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.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy or best supportive care in patients with localized pancreatic cancer not receiving chemotherapy and surgery (PANCOSAR): a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial according to a TwiCs design.

BACKGROUND: Significant comorbidities, advanced age, and a poor performance status prevent surgery and systemic treatment for many patients with localized (non-metastatic) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). These patients are currently treated with 'best supportive care'. Therefore, it is desirable to find a treatment option which could improve both disease control and quality of life in these patients. A brief course of high-dose high-precision radiotherapy i.e. stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) may be feasible. METHODS: A nationwide multicenter trial performed within a previously established large prospective cohort (the Dutch Pancreatic cancer project; PACAP) according to the 'Trial within cohorts' (TwiCs) design. Patients enrolled in the PACAP cohort routinely provide informed consent to answer quality of life questionnaires and to be randomized according to the TwiCs design when eligible for a study. Patients with localized PDAC who are unfit for chemotherapy and surgery or those who refrain from these treatments are eligible. Patients will be randomized between SABR (5 fractions of 8 Gy) with 'best supportive care' and 'best supportive care' only. The primary endpoint is overall survival from randomization. Secondary endpoints include preservation of quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30 and -PAN26), NRS pain score response and WHO performance scores at baseline, and, 3, 6 and 12 months. Acute and late toxicity will be scored using CTCAE criteria version 5.0: assessed at baseline, day of last fraction, at 3 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6 and 12 months following SABR. DISCUSSION: The PANCOSAR trial studies the added value of SBRT as compared to 'best supportive care' in patients with localized PDAC who are medically unfit to receive chemotherapy and surgery, or refrain from these treatments. This study will assess whether SABR, in comparison to best supportive care, can relieve or delay tumor-related symptoms, enhance quality of life, and extend survival in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials, NCT05265663 , Registered March 3 2022, Retrospectively registered.

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.

The treatment and survival of elderly patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer: A post-hoc analysis of a multicenter registry.

BACKGROUND: The treatment options for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) have improved in recent years and consequently survival has increased. It is unknown, however, if elderly patients benefit from these improvements in therapy. With the ongoing aging of the patient population and an increasing incidence of pancreatic cancer, this patient group becomes more relevant. This study aims to clarify the association between increasing age, treatment and overall survival in patients with LAPC. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of a multicenter registry including consecutive patients with LAPC, who were registered in 14 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (April 2015-December 2017). Patients were divided in three groups according to age (<65, 65-74 and ≥75 years). Primary outcome was overall survival stratified by primary treatment strategy. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to adjust for possible confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 422 patients with LAPC were included; 162 patients (38%) aged <65 years, 182 patients (43%) aged 65-74 and 78 patients (19%) aged ≥75 years. Chemotherapy was administered in 86%, 81% and 50% of the patients in the different age groups (p<0.01). Median overall survival was 12, 11 and 7 months for the different age groups (p<0.01).Patients treated with chemotherapy showed comparable median overall survival of 13, 14 and 10 months for the different age groups (p=0.11). When adjusted for confounders, age was not associated with overall survival. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients are less likely to be treated with chemotherapy, but when treated with chemotherapy, their survival is comparable to younger patients.

Gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy in subtypes of ampullary adenocarcinoma: international propensity score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Whether patients who undergo resection of ampullary adenocarcinoma have a survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to compare survival between patients with and without adjuvant chemotherapy after resection of ampullary adenocarcinoma in a propensity score-matched analysis. METHODS: An international multicentre cohort study was conducted, including patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for ampullary adenocarcinoma between 2006 and 2017, in 13 centres in six countries. Propensity scores were used to match patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy with those who did not, in the entire cohort and in two subgroups (pancreatobiliary/mixed and intestinal subtypes). Survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 1163 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for ampullary adenocarcinoma. After excluding 187 patients, median survival in the remaining 976 patients was 67 (95 per cent c.i. 56 to 78) months. A total of 520 patients (53·3 per cent) received adjuvant chemotherapy. In a propensity score-matched cohort (194 patients in each group), survival was better among patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy than in those who did not (median survival not reached versus 60 months respectively; P = 0·051). A survival benefit was seen in patients with the pancreatobiliary/mixed subtype; median survival was not reached in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and 32 months in the group without chemotherapy (P = 0·020). Patients with the intestinal subtype did not show any survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Patients with resected ampullary adenocarcinoma may benefit from gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy, but this effect may be reserved for those with the pancreatobiliary and/or mixed subtype.

