Tailoring Adjuvant Chemotherapy to Biologic Response Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Impacts Overall Survival in Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of postoperative chemotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer who receive neoadjuvant treatment is unknown. Clinicians use changes in CA19-9 and histopathologic scores to assess treatment response. We sought to investigate if CA19-9 normalization in response to NAT can help guide the need for postoperative treatment. METHODS: Patients with elevated baseline CA19-9 (CA19-9 > 37U/mL) who received NAT followed by surgery between 2011 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Treatment response was determined by CA19-9 normalization following NAT and histopathologic scoring. The role of postoperative chemotherapy was analyzed in light of CA19-9 normalization and histopathologic response. RESULTS: We identified and included 345 patients. Following NAT, CA19-9 normalization was observed in 125 patients (36.2%). CA19-9 normalization was associated with a favorable histopathologic response (41.6% vs 23.2%, p < 0.001) and a lower ypT (p < 0.001) and ypN stage (p = 0.003). Receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival in patients in whom CA19-9 did not normalize following NAT (26.8 vs 16.4 months, p = 0.008). In patients who received 5FU-based NAT and in whom CA19-9 did not normalize, receipt of 5FU-based adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS (p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: CA19-9 normalization in response to NAT was associated with favorable outcomes and can serve as a biomarker for treatment response. In patients where CA19-9 did not normalize, receipt of postoperative chemotherapy was associated with improved OS. These patients also benefited from additional 5FU-based postoperative chemotherapy following 5FU-based NAT.

The Utility of Preoperative Tumor Markers in Peritoneal Carcinomatosis from Primary Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma: an Analysis from the US HIPEC Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Prognostication based on preoperative clinical factors is lacking in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC). This study aims to determine the value of preoperative tumor markers as predictors of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from a primary mucinous adenocarcinoma of the appendix (MACA). METHODS: We queried the United States HIPEC Collaborative, a database of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis treated with CRS/HIPEC at twelve institutions between 2000 and 2017, identifying 409 patients with MACA. Multivariate analysis was used to identify independent predictors of disease progression. Subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of tumor grade on the predictive value of tumor markers. RESULTS: CA19-9 [HR 2.44, CI 1.2-3.4] emerged as an independent predictor of PFS while CEA [HR 4.98, CI 1.06-23.46] was independently predictive of OS (p <0.01). Tumor differentiation was the most potent predictor of both PFS (poorly differentiated vs well, [HR 4.5 CI 2.01-9.94]) and OS ([poorly differentiated vs well-differentiated: [HR 13.5, CI 3.16-57.78]), p <0.05. Among patients with combined CA19-9 elevation and poorly differentiated histology, 86% recurred within a year of CRS/HIPEC (p < 0.01). Similarly, the coexistence of CEA elevation and unfavorable histology led to the lowest survival rate at two years [36%, p < 0.01]. CA-125 was not predictive of PFS or OS. CONCLUSION: Elevated preoperative CA19-9 portends worse PFS, while elevated CEA predicts worse OS after CRS/HIPEC in patients with MACA. This study provides additional evidence that CA19-9 and CEA levels should be collected during standard preoperative bloodwork, while CA-125 can likely be omitted. Tumor differentiation, when added to preoperative tumor marker levels, provides powerful prognostic information. Prospective studies are required to confirm this association.

Impact of Margin Status on Survival in Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Historically, a positive margin after pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was associated with decreased survival. In an era when neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is being used frequently, the prognostic significance of margin status is unclear. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with localized PDAC who received NAC and underwent pancreatectomy from 2011 to 2018 were identified from a single-institution database. Patients with fewer than 2 months of NAC, R2 resection, or fewer than 90 days of follow-up were excluded. A positive margin included tumors within 1 mm of the surgical margin. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-eight patients met inclusion criteria. Median age was 65 years and 53% were female. Preoperative clinical staging demonstrated that most had locally advanced (n = 222 [47%]) or borderline resectable (n = 172 [37%]) disease. Median follow-up was 18.5 months (interquartile range 10.6 to 30.0 months). Median duration of NAC was 119 days (interquartile range 87 to 168 days). FOLFIRINOX was first-line therapy for 67%, and 73% received neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Most underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (69%). Forty percent were node-positive and 80% had an R0 resection. Fifty-six percent received at least 1 cycle of adjuvant therapy. Median overall survival and recurrence-free survival were 22.0 months (95% CI, 19.4 to 25.1 months) and 11.0 months (95% CI, 10.0 to 12.1 months). On multivariate analysis, margin status was not a significant predictor of overall survival or recurrence-free survival. Factors associated with overall survival included clinical stage, duration of NAC, nodal status, histopathologic treatment response score, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Microscopic margin positivity is not associated with recurrence and survival in localized PDAC patients resected after treatment with NAC. Aggressive surgical extirpation in high-volume centers should be considered in selected patients after extensive NAC.

