-
International Journal of Surgery... Nov 2019Previous studies have indicated that there may be a difference in tumor biology between intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma (IPMC) and pancreatic ductal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Previous studies have indicated that there may be a difference in tumor biology between intraductal papillary mucinous carcinoma (IPMC) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, the data are still controversial. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize and compare the outcome of IPMC and PDAC after surgical resection.
METHODS
Studies comparing IPMC and PDAC were identified using Medline and Embase search engines. Primary outcomes of interest were survival and recurrence. Secondary outcomes were clinicopathological characteristics. Meta-analysis of data was conducted using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 14 studies were included. Pooled analysis revealed an improved 5-year overall survival (OS) for IPMC compared to PDAC (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09-0.56). Both colloid and tubular IPMC showed improved 5-year OS compared to PDAC (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05-0.25 and OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26-0.54, respectively). Median survival time ranged from 21 to 58 months in the IPMC group compared to 12-23 months in the PDAC group. No meta-analysis could be performed on recurrence or on time-to-event data. Descriptive data showed no survival difference for higher TNM stages. IPMC was more often found at a TNM-stage of 1 (OR 4.40, 95% CI 2.71-7.15) and had lower rates of lymph node spread (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32-0.57).
CONCLUSION
Available data suggest that IPMC has a more indolent course with a better 5-year OS compared to PDAC. The histopathological features are less aggressive in IPMC. The reason may be earlier detection. However, for IPMC with higher TNM stages the survival seems to be similar to that of PDAC.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma, Mucinous; Adenocarcinoma, Papillary; Aged; Breast Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Survival Rate
PubMed: 31546033
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.09.014 -
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons... Feb 2017BACKGROUND Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is the most common pancreatic cancer. Five-year overall survival is currently 3.3-6.0%. The aim of this review was to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is the most common pancreatic cancer. Five-year overall survival is currently 3.3-6.0%. The aim of this review was to evaluate the prognostic value of lymph node ratio, number of positive nodes and total nodes examined on overall survival rate following pancreatic resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS A literature search was conducted of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review databases, from January 1996 to January 2016. RESULTS Overall, 19 studies including 4,883 patients examined the relationship between lymph node ratio and overall survival. A high lymph node ratio was associated with decreased overall survival in 17 studies. A total of 12 studies examined the relationship between the number of positive nodes and overall survival, and 11 studies revealed that an increase in the number of positive nodes was associated with decreased overall survival. In 15 studies examining the relationship between the total nodes examined and overall survival, there was no association with overall survival in 12 studies. CONCLUSIONS Lymph node ratio and number of positive nodes are factors associated with overall survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, but not total nodes examined.
Topics: Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Humans; Lymph Nodes; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prognosis; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 27869496
DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2016.0340 -
Cureus Oct 2023Pancreatic cancer is a malignant tumor with one of the worst prognosis. Its incidence has been on the rise in recent years. First-line and second-line treatments as well... (Review)
Review
Pancreatic cancer is a malignant tumor with one of the worst prognosis. Its incidence has been on the rise in recent years. First-line and second-line treatments as well as adjuvant therapies have been employed in clinical trials for pancreatic cancer along with traditional chemotherapy and radiotherapy that has been enhanced. The prognosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is still quite bad despite recent improvements in diagnostic and treatment methods. Since most patients are not candidates for treatment with a curative purpose, effective palliative care is crucial. For this systematic review, between December 25, 2022, and January 5, 2023, we searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and Science Direct and discovered 225 relevant articles. The appropriateness of the literature abstracts for the pooled analysis was evaluated using different combinations of keywords such as pancreatic cancer, first- and second-line chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GnP), FOLFIRINOX (FFX), and fluorouracil. Eight research studies with a total of 15,236 people, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), were included. The only treatment of choice for patients without metastatic disease who have clinical staging that suggests resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) should be resection. This research examined how first- and second-line chemotherapeutic regimens (using different drug combinations) affected patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) or BRPC and how they responded in terms of overall survival (OS), tumor resectability, and progression-free interval. The review concludes by highlighting the results of these therapies. Notably, a growing body of research indicates that the two most popular first-line medication combinations GnP and FFX have similar results in RCTs and in real-world populations. Results of second-line therapy after first-line regime failure are still dismal, and there is still a great deal of doubt regarding the best course of action. More RCTs and real-world evidence studies that address current and innovative regimens, as well as the best order in which to administer them, are required, with a greater emphasis on targeted therapy with fewer side effects.