ANTECEDENTES: Actualmente se desconoce si la quimioterapia adyuvante ofrece un beneficio en la supervivencia de los pacientes que se someten a resección de un adenocarcinoma ampular. El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar la supervivencia mediante la concordancia estimada por emparejamiento por puntaje de propensión, entre pacientes con y sin quimioterapia adyuvante después de la resección de un adenocarcinoma ampular. MÉTODOS: Se realizó un estudio internacional de cohortes multicéntrico, que incluyó a los pacientes que se sometieron a una duodenopancreatectomía por adenocarcinoma ampular (2006-2017) en 13 centros de seis países. Los puntajes de propensión se usaron para emparejar a los pacientes que recibieron quimioterapia adyuvante con los que no; tanto en la cohorte completa como en dos subgrupos (subtipo pancreaticobiliar / mixto e intestinal). La supervivencia se evaluó utilizando el método de Kaplan-Meier y las regresiones de Cox. RESULTADOS: En total, 1.163 pacientes fueron sometidos a una duodenopancreatectomía por adenocarcinoma ampular. Después de excluir a 179 pacientes, la mediana de supervivencia de los 976 pacientes restantes fue de 67 meses (i.c. del 95%, 56-78), de los cuales un total de 520 pacientes (53%) recibieron quimioterapia adyuvante. En una cohorte de emparejamiento por puntaje de propensión (194 versus 194 pacientes), la mediana de supervivencia fue mejor en los pacientes tratados con quimioterapia adyuvante en comparación con aquellos sin quimioterapia adyuvante (no se alcanzó la mediana de supervivencia versus 60 meses, respectivamente; P = 0,051). En el subtipo pancreaticobiliar/mixto se observó un beneficio en la supervivencia; no se alcanzó la mediana de supervivencia en pacientes que recibieron quimioterapia adyuvante versus 32 meses en el grupo sin quimioterapia, P = 0,020. El subtipo intestinal no mostró beneficio en la supervivencia de la quimioterapia adyuvante. CONCLUSIÓN: Los pacientes con adenocarcinoma ampular resecado pueden beneficiarse de la quimioterapia adyuvante basada en gemcitabina, pero este efecto podría reservarse para aquellos pacientes con subtipo de tumor pancreaticobiliar y/o mixto.

Clinical value of ctDNA in upper-GI cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The recent expanding technical possibilities to detect tumor derived mutations in blood, so-called circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), has rapidly increased the interest in liquid biopsies. This review and meta-analysis explores the clinical value of ctDNA in malignancies of the upper gastro-intestinal tract. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched to identify studies reporting the diagnostic, prognostic or predictive value of ctDNA in patients with esophageal, gastric and pancreatic cancer, until January 2017. The diagnostic accuracy and, using random-effect pair-wise meta-analyses, the prognostic value of ctDNA was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria. For esophageal and gastric cancer, amplification of oncogenes in blood, such as HER2 and MYC, can be relevant for diagnostic purposes, and to predict treatment response in certain patient subpopulations. Given the limited number of studies assessing the role of ctDNA in esophageal and gastric cancer, the meta-analysis estimated the diagnostic accuracy and predictive value of ctDNA in pancreatic cancer only (n=10). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ctDNA as a diagnostic tool in pancreatic cancer were 28% and 95%, respectively. Patients with pancreatic cancer and detectable ctDNA demonstrated a worse overall survival compared to patients with undetectable ctDNA (HR 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15-3.22, p=0.01). CONCLUSION: The presence of ctDNA is significantly associated with a poor prognosis in patients with pancreatic cancer. The use of ctDNA in clinical practice is promising, although standardization of sequencing techniques and further development of high-sensitive detection methods is needed.

