-
BMC Gastroenterology Jun 2023In metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC), first line treatment options usually include combination regimens of folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC), first line treatment options usually include combination regimens of folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX or mFOLFIRINOX) or gemcitabine based regimens such as in combination with albumin-bound paclitaxel (GEM + nab-PTX). After progression, multiple regimens including NALIRI + 5-FU and folinic acid, FOLFIRINOX, 5-FU-based oxaliplatin doublets (OFF, FOLFOX, or XELOX), or 5-FU-based monotherapy (FL, capecitabine, or S-1) are considered appropriate by major guidelines. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy of different treatment strategies tested as second-line regimens for patients with mPDAC after first-line gemcitabine-based systemic treatment.
METHODS
Randomized phase II and III clinical trials (RCTs) were included if they were published or presented in English. Trials of interest compared two active systemic treatments as second-line regimens until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. We performed a Bayesian NMA with published hazard ratios (HRs) and 95%confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different second-line therapies for mPDAC. The main outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were grade 3-4 toxicities. We calculated the relative ranking of agents for each outcome as their surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA). A higher SUCRA score meant a higher ranking for efficacy outcomes.
RESULTS
A NMA of 9 treatments was performed for OS (n = 2521 patients enrolled). Compared with 5-FU + folinic acid both irinotecan or NALIRI + fluoropyrimidines had a trend to better OS (HR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.21-2.75 and HR = 0.74, 95%CI 0.31-1.85). Fluoropyrimidines + folinic acid + oxaliplatin were no better than the combination without oxaliplatin. The analysis of treatment ranking showed that the combination of NALIRI + 5-FU + folinic acid was most likely to yield the highest OS results (SUCRA = 0.7). Furthermore, the NMA results indicated that with the highest SUCRA score (SUCRA = 0.91), NALIRI + 5-FU + folinic acid may be the optimal choice for improved PFS amongst all regimens studied.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the NMA results, NALIRI + 5-FU, and folinic acid may represent the best second-line treatment for improved survival outcomes in mPDAC. Further evidence from prospective trials is needed to determine the best treatment option for this group of patients.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Irinotecan; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Oxaliplatin; Leucovorin; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Prospective Studies; Fluorouracil; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37337148
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-02853-w -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Jul 2020The number of pancreatic resections due to cancers is increasing. While concomitant venous resections are routinely performed in specialized centers, arterial resections... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The number of pancreatic resections due to cancers is increasing. While concomitant venous resections are routinely performed in specialized centers, arterial resections are still controversial. Nevertheless they are performed in patients presenting with locally advanced tumors. Our aim was to summarize currently available literature comparing peri-operative and long-term outcomes of arterial and non-arterial pancreatic resections.
METHODS
We included studies comparing pancreatic operations with and without concomitant arterial resection. Inclusion criteria were morbidity or mortality. Studies additionally reporting venous resections with no possibility of excluding this data during the extraction were discarded.
RESULTS
The initial search yielded 1651 records. Finally, 19 studies were included in the analysis involving 2710 patients. Arterial resection was associated with a greater risk of death(RR: 4.09; p < 0.001) and complications (RR: 1.4; p = 0.01). There were no differences in the rate of pancreatic fistula, biliary fistula rate, cardiopulmonary complications, length of hospital stay and non-R0 rate. Oncologically, patients after arterial resection were at higher risk of worse 3-year survival.
CONCLUSION
Arterial resection in pancreatic cancer is associated with an increased risk of mortality and complications in comparison to standard non-arterial resections. Nevertheless, arterial resection may become a viable treatment for selected patients in high volume centers.
Topics: Arteries; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Veins
PubMed: 32360186
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.04.005 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Aug 2022Surgery for patients with pancreatic cancer carries a high risk of major post-operative complications and only marginally improves overall survival. This review aims to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Surgery for patients with pancreatic cancer carries a high risk of major post-operative complications and only marginally improves overall survival. This review aims to assess the impact of surgical resection on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of pancreatic cancer patients.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. All studies assessing QOL using validated questionnaires in pancreatic cancer patients undergoing surgical resection were included.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies were assessed. Patients reported a decrease in physical, social and global scales within the first 3 months after surgery. These values showed improvement and were comparable to baseline values by 6 months. Recovery in emotional functioning towards baseline figures was demonstrated in the first 3 months post-operatively. Symptom scales including pain, fatigue and diarrhoea deteriorated after surgery, but reverted to baseline after 3-6 months.
