4.3 Article

Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy Administered for 5 Versus 2 Weeks for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

期刊

PANCREAS
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 269-277

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000002011

关键词

neoadjuvant therapy; pancreatic cancer; chemotherapy; chemoradiation; pancreatectomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with a 5-week regimen shows good clinical efficacy and safety for R- and BRV-PDAC, achieving better outcomes than the 2-week regimen for BRV-PDAC. However, both regimens achieve similar outcomes for R-PDAC.
Objectives Indications of preoperative treatment for resectable (R-) or borderline resectable (BR-) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are unclear, and the protocol remains to be standardized. Methods Included 65 patients with R- and BR-PDAC with venous involvement (V-) received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with S-1 and 50 Gy of radiation as the 5-week regimen. The outcomes of this group were compared with those of 52 patients who underwent S-1 and 30 Gy of radiation as the 2-week regimen, previously collected as our prospective phase II study. Results Compared with the 2-week regimen, there were no significant differences in the rate of protocol completion, adverse events, mortality and morbidity, or R0 resection in the 5-week regimen. In subgroup analyses of R-PDAC, there were no significant differences in overall survival and recurrence-free survival between the groups. In contrast, the 5-week regimen had significantly better overall survival and recurrence-free survival than the 2-week regimen for BRV-PDAC. Similar results were observed after propensity score matching analysis. Conclusions The 5-week regimen of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has good clinical efficacy and safety for R- and BRV-PDAC. The 5-week regimen could achieve better outcomes than the 2-week regimen for BRV-PDAC. In contrast, both regimens achieved similar outcomes for R-PDAC.

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

4.3
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