Systematic review of clinical prediction models for survival after surgery for resectable pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: As more therapeutic options for pancreatic cancer are becoming available, there is a need to improve outcome prediction to support shared decision-making. A systematic evaluation of prediction models in resectable pancreatic cancer is lacking. METHODS: This systematic review followed the CHARMS and PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to 11 October 2017. Studies reporting development or validation of models predicting survival in resectable pancreatic cancer were included. Models without performance measures, reviews, abstracts or more than 10 per cent of patients not undergoing resection in postoperative models were excluded. Studies were appraised critically. RESULTS: After screening 4403 studies, 22 (44 319 patients) were included. There were 19 model development/update studies and three validation studies, altogether concerning 21 individual models. Two studies were deemed at low risk of bias. Eight models were developed for the preoperative setting and 13 for the postoperative setting. Most frequently included parameters were differentiation grade (11 of 21 models), nodal status (8 of 21) and serum albumin (7 of 21). Treatment-related variables were included in three models. The C-statistic/area under the curve values ranged from 0·57 to 0·90. Based on study design, validation methods and the availability of web-based calculators, two models were identified as the most promising. CONCLUSION: Although a large number of prediction models for resectable pancreatic cancer have been reported, most are at high risk of bias and have not been validated externally. This overview of prognostic factors provided practical recommendations that could help in designing easily applicable prediction models to support shared decision-making.

Meta-analysis comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer may report only patients who underwent resection and so survival will be skewed. The aim of this study was to report survival by intention to treat in a comparison of upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant treatment in resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting median overall survival by intention to treat in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer treated with or without neoadjuvant treatment. Secondary outcomes included overall and R0 resection rate, pathological lymph node rate, reasons for unresectability and toxicity of neoadjuvant treatment. RESULTS: In total, 38 studies were included with 3484 patients, of whom 1738 (49·9 per cent) had neoadjuvant treatment. The weighted median overall survival by intention to treat was 18·8 months for neoadjuvant treatment and 14·8 months for upfront surgery; the difference was larger among patients whose tumours were resected (26·1 versus 15·0 months respectively). The overall resection rate was lower with neoadjuvant treatment than with upfront surgery (66·0 versus 81·3 per cent; P < 0·001), but the R0 rate was higher (86·8 (95 per cent c.i. 84·6 to 88·7) versus 66·9 (64·2 to 69·6) per cent; P < 0·001). Reported by intention to treat, the R0 rates were 58·0 and 54·9 per cent respectively (P = 0·088). The pathological lymph node rate was 43·8 per cent after neoadjuvant therapy and 64·8 per cent in the upfront surgery group (P < 0·001). Toxicity of at least grade III was reported in up to 64 per cent of the patients. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant treatment appears to improve overall survival by intention to treat, despite lower overall resection rates for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016049374.

