4.7 Article

Neoadjuvant Therapy is Associated with a Reduced Lymph Node Ratio in Patients with Potentially Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 22, 期 4, 页码 1168-1175

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-4192-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Foundation
  2. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
  3. Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award [NIH T32 CA009599]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAC) for the treatment of potentially resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. In this study, we sought to evaluate cancer-specific endpoints in patients undergoing a NAC versus a surgery-first (SF) approach with specific emphasis on lymph node metastases. A total of 222 patients who underwent NAC and 85 patients who underwent SF were identified from 1990 to 2008 and compared for cancer-related endpoints. Peripancreatic lymph nodes from 135 neoadjuvant therapy patients were evaluated for histologic tumor regression. Patients who underwent NAC followed by surgery had improved overall survival and time to local recurrence compared with the SF approach. NAC patients were less likely to have lymph node metastases (p = 0.001), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and had smaller tumors. On multivariate analysis, lymph node positivity was associated with SF, tumor size, and the presence of LVI. NAC patients with N0 disease had equivalent outcomes to patients with a low-LNR (0.01-0.15), whereas patients with a LNR > 0.15 had reduced survival, and time to local and distant recurrence. Ten of 135 (7.4 %) NAC patients had evidence of tumor regression in at least one lymph node. Patients with potentially resectable PDAC selected to undergo NAC had improved survival and longer time to recurrence. Although some of these differences may be related to improvements in multimodality therapy completion rates, tumor regression in lymph node metastases exists and may demonstrate a biologic benefit of NAC compared with a SF approach.

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

4.7
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