4.6 Article

Opinions and use of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced pancreatic cancer: international survey and case-vignette study

Journal

BMC CANCER
Volume 19, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-5889-5

Keywords

Pancreatic cancer; PDAC; Neoadjuvant therapy; Defintions; Resectability; Survey

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundSeveral new treatment options have become available for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), but the support for their use for resectable, borderline resectable and locally advanced PDAC is unclear.MethodsA survey was distributed to the members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato Biliary Association (E-AHPBA) and the pancreas group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) regarding 1) definitions of local resectability, 2) indications for neoadjuvant therapy and 3) case-vignettes regarding the resectability and treatment of PDAC.ResultsIn total, 114 participants from 37 countries were registered. About 35% of respondents, each, were of the opinion that borderline resectability is defined by any venous tumor contact and venous involvement <180 degrees or>180 degrees, respectively. The majority (75.4%) of participants believed that borderline resectable PDAC has a high risk for R1 resection and that neoadjuvant therapy might increase the R0-resection rate (79.8%) and improve oncological patient selection (84.2%). Chemotherapy was regarded useful to convert locally advanced to resectable PDAC by 55.7% of respondents. In the cases with resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced PDAC, 10 (8.8%), 78 (68.4%), 55 (48.2%) of participants would start with chemotherapy, respectively.ConclusionsAlthough definitions for borderline resectability differ among European surgeons, there seems to be a rather strong support for preoperative chemotherapy in PDAC aiming at minimizing R1 resections while increasing resection rates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available