Neoadjuvant cetuximab, twice-weekly gemcitabine, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy has been investigated for localized and locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) but no standard of care exists. Combination cetuximab/gemcitabine/radiotherapy demonstrates encouraging preclinical activity in PDAC. We investigated cetuximab with twice-weekly gemcitabine and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with localized or locally advanced PDAC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Treatment consisted of cetuximab load at 400 mg/m(2) followed by cetuximab 250 mg/m(2) weekly and gemcitabine 50 mg/m(2) twice-weekly given concurrently with IMRT to 54 Gy. Following therapy, patients were considered for resection. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were enrolled with 33 assessable for response. Ten patients (30%) manifested partial response and 20 (61%) manifested stable disease by RECIST. Twenty-five patients (76%) underwent resection, including 18/23 previously borderline and 3/6 previously unresectable tumors. Twenty-three (92%) of these had negative surgical margins. Pathology revealed that 24% of resected tumors had grade III/IV tumor kill, including two pathological complete responses (8%). Median survival was 24.3 months in resected patients. Outcome did not vary by epidermal growth factor receptor status. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant therapy with cetuximab/gemcitabine/IMRT is tolerable and active in PDAC. Margin-negative resection rates are high and some locally advanced tumors can be downstaged to allow for complete resection with encouraging survival. Pathological complete responses can occur. This combination warrants further investigation.

Endoscopic vs. laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy for duodenal obstruction: a randomized study in a porcine model.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Open or laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy is an established treatment for malignant duodenal obstruction but may be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to develop a model for an entirely endoscopic gastrojejunostomy to treat duodenal obstruction, and to compare this with the laparoscopic technique. METHODS: During the first part of the study the endoscopic technique was developed and tested in porcine nonsurvival and survival experiments (n=12). During the second part of the study (n=10), endoscopic gastrojejunostomy for duodenal occlusion was compared with laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy in a survival randomized controlled trial (RCT). For both groups duodenal occlusion was achieved by the laparoscopic approach. RESULTS: In the RCT, the median times for laparoscopic vs. endoscopic gastrojejunostomy were 70 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 65-75) vs. 210 minutes (IQR 197-220; P=0.01). There was a trend toward increased anastomotic diameter at necropsy in the laparoscopic group (2 cm, IQR 2-3) compared to the endoscopic group (1.8 cm, IQR 1.6-1.8; P=0.06). One animal in the endoscopic group died secondarily to bowel ischemia from volvulus of the jejunal loop. One animal in the laparoscopic group was prematurely sacrificed due to extensive pulmonary congestion and edema. All anastomoses were intact and patent. CONCLUSIONS: Purely endoscopic gastrojejunostomy using the developed technique and devices is feasible and can result in adequate relief of duodenal obstruction. Endoscopic anastomoses tend to be smaller than laparoscopic anastomoses, with the procedures being more time-consuming and associated with higher complication rates.