The Oncological Stress Test of Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Systematic Review in Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Therapy Compared to Upfront Resection Approach for Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

Sharona B Ross, Jesse Popover, I. Sucandy, Maria Christodoulou, Tara M. Pattilachan, Alexander S Rosemurgy
{"title":"The Oncological Stress Test of Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Systematic Review in Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Therapy Compared to Upfront Resection Approach for Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.","authors":"Sharona B Ross, Jesse Popover, I. Sucandy, Maria Christodoulou, Tara M. Pattilachan, Alexander S Rosemurgy","doi":"10.1177/00031348241248703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, increasingly diagnosed in the United States, has a disheartening initial resection rate of 15%. Neoadjuvant therapy, particularly FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine-based regimens, is gaining favor for its potential to improve resectability rates and achieving microscopically negative margins (R0) in borderline resectable cases, marked by intricate arterial or venous involvement. Despite surgery being the sole curative approach, actual benefit of neoadjuvant therapy remains debatable. This study scrutinizes current literature on oncological outcomes post-resection of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. A MEDLINE/PubMed search was conducted to systematically compare oncological outcomes of patients treated with either neoadjuvant therapy with intent of curative resection or an \"upfront resection\" approach. A total of 1293 studies were initially screened and 30 were included (n = 1714) in this analysis. All studies included data on outcomes of patients with borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma being treated with neoadjuvant therapy (n = 1387) or a resection-first approach (n = 356). Patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy underwent resection 52% of the time, achieving negative margins of 43% (n = 601). Approximately 77% of patients who received an upfront resection underwent a successful resection, with 39% achieving negative margins. Neoadjuvant therapy remains marginally efficacious in treatment of borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, as patients undergo an operation and successful resection less often when treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Rates of curative resection are comparable, despite neoadjuvant therapy being a primary recommendation in borderline resectable cases and employed more often than upfront resection. Upfront resection may offer improved resection rates by intention-to-treat, which can provide more patients with paths to curative resection.","PeriodicalId":325363,"journal":{"name":"The American Surgeon","volume":" 7","pages":"31348241248703"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348241248703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, increasingly diagnosed in the United States, has a disheartening initial resection rate of 15%. Neoadjuvant therapy, particularly FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine-based regimens, is gaining favor for its potential to improve resectability rates and achieving microscopically negative margins (R0) in borderline resectable cases, marked by intricate arterial or venous involvement. Despite surgery being the sole curative approach, actual benefit of neoadjuvant therapy remains debatable. This study scrutinizes current literature on oncological outcomes post-resection of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. A MEDLINE/PubMed search was conducted to systematically compare oncological outcomes of patients treated with either neoadjuvant therapy with intent of curative resection or an "upfront resection" approach. A total of 1293 studies were initially screened and 30 were included (n = 1714) in this analysis. All studies included data on outcomes of patients with borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma being treated with neoadjuvant therapy (n = 1387) or a resection-first approach (n = 356). Patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy underwent resection 52% of the time, achieving negative margins of 43% (n = 601). Approximately 77% of patients who received an upfront resection underwent a successful resection, with 39% achieving negative margins. Neoadjuvant therapy remains marginally efficacious in treatment of borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, as patients undergo an operation and successful resection less often when treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Rates of curative resection are comparable, despite neoadjuvant therapy being a primary recommendation in borderline resectable cases and employed more often than upfront resection. Upfront resection may offer improved resection rates by intention-to-treat, which can provide more patients with paths to curative resection.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新辅助治疗的肿瘤学压力测试:新辅助疗法与前切除术治疗边缘可切除胰腺腺癌疗效比较的系统性综述》。
在美国,胰腺腺癌的诊断率越来越高,但令人沮丧的是,其初始切除率仅为 15%。新辅助治疗,尤其是以 FOLFIRINOX 和吉西他滨为基础的治疗方案,因其可提高可切除率,并在以错综复杂的动脉或静脉受累为特征的边缘可切除病例中实现显微镜下阴性切缘(R0)而日益受到青睐。尽管手术是唯一的根治方法,但新辅助治疗的实际疗效仍有待商榷。本研究仔细研究了目前有关边缘可切除胰腺癌切除术后肿瘤预后的文献。研究人员检索了MEDLINE/PubMed,系统比较了以根治性切除为目的的新辅助治疗或 "前期切除 "方法治疗患者的肿瘤预后。共初步筛选出 1293 项研究,其中 30 项(n = 1714)被纳入本次分析。所有研究都纳入了边缘可切除胰腺腺癌患者接受新辅助疗法(n = 1387)或先切除疗法(n = 356)治疗的结果数据。接受新辅助治疗的患者中有52%接受了切除术,43%达到阴性边缘(n = 601)。在接受前期切除术的患者中,约77%的患者成功进行了切除术,其中39%的患者达到了阴性边缘。新辅助疗法在治疗边缘可切除胰腺腺癌方面仍然略有疗效,因为接受新辅助疗法的患者接受手术和成功切除的比例较低。尽管新辅助疗法是可切除边缘性病例的主要推荐疗法,而且比前期切除术更常采用,但治愈性切除率相当。前期切除术可通过意向性治疗提高切除率,为更多患者提供根治性切除的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Bile Duct Injuries During Urgent Cholecystectomy at a Safety Net Teaching Hospital: Attending Experience and Time of Day May Matter. From Bytes to Best Practices: Tracing ChatGPT-3.5's Evolution and Alignment With the National Comprehensive Cancer Network® Guidelines in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Management. The USCENTCOM Walking Blood Bank Performance Benchmark and Anticipated Benefit of Universal Low Titer Type O Screening. Contemporary Outcomes and Patterns of Injury Associated With Parachuting Accidents. To Drain or Not: Drainage Procedures Remain a Central Tenet of Management of Infected Collections in Acute Pancreatitis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1