RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To compare survival after CT-guided percutaneous irreversible electroporation (IRE) and folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) chemotherapy versus FOLFIRINOX only in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A post hoc comparison was performed of data derived from a prospective IRE-FOLFIRINOX cohort and a retrospective FOLFIRINOX-only cohort. All patients received a minimum of 3 cycles of FOLFIRINOX for LAPC and were considered eligible for CT-guided percutaneous IRE. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), local and distant progression-free survival, and time to progression (TTP) and were compared using stratified Kaplan-Meier analysis. Patients who received > 8 cycles of FOLFIRINOX before IRE and who had tumors > 6 cm in the FOLFIRINOX-only group were excluded. RESULTS: Of 103 patients with a diagnosis of LAPC, 52 were deemed eligible (n = 30 IRE-FOLFIRINOX and n = 22 FOLFIRINOX-only). Patients in the FOLFIRINOX-only arm had larger tumors (53 mm ± 19 vs 38 mm ± 7, P = .340), had more locoregional lymph node metastases (23% vs 7%, P = .622), and more often received radiotherapy (7 patients vs 2 patients, P = .027); all other baseline characteristics were comparable. Median OS was 17.0 months (range, 5-35 mo; SD = 6) for IRE-FOLFIRINOX versus 12.4 months (range, 3-22 mo; SD = 6) for FOLFIRINOX-only (P = .038). After sensitivity analyses, median OS was 17.2 months (range, 6-27 mo; SD = 6) versus 12.4 months (range, 7-32 mo; SD = 10) (P = .05). Median TTP was longer in the IRE-FOLFIRINOX group: 14.2 months (range, 5-25 mo; SD = 4) versus 5.2 months (range, 2-22; SD = 6) (P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LAPC after FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy, CT-guided percutaneous IRE may improve OS and TTP. This study may facilitate the design of randomized controlled trials to compare survival after IRE-FOLRINOX versus FOLFIRINOX-only.
Asunto(s)
Técnicas de Ablación , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/administración & dosificación , Electroporación , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/terapia , Radiografía Intervencional , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X , Técnicas de Ablación/efectos adversos , Técnicas de Ablación/mortalidad , Anciano , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Femenino , Fluorouracilo/administración & dosificación , Fluorouracilo/efectos adversos , Humanos , Irinotecán/administración & dosificación , Irinotecán/efectos adversos , Leucovorina/administración & dosificación , Leucovorina/efectos adversos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Oxaliplatino/administración & dosificación , Oxaliplatino/efectos adversos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/mortalidad , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Estudios Prospectivos , Radiografía Intervencional/efectos adversos , Radiografía Intervencional/mortalidad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/efectos adversos , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/mortalidad , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are widely accepted techniques to eliminate small unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Although previous studies labelled thermal ablation inferior to surgical resection, the apparent selection bias when comparing patients with unresectable disease to surgical candidates, the superior safety profile, and the competitive overall survival results for the more recent reports mandate the setup of a randomized controlled trial. The objective of the COLLISION trial is to prove non-inferiority of thermal ablation compared to hepatic resection in patients with at least one resectable and ablatable CRLM and no extrahepatic disease. METHODS: In this two-arm, single-blind multi-center phase-III clinical trial, six hundred and eighteen patients with at least one CRLM (≤3 cm) will be included to undergo either surgical resection or thermal ablation of appointed target lesion(s) (≤3 cm). Primary endpoint is OS (overall survival, intention-to-treat analysis). Main secondary endpoints are overall disease-free survival (DFS), time to progression (TTP), time to local progression (TTLP), primary and assisted technique efficacy (PTE, ATE), procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, assessment of pain and quality of life (QoL), cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). DISCUSSION: If thermal ablation proves to be non-inferior in treating lesions ≤3 cm, a switch in treatment-method may lead to a reduction of the post-procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay and incremental costs without compromising oncological outcome for patients with CRLM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03088150 , January 11th 2017.