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.

Evaluation of long-term function, complications, quality of life and health status after restorative proctocolectomy with ileo neo rectal and with ileal pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis.

AIM: Restorative surgery after (procto)colectomy with ileo-neorectal anastomosis (INRA) or restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis (RPC) combines cure of ulcerative colitis (UC) with restoration of intestinal continuity. This study aimed to evaluate these two operations. METHOD: Patients having INRA and RPC were matched according to sex, age at onset of UC, age at restorative surgery and duration of follow-up. Patients were included if they were over 18 years of age, had UC confirmed histopathologically and had undergone either operation. Long-term function, anal and neorectal physiology, complications, quality of life (QoL) and health status (HS) were determined. RESULTS: Seventy-one consecutive patients underwent surgery with the intention of having an INRA procedure. This was successfully carried out in 50, and 21 underwent intra-operative conversion to RPC. Median defaecation frequency was 6/24 h. In 11/71 patients reservoir failure occurred and 13/71 developed pouchitis. QoL and HS were comparable to the healthy population. Median follow-up was 6.2 years. These patients were matched with 71 patients who underwent RPC. RPC was successful in all patients. Median defaecation frequency was 8/24 h. Failure occurred in 7/71 patients and 13/71 developed pouchitis. QoL and HS were comparable with the healthy population. Median follow-up was 6.9 years. CONCLUSION: Comparison of INRA and RPC on an intention to treat basis was not considered to be realistic due to the high intra-operative conversion rate and the failures in the INRA group. RPC remains the procedure of choice for restoring intestinal continuity after proctocolectomy for UC.

Acute abdomen in mentally retarded patients: role of aerophagia. Report of nine cases.

Between 1993 and 1996 nine mentally retarded patients presented because of an acute abdomen. All had the habit of aerophagia, diagnosed previously by a general practitioner. Massive distension of the bowel led to ileus, volvulus, and necrosis. After placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy catheter or performing a gastrostomy during laparotomy with the intention to use as a desufflator, no recurrence of the signs and symptoms of an acute abdomen were observed.