4.5 Article

Outcomes with FOLFIRINOX for borderline resectable and locally unresectable pancreatic cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 108, 期 4, 页码 236-241

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.23392

关键词

neoadjuvant treatment; borderline resectable; locally unresectable; pancreatic cancer: FOLFIRINOX

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health under the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award [T32CA113263]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Trials examining FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic cancer demonstrate higher response rates compared to gemcitabine-based regimens. There is currently limited experience with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in pancreatic cancer. Methods: Retrospective review of outcomes of patients with borderline resectable or locally unresectable pancreatic cancer who were recommended to undergo neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX. Results: FOLFIRINOX was recommended for 25 patients with pancreatic cancer, 13 (52%) unresectable and 12 (48%) borderline resectable. Four patients (16%) refused treatment or were lost to follow-up. Twenty-one patients (84%) were treated with a median of 4.7 cycles. Six patients (29%) required dose reductions secondary to toxicity. Two patients (9%) were unable to tolerate treatment and three patients (14%) had disease progression on treatment. Seven patients (33%) underwent surgical resection following treatment with FOLFIRINOX alone, 2 (10%) of which were initially unresectable. Two patients underwent resection following FOLFIRINOX+stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The R0 resection rate for patients treated with FOLFIRINOX +/- SBRT was 33% (55% borderline resectable, 10% unresectable). A total of five patients (24%) demonstrated a significant pathologic response. Conclusions: FOLFIRINOX is a biologically active regimen in borderline resectable and locally unresectable pancreatic cancer with encouraging R0 resection and pathologic response rates. J. Surg. Oncol. 2013 108:236-241. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据