Contribution of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy (intensity-modulated radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy versus stereotactic body radiation therapy alone) on tumor volume regression in patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A single institution experience.
Jacob K. Jamison,Hope Cho,Michael S. May,Lyndon Luk,Milana Flusberg,Mariya Kobi,Volkan Beylergil,Ksenia Skorohodova,Alexander G Raufi,David Paul Horowitz,Michael D. Kluger,Samuel M Pan,Lisa A. Kachnic,Beth Schrope,Susan Elaine Bates,Ruth Aroon White,Ryan H. Moy,Linda Wu,John A. Chabot,Gulam Abbas Manji
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.3_suppl.707
IF: 45.3
2024-01-23
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:707 Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a poor prognosis with a minority of patients (pts) eligible for curative resection. Pts with borderline resectable or locally advanced (BR/LA) PDAC frequently receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) +/- radiation therapy (RT) to improve resectability. Here, we report the individual contribution of NAC and RT (either intensity modulated RT + concurrent chemotherapy (IMRT+CC) or stereotactic body RT (SBRT) alone) on tumor regression by measuring tumor volumes. Methods: We performed a single institution retrospective review of PDAC pts who underwent resection between 2011-2021 and were part of a tumor biobank registry. Tumor measurements were performed at baseline, post-NAC, and post-RT by five independent, blinded abdominal radiologists. Analyses were performed using paired t-tests, two-proportion z-tests, log-rank tests, and Mann-Whitney U test. Results: We identified 49 BR/LA pts who received NAC followed by RT who had complete pre- and post-treatment imaging. Fifteen pts received IMRT+CC and 28 received SBRT. The effect of NAC on tumor volumes (-29.2% vs -26.3%, p=0.66; mean percent change) and maximum diameter (-9.2% vs -12.0%, p=0.58) was similar within the IMRT+CC and SBRT groups. Both IMRT+CC (-7.12 cm 3 , p=0.003) and SBRT (-2.70 cm 3 , p=0.001) resulted in significant tumor regressions. IMRT+CC achieved a significantly greater overall mean percent change in tumor volume (-53.4% vs -28.8%, p=0.024) and maximum diameter (-30.4% vs -16.2%, p=0.020) compared to SBRT. Pts receiving IMRT+CC or SBRT had similar tumor volumes (10.88 vs 11.74 cm 3 , p=0.87, respectively) and maximum diameter (3.45 vs 3.17 cm, p=0.48) prior to RT. IMRT+CC resulted in improved tumor volume response (>30% regression; 80.0% vs 46.4%; p=0.033) but not an improved response rate by RECIST criteria (46.7% vs 21.4%; p=0.085). Mean resected tumor volumes (by pathological review) for those receiving IMRT+CC (n=9) and SBRT (n=23) were 4.34 vs 13.1 cm 3 (p=0.049). The R0 (86.7% vs 85.7%, p=0.93) and N0 (73.3% vs 53.6%, p=0.21) resection rates between the two groups were similar. Compared to SBRT, IMRT+CC resulted in an improved recurrence free survival (RFS; 2.36 vs 1.31 years; p=0.026), but did not meet statistical significance for an overall survival benefit (mOS; 2.85 vs 2.03 years, p=0.19). Conclusions: We found that IMRT+CC yielded superior radiographic volumetric regression and improved RFS but did not significantly impact mOS. Correspondingly, resected tumors from patients treated with IMRT+CC were smaller than those obtained from patients treated with SBRT. The role of IMRT+CC and SBRT in PDAC remains to be clearly defined.
oncology