Translating the ABC-02 trial into daily practice: outcome of palliative treatment in patients with unresectable biliary tract cancer treated with gemcitabine and cisplatin.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is an uncommon cancer with an unfavorable prognosis. Since 2010, the standard of care for patients with unresectable BTC is palliative treatment with gemcitabine plus cisplatin, based on the landmark phase III ABC-02 trial. This current study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with unresectable cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer in daily practice that meet the criteria for the ABC-02 trial in comparison to patients who did not. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with unresectable BTC between 2010 and 2015 with an indication for gemcitabine and cisplatin were included. We divided these patients into three groups: (I) patients who received chemotherapy and met the criteria of the ABC-02 trial, (II) patients who received chemotherapy and did not meet these criteria and (III) patients who had an indication for chemotherapy, but received best supportive care without chemotherapy. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: We collected data of 208 patients, of which 138 (66.3%) patients received first line chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin. Median OS of 69 patients in group I, 63 patients in group II and 65 patients in group III was 9.6 months (95%CI = 6.7-12.5), 9.5 months (95%CI = 7.7-11.3) and 7.6 months (95%CI = 5.0-10.2), respectively. Median PFS was 6.0 months (95%CI = 4.4-7.6) in group I and 5.1 months (95%CI = 3.7-6.5) in group II. Toxicity and number of dose reductions (p = .974) were comparable between the two chemotherapy groups. CONCLUSION: First-line gemcitabine and cisplatin is an effective and safe treatment for patients with unresectable BTC who do not meet the eligibility criteria for the ABC-02 trial. Median OS, PFS and treatment side effects were comparable between the patients who received chemotherapy (group I vs. group II).

Metformin Use During Treatment of Potentially Curable Esophageal Cancer Patients is not Associated with Better Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Metformin use has been associated with a dose-dependent increased response to neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy in esophageal cancer patients. However, no association between metformin use and overall survival has been reported yet. The purpose of our study was to investigate the effect of metformin use on pathological response as well as overall and disease-free survival in patients with resectable esophageal cancer. METHODS: Between March 1994 and September 2013, all patients undergoing an esophagectomy for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer after neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy with curative intent were included in a prospective database. A complete pathological response was defined as ypT0N0M0, Mandard 1. Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank testing were performed for overall survival and disease-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 461 patients were included with a median follow-up of 24 months (range 1-228); 43 patients were diagnosed with diabetes mellitus type II (9.3 %) of whom 32 patients used metformin (74 %). A total of 94 (20 %) patients had a complete pathological response, which did not differ between metformin users (19 %) and non-metformin users (21 %, p = 0.99). We did not observe a statistically significant difference between metformin users and non-metformin users for median overall survival (43.6 vs. 42.8 months, p = 0.66) or for median disease-free survival (31.1 vs. 47.0 months, p = 0.68). A subgroup analysis in patients with diabetes mellitus type II showed a nonsignificant increase in median overall survival for metformin users (43.6 months) compared with non-metformin users (21.4 months, p = 0.44). For median disease-free survival, a similar nonsignificant increase was observed for metformin users (31.1 months) compared with non-metformin users (20.1 months, p = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: The use of metformin did not result in higher pathological response rates or improved overall survival or disease-free survival compared with non-metformin use in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy for resectable esophageal cancer. In contrast to what has been postulated for other tumor types, metformin may not have a beneficial effect in esophageal cancer.

Gender differences in tumor characteristics, treatment allocation and survival in stage I-III pancreatic cancer: a nationwide study.

INTRODUCTION: Sex and gender are modulators of health and disease and may have impact on treatment allocation and survival in patients with cancer. In this study, we analyzed the impact of sex and gender on treatment allocation and overall survival in patients with stage I-III pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Patients with stage I-III pancreatic cancer diagnosed between 2015 and 2020 were selected from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. Associations between sex and gender and the probability of receiving surgical and/or systemic treatment were examined with multivariable logistic regression analyses. Overall survival was assessed with log rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis. RESULTS: Among 6855 patients, 51.2 % were female. Multivariable logistic regression analyses with adjustment for known confounders (age, performance status, comorbidities, tumor location, tumor stage and previous malignancies) showed that females less often received systemic chemotherapy compared to males (OR 0.799, 95 %CI 0.703-0.909, p < .001). No difference was found in the probability for undergoing surgical resection. Furthermore, females had worse overall survival compared to males (median OS 8.5 and 9.2 months respectively, 95 %CI 8.669-9.731). CONCLUSION: This nationwide study found that female patients with stage I-III pancreatic cancer significantly less often received systemic treatment and had worse overall survival as compared to males. Disparities in pancreatic cancer care can be decreased by recognizing and resolving potential obstacles or biases in treatment decision-making.

