Department of Abdominal Oncology, Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Radiat Oncol. 2019 Jul 10;14(1):120. doi: 10.1186/s13014-019-1330-0.
Neoadjuvant chemoradiation or chemotherapy has improved the treatment efficacy of patients with resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Due to the optimal regimen remains inconclusive, we aimed to compare these treatments in terms of margin negative (R0) resection rate and overall survival (OS) with Bayesian analysis.
We reviewed literature titles and abstracts comparing three treatment strategies (neoadjuvant chemoradiation, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and upfront surgery) in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ClinicalTrials.gov database from 2009 to 2018 to estimate relative odds ratios (ORs) for margin negative (R0) resection rate and hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) in all include trials.
A total of 14 literatures with 1056 patients were enrolled in this Bayesian analysis. In the pairwise meta-analysis from limited head-to-head studies, compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, neoadjuvant chemoradiation showed superior OS significantly (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.60-0.99, p < 0.001) and there was no significant difference in R0 resection rate (OR 1.02, 95%CI 0.45-2.33, I = 34.6%). However, in the network meta-analysis from all enrolled clinical trials, neoadjuvant chemoradiation showed significantly higher R0 resection rate over upfront surgery (HR 0.15, 95% CrI 0.02-0.56), whereas neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not provide better efficacy in R0 resection over upfront surgery (HR 0.42, 95% CrI 0.02-4.41). For R0 resection rate, neoadjuvant chemoradiation has the highest probability of ranking one compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or upfront surgery (79% vs 21% vs 0%). For OS, neoadjuvant chemotherapy has the highest probability of ranking one compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiation or upfront surgery (98% vs 0% vs 2%). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with higher rates of postoperative complications (rank worst: 84%), followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (13%) and upfront surgery (3%).
Different neoadjuvant treatment was selected based on various purposes, whether increasing R0 resection rate or not. Future clinical trials comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiation with neoadjuvant chemotherapy are warranted to confirm our results.
新辅助放化疗或化疗已提高了可切除、边界可切除和局部晚期胰腺导管腺癌(PDAC)患者的治疗效果。由于最佳方案仍不确定,我们旨在使用贝叶斯分析比较这些治疗方法在阴性切缘(R0)切除率和总生存率(OS)方面的差异。
我们检索了 2009 年至 2018 年在 PubMed、Embase、 Cochrane 图书馆、美国临床肿瘤学会和 ClinicalTrials.gov 数据库中比较三种治疗策略(新辅助放化疗、新辅助化疗和直接手术)的文献标题和摘要,以估计所有纳入试验中阴性切缘(R0)切除率的相对优势比(OR)和总生存率(OS)的风险比(HR)。
本贝叶斯分析共纳入了 14 项研究,共 1056 例患者。在有限的头对头研究的成对荟萃分析中,与新辅助化疗相比,新辅助放化疗显著提高了 OS(HR 0.8,95%CI 0.60-0.99,p<0.001),而 R0 切除率无显著差异(OR 1.02,95%CI 0.45-2.33,I=34.6%)。然而,在所有纳入的临床试验的网络荟萃分析中,新辅助放化疗组的 R0 切除率明显高于直接手术组(HR 0.15,95%CrI 0.02-0.56),而新辅助化疗组的 R0 切除率与直接手术组相比没有明显提高(HR 0.42,95%CrI 0.02-4.41)。对于 R0 切除率,新辅助放化疗比新辅助化疗或直接手术更有可能排名第一(79%比 21%比 0%)。对于 OS,新辅助化疗比新辅助放化疗或直接手术更有可能排名第一(98%比 0%比 2%)。新辅助化疗术后并发症发生率较高(排名最差:84%),其次是新辅助放化疗(13%)和直接手术(3%)。
不同的新辅助治疗方法根据不同的目的进行选择,无论是提高 R0 切除率还是其他目的。需要进行比较新辅助放化疗与新辅助化疗的临床试验来证实我们的结果。