The Impact of Positive Resection Margins on Survival and Recurrence Following Resection and Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: Local and distant disease recurrence are frequently observed following pancreatic cancer resection, but an improved understanding of resection margin assessment is required to aid tailored therapies. METHODS: Analyses were carried out to assess the association between clinical characteristics and margin involvement as well as the effects of individual margin involvement on site of recurrence and overall and recurrence-free survival using individual patient data from the European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-3 randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: There were 1151 patients, of whom 505 (43.9%) had an R1 resection. The median and 95% confidence interval (CI) overall survival was 24.9 (22.9-27.2) months for 646 (56.1%) patients with resection margin negative (R0 >1 mm) tumors, 25.4 (21.6-30.4) months for 146 (12.7%) patients with R1<1 mm positive resection margins, and 18.7 (17.2-21.1) months for 359 (31.2%) patients with R1-direct positive margins (P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, overall R1-direct tumor margins, poor tumor differentiation, positive lymph node status, WHO performance status ≥1, maximum tumor size, and R1-direct posterior resection margin were all independently significantly associated with reduced overall and recurrence-free survival. Competing risks analysis showed that overall R1-direct positive resection margin status, positive lymph node status, WHO performance status 1, and R1-direct positive superior mesenteric/medial margin resection status were all significantly associated with local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: R1-direct resections were associated with significantly reduced overall and recurrence-free survival following pancreatic cancer resection. Resection margin involvement was also associated with an increased risk for local recurrence.

Rechallenge with oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine for metastatic colorectal carcinoma after prior therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) who have received oxaliplatin, 5-fluoropyrimidine, and irinotecan chemotherapy (with or without bevacizumab) and antiepidermal growth factor receptor therapy (if KRAS is wild type) have no further standard treatment options. Although repeating a prior chemotherapy [in particular, oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine (FOX)] is an option, there is very little evidence in the literature for this approach; thus, we reviewed our registry to assess the frequency and outcome of rechallenging with FOX. METHODS: Patients who had been rechallenged with FOX were identified from the South Australian metastatic CRC database. Patient characteristics were analyzed, and tumor response was retrospectively assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. RESULTS: Twenty patients were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. The number of prior lines of therapy received for metastatic CRC was 4 lines for 2 patients, 3 lines for 6 patients, 2 lines for 7 patients, and 1 line for 3 patients, with 3 patients having received oxaliplatin as adjuvant therapy. Four patients had received bevacizumab previously, 7 patients had undergone antiepidermal growth factor receptor treatment, and 4 patients had undergone liver resection earlier. Response rate was 18%, and 47% had stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 3.7 months, median overall survival was 7.8 months, and 1-year survival was 37%. CONCLUSIONS: In this selected population, there is evidence of modest activity of rechallenge with FOX chemotherapy, although radiologic response is uncommon.

Adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid vs gemcitabine following pancreatic cancer resection: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Adjuvant fluorouracil has been shown to be of benefit for patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine is known to be the most effective agent in advanced disease as well as an effective agent in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether fluorouracil or gemcitabine is superior in terms of overall survival as adjuvant treatment following resection of pancreatic cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-3 trial, an open-label, phase 3, randomized controlled trial conducted in 159 pancreatic cancer centers in Europe, Australasia, Japan, and Canada. Included in ESPAC-3 version 2 were 1088 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had undergone cancer resection; patients were randomized between July 2000 and January 2007 and underwent at least 2 years of follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either fluorouracil plus folinic acid (folinic acid, 20 mg/m(2), intravenous bolus injection, followed by fluorouracil, 425 mg/m(2) intravenous bolus injection given 1-5 days every 28 days) (n = 551) or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion once a week for 3 of every 4 weeks) (n = 537) for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was overall survival; secondary measures were toxicity, progression-free survival, and quality of life. RESULTS: Final analysis was carried out on an intention-to-treat basis after a median of 34.2 (interquartile range, 27.1-43.4) months' follow-up after 753 deaths (69%). Median survival was 23.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.1-25.0) months for patients treated with fluorouracil plus folinic acid and 23.6 (95% CI, 21.4-26.4) months for those treated with gemcitabine (chi(1)(2) = 0.7; P = .39; hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.81-1.08]). Seventy-seven patients (14%) receiving fluorouracil plus folinic acid had 97 treatment-related serious adverse events, compared with 40 patients (7.5%) receiving gemcitabine, who had 52 events (P < .001). There were no significant differences in either progression-free survival or global quality-of-life scores between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with the use of fluorouracil plus folinic acid, gemcitabine did not result in improved overall survival in patients with completely resected pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00058201.

Radiofrequency ablation of liver tumors: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for treating liver tumors. DATA SOURCES: Databases were searched in July 2003. STUDY SELECTION: Studies comparing RFA with other therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CLM) plus selected case series for CLM. DATA EXTRACTION: One researcher used standardized data extraction tables developed before the study, and these were checked by a second researcher. DATA SYNTHESIS: For HCC, 13 comparative studies were included, 4 of which were randomized, controlled trials. For CLM, 13 studies were included, 2 of which were nonrandomized comparative studies and 11 that were case series. There did not seem to be any distinct differences in the complication rates between RFA and any of the other procedures for treatment of HCC. The local recurrence rate at 2 years showed a statistically significant benefit for RFA over percutaneous ethanol injection for treatment of HCC (6% vs 26%, 1 randomized, controlled trial). Local recurrence was reported to be more common after RFA than after laser-induced thermotherapy, and a higher recurrence rate and a shorter time to recurrence were associated with RFA compared with surgical resection (1 nonrandomized study each). For CLM, the postoperative complication rate ranged from 0% to 33% (3 case series). Survival after diagnosis was shorter in the CLM group treated with RFA than in the surgical resection group (1 nonrandomized study). The CLM local recurrence rate after RFA ranged from 4% to 55% (6 case series). CONCLUSIONS: Radiofrequency ablation may be more effective than other treatments in terms of less recurrence of HCC and may be as safe, although the evidence is scant. There was not enough evidence to determine the safety or efficacy of RFA for treatment of CLM.