Perioperative or adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX for resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC-3): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection followed by adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil with leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) is currently the standard of care for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The main concern regarding adjuvant chemotherapy is that only half of patients actually receive adjuvant treatment. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, on the other hand, guarantees early systemic treatment and may increase chemotherapy use and thereby improve overall survival. Furthermore, it may prevent futile surgery in patients with rapidly progressive disease. However, some argue that neoadjuvant therapy delays surgery, which could lead to progression towards unresectable disease and thus offset the potential benefits. Comparison of perioperative (i.e., neoadjuvant and adjuvant) with (only) adjuvant administration of mFOLFIRINOX in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is needed to determine the optimal approach. METHODS: This multicenter, phase 3, RCT will include 378 patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients are recruited from 20 Dutch centers and three centers in Norway and Sweden. Resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as no arterial contact and ≤ 90 degrees venous contact. Patients in the intervention arm are scheduled for 8 cycles of neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX followed by surgery and 4 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (2-week cycle of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2 at day 1, followed by 46 h continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil 2400 g/m2). Patients in the comparator arm start with surgery followed by 12 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. The primary outcome is overall survival by intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, resection rate, quality of life, adverse events, and surgical complications. To detect a hazard ratio of 0.70 with 80% power, 252 events are needed. The number of events is expected to be reached after the inclusion of 378 patients in 36 months, with analysis planned 18 months after the last patient has been randomized. DISCUSSION: The multicenter PREOPANC-3 trial compares perioperative mFOLFIRINOX with adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials: NCT04927780. Registered June 16, 2021.

Total neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant gemcitabine for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC-2 trial): study protocol for a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy has several potential advantages over upfront surgery in patients with localized pancreatic cancer; more patients receive systemic treatment, fewer patients undergo futile surgery, and R0 resection rates are higher, thereby possibly improving overall survival (OS). Two recent randomized trials have suggested benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over upfront surgery, both including single-agent chemotherapy regimens. Potentially, the multi-agent FOLFIRINOX regimen (5-fluorouracil with leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) may further improve outcomes in the neoadjuvant setting for localized pancreatic cancer, but randomized studies are needed. The PREOPANC-2 trial investigates whether neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX improves OS compared with neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant gemcitabine in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer patients. METHODS: This nationwide multicenter phase III randomized controlled trial includes patients with pathologically confirmed resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer with a WHO performance score of 0 or 1. Resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as no arterial and ≤ 90 degrees venous involvement; borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as ≤90 degrees arterial and ≤ 270 degrees venous involvement without occlusion. Patients receive 8 cycles of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy followed by surgery without adjuvant treatment (arm A), or 3 cycles of neoadjuvant gemcitabine with hypofractionated radiotherapy (36 Gy in 15 fractions) during the second cycle, followed by surgery and 4 cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine (arm B). The primary endpoint is OS by intention-to-treat. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, quality of life, resection rate, and R0 resection rate. To detect a hazard ratio of 0.70 with 80% power, 252 events are needed. The number of events is expected to be reached after inclusion of 368 eligible patients assuming an accrual period of 3 years and 1.5 years follow-up. DISCUSSION: The PREOPANC-2 trial directly compares two neoadjuvant regimens for patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Our study will provide evidence on the neoadjuvant treatment of choice for patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Primary registry and trial identifying number: EudraCT: 2017-002036-17 . Date of registration: March 6, 2018. Secondary identifying numbers: The Netherlands National Trial Register - NL7094 , NL61961.078.17, MEC-2018-004.

Meta-analysis of epidural analgesia in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.

Background: The optimal analgesic technique after pancreatoduodenectomy remains under debate. This study aimed to see whether epidural analgesia (EA) has superior clinical outcomes compared with non-epidural alternatives (N-EA) in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. On 28 August 2018, relevant literature databases were searched. Primary outcomes were pain scores. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure of initial analgesia, complications, duration of hospital stay and mortality. Results: Three RCTs and eight cohort studies (25 089 patients) were included. N-EA treatments studied were: intravenous morphine, continuous wound infiltration, bilateral paravertebral thoracic catheters and intrathecal morphine. Patients receiving EA had a marginally lower pain score on days 0-3 after surgery than those receiving intravenous morphine (mean difference (MD) -0·50, 95 per cent c.i. -0·80 to -0·21; P < 0·001) and similar pain scores to patients who had continuous wound infiltration. Treatment failure occurred in 28·5 per cent of patients receiving EA, mainly for haemodynamic instability or inadequate pain control. EA was associated with fewer complications (odds ratio (OR) 0·69, 95 per cent c.i. 0·06 to 0·79; P < 0·001), shorter duration of hospital stay (MD -2·69 (95 per cent c.i. -2·76 to -2·62) days; P < 0·001) and lower mortality (OR 0·69, 0·51 to 0 93; P = 0·02) compared with intravenous morphine. Conclusion: EA provides marginally lower pain scores in the first postoperative days than intravenous morphine, and appears to be associated with fewer complications, shorter duration of hospital stay and less mortality.

Antecedentes: La técnica analgésica óptima tras una duodenopancreatectomía permanece en debate. El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar si la analgesia epidural (epidural analgesia, EA) presenta resultados clínicos superiores en comparación con las alternativas no epidurales (non­epidural alternatives, N­EA) en pacientes que se someten a una duodenopancreatectomía. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión sistemática con metaanálisis de acuerdo con las recomendaciones PRISMA. El 28 de agosto de 2018, se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos relevantes de la literatura. El objetivo primario fueron las puntuaciones de dolor. Los objetivos secundarios fueron el fracaso del tratamiento de la analgesia inicial, las complicaciones, la duración de la estancia hospitalaria y la mortalidad. Resultados: Se incluyeron tres ensayos aleatorizados y controlados y ocho estudios de cohortes (25.089 pacientes). Las N­EA estudiadas fueron: morfina intravenosa (iv), infiltración continua de la herida, catéteres torácicos paravertebrales bilaterales y morfina intratecal. Los pacientes con EA tuvieron una puntuación de dolor marginalmente más baja en los días postoperatorios 0 a 3 en comparación con la morfina iv (diferencia de medias (MD) = ­ 0,50, i.c. del 95% ­0,80 a ­0,21; P < 0,001) y puntuaciones de dolor similares en comparación con la infiltración continua de la herida. El fallo del tratamiento ocurrió en el 28,5% de los pacientes con EA, principalmente por inestabilidad hemodinámica o control inadecuado del dolor. La EA se asoció con menos complicaciones (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR = 0,69, i.c. del 95% 0,061 a 0,79; P < 0,001), menor duración de la estancia hospitalaria (MD = ­2,69 días, i.c. del 95% ­2,76 a ­2,62; P < 0,001) y menor mortalidad en comparación con la morfina iv (OR = 0,69, i.c. del 95% 0,51 a 0,93; P = 0,01). Conclusión: La EA proporciona puntuaciones de dolor ligeramente más bajas en los primeros días postoperatorios en comparación con la morfina iv y parece asociarse con menos complicaciones, menor duración de la estancia hospitalaria y menor mortalidad.