| 1. |
- Fassnacht, Martin, et al.
(author)
-
Combination chemotherapy in advanced adrenocortical carcinoma
- 2012
-
In: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 366:23, s. 2189-2197
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND:Adrenocortical carcinoma is a rare cancer that has a poor response to cytotoxic treatment.METHODS:We randomly assigned 304 patients with advanced adrenocortical carcinoma to receive mitotane plus either a combination of etoposide (100 mg per square meter of body-surface area on days 2 to 4), doxorubicin (40 mg per square meter on day 1), and cisplatin (40 mg per square meter on days 3 and 4) (EDP) every 4 weeks or streptozocin (streptozotocin) (1 g on days 1 to 5 in cycle 1; 2 g on day 1 in subsequent cycles) every 3 weeks. Patients with disease progression received the alternative regimen as second-line therapy. The primary end point was overall survival.RESULTS:For first-line therapy, patients in the EDP-mitotane group had a significantly higher response rate than those in the streptozocin-mitotane group (23.2% vs. 9.2%, P<0.001) and longer median progression-free survival (5.0 months vs. 2.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.69; P<0.001); there was no significant between-group difference in overall survival (14.8 months and 12.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.02; P=0.07). Among the 185 patients who received the alternative regimen as second-line therapy, the median duration of progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the EDP-mitotane group and 2.2 months in the streptozocin-mitotane group. Patients who did not receive the alternative second-line therapy had better overall survival with first-line EDP plus mitotane (17.1 month) than with streptozocin plus mitotane (4.7 months). Rates of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between treatments.CONCLUSIONS:Rates of response and progression-free survival were significantly better with EDP plus mitotane than with streptozocin plus mitotane as first-line therapy, with similar rates of toxic events, although there was no significant difference in overall survival.
|
|
| 2. |
- ter Veer, Emil, et al.
(author)
-
Consensus statement on mandatory measurements in pancreatic cancer trials (COMM-PACT) for systemic treatment of unresectable disease
- 2018
-
In: The Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 19:3, s. E151-E160
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Variations in the reporting of potentially confounding variables in studies investigating systemic treatments for unresectable pancreatic cancer pose challenges in drawing accurate comparisons between findings. In this Review, we establish the first international consensus on mandatory baseline and prognostic characteristics in future trials for the treatment of unresectable pancreatic cancer. We did a systematic literature search to find phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer to identify baseline characteristics and prognostic variables. We created a structured overview showing the reporting frequencies of baseline characteristics and the prognostic relevance of identified variables. We used a modified Delphi panel of two rounds involving an international panel of 23 leading medical oncologists in the field of pancreatic cancer to develop a consensus on the various variables identified. In total, 39 randomised controlled trials that had data on 15 863 patients were included, of which 32 baseline characteristics and 26 prognostic characteristics were identified. After two consensus rounds, 23 baseline characteristics and 12 prognostic characteristics were designated as mandatory for future pancreatic cancer trials. The COnsensus statement on Mandatory Measurements in unresectable PAncreatic Cancer Trials (COMM-PACT) identifies a mandatory set of baseline and prognostic characteristics to allow adequate comparison of outcomes between pancreatic cancer studies.
|
|
| 3. |
- Uijterwijk, Bas A., et al.
(author)
-
Differences in Lymph Node Metastases Patterns Among Non-pancreatic Periampullary Cancers and Histologic Subtypes: An International Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study and Systematic Review
- 2024
-
In: Annals of Surgical Oncology. - : SPRINGER. - 1068-9265 .- 1534-4681.
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy is defined for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and adopted for patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC), ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), or duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC). This study aimed to compare the patterns of lymph node metastases among the different NPPCs in a large series and in a systematic review to guide the discussion on surgical lymphadenectomy and pathology assessment. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for NPPC with at least one lymph node metastasis (2010-2021) from 24 centers in nine countries. The primary outcome was identification of lymph node stations affected in case of a lymph node metastasis per NPPC. A separate systematic review included studies on lymph node metastases patterns of AAC, dCCA, and DAC. Results: The study included 2367 patients, of whom 1535 had AAC, 616 had dCCA, and 216 had DAC. More patients with pancreatobiliary type AAC had one or more lymph node metastasis (67.2% vs 44.8%; P < 0.001) compared with intestinal-type, but no differences in metastasis pattern were observed. Stations 13 and 17 were most frequently involved (95%, 94%, and 90%). Whereas dCCA metastasized more frequently to station 12 (13.0% vs 6.4% and 7.0%, P = 0.005), DAC metastasized more frequently to stations 6 (5.0% vs 0% and 2.7%; P < 0.001) and 14 (17.0% vs 8.4% and 11.7%, P = 0.015). Conclusion: This study is the first to comprehensively demonstrate the differences and similarities in lymph node metastases spread among NPPCs, to identify the existing research gaps, and to underscore the importance of standardized lymphadenectomy and pathologic assessment for AAC, dCCA, and DAC.
|
|
| 4. |
- van Hilst, Jony, et al.
(author)
-
Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA) : study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
- 2021
-
In: Trials. - : BMC. - 1745-6215. ; 22:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Recently, the first randomized trials comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for non-malignant and malignant disease showed a 2-day reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP. However, for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), concerns have been raised regarding the oncologic safety (i.e., radical resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival) of MIDP, as compared to ODP. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial comparing MIDP and ODP in PDAC regarding oncological safety is warranted. We hypothesize that the microscopically radical resection (R0) rate is non-inferior for MIDP, as compared to ODP. Methods/design: DIPLOMA is an international randomized controlled, patient- and pathologist-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 38 pancreatic centers in Europe and the USA. A total of 258 patients with an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected PDAC of the pancreatic body or tail will be randomly allocated to MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the microscopically radical resection margin (R0, distance tumor to pancreatic transection and posterior margin >= 1 mm), which is assessed using a standardized histopathology assessment protocol. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 5% one-sided significance level (alpha), 80% power (1-beta), expected R0 rate in the open group of 58%, expected R0 resection rate in the minimally invasive group of 67%, and a non-inferiority margin of 7%. Secondary outcomes include time to functional recovery, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, and conversion to open surgery), other histopathology findings (e.g., lymph node retrieval, perineural- and lymphovascular invasion), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications, hospital stay, and administration of adjuvant treatment), time and site of disease recurrence, survival, quality of life, and costs. Follow-up will be performed at the outpatient clinic after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively. Discussion: The DIPLOMA trial is designed to investigate the non-inferiority of MIDP versus ODP regarding the microscopically radical resection rate of PDAC in an international setting.
|
|
