8 fractions. Median age was 73 years old. Median OS, PFS, LRFS, and DMFS were 10, 8, 10, and 9.5 months, respectively. One‐year OS, PFS, LRFS, and DMFS rate were 35.5%, 18.2%, 26.6%, and 27.1%, respectively. Tumor stage and tumor response at 6 months and CA19‐9 levels normalization at 3 months after treatment were independent predictors of OS, PFS, LRFS, and DMFS. Patients with early‐stage cancer, better tumor response, and normalization of CA19‐9 levels had significantly longer OS, PFS, LRFS, and DMFS. Patients with the prodrug of 5‐FU and radiotherapy had longer survival than those with gemcitabine‐based chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Patients who received BED 10 ≥ 60 Gy achieved better tumor response compared with those who received BED 10 < 60 Gy. Two patients had grade 4 intestinal strictures. No grade 3 or higher hematologic toxicities occurred. Stereotactic body radiation therapy is safe and effective for elderly patients with advanced or medically inoperable pancreatic cancer. Early efficacy could be predictive of prognosis. Higher doses may be associated with efficacy but need further investigation.

No abstract

BackgroundTo evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) plus induction chemotherapy and SBRT plus adjuvant therapy.MethodsPatients with radiographically resectable, biopsy-proven pancreatic cancer were enrolled. Data were prospectively collected from 2012 to 2016. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify factors predictive of survival. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to assess the efficacy of SBRT combined with different timing of chemotherapy.ResultsOne hundred patients were enrolled with 48 receiving induction chemotherapy and 52 undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 17.5 months (95% CI: 15.8–19.2 months) and 13.7 months (95% CI: 12.3–15.1 months), respectively. Patients with adjuvant chemotherapy (P <0.001), CA19-9 response (P <0.001) and BED10 (biological effective dose, α/β = 10) ≥ 60 Gy (P = 0.024) had a longer OS, while the former two correlated with PFS. Patients with more positive factors had a superior OS and PFS. After propensity score matching analysis, there were 23 patients from each group included in the analysis. Longer OS (23.1 months versus 15.6, P <0.001) and PFS (18.0 months versus 11.6 months, P <0.001) were found in patients with adjuvant chemotherapy compared with those with induction chemotherapy.ConclusionSBRT was safe and effective in early stage pancreatic cancer. Combined with adjuvant chemotherapy, SBRT could be an alternative for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but not eligible for surgical resection.

PurposeTo compare the effects of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GT) plus stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or gemcitabine and S-1 (GS) plus SBRT on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of metastatic pancreatic cancer.MethodsPatients with biopsy-proven and radiographically metastatic pancreatic cancer were included. HRQOL was assessed using the Chinese version of Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and 5-level European quality of life 5-dimensions (EQ-5D-5L). Data were analyzed with Spearman’s rank correlation, ordinal regression, and propensity score-matched analysis.ResultsA total of 75 and 89 patients received GT and GS, respectively. The median biological effective dose of GT group and GS group was 59.5 Gy (range 48–85.5 Gy) and 64.4 Gy (range 52.48–85.5 Gy) in 5–8 fractions, respectively. More patients in the GS group had improvement in BPI and EQ-5D-5L compared with those in the GT group (n=38 vs n=15, P<0.001; n=42 vs n=20, P<0.001). No differences of BPI scores were found between pre- and post-treatment in each group, while only the post-treatment EQ-5D-5L score was higher than that at baseline in GS the group (P<0.001). Compared with GS group, it was unlikely for patients receiving GT to have better BPI and EQ-5D-5L. After propensity-matched analysis, more patients in GS group had improvement in BPI and EQ-5D-5L (n=24 vs n=12, P=0.002; n=28 vs n=16, P=0.002). Furthermore, patients with GS had a superior overall survival than those with GT (11.1 months [95% CI: 10.6–11.6 months] vs 9.9 months [95% CI: 8.8–11.0 months]; P=0.005). Both incidences of grade 3 hematological (P=0.024) and gastrointestinal (P=0.049) toxicities were higher in the GT group.ConclusionGS may achieve better HRQOL than GT. Therefore, GS may be an alternative of GT for metastatic pancreatic cancer, especially for Asians.

To identify impacts of different combined regimens of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and chemotherapy on survival of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and factors correlated with determinations of different combinations. Four hundred and nineteen patients with radiographically and biopsy‐proven LAPC were prospectively enrolled. Factors associated with different strategies were analyzed with Chi‐square test and contingency coefficients. Cox regression was used to identify factors predictive of survival. Prognostic values of different multimodality were further analyzed by propensity score‐matched analysis. Median overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS) of all patients was 13.2 and 8.2 months, respectively. Baseline ECOG correlated with induction chemotherapy, while tumor stage, lymph node invasion, and toxicity after SBRT associated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with induction chemotherapy alone (12.2 months), adjuvant chemotherapy alone (13.6 months), and induction and adjuvant chemotherapy (13.3 months) had longer OS than those without chemotherapy (11.2 months; P < .001), while adjuvant chemotherapy alone and induction and adjuvant chemotherapy increased PFS. An adjusted overall survival benefit was gained with adjuvant chemotherapy compared with induction and adjuvant chemotherapy (OS: 14.7 months [95% CI: 14.2‐15.2 months] vs 13.1 months [95% CI: 12.3‐13.9 months]; P < .001) (PFS: 8.8 months [95% CI: 8.4‐9.2 months] vs 8.1 months [95% CI: 7.4‐8.8 months]; P = .053). Induction and adjuvant chemotherapy, especially adjuvant chemotherapy, plus SBRT may improve OS and PFS. Baseline performance status, tumor stage, lymph node involvement, and toxicity after SBRT influenced determinations of upfront multimodality.

No abstract

No abstract

Background The insertion of self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) for post-tuberculosis tracheobronchial stenosis (PTTS) was controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SEMS for treating PTTS, and developed a scoring system for predicting the occurrence of restenosis after stenting in PTTS patients. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of 87 patients who were diagnosed with PTTS and experienced SEMS insertion between January 2000 and December 2017. All procedures were performed via flexible bronchoscopy under conscious sedation and local anesthesia. Results A total of 85 SEMS were successfully placed in 77 patients. Comparing with pre-stenting, there were significant improvements in the lumen diameters of the stenotic segment, mMRC scale and lung function after short-term SEMS placement. During the long-term (average 163.32 months) follow-up, 48 patients (62.3%) did not develop restenosis after stenting; the other 29 patients (37.7%) developed and eventually, 12 remained under interventional therapies and 11 had bronchial atresia. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that the difference value between SEMS length and the stenosis-segment length, stenosis type, and the number of pre-stenting thermal ablation were independently related to restenosis occurrence and were subsequently used to establish the Restenosis Score. The model’s development group (0.83, 95% CI 0.74–0.92) and external validation set (0.94, 95% CI 0.77–1.00) showed excellent discrimination. Conclusion SEMS placement could serve as a safe and effective treatment option for most patients with PTTS. Further, we built a prediction model depending on the independent predictors of restenosis occurrence, the Restenosis Score. This validated tool might provide a decision support and a better management for PTTS patients who underwent SEMS implantation.