CONCLUSIONS
Surgical resection for pancreatic cancer has short-term negative impact on QOL. In the longer term, this will improve and eventually recover to baseline values after 6 months. Knowledge on the impact of surgery on QOL of pancreatic cancer patients is necessary to facilitate decision-making and tailoring of surgical techniques to the individual patient.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35304039
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2022.02.013 -
BMC Gastroenterology Jul 2018Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare LPD with OPD for these malignancies regarding short-term surgical and long-term survival outcomes.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted before March 2018 to identify comparative studies in regard to outcomes of both LPD and OPD for the treatment of pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancies. Morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), mortality, operative time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization, retrieved lymph nodes, and survival outcomes were compared.
RESULTS
Among eleven identified studies, 1196 underwent LPD, and 8247 were operated through OPD. The pooled data showed that LPD was associated with less morbidity (OR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.41~ 0.78, P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD = - 372.96 ml, 95% CI, - 507.83~ - 238.09 ml, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stays (WMD = - 197.49 ml, 95% CI, - 304.62~ - 90.37 ml, P < 0.01), and comparable POPF (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.59~ 1.24, P = 0.40), and overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.93~ 1.14, P = 0.54) compared to OPD. Operative time was longer in LPD (WMD = 87.68 min; 95%CI: 27.05~ 148.32, P < 0.01), whereas R0 rate tended to be higher in LPD (OR = 1.17; 95%CI: 1.00~ 1.37, P = 0.05) and there tended to be more retrieved lymph nodes in LPD (WMD = 1.15, 95%CI: -0.16~ 2.47, P = 0.08), but these differences failed to reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS
LPD can be performed as safe and effective as OPD for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy with respect to both surgical and oncological outcomes. LPD is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative morbidity and may serve as a promising alternative to OPD in selected individuals in the future.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Lymphatic Metastasis; Operative Time; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 29969999
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-018-0830-y -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer Jun 2023Pancreatic cancer is characterized by its high mortality, usually attributed to its diagnosis in already advanced stages. This article aims at presenting an overview of... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Pancreatic cancer is characterized by its high mortality, usually attributed to its diagnosis in already advanced stages. This article aims at presenting an overview of the economic burden of pancreatic cancer in Europe.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted. It made use of the search engines EconLit, Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science, and retrieved articles published after December 31st, 1992, and before April 1st, 2020. Study characteristics and cost information were extracted. Cost per patient and cost per patient per month (PPM) were calculated, and drivers of estimate heterogeneity was analysed. Results were converted into 2019 Euros.
RESULTS
The literature review yielded 26 studies on the economic burden attributable to pancreatic cancer in Europe. Cost per patient was on average 40,357 euros (median 15,991), while figures PPM were on average 3,656 euros (median 1,536). Indirect costs were found to be on average 154,257 euros per patient or 14,568 euros PPM, while direct costs 20,108 euros per patient and 2,004 euros PPM. Nevertheless, variation on cost estimations was large and driven by study methodology, patient sample characteristics, such as type of tumour and cancer stage and cost components included in analyses, such as type of procedure.
CONCLUSION
Pancreatic cancer direct costs PPM are in the upper bound relative to other cancer types; however, direct per patient costs are likely to be lower because of shorter survival. Indirect costs are substantial, mainly attributed to high mortality.
Topics: Humans; Financial Stress; Europe; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Cost of Illness
PubMed: 35474568
DOI: 10.1007/s12029-022-00821-3 -
World Journal of Surgery Jan 2022The present systematic review aimed to compare survival outcomes of invasive intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IIPMNs) treated with adjuvant chemotherapy versus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The present systematic review aimed to compare survival outcomes of invasive intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IIPMNs) treated with adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone and to identify pathologic features that may predict survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.
METHOD
A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE was performed using the PRISMA framework. Studies comparing adjuvant chemotherapy and surgery alone for patients with IIPMNs were included. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). A narrative synthesis was performed to identify pathologic features that predicted survival benefits from adjuvant chemotherapy.
RESULTS
Eleven studies and 3393 patients with IIPMNs were included in the meta-analysis. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly reduced the risk of death in the overall cohort (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.87, p = 0.009) and node-positive patients (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.13-0.64, p = 0.002). Weighted median survival difference between adjuvant chemotherapy and surgery alone in node-positive patients was 11.6 months (95% CI 3.83-19.38, p = 0.003) favouring chemotherapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy had no impact on OS in node-negative patients (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.20-1.43, p = 0.209). High heterogeneity (I > 75%) was observed in pooled estimates of hazard ratios. Improved OS following adjuvant chemotherapy was reported for patients with stage III/IV disease, tumour size > 2 cm, node-positive status, grade 3 tumour differentiation, positive margin status, tubular carcinoma subtype, and presence of perineural or lymphovascular invasion.