Recurrent disease detection after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using a recurrence-focused surveillance strategy (RADAR-PANC): protocol of an international randomized controlled trial according to the Trials within Cohorts design.

BACKGROUND: Disease recurrence remains one of the biggest concerns in patients after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Despite (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy, most patients experience local and/or distant PDAC recurrence within 2 years. High-level evidence regarding the benefits of recurrence-focused surveillance after PDAC resection is missing, and the impact of early detection and treatment of recurrence on survival and quality of life is unknown. In most European countries, recurrence-focused follow-up after surgery for PDAC is currently lacking. Consequently, guidelines regarding postoperative surveillance are based on expert opinion and other low-level evidence. The recent emergence of more potent local and systemic treatment options for PDAC recurrence has increased interest in early diagnosis. To determine whether early detection and treatment of recurrence can lead to improved survival and quality of life, we designed an international randomized trial. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial is nested within an existing prospective cohort in pancreatic cancer centers in the Netherlands (Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project; PACAP) and the United Kingdom (UK) (Pancreas Cancer: Observations of Practice and survival; PACOPS) according to the "Trials within Cohorts" (TwiCs) design. All PACAP/PACOPS participants with a macroscopically radical resection (R0-R1) of histologically confirmed PDAC, who provided informed consent for TwiCs and participation in quality of life questionnaires, are included. Participants randomized to the intervention arm are offered recurrence-focused surveillance, existing of clinical evaluation, serum cancer antigen (CA) 19-9 testing, and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of chest and abdomen every three months during the first 2 years after surgery. Participants in the control arm of the study will undergo non-standardized clinical follow-up, generally consisting of clinical follow-up with imaging and serum tumor marker testing only in case of onset of symptoms, according to local practice in the participating hospital. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include quality of life, patterns of recurrence, compliance to and costs of recurrence-focused follow-up, and the impact on recurrence-focused treatment. DISCUSSION: The RADAR-PANC trial will be the first randomized controlled trial to generate high level evidence for the current clinical equipoise regarding the value of recurrence-focused postoperative surveillance with serial tumor marker testing and routine imaging in patients after PDAC resection. The Trials within Cohort design allows us to study the acceptability of recurrence-focused surveillance among cohort participants and increases the generalizability of findings to the general population. While it is strongly encouraged to offer all trial participants treatment at time of recurrence diagnosis, type and timing of treatment will be determined through shared decision-making. This might reduce the potential survival benefits of recurrence-focused surveillance, although insights into the impact on patients' quality of life will be obtained. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04875325 . Registered on May 6, 2021.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy does not increase morbidity in patients over 70.

Esophagectomy in elderly esophageal carcinoma patients is correlated with a high morbidity and even mortality. Studies on neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NT) in elderly patients are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of advanced age in combination with NT in esophageal carcinoma patients who underwent an esophagectomy. Patients who underwent NT prior to esophagectomy between 1993 and 2010 were divided into three groups: <70, 70-74, and ≥75 years. Toxicity of NT and postoperative morbidity were compared between groups. Primary endpoints were toxicity, complication rate, and survival. Two hundred thirteen patients underwent NT during the study period, 26 were aged 70-74 years, and 17 were ≥70 years. Toxicity of NT was comparable for younger and elderly patients (46% vs. 54% vs. 47%, P = 0.263). Overall complications occurred in 62% of younger patients versus 73% and 71% among patients aged 70-74 years and ≥75 years, respectively (P = 0.836). Cardiac complications occurred in 14% of younger patients versus 27% and 41% of elderly patients (P = 0.021). Three-year survival rates were 59% versus 44% versus 31% among patients aged <70, 70-74, and ≥75 years, respectively (P = 0.237). Higher age (odds ratio 1.750, P < 0.001) was an independent risk factor for development of cardiac complications. Toxicity of NT and postoperative complications are comparable for patients aged <70, 70-74, and ≥75 years, with the exception of cardiac complications. Therefore, we consider NT followed by esophagectomy in elderly patients a safe treatment modality in our center.

