Chemotherapy and radiotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the locally advanced and metastatic setting, with mixed results. This review attempts to synthesise all the randomised data available to help better inform patient and clinician decision-making when dealing with this difficult disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both for first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Our primary outcome was overall survival, while secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, grade 3/4 adverse events, therapy response and quality of life. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for published and unpublished studies in CENTRAL (searched 14 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 14 June 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2017) and CANCERLIT (1999 to 2002) databases. We also handsearched all relevant conference abstracts published up until 14 June 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised studies assessing overall survival outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, alone or in combination, were the eligible treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently analysed studies, and a third settled any disputes. We extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QoL), and we assessed risk of bias for each study. MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 studies addressing chemotherapy in 9463 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We did not identify any eligible studies on radiotherapy.We did not find any benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care. However, two identified studies did not have sufficient data to be included in the analysis, and many of the chemotherapy regimens studied were outdated.Compared to gemcitabine alone, participants receiving 5FU had worse OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.27, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.92) and QoL. On the other hand, two studies showed FOLFIRINOX was better than gemcitabine for OS (HR 0.51 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.57) and response rates (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.65), but it increased the rate of side effects. The studies evaluating CO-101, ZD9331 and exatecan did not show benefit or harm when compared with gemcitabine alone.Giving gemcitabine at a fixed dose rate improved OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94, high-quality evidence) but increased the rate of side effects when compared with bolus dosing.When comparing gemcitabine combinations to gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine plus platinum improved PFS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95) and response rates (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98) but not OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, low-quality evidence). The rate of side effects increased. Gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine improved OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95), PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87) and response rates (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.47, high-quality evidence), but it also increased side effects. Gemcitabine plus topoisomerase inhibitor did not improve survival outcomes but did increase toxicity. One study demonstrated that gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel improved OS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, high-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82) and response rates (RR 3.29, 95% CI 2.24 to 4.84) but increased side effects. Gemcitabine-containing multi-drug combinations (GEMOXEL or cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU/gemcitabine) improved OS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, low-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) and QOL.We did not find any survival advantages when comparing 5FU combinations to 5FU alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Combination chemotherapy has recently overtaken the long-standing gemcitabine as the standard of care. FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are highly efficacious, but our analysis shows that other combination regimens also offer a benefit. Selection of the most appropriate chemotherapy for individual patients still remains difficult, with clinicopathological stratification remaining elusive. Biomarker development is essential to help rationalise treatment selection for patients.

Localized tracheobronchial amyloidosis: A rare case presentation and tailored management approaches.

Localized tracheobronchial amyloidosis (TBA) is a rare manifestation of pulmonary amyloid disease, and can result in central airway obstruction. The nature of presentation is variable and there may be a delayed diagnosis. TBA has a variable prognosis and the most commonly used strategy for management is airway recanalization. Here, we describe the tailored management approach for a 64-year-old Caucasian female presenting with localized TBA of the left main bronchus. Pulmonary function testing, computed tomography and positron emission tomography results are detailed. Rigid bronchoscopy was utilized for diagnostic and therapeutic intervention, which involved debulking and stent insertion. Amyloid deposition and localized inflammation were identified through histopathology. Focal external beam radiation therapy was administered following multidisciplinary discussion and review of the literature, with no evidence of active disease at 6 months follow-up.

Dedicated MRI simulation for cervical cancer radiation treatment planning: Assessing the impact on clinical target volume delineation.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) provides excellent soft tissue definition of pelvic tumours and organs. The aim of this study was to quantify differences in delineated clinical target volumes (CTVs) between computed tomography (CT) and MRI. METHODS: Twenty patients with locally advanced gynaecological malignancies were recruited. Patients underwent dedicated MRI simulation following CT simulation. Four clinicians independently contoured each CT and MRI. CTV structures were contoured using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines and lymph node CTV (LN-CTV) according to published guidelines. Interobserver variability was analysed using the dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean absolute surface distance (MASD). RESULTS: Gross tumour volume delineation was more consistent on MRI compared to CT, the DSC improved from 0.77 on CT to 0.81 on MRI, P < 0.01. GTV volumes were significantly smaller on MRI compared to CT (MRI 92 cc vs. CT 117 cc, P < 0.01). The LN-CTV and combined CTV volumes were both significantly smaller on MRI compared to CT (LN-CTV: MRI 324 cc vs CT 354 cc, P < 0.01 and combined CTV: MRI 560 cc vs CT 600 cc, P < 0.01). The LN-CTV DSC was 0.75 for both MRI and CT, and the combined CTV DSC was 0.81 for MRI and 0.80 for CT, P = 0.27. Vagina and parametria volumes exhibited more variability compared to other structures. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic Resonance Imaging contouring resulted in smaller and more consistently delineated volumes when compared to CT for most CTV structures. An MRI contouring atlas is provided to complement the existing RTOG contouring guidelines.

Personalising pancreas cancer treatment: When tissue is the issue.

The treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer has not moved much beyond single agent gemcitabine until recently when protocols such as FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin) and nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine have demonstrated some improved outcomes. Advances in technology especially in massively parallel genome sequencing has progressed our understanding of the biology of pancreatic cancer especially the candidate signalling pathways that are involved in tumourogenesis and disease course. This has allowed identification of potentially actionable mutations that may be targeted by new biological agents. The heterogeneity of pancreatic cancer makes tumour tissue collection important with the aim of being able to personalise therapies for the individual as opposed to a one size fits all approach to treatment of the condition. This paper reviews the developments in this area of translational research and the ongoing clinical studies that will attempt to move this into the everyday oncology practice.