European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 7, pp 3104–3116 | Cite as

CT evaluation after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy for borderline and locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

  • Mathilde Wagner
  • Celia Antunes
  • Daniel Pietrasz
  • Christophe Cassinotto
  • Magaly Zappa
  • Antonio Sa Cunha
  • Oliver Lucidarme
  • Jean-Baptiste Bachet
Gastrointestinal

Abstract

Aim

To assess anatomic changes on computed tomography (CT) after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan/oxaliplatin) chemotherapy for secondary resected borderline resectable (BR) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic adenocarcinoma and their accuracy to predict resectability and pathological response.

Methods

Thirty-six patients with secondary resected BR/LA pancreatic adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (± chemoradiotherapy) were retrospectively included. Two radiologists reviewed baseline and pre-surgical CTs in consensus. NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) classification, largest axis, product of the three axes (P3A), and arterial/venous involvement were studied and compared to pathological response and resection status and to disease-free survival (DFS).

Results

Thirty-one patients had R0 resection, including only six exhibiting a downstaging according to the NCCN classification. After treatment, the largest axis and P3A decreased (P < 0.0001). The pre-surgical largest axis and P3A were smaller in case of R0 resection (P = 0.019/P = 0.021). The largest axis/P3A variations were higher in case of complete pathological response (P = 0.011/P = 0.016). A decrease of the arterial/venous involvement was not able to predict R0 or ypT0N0 (P > 0.05). Progression of the vascular involvement was seen in two (5 %) patients and led to a shorter DFS.

Conclusion

In BR/LA pancreatic adenocarcinoma after the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX regimen (± chemoradiotherapy), significant tumour size decreases were observed on CT. However, CT staging was not predictive of resectability and pathological response.

Key Points

Significant tumour size decreases were observed on CT after FOLFIRINOXchemoradiotherapy).

CT is not able to predict R0 resection accurately after FOLFIRINOXchemoradiotherapy).

CT is not able to predict complete response accurately after FOLFIRINOXchemoradiotherapy).

Even with a stable NCCN classification, BR/LA pancreatic adenocarcinoma could have R0 resection.

Keywords

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma Computed tomography Neoadjuvant treatment FOLFIRINOX Staging 

Abbreviations

BR

borderline resectable

CA

coeliac artery

CT

computed tomography

HA

hepatic artery

LA

locally advanced

NCCN

National Comprehensive Cancer Network

P3A

product of the three axes

PD

progressive disease

PR

partial response

PV

portal vein

RECIST

response evaluation criteria in solid tumours

ROI

region of interest

SD

stable disease

SMA

superior mesenteric artery

SMV

superior mesenteric vein

Notes

Acknowledgements

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jean-Baptiste Bachet. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

All patients of the current study were included in a larger clinical study, which reports the postoperative and oncological outcomes of secondary pancreatic resection after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in patients with initially BR or LA pancreatic adenocarcinoma (Pietrasz et al, Ann Surg Oncol 2015). This study focussed on the outcomes and did not overlap with the current study, as no imaging data were evaluated after the treatment in Pietrasz et al.

Ten patients of the current study were also included in a radiological study, assessing CT evaluation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy, whatever the chemotherapy regimen (Cassinotto et al, Radiology 2014). This study included only locally advanced pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy. Unlike in our study, the chemotherapy regimen was either GEMOX or FOLFORINOX. Even if there is an overlap between this study and the current study, the aim of the current study was to focus on the accuracy of CT to assess response after FOLFIRINOX and to predict complete resection after this specific chemotherapy regimen. Moreover, the scoring system used to assess the vascular involvement was different in the current study and we also assessed the downstaging according to the NCCN guidelines.

Methodology: retrospective, observational, multicentre study.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Puleo F, Maréchal R, Demetter P et al (2015) New challenges in perioperative management of pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol 21(8):2281–2293CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coleman MP, Gatta G, Verdecchia A et al (2003) EUROCARE-3 summary: cancer survival in Europe at the end of the 20th century. Ann Oncol 14(Suppl 5):v128–v149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sa Cunha A, Rault A, Laurent C et al (2005) Surgical resection after radiochemotherapy in patients with unresectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. J Am Coll Surg 201(3):359–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burris HA, Moore MJ, Andersen J et al (1997) Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 15(6):2403–2413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M et al (2011) FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 364(19):1817–1825CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP et al (2013) Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med 369(18):1691–1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petrelli F, Coinu A, Borgonovo K et al (2015) FOLFIRINOX-based neoadjuvant therapy in borderline resectable or unresectable pancreatic cancer: a meta-analytical review of published studies. Pancreas 44(4):515–521CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferrone CR, Marchegiani G, Hong TS et al (2015) Radiological and surgical implications of neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg 261(1):12–17CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    NCCN. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN practice guidelines for pancreatic cancer, version 2. Available at http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_glslrecently_updated.asp. 2014.
  10. 10.
    Cassinotto C, Cortade J, Belleannée G et al (2013) An evaluation of the accuracy of CT when determining resectability of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant treatment. Eur J Radiol 82(4):589–593CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morgan DE, Waggoner CN, Canon CL et al (2010) Resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma in patients with locally advanced disease downstaged by preoperative therapy: a challenge for MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(3):615–622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pietrasz D, Marthey L, Wagner M, et al (2015) Pathologic major response after FOLFIRINOX is prognostic for patients secondary resected for borderline or locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: an AGEO-FRENCH, prospective, multicentric cohort. Ann Surg Oncol 22 (Suppl 3):S1196–205Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cassinotto C, Mouries A, Lafourcade J-P et al (2014) Locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: reassessment of response with CT after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Radiology 273(1):108–116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45(2):228–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Behrman SW et al (2014) Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, version 2.2014: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 12(8):1083–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Edge SB, Compton CC (2010) The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 17(6):1471–1474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Staley CA, Cleary KR, Abbruzzese JL et al (1996) The need for standardized pathologic staging of pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens. Pancreas 12(4):373–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katz MHG, Crane CH, Varadhachary G (2014) Management of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 24(2):105–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tamm EP, Loyer EM, Faria S et al (2006) Staging of pancreatic cancer with multidetector CT in the setting of preoperative chemoradiation therapy. Abdominal Imaging 31(5):568–574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    White RR, Paulson EK, Freed KS et al (2001) Staging of pancreatic cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. J Gastrointest Surg 5(6):626–633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Balthazar EJ (2005) Pancreatitis associated with pancreatic carcinoma. Preoperative diagnosis: role of CT imaging in detection and evaluation. Pancreatology 5(4-5):330–344CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ishii H, Furuse J, Nakachi K, Suzuki E, Yoshino M (2005) Primary tumor of pancreatic cancer as a measurable target lesion in chemotherapy trials. Jpn J Clin Oncol 35(10):601–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UPMC, Department of Radiology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de ParisSorbonne UniversitésParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyCoimbra University HospitalCoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.UPMC, Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de ParisSorbonne UniversitésParisFrance
  4. 4.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, Hôpital Haut LevêqueCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  5. 5.Department of Radiology, Hôpital Beaujon, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de ParisHôpitaux universitaires Paris Nord Val de SeineClichyFrance
  6. 6.Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Liver Transplant Center, Hôpital Paul BrousseHôpitaux Universitaires Paris SudVillejuifFrance
  7. 7.UPMC, Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de ParisSorbonnes UniversitésParisFrance

Personalised recommendations