Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can a simplified CT response criteria for vascular involvement in pancreatic adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant therapy predict survival in patients who achieved subsequent R0 resection?

  • Pancreas
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate if a simplified image based scoring system assessing treatment response after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) can predict survival in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who achieved subsequent R0 resection.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of 57 PDAC patients (male = 29, 51%) with mean age of 64 at diagnosis (range 42–79) who received NAT and R0 resection. Post-NAT overall, arterial and venous imaging response was characterized as improved, similar, or worse by 2 readers independently followed by consensus review. Kaplan–Meier Analysis was performed to compare overall survival (OS) with post-NAT overall imaging response. A Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to evaluate the association of the following variables with OS: overall, arterial and venous radiology response, clinical staging, postoperative CA19-9, and patient age.

Results

At study conclusion, 30/57 patients were deceased (53%), 26/57 (46%) alive, and 1 patient unknown. Post-NAT, 39/57 (68.4%) had overall improved disease and 18/57 (31.6%) had similar disease. The median OS was 55.7 months (95% CI 33.4–not reached, NR) for those with improved disease vs. 53.9 months (95% CI 14.3–NR) with similar disease (p = 0.859) after NAT. Among all clinical parameters, only post-operative CA 19-9 level was associated with OS (p = 0.002) and PFS (p = 0.005), respectively.

Conclusion

Pancreatic cancer patients who underwent R0 resection showed no difference in survival when comparing those with similar vs improved disease on post-NAT imaging.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Available upon request.

Code availability

N/A.

References

  1. Siegel, R.L., K.D. Miller, and A. Jemal, Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin, 2020. 70(1): p. 7-30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Simoes, P.K., et al., Epidemiology of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Chin Clin Oncol, 2017. 6(3): p. 24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. McGuigan, A., et al., Pancreatic cancer: A review of clinical diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment and outcomes. World J Gastroenterol, 2018. 24(43): p. 4846-4861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. van Veldhuisen, E., et al., Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Work-Up, Staging, and Local Intervention Strategies. Cancers (Basel), 2019. 11(7).

  5. Ducreux, M., et al., Cancer of the pancreas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol, 2015. 26 Suppl 5: p. v56-68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Versteijne, E., et al., Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy Versus Immediate Surgery for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Results of the Dutch Randomized Phase III PREOPANC Trial. J Clin Oncol, 2020. 38(16): p. 1763-1773.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Versteijne, E., et al., Preoperative radiochemotherapy versus immediate surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC trial): study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Trials, 2016. 17(1): p. 127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ghaneh, P., et al., The Impact of Positive Resection Margins on Survival and Recurrence Following Resection and Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg, 2019. 269(3): p. 520-529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Daamen, L.A., et al., Microscopic resection margin status in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma - A nationwide analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2020.

  10. Kaltenmeier, C., et al., Impact of Resection Margin Status in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer: a National Cohort Study. J Gastrointest Surg, 2020.

  11. Tummers, W.S., et al., Impact of resection margin status on recurrence and survival in pancreatic cancer surgery. Br J Surg, 2019. 106(8): p. 1055-1065.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tempero, M.A., et al., Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 1.2019. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2019. 17(3): p. 202–210.

  13. Hue, J.J., et al., Neoadjuvant chemoradiation may be associated with improved pathologic response in pancreatic cancer. Am J Surg, 2020.

  14. Murphy, J.E., et al., Total Neoadjuvant Therapy With FOLFIRINOX Followed by Individualized Chemoradiotherapy for Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Phase 2 Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol, 2018. 4(7): p. 963-969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wolfe, A.R., et al., Neoadjuvant-modified FOLFIRINOX vs nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients who achieved surgical resection. Cancer Med, 2020. 9(13): p. 4711-4723.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Reni, M., et al., Selecting patients for resection after primary chemotherapy for non-metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Oncol, 2017. 28(11): p. 2786-2792.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Janssen, Q.P., et al., Total neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant gemcitabine for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC-2 trial): study protocol for a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer, 2021. 21(1): p. 300.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang, Z.J., et al., Therapeutic response assessment in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: society of abdominal radiology review paper on the role of morphological and functional imaging techniques. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2020. 45(12): p. 4273-4289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Joo, I., et al., Preoperative MDCT Assessment of Resectability in Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2018. 210(5): p. 1059-1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wagner, M., et al., CT evaluation after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy for borderline and locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Eur Radiol, 2017. 27(7): p. 3104-3116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cassinotto, C., A. Sa-Cunha, and H. Trillaud, Radiological evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer. Diagn Interv Imaging, 2016. 97(12): p. 1225-1232.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ferrone, C.R., et al., Radiological and surgical implications of neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg, 2015. 261(1): p. 12-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chang, S.T., et al., Preoperative Multidetector CT Diagnosis of Extrapancreatic Perineural or Duodenal Invasion Is Associated with Reduced Postoperative Survival after Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Preliminary Experience and Implications for Patient Care. Radiology, 2016. 281(3): p. 816-825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Roche, C.J., et al., CT and pathologic assessment of prospective nodal staging in patients with ductal adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2003. 180(2): p. 475-80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Diehl, S.J., et al., Pancreatic cancer: value of dual-phase helical CT in assessing resectability. Radiology, 1998. 206(2): p. 373-8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Al-Hawary, M.M., et al., Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma radiology reporting template: consensus statement of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and the American Pancreatic Association. Radiology, 2014. 270(1): p. 248-60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Crewson, P.E., Reader agreement studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2005. 184(5): p. 1391-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Imbriaco, M., et al., Dual-phase versus single-phase helical CT to detect and assess resectability of pancreatic carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2002. 178(6): p. 1473-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Conroy, T., et al., FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med, 2011. 364(19): p. 1817-25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Conroy, T., et al., FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine as Adjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer. N Engl J Med, 2018. 379(25): p. 2395-2406.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cecchini, M., et al., A Single-Institution Experience of Induction 5-Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin Followed by Surgery Versus Consolidative Radiation for Borderline and Locally Advanced Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer. Pancreas, 2020. 49(7): p. 904-911.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Cassinotto, C., et al., An evaluation of the accuracy of CT when determining resectability of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant treatment. Eur J Radiol, 2013. 82(4): p. 589-93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Katz, M.H., et al., Response of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer to neoadjuvant therapy is not reflected by radiographic indicators. Cancer, 2012. 118(23): p. 5749-56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dudeja, V., et al., Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreas cancer rarely leads to radiological evidence of tumour regression. HPB (Oxford), 2013. 15(9): p. 661-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cassinotto, C., et al., Locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: reassessment of response with CT after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Radiology, 2014. 273(1): p. 108-16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Joo, I., et al., Preoperative CT Classification of the Resectability of Pancreatic Cancer: Interobserver Agreement. Radiology, 2019. 293(2): p. 343-349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

N/A.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Yang Guo

  2. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

    Ferenc Czeyda-Pommersheim, Sowmya Mahalingam & Jay Pahade

  3. Department of Medical Oncology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

    Joseph A. Miccio & Michael Cecchini

Authors
  1. Yang Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ferenc Czeyda-Pommersheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph A. Miccio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sowmya Mahalingam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Cecchini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jay Pahade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yang Guo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

N/A.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guo, Y., Czeyda-Pommersheim, F., Miccio, J.A. et al. Can a simplified CT response criteria for vascular involvement in pancreatic adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant therapy predict survival in patients who achieved subsequent R0 resection?. Abdom Radiol 46, 5609–5617 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03284-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03284-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation