FOLFIRINOX Versus Gemcitabine/Nab-Paclitaxel for Neoadjuvant Treatment of Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Head Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Both FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (G-nP) are used increasingly in the neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA). This study aimed to compare neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and G-nP in the treatment of resectable (R) and borderline resectable (BR) head PDA. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of R and BR patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy after NAT with FOLFIRINOX or G-nP was performed. Comparative analysis was performed using inverse-probability-weighted (IPW) estimators. The end points of the study were overall survival (OS) and an 80% reduction in CA19-9 with NAT. RESULTS: In this study, 193 patients were analyzed, with 73 patients receiving FOLFIRINOX and 120 patients receiving G-nP. The median OS was 38.7 months for FOLFIRINOX versus 28.6 months for G-nP (p = 0.214). The patients who received FOLFIRINOX were younger and had fewer comorbidities, more BR disease, and larger tumors than those treated with G-nP (all p < 0.05). The two regimens were equally effective in achieving an 80% decline in CA19-9 (p = 0.8). The R0 resection rates were similar (80%), but FOLFIRINOX was associated with a reduction in pN1 disease (56% vs. 72%; p = 0.028). The receipt of adjuvant therapy was similar (74 vs. 75%; p = 0.79). In the Cox regression analysis with adjustment for baseline and treatment-related variables (FOLFIRINOX vs. G-nP, age, gender, computed tomography (CT) tumor size, BR vs. R, pre-NAT CA19-9), regimen type was not associated with a survival benefit. In the IPW analysis of 166 patients, however, the average treatment effect of FOLFIRINOX was to increase OS by 4.9 months compared with G-nP (p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Both FOLFIRINOX and G-nP are viable options for neoadjuvant treatment of PDA. In this study, neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX was associated with a 4.9-month improvement in survival compared with G-nP after adjustment for covariates.

Analysis of Perioperative Chemotherapy in Resected Pancreatic Cancer: Identifying the Number and Sequence of Chemotherapy Cycles Needed to Optimize Survival.

PURPOSE: Receipt of 6 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is standard of care in pancreatic cancer (PC). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is increasingly utilized; however, optimal number of cycles needed alone or in combination with AC remains unknown. We sought to determine the optimal number and sequence of perioperative chemotherapy cycles in PC. METHODS: Single institutional review of all resected PCs from 2008 to 2015. The impact of cumulative number of chemotherapy cycles received (0, 1-5, and ≥6 cycles) and their sequence (NAC, AC, or NAC + AC) on overall survival was evaluated Cox-proportional hazard modeling, using 6 cycles of AC as reference. RESULTS: A total of 522 patients were analyzed. Based on sample size distribution, four combinations were evaluated: 0 cycles = 12.1%, 1-5 cycles of combined NAC + AC = 29%, 6 cycles of AC = 25%, and ≥6 cycles of combined NAC + AC = 34%, with corresponding survival. 13.1, 18.5, 37, and 36.8 months. On MVA (P < 0.0001), tumor stage [hazard ratio (HR) 1.35], LNR (HR 4.3), and R1 margins (HR 1.77) were associated with increased hazard of death. Compared with 6 cycles AC, receipt of 0 cycles [HR 3.57, confidence interval (CI) 2.47-5.18] or 1-5 cycles in any combination (HR 2.37, CI 1.73-3.23) was associated with increased hazard of death, whereas receipt of ≥6 cycles in any sequence was associated with optimal and comparable survival (HR 1.07, CI 0.78-1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of 6 or more perioperative cycles of chemotherapy either as combined neoadjuvant and adjuvant or adjuvant alone may be associated with optimal and comparable survival in resected PC.

Failure to Treat: Audit of an Institutional Cancer Registry Database at a Large Comprehensive Cancer Center Reveals Factors Affecting the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: National Cancer Database analysis showed 70% of patients with stage I pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDA) did not have surgery. We sought to analyze adherence to expected treatment (ET) by stage for PDA and identify factors that led to no treatment (NT) or unexpected treatment (UT) in a recent cohort. METHODS: Using our Institutional Cancer Registry (ICR), we identified patients with PDA from 2004 to 2013. ET was defined as surgery ± chemotherapy ± radiation for stages I and II, chemotherapy ± radiation for stage III, and chemotherapy for stage IV, while UT was defined as no surgery for stages I and II, surgery for stage III, or ± surgery ± XRT for stage IV. RESULTS: Overall, 2340 patients were identified (stages I and II = 51%, stage III = 11%, stage IV = 38%; ET = 58%, UT = 18%, NT = 24%). A total of 1183 patients had resectable PDA (stages I and II; ET = 57%, UT = 27%, NT = 16%), with ET demonstrating the best overall survival, but UT showing better survival than NT (p < 0.0001). In addition, 261 patients had unresectable PDA (stage III; ET = 69%, UT = 12%, NT = 18%), and survival was best in UT, but ET had a survival advantage over NT (p < 0.0001). Finally, 896 patients had metastatic PDA (stage IV; ET = 55%; UT = 9%; NT = 36%), with the NT group showing worse survival than the ET and UT groups (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Unlike previous reports, most patients with early-stage disease had ET. ET and UT were associated with better survival than NT in all stages, and surgical cohorts have improved survival regardless of stage. Younger age, male sex, white race, and less comorbidity were predictors of receiving treatment.

Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma: prognostic factors and oncologic outcome analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) present with late-stage, unresectable disease that responds poorly to systemic chemotherapy while, at the same time, effective targeted therapies are lacking. We assessed the efficacy of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemoperfusion (HIPEC) in MPM. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed 65 patients with MPM undergoing CRS/HIPEC between 2001 and 2010. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariate Cox-regression models identified prognostic factors affecting oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: Adequate CRS was achieved in 56 patients (CC-0 = 35; CC-1 = 21), and median simplified peritoneal cancer index (SPCI) was 12. Pathologic assessment revealed predominantly epithelioid histology (81 %) and biphasic histology (8 %), while lymph node involvement was uncommon (8 %). Major postoperative morbidity (grade III/IV) occurred in 23 patients (35 %), and 60-day mortality rate was 6 %. With median follow-up of 37 months, median overall survival was 46.2 months, with 1-, 2-, and 5-year overall survival probability of 77, 57, and 39 %, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 13.9 months, with 1-, 2-, and 5-year disease failure probability of 47, 68, and 83 %, respectively. In a multivariate Cox-regression model, age at surgery, SPCI >15, incomplete cytoreduction (CC-2/3), aggressive histology (epithelioid, biphasic), and postoperative sepsis were joint significant predictors of poor survival (chi square = 42.8; p = 0.00001), while age at surgery, SPCI >15, incomplete cytoreduction (CC-2/3), and aggressive histology (epithelioid, biphasic) were joint significant predictors of disease progression (Chi square = 30.6; p = 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor histology, disease burden, and the ability to achieve adequate surgical cytoreduction are essential prognostic factors in MPM patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC.