Neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) followed by surgery is the primary treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC). However, there is limited high-level evidence supporting the efficacy of NAT in BRPC. PubMed was searched to identify studies that compared the survival between BRPC patients who underwent NAT and those who underwent upfront surgery (UFS). The overall survival (OS) was compared using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. A total of 1204 publications were identified, and 19 publications with 21 data sets (2906 patients; NAT, 1516; UFS, 1390) were analyzed. Two randomized controlled trials and two prospective studies were included. Thirteen studies performed an ITT analysis, while six presented the data of resected patients. The NAT group had significantly better OS than the UFS group in the ITT analyses (HR: 0.63, 95% CI = 0.53–0.76) and resected patients (HR: 0.68, 95% CI = 0.60–0.78). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine or S-1 and FOLFIRINOX improved the survival outcomes. Among the resected patients, the R0 resection and node-negativity rates were significantly higher in the NAT group. NAT improved the OS, R0 resection rate, and node-negativity rate compared with UFS. Standardizing treatment regimens based on high-quality evidence is fundamental for developing an optimal protocol.
BackgroundIn an era of more effective chemotherapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the paradigm of local treatment is changing. However, the efficacy of local treatment in patients with isolated liver metastasis remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of pancreatectomy ± local treatment for metastasis (cytoreductive surgery) in PDAC patients with isolated synchronous liver metastasis.MethodsIn total, 239 patients with isolated liver metastasis were extracted from Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH). For comparison, another 12 637 patients were extracted from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Propensity score matching was performed to minimize confounding in both cohorts. Survival analyses stratified by the treatment delivered were performed using Kaplan–Meier estimates and log‐rank tests.ResultsIn the SNUH cohort, the median (interquartile range) survival was 20.5 (13.0–42.0) months for patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery plus chemotherapy versus 12.0 (10.0–18.0) months for those who received chemotherapy alone (P < .001). With the NCDB cohort, the median (interquartile range) survival was 15.6 (8.9–31.2) months for patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery plus chemotherapy versus 7.4 (3.4–13.2) months for those who received chemotherapy alone (P < .001).ConclusionPatients with isolated synchronous liver metastasis should be considered for cytoreductive surgery in addition to effective chemotherapy.
Recurrence can still occur even after radical resection of stage I colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to identify subgroups with a high risk for recurrence in the stage I CRC. We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data of 1952 patients with stage I CRC after radical resection between 2002 and 2017 at our institute. 1398 (colon, 903 (64.6%), rectum, 495 (35.4%)) were eligible for analysis. We analyzed the risk factors for recurrence and survival. During the follow-up period (median: 59 months), 63 (4.6%) had a recurrence. The recurrence rate of rectal cancer was significantly higher than that of colon cancer (8.5% vs. 2.3%). Left-sided tumors, T2, tumor size >5 cm, and lymphovascular invasion were independent risk factors of colon cancer recurrence. Male, preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) ≥2.5 ng/mL, and harvested lymph nodes (LNs) <12 were independently associated with recurrence of rectal cancer. Recurrence affected OS (5-year OS: 97.1% vs. 67.6%). Despite curative resection, survival sharply decreased with recurrence. The risk factors for recurrence were different between colon and rectal cancer. Patients with a higher risk for recurrence should be candidates for more aggressive surveillance, even in early-stage CRC.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.