PubMed: 37937003
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.46630 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Feb 2023The aim of this review was to characterize the second- and later-line (≥2L) treatment landscape for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this review was to characterize the second- and later-line (≥2L) treatment landscape for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC).
METHODS
This systematic literature review (PROSPERO: CRD42021279753) involved searches of MEDLINE® and Embase to identify results from prospective studies of ≥2L treatment options for metastatic pancreatic cancer published from 2016 to 2021. Publications were screened according to predetermined eligibility criteria; population-level data were extracted using standardized data fields. Publication quality was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The data were analyzed descriptively, grouped by drug class.
RESULTS
Sixty publications were identified, including 23 relating to comparative trials. GRADE assessment found that, of these 23 trials, 83% reported high or moderate-quality evidence. Of the publications relating to comparative trials, nine (three trials) reported favorable results: the pivotal phase 3 NAPOLI-1 trial for liposomal irinotecan; a phase 3 trial of non-liposomal irinotecan within the FOLFIRINOX regimen; and a phase 2 trial of eryaspase plus chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
The level of unmet need for ≥2L treatment options for mPDAC remains high. Irinotecan-based regimens currently offer the greatest promise. Investigations into paradigm-changing agents and combination approaches continue.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Irinotecan; Fluorouracil; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Prospective Studies; Leucovorin; Adenocarcinoma; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal
PubMed: 36641880
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2022.102502 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... May 2020Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have reported various systemic adjuvant therapy regimens following resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A systematic review and network meta-analysis of phase III randomised controlled trials for adjuvant therapy following resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
BACKGROUND
Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have reported various systemic adjuvant therapy regimens following resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The most commonly applied include modified FOLFRINOX (mFFX), Gemcitabine/Capecitabine (GemCap) and S1, usually compared to gemcitabine (Gem) alone. However, many of these regimens have not been directly compared in RCTs. This network meta-analysis aims to characterise the impact of adjuvant therapies on overall and disease-free survival in patients having resection of PDAC.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) abstracts to identify published phase III RCTs articles up to 9th May 2019 that examined adjuvant systemic therapy in resected pancreatic cancer. Data including study characteristics and outcomes including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were extracted. Indirect comparisons of all regimens were simultaneously compared using random-effects network meta-analyses (NMA) which maintains randomisation within trials.
RESULTS
Twelve phase III RCTs involving 4947 patients and nine different regimens (5-Flourouracil/Folinic acid (5-FU/FA), Gemcitabine, Gemcitabine/Erlotinib (GemErl), GemCap), mFFX, S1, chemoradiotherapy (CRT), CRT with either 5-FU or Gemcitabine) were identified. S1 was ranked best for overall and disease-free survival followed by mFFX. Whilst there were no significant difference between S1 and mFFX for overall survival (mean difference: 1.6 months, p = 0.8), S1 had significantly longer disease-free survival than mFFX (mean difference: 2.8 months, p < 0.001). Furthermore, S1 was ranked best for lowest overall and haematological grade 3/4 toxicities.
CONCLUSION
This network meta-analysis demonstrates that chemotherapy with S1 or mFFX is superior to GemCap for adjuvant treatment for PDAC, improves survival after surgical resection and should be considered as reasonable standard treatment options in the adjuvant setting and as control arm for future adjuvant clinical trials.
Topics: Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Chemoradiotherapy; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31894014
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.12.001 -
Defining oligometastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and critical synthesis of consensus.ESMO Open Dec 2023Small retrospective series suggest that local consolidative treatment (LCT) may improve survival in oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, no...
BACKGROUND
Small retrospective series suggest that local consolidative treatment (LCT) may improve survival in oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, no uniform definition of oligometastatic disease (OMD) in PDAC exists; this impedes meaningful conclusions.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search using PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL registries for studies and protocols reporting on definitions and/or LCT of OMD in PDAC was performed. The primary endpoint was the definition of OMD. Levels of agreement were categorized as consensus (≥75% agreement between studies), fair agreement (50%-74%), and absent/poor agreement (<50%).
