4.2 Review

Interdisciplinary Approach of Establishing PDAC Resectability: Biochemical, Radiological and NAT Regimen Prognostic Factors-Literature Review

期刊

MEDICINA-LITHUANIA
卷 58, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58060756

关键词

pancreatic adenocarcinoma; neoadjuvant treatment; surgical resectability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a lethal tumor and surgical resection is the only favorable option for improving survival. However, there is no consensus on which prognostic markers or neoadjuvant therapy would benefit patients the most. This review suggests that patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced PDAC who receive neoadjuvant therapy and surgery have better survival rates, and CA 19-9 biomarker levels should be evaluated as a specific marker for tumor resectability and overall survival.
Background and Objectives: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains one of the most lethal tumors, with a 5-year overall survival rate of less than 10%. To date, curative surgical resection remains the only favorable option for improving patients' survival. However, there is no consensus on which prognostic biochemical, radiological markers or neoadjuvant therapy regimens would benefit patients the most. Materials and Methods: A literature review was performed focusing on overall survival, R0 resection, 30-day mortality, adverse events (AEs), and elevated biomarkers. The electronic databases were searched from 2015 to 2020. Results: We reviewed 22 independent studies. In total, 20 studies were retrospective single- or multi-center reviews, while 2 studies were prospective Phase II trials. Conclusions: Patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced PDAC, who received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) and surgery, have significantly better survival rates. The CA 19-9 biomarker levels in the neoadjuvant setting should be evaluated and considered as a specific biomarker for tumor resectability and overall survival.

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

4.2
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