CONCLUSION
Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved OS in node-positive IIPMNs. However, the findings were limited by marked heterogeneity. Future large multicentre prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings and explore additional predictors of improved OS to guide patient selection for adjuvant chemotherapy.
Topics: Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Cohort Studies; Humans; Pancreatic Intraductal Neoplasms; Pancreatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 34545418
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-021-06309-8 -
Annals of Surgery Dec 2005To evaluate the best available evidence on volume-outcome effect of pancreatic surgery by a systematic review of the existing data and to determine the impact of the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the best available evidence on volume-outcome effect of pancreatic surgery by a systematic review of the existing data and to determine the impact of the ongoing plea for centralization in The Netherlands.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA
Centralization of pancreatic resection (PR) is still under debate. The reported impact of hospital volume on the mortality rate after PR varies. Since 1994, there has been a continuous plea for centralization of PR in The Netherlands, based on repetitive analysis of the volume-outcome effect.
METHODS
A systematic search for studies comparing hospital mortality rates after PR between high- and low-volume hospitals was used. Studies were reviewed independently for design features, inclusion and exclusion criteria, cutoff values for high and low volume, and outcome. Primary outcome measure was hospital or 30-day mortality. Data were obtained from the Dutch nationwide registry on the outcome of PR from 1994 to 2004. Hospitals were divided into 4 volume categories based on the number of PRs performed per year. Interventions and their effect on mortality rates and centralization were analyzed.
RESULTS
Twelve observational studies with a total of 19,688 patients were included. The studies were too heterogeneous to allow a meta-analysis; therefore, a qualitative analysis was performed. The relative risk of dying in a high-volume hospital compared with a low-volume hospital was between 0.07 and 0.76, and was inversely proportional to the volume cutoff values arbitrarily defined. In 5 evaluations within a decade, hospital mortality rates were between 13.8% and 16.5% in hospitals with less than 5 PRs per year, whereas hospital mortality rates were between 0% and 3.5% in hospitals with more than 24 PRs per year. Despite the repetitive plea for centralization, no effect was seen. During 2001, 2002, and 2003, 454 of 792 (57.3%) patients underwent surgery in hospitals with a volume of less than 10 PRs per year, compared with 280 of 428 (65.4%) patients between 1994 and 1996.
CONCLUSIONS
The data on hospital volume and mortality after PR are too heterogeneous to perform a meta-analysis, but a systematic review shows convincing evidence of an inverse relation between hospital volume and mortality and enforces the plea for centralization. The 10-year lasting plea for centralization among the surgical community did not result in a reduction of the mortality rate after PR or change in the referral pattern in The Netherlands.
Topics: Chi-Square Distribution; Hospital Mortality; Hospitals; Humans; Netherlands; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Risk Factors
PubMed: 16327488
DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000188462.00249.36 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the locally advanced and metastatic setting, with mixed results. This review attempts to synthesise all the randomised data available to help better inform patient and clinician decision-making when dealing with this difficult disease.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both for first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Our primary outcome was overall survival, while secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, grade 3/4 adverse events, therapy response and quality of life.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for published and unpublished studies in CENTRAL (searched 14 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 14 June 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2017) and CANCERLIT (1999 to 2002) databases. We also handsearched all relevant conference abstracts published up until 14 June 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised studies assessing overall survival outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, alone or in combination, were the eligible treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently analysed studies, and a third settled any disputes. We extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QoL), and we assessed risk of bias for each study.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 42 studies addressing chemotherapy in 9463 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We did not identify any eligible studies on radiotherapy.We did not find any benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care. However, two identified studies did not have sufficient data to be included in the analysis, and many of the chemotherapy regimens studied were outdated.Compared to gemcitabine alone, participants receiving 5FU had worse OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.27, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.92) and QoL. On the other hand, two studies showed FOLFIRINOX was better than gemcitabine for OS (HR 0.51 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.57) and response rates (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.65), but it increased the rate of side effects. The studies evaluating CO-101, ZD9331 and exatecan did not show benefit or harm when compared with gemcitabine alone.Giving gemcitabine at a fixed dose rate improved OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94, high-quality evidence) but increased the rate of side effects when compared with bolus dosing.When comparing gemcitabine combinations to gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine plus platinum improved PFS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95) and response rates (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98) but not OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, low-quality evidence). The rate of side effects increased. Gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine improved OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95), PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87) and response rates (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.47, high-quality evidence), but it also increased side effects. Gemcitabine plus topoisomerase inhibitor did not improve survival outcomes but did increase toxicity. One study demonstrated that gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel improved OS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, high-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82) and response rates (RR 3.29, 95% CI 2.24 to 4.84) but increased side effects. Gemcitabine-containing multi-drug combinations (GEMOXEL or cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU/gemcitabine) improved OS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, low-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) and QOL.We did not find any survival advantages when comparing 5FU combinations to 5FU alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Combination chemotherapy has recently overtaken the long-standing gemcitabine as the standard of care. FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are highly efficacious, but our analysis shows that other combination regimens also offer a benefit. Selection of the most appropriate chemotherapy for individual patients still remains difficult, with clinicopathological stratification remaining elusive. Biomarker development is essential to help rationalise treatment selection for patients.