Optimizing patient selection for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer after initial chemotherapy - a single center prospective cohort.

Background: The role of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) as local treatment option after chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) is evolving. However adequate patient selection criteria for SABR in patients with LAPC are lacking. Methods: A prospective institutional database collected data of patients with LAPC treated with chemotherapy, mainly FOLFIRINOX, followed by SABR, which was delivered using magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy, 40 Gy in 5 fractions within two weeks. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Cox regression analyses were performed to identify predictors for OS. Results: Overall, 74 patients were included, median age 66 years, 45.9% had a KPS score of ≥90. Median OS was 19.6 months from diagnosis and 12.1 months from start of SABR. Local control was 90% at one year. Multivariable Cox regression analyses identified KPS ≥90, age <70, and absence of pain prior to SABR as independent favorable predictors for OS. The rate of grade ≥3 fatigue and late gastro-intestinal toxicity was 2.7%. Conclusions: SABR is a well-tolerated treatment in patients with unresectable LAPC following chemotherapy, with better outcomes when applied in patients with higher performance score, age <70 years and absence of pain. Future randomized trials will have to confirm these findings.

Venous Thromboembolism and Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Perioperative Pancreatic Cancer Care.

Recent studies have shown that patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy followed by surgery have an improved outcome compared to patients treated with upfront surgery. Hence, patients with PDAC are more and more frequently treated with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting. PDAC patients are at a high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is associated with decreased survival rates. As patients with PDAC were historically offered immediate surgical resection, data on VTE incidence and associated preoperative risk factors are scarce. Current guidelines recommend primary prophylactic anticoagulation in selected groups of patients with advanced PDAC. However, recommendations for patients with (borderline) resectable PDAC treated with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting are lacking. Nevertheless, the prevention of complications is crucial to maintain the best possible condition for surgery. This narrative review summarizes current literature on VTE incidence, associated risk factors, risk assessment tools, and primary thromboprophylaxis in PDAC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy.

Assessing cancer patients' trust in their oncologist: development and validation of the Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS).

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop and validate the Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS), which aims to measure cancer patients' trust in their oncologist. Structure, reliability and validity were examined. METHODS: Construction of the TiOS was based on a multidimensional theoretical framework. Cancer patients were surveyed within a week after their consultation. Trust, satisfaction, trust in health care, self-reported health and background variables were assessed. Dimensionality, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validity were investigated. RESULTS: Data of 423 patients were included (response rate = 65%). After item reduction, the TiOS included 18 items. Trust scores were high. Exploratory factor analysis suggested one-dimensionality. Confirmatory factor analysis nevertheless indicated a reasonable fit of our four-dimensional theoretical model, distinguishing competence, fidelity, honesty and caring. Internal consistency and test-retest reliabilities were high. Good construct validity was indicated by moderate correlations of trust (TiOS) with satisfaction, trust in health care, willingness to recommend and number of consultations with the oncologist. Exploratory analyses suggested significant correlations of trust with ethnicity and age. CONCLUSIONS: The TiOS reliably and validly assesses cancer patients' trust in their oncologist. The questionnaire can be employed in both clinical practice and future research of cancer patients' trust.