RESULTS
After screening of 5374 abstracts, the full text of 218 studies was assessed, of which 76 were included in the qualitative synthesis. The majority of studies were retrospective (n = 66, 87%), two were prospective studies and eight were study protocols. Studies investigated mostly liver (n = 38, 51%) and lung metastases (n = 15, 20%). Across studies, less than one-half (n = 32, 42%) reported a definition of OMD, while 44 (58%) did not. Involvement was limited to a single organ (consensus). Additional criteria for defining OMD were the number of lesions (consensus), metastatic site (poor agreement), metastatic size (poor agreement), treatment possibilities (poor agreement), and biomarker response (poor agreement). Liver OMD could involve three or fewer lesions (consensus) and synchronous disease (fair agreement), while lung metastases could involve two or fewer lesions and metachronous disease (consensus). The large majority of studies were at a high risk of bias or did not include any control groups.
CONCLUSION
Definitions of OMD were not used or varied widely between studies hampering across-study comparability and highlighting an unmet need for a consensus. The present study is part of a multistep process that aims to develop an interdisciplinary consensus on OMD in pancreatic cancer.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Consensus; Lung Neoplasms; Pancreatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37988953
DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2023.102067 -
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 -
Endoscopic Ultrasound 2022EUS-guided tissue acquisition carries certain risks from unnecessary needle puncture in the low-likelihood lesions. Artificial intelligence (AI) system may enable us to... (Review)
Review
EUS-guided tissue acquisition carries certain risks from unnecessary needle puncture in the low-likelihood lesions. Artificial intelligence (AI) system may enable us to resolve these limitations. We aimed to assess the performance of AI-assisted diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) by off-line evaluating the EUS images from different modes. The databases PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, ISI, IEEE, and Association for Computing Machinery were systematically searched for relevant studies. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic curve were estimated using R software. Of 369 publications, 8 studies with a total of 870 PDAC patients were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of AI-assisted EUS were 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.93) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.79-0.96), respectively, with DOR of 81.6 (95% CI, 32.2-207.3), for diagnosis of PDAC. The area under the curve was 0.923. AI-assisted B-mode EUS had pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.91, 0.90, 0.94, and 0.84, respectively; while AI-assisted contrast-enhanced EUS and AI-assisted EUS elastography had sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 0.95, 0.95, 0.97, and 0.90; and 0.88, 0.83, 0.96 and 0.57, respectively. AI-assisted EUS has a high accuracy rate and may potentially enhance the performance of EUS by aiding the endosonographers to distinguish PDAC from other solid lesions. Validation of these findings in other independent cohorts and improvement of AI function as a real-time diagnosis to guide for tissue acquisition are warranted.
PubMed: 34937308
DOI: 10.4103/EUS-D-20-00219 -
The Journal of Pathology. Clinical... Mar 2021Immune cell infiltration has been identified as a prognostic biomarker in several cancers. However, no immune based biomarker has yet been validated for use in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Immune cell infiltration has been identified as a prognostic biomarker in several cancers. However, no immune based biomarker has yet been validated for use in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of immune cell infiltration, measured by immunohistochemistry (IHC), as a prognostic biomarker in PDAC. All other IHC prognostic biomarkers in PDAC were also summarised. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched between 1998 and 2018. Studies investigating IHC biomarkers and prognosis in PDAC were included. REMARK score and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used for qualitative analysis. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool results, where possible. Twenty-six articles studied immune cell infiltration IHC biomarkers and PDAC prognosis. Meta-analysis found high infiltration with CD4 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51-0.83.) and CD8 (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.55-0.84.) T-lymphocytes associated with better disease-free survival. Reduced overall survival was associated with high CD163 (HR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.03-2.56). Infiltration of CD3, CD20, FoxP3 and CD68 cells, and PD-L1 expression was not prognostic. In total, 708 prognostic biomarkers were identified in 1101 studies. In summary, high CD4 and CD8 infiltration are associated with better disease-free survival in PDAC. Increased CD163 is adversely prognostic. Despite the publication of 708 IHC prognostic biomarkers in PDAC, none has been validated for clinical use. Further research should focus on reproducibility of prognostic biomarkers in PDAC in order to achieve this.
Topics: Antigens, CD; Antigens, Differentiation, Myelomonocytic; B7-H1 Antigen; Biomarkers; CD4-Positive T-Lymphocytes; CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Immunohistochemistry; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prognosis; Receptors, Cell Surface; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 33481339
DOI: 10.1002/cjp2.192 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2023Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC).
METHODS
A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group.
CONCLUSIONS
This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Duodenal Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37581763
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03047-4