4505 Background: Patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer have poor survival and low resection rates. Neoadjuvant therapy may improve the outcome for these patients. The aim of this trial was to determine the feasibility and efficacy of a comparison of immediate surgery versus neoadjuvant GEMCAP or FOLFIRINOX or CRT. Methods: Eligible patients with NCCN defined borderline resectable (following central review of the baseline CT scan) and biopsy proven pancreatic cancer were randomised (stratified by centre) to receive immediate surgery, or neoadjuvant therapy of either 2 cycles of GEMCAP, or 4 cycles of FOLFIRINOX or 50.4Gy capecitabine-based CRT in 28 daily fractions over 5 ½ weeks. Patients were restaged at 4-6 weeks and underwent surgical exploration if still borderline resectable. Resected patients received adjuvant therapy. Follow up was 12 months. There was quality assurance of surgery and CRT. Primary endpoints were recruitment rate and resection rate (R1/R0). Secondary endpoints included overall survival and toxicity. A target of 90 patients was set to determine feasibility and resection rates. Rates will be presented as point estimates and survival compared across treatment arms using a log-rank test. Analyses will be on an ITT basis. Results: Between August 2014 and December 2018, 90 patients were randomised with 88 included in the full analysis set (32 immediate surgery, 20 GEMCAP, 20 FOLFIRINOX, 16 CRT). Median age was 63 years, 44% were men. WHO performance status was 0 and 1 in 45% and 55% respectively. Median CA19-9 was 603 kU/L at baseline. 44 (79%) patients completed neoadjuvant therapy. Recruitment rate was 21 patients per year. Resection rate was 62% for immediate surgery and 55% for neoadjuvant therapy (p=0.668). R0 resection rate on resected patients was 15% and 23% respectively (p=0.721). One year survival rate was 40% [95% CI, 26% – 62%] for immediate surgery and 77% [95%CI, 66% - 89%] for neoadjuvant therapy. Log-rank analysis showed an HR=0.27 [95% CI, 0.13 – 0.55]; χ2 (1) = 14.91, P<0.001. 9 out of the 51 neoadjuvant patients included in the safety set reported 12 serious adverse events of grade 3 or above. Conclusions: There was no difference in resection rate between arms, however neoadjuvant therapy had a significant survival benefit compared with immediate surgery. Clinical trial information: 89500674 .
Purpose Following the Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomized Protocol (SHARP) trial, sorafenib has become the standard of care for patients with advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, but the relation between survival advantage and disease etiology remains unclear. To address this, we undertook an individual patient data meta-analysis of three large prospective randomized trials in which sorafenib was the control arm. Methods Of a total of 3,256 patients, 1,643 (50%) who received sorafenib were available. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). A Bayesian hierarchical approach for individual patient data meta-analyses was applied using a piecewise exponential model. Results are presented in terms of hazard ratios comparing sorafenib with alternative therapies according to hepatitis C virus (HCV) or hepatitis B virus (HBV) status. Results Hazard ratios show improved OS for sorafenib in patients who are both HBV negative and HCV positive (log [hazard ratio], -0.27; 95% CI, -0.46 to -0.06). Median unadjusted survival is 12.6 (11.15 to 13.8) months for sorafenib and 10.2 (8.88 to 12.2) months for "other" treatments in this subgroup. There was no evidence of improvement in OS for any other patient subgroups defined by HBV and HCV. Results were consistent across all trials with heterogeneity assessed using Cochran's Q statistic. Conclusion There is consistent evidence that the effect of sorafenib on OS is dependent on patients' hepatitis status. There is an improved OS for patients negative for HBV and positive for HCV when treated with sorafenib. There was no evidence of any improvement in OS attributable to sorafenib for patients positive for HBV and negative for HCV.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.