Janssen Quisette P, O'Reilly Eileen M, van Eijck Casper H J, Groot Koerkamp Bas
Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
Front Oncol. 2020 Jan 31;10:41. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00041. eCollection 2020.
Approximately 20% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients have (borderline) resectable pancreatic cancer [(B)RPC] at diagnosis. Upfront resection with adjuvant chemotherapy has long been the standard of care for these patients. However, although surgical quality has improved, still about 50% of patients never receive adjuvant treatment. Therefore, recent developments have focused on a neoadjuvant approach. Directly comparing results from neoadjuvant and adjuvant regimens is challenging due to differences in patient populations that influence outcomes. Neoadjuvant trials include all patients who have (B)RPC on imaging, while adjuvant-only trials include patients who underwent a complete resection and recovered to a good performance status without any evidence of residual disease. Guidelines recommend neoadjuvant treatment for BRPC patients mainly to improve negative resection margin (R0) rates. For PDAC, upfront resection is still considered the standard of care. However, theoretical advantages of neoadjuvant treatment, including the increased R0 resection rate, early delivery of systemic therapy to all patients, directly addressing occult metastatic disease, and improved patient selection for resection, may also apply to these patients. A systematic review by intention-to-treat showed a superior median overall survival (OS) for any neoadjuvant approach (19 months) compared to upfront surgery (15 months) in (B)RPC patients. A neoadjuvant approach was recently supported by three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For resectable PDAC, neoadjuvant treatment was superior in a Japanese RCT of neoadjuvant gemcitabine with S-1 vs. upfront surgery, with adjuvant S-1 in both arms (median OS: 37 vs. 27 months, = 0.015). A Korean trial of neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy vs. upfront resection in BRPC patients was terminated early due to superiority of the neoadjuvant group (median OS: 21 vs. 12 months, = 0.028; R0 resection: 52 vs. 26%, = 0.004). The PREOPANC-1 trial for (B)RPC patients also showed favorable outcome for neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy vs. upfront surgery (median OS: 17 vs. 14 months, = 0.07; R0 resection: 63 vs. 31%, < 0.001). FOLFIRINOX is likely a better neoadjuvant regimen, because of superiority compared to gemcitabine in both the metastatic and adjuvant setting. Currently, five RCTs evaluating neoadjuvant modified or fulldose FOLFIRINOX are accruing patients.
约20%的胰腺导管腺癌(PDAC)患者在诊断时患有(临界可切除)可切除胰腺癌[(B)RPC]。先行手术切除并辅以化疗长期以来一直是这些患者的标准治疗方案。然而,尽管手术质量有所提高,但仍有约50%的患者从未接受辅助治疗。因此,近期的研究进展集中在新辅助治疗方法上。由于影响预后的患者群体存在差异,直接比较新辅助治疗和辅助治疗方案的结果具有挑战性。新辅助治疗试验纳入了所有影像学检查显示为(B)RPC的患者,而仅接受辅助治疗的试验纳入了接受完整切除且恢复至良好身体状况且无任何残留疾病证据的患者。指南推荐对BRPC患者进行新辅助治疗,主要是为了提高阴性切缘(R0)切除率。对于PDAC,先行手术切除仍被视为标准治疗方案。然而,新辅助治疗的理论优势,包括提高R0切除率、对所有患者尽早进行全身治疗、直接处理隐匿性转移性疾病以及改善手术患者的选择,可能也适用于这些患者。一项意向性治疗的系统评价显示,在(B)RPC患者中,任何新辅助治疗方法的中位总生存期(OS)(19个月)均优于先行手术(15个月)。最近三项随机对照试验(RCT)支持了新辅助治疗方法。对于可切除的PDAC,在一项日本的新辅助吉西他滨联合S-1对比先行手术的RCT中,新辅助治疗更具优势,两组均接受辅助S-1治疗(中位OS:37对比27个月,P = 0.015)。一项韩国针对BRPC患者的新辅助吉西他滨为基础的放化疗对比先行手术切除的试验因新辅助治疗组的优势而提前终止(中位OS:21对比12个月,P = 0.028;R0切除率:52%对比26%,P = 0.004)。针对(B)RPC患者的PREOPANC-1试验也显示,新辅助吉西他滨为基础的放化疗对比先行手术具有良好的预后(中位OS:17对比14个月,P = 0.07;R0切除率:63%对比31%,P < 0.001)。FOLFIRINOX可能是一种更好的新辅助治疗方案,因为在转移性和辅助治疗环境中,它都优于吉西他滨。目前,五项评估新辅助改良或全剂量FOLFIRINOX的RCT正在招募患者。