The impact of financial toxicity in gastrointestinal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Biopsychosocial distress screening is a critical component of comprehensive cancer care. Financial issues are a common source of distress in this patient population. This study uses a biopsychosocial distress screening tool to determine the factors associated with financial toxicity and the impact of these stressors on gastrointestinal cancer patients. METHODS: A 48-question, proprietary distress screening tool was administered to patients with gastrointestinal malignancies from 2009 to 2015. This validated, electronically-administered tool is given to all new patients. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not a problem) to 5 (very severe problem), with responses rated at ≥3 indicative of distress. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Most of the 1,027 patients had colorectal (50%) or hepatobiliary (31%) malignancies. Additionally, 34% of all patients expressed a high level of financial toxicity. Age greater than 65 (odds ratio: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.47-0.86, P < .01), college education (odds ratio: 0.53, 95% confidence interval: 0.38-0.73, P < .0001), being partnered (odds ratio: 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.44-0.84, P < .01), and annual income greater than $40,000 (odds ratio: 0.27, 95% confidence interval: 0.19-0.38, P < .0001) were all protective against financial toxicity on univariate analysis. Also, heavy tobacco use was associated significantly with increased distress on univariate analysis (odds ratio: 2.79, 95% confidence interval: 1.38-5.78, P < .01). With the exception of partnered status (odds ratio: 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.76-1.85, P = .46), all these variables retained their significant association with financial toxicity in the multivariate model. CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity impacts a large number of cancer patients. Further study of at-risk populations may identify patients who would benefit from pre-emptive education and counseling interventions as part of their routine cancer care.

Optimal Surveillance Frequency After CRS/HIPEC for Appendiceal and Colorectal Neoplasms: A Multi-institutional Analysis of the US HIPEC Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: No guidelines exist for surveillance following cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) for appendiceal and colorectal cancer. The primary objective was to define the optimal surveillance frequency after CRS/HIPEC. METHODS: The U.S. HIPEC Collaborative database (2000-2017) was reviewed for patients who underwent a CCR0/1 CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal or colorectal cancer. Radiologic surveillance frequency was divided into two categories: low-frequency surveillance (LFS) at q6-12mos or high-frequency surveillance (HFS) at q2-4mos. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among 975 patients, the median age was 55 year, 41% were male: 31% had non-invasive appendiceal (n = 301), 45% invasive appendiceal (n = 435), and 24% colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 239). With a median follow-up time of 25 mos, the median time to recurrence was 12 mos. Despite less surveillance, LFS patients had no decrease in median OS (non-invasive appendiceal: 106 vs. 65 mos, p < 0.01; invasive appendiceal: 120 vs. 73 mos, p = 0.02; colorectal cancer [CRC]: 35 vs. 30 mos, p = 0.8). LFS patients had lower median PCI scores compared with HFS (non-invasive appendiceal: 10 vs. 19; invasive appendiceal: 10 vs. 14; CRC: 8 vs. 11; all p < 0.01). However, on multivariable analysis, accounting for PCI score, LFS was still not associated with decreased OS for any histologic type (non-invasive appendiceal: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.28, p = 0.1; invasive appendiceal: HR: 0.73, p = 0.42; CRC: HR: 1.14, p = 0.59). When estimating annual incident cases of CRS/HIPEC at 375 for non-invasive appendiceal, 375 invasive appendiceal and 4410 colorectal, LFS compared with HFS for the initial two post-operative years would potentially save $13-19 M/year to the U.S. healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: Low-frequency surveillance after CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal or colorectal cancer is not associated with decreased survival, and when considering decreased costs, may optimize resource utilization.

Primary Tumor Sidedness is Predictive of Survival in Colon Cancer Patients Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery With or Without Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: A US HIPEC Collaborative Study.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical relevance of primary tumor sidedness is not fully understood in colon cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of a multi-institutional database of patients with peritoneal surface malignancy at 12 participating high-volume academic centers from the US HIPEC Collaborative. RESULTS: Overall, 336 patients with colon primary tumors who underwent curative-intent CRS with or without HIPEC were identified; 179 (53.3%) patients had right-sided primary tumors and 157 (46.7%) had left-sided primary tumors. Patients with right-sided tumors were more likely to be older, male, have higher Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI), and have a perforated primary tumor, but were less likely to have extraperitoneal disease. Patients with complete cytoreduction (CC-0/1) had a median disease-free survival (DFS) of 11.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.6-15.3) versus 13.1 months (95% CI 9.5-16.8) [p = 0.158] and median overall survival (OS) of 30 months (95% CI 23.5-36.6) versus 45.4 months (95% CI 35.9-54.8) [p = 0.028] for right- and left-sided tumors; respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that right-sided primary tumor was an independent predictor of worse DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.75, 95% CI 1.19-2.56; p =0.004) and OS (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.09-2.73; p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: Right-sided primary tumor was an independent predictor of worse DFS and OS. Relevant clinicopathologic criteria, such as tumor sidedness and PCI, should be considered in patient selection for CRS with or without HIPEC, and guide stratification for clinical trials.