Topics: Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cisplatin; Deoxycytidine; Epirubicin; Fluorouracil; Humans; Paclitaxel; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 29557103
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011044.pub2 -
Cancer Medicine Jun 2017There is a strong rationale and many theoretical advantages for neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer (PC). However, study results have varied significantly. In this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
There is a strong rationale and many theoretical advantages for neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer (PC). However, study results have varied significantly. In this study, a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies were performed in order to evaluate safety and effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy in PC. Thirty-nine studies were selected (n = 1458 patients), with 14 studies focusing on patients with resectable disease (group 1), and 19 studies focusing on patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced disease (group 2). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 97.4% of the studies, in which 76.9% was given radiotherapy and 74.4% administered with chemoradiation. The complete and partial response rate was 3.8% and 20.9%. The incidence of grade 3/4 toxicity was 11.3%. The overall resection rate after neoadjuvant therapy was 57.7% (group 1: 73.0%, group 2: 40.2%). The R0 resection rate was 84.2% (group 1: 88.2%, group 2: 79.4%). The overall survival for all patients was 16.79 months (resected 24.24, unresected 9.81; group 1: 17.76, group 2: 16.20). Our results demonstrate that neoadjuvant therapy has not been proven to be beneficial and should be considered with caution in patients with resectable PC. Patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced disease may benefit from neoadjuvant therapy, but further research is needed.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Morbidity; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28544758
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.1071 -
Artificial Intelligence for the Prediction and Early Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer: Scoping Review.Journal of Medical Internet Research Mar 2023Pancreatic cancer is the 12th most common cancer worldwide, with an overall survival rate of 4.9%. Early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is essential for timely treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer is the 12th most common cancer worldwide, with an overall survival rate of 4.9%. Early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is essential for timely treatment and survival. Artificial intelligence (AI) provides advanced models and algorithms for better diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to explore AI models used for the prediction and early diagnosis of pancreatic cancers as reported in the literature.
METHODS
A scoping review was conducted and reported in line with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, BioRXiv, and MedRxiv were explored to identify relevant articles. Study selection and data extraction were independently conducted by 2 reviewers. Data extracted from the included studies were synthesized narratively.
RESULTS
Of the 1185 publications, 30 studies were included in the scoping review. The included articles reported the use of AI for 6 different purposes. Of these included articles, AI techniques were mostly used for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (14/30, 47%). Radiological images (14/30, 47%) were the most frequently used data in the included articles. Most of the included articles used data sets with a size of <1000 samples (11/30, 37%). Deep learning models were the most prominent branch of AI used for pancreatic cancer diagnosis in the studies, and the convolutional neural network was the most used algorithm (18/30, 60%). Six validation approaches were used in the included studies, of which the most frequently used approaches were k-fold cross-validation (10/30, 33%) and external validation (10/30, 33%). A higher level of accuracy (99%) was found in studies that used support vector machine, decision trees, and k-means clustering algorithms.
CONCLUSIONS
This review presents an overview of studies based on AI models and algorithms used to predict and diagnose pancreatic cancer patients. AI is expected to play a vital role in advancing pancreatic cancer prediction and diagnosis. Further research is required to provide data that support clinical decisions in health care.
Topics: Humans; Artificial Intelligence; Early Detection of Cancer; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Algorithms
PubMed: 37000507
DOI: 10.2196/44248