Painful lower limb nodules as first symptom of resectable pancreatic acinar cell cancer: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic panniculitis is characterized by subcutaneous fat necrosis and is a rare presentation of an underlying pancreatic disease, appearing in approximately 2-3% of all patients with a pancreatic disease. The nodules usually involve the lower extremities. Pancreatic panniculitis is commonly associated with acute or chronic pancreatitis, and occasionally with pancreatic cancer, especially acinar cell carcinoma. CASE PRESENTATION: A 77-year-old Caucasian woman with no significant medical history was referred to our center with multiple painful, itchy, and warm red/blue cutaneous nodules on the left lower leg. These skin lesions were consistent with the clinical diagnosis of panniculitis. The skin biopsy obtained showed a predominantly lobular panniculitis with fat necrosis of which the aspect was highly suspicious for pancreatic panniculitis. Further analysis revealed high lipase serum of > 3000 U/L (normal range < 60 U/L), and on computed tomography scan a mass located between the stomach and the left pancreas was seen. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of acinar cell carcinoma. After discussing the patient in the pancreatobiliary multidisciplinary team meeting, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy including splenectomy and en bloc wedge resection of the stomach due to tumor in-growth was performed. The cutaneous nodules on both legs disappeared 1-2 days after surgery. No long-term complications were reported during follow-up. One year after surgery, the patient presented with similar symptoms as preoperatively. Computed tomography scan showed local recurrence and distal metastases, which were subsequently confirmed by biopsy. She started with palliative folinic acid-fluorouracil-irinotecan-oxaliplatin chemotherapy but stopped after two cycles because of disease progression. The patient died 2 months later, 13 months after surgical resection. CONCLUSION: This case illustrates the importance of clinically recognizing cutaneous nodules and pathological recognizing the specific microscopic changes as sign of a (malignant) pancreatic disease.

Oncologic management of ampullary cancer: International survey among surgical and medical oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC) is a rare neoplasm which as a result is lacking specific treatment guidelines. This international survey study was performed to gain insight in the current daily practice of AAC. METHODS: Surgeons and medical oncologists, whom were members of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group, International Study Group on Ampullary Cancer, International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, European and International Consortium on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery, or contributed to (peri)ampullary cancer research, were invited through email and newsletters between January and October 2021. RESULTS: Overall, 217 surgeons and medical oncologists completed the survey. Most of the respondents work in Europe (60%), and in a pancreatic expertise center (86%). The majority of respondents (87%) stated that the histological AAC subtype (e.g. intestinal vs. pancreatobiliary) was determined in the resection specimen. Neoadjuvant treatment for resectable disease was considered by 24% and adjuvant therapy by 90% of the respondents, with 80% of them choosing adjuvant chemotherapy alone. The formation of multidisciplinary teams, improvement in resection procedures, increased availability of chemotherapy regimens, and increased knowledge on tumor biology were considered as the most important developments in the last five years. The necessity for randomized controlled trials was mentioned by 50% of the respondents. CONCLUSIONS: This international survey highlights the existing variation in the management of patients with AAC, especially regarding the use of (neo)adjuvant therapy. More data from trials and international registries are needed to develop evidence-based guidelines on surgical and oncological management with the ultimate aim to improve outcomes for patients with AAC.

A nationwide randomized controlled trial on additional treatment for isolated local pancreatic cancer recurrence using stereotactic body radiation therapy (ARCADE).

BACKGROUND: Disease recurrence is the main cause of mortality after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In 20-30% of resected patients, isolated local PDAC recurrence occurs. Retrospective studies have suggested that stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) might lead to improved local control in these patients, potentially having a beneficial effect on both survival and quality of life. The "nationwide randomized controlled trial on additional treatment for isolated local pancreatic cancer recurrence using stereotactic body radiation therapy" (ARCADE) will investigate the value of SBRT in addition to standard of care in patients with isolated local PDAC recurrence compared to standard of care alone, regarding both survival and quality of life outcomes. METHODS: The ARCADE trial is nested within a prospective cohort (Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project; PACAP) according to the 'Trials within Cohorts' design. All PACAP participants with isolated local PDAC recurrence after primary resection who provided informed consent for being randomized in future studies are eligible. Patients will be randomized for local therapy (5 fractions of 8 Gy SBRT) in addition to standard of care or standard of care alone. In total, 174 patients will be included. The main study endpoint is survival after recurrence. The most important secondary endpoint is quality of life. DISCUSSION: It is hypothesized that additional SBRT, compared to standard of care alone, improves survival and quality of life in patients with isolated local recurrence after PDAC resection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04881487 . Registered on May 11, 2021.