Outcome analysis of predictors in locally advanced pancreatic cancer

Guidelines report a wide range of options in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC): definitive chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or the emerging stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) (+/- chemotherapy). On behalf of the AIRO (Italian Association of Radiation Oncology and Clinical Oncology) Gastrointestinal Study Group, we collected retrospective clinical data on 419 LAPC from 15 Italian centers. The study protocol (PAULA-1: Pooled Analysis in Unresectable Locally Advanced pancreatic cancer) was approved by institutional review board of S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital (201/2015/O/OssN). From this large database we performed tree different studies. The first was a retrospective study about 56 LAPC treated with SBRT at a median biologically equivalent dose of 48 Gy +/- chemotherapy. We demonstrated a statistically significant impact of biologically equivalent dose based on an α/β ratio of 10Gy ≥ 48Gy for local control (LC) (p: 0.045) and overall survival (p: 0.042) in LAPC. The second was a retrospective matched-cohort case-control study comparing SBRT (40 patients) and chemoradiation (40 patients) in LAPC in terms of different endpoints. Our findings suggested an equivalence in terms of most outcomes among the two treatments and an advantage of SBRT in terms of LC (p: 0.017). The third study was a retrospective comparison of definitive chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy and SBRT (+/- chemotherapy) in terms of different outcomes in LAPC. A predictive model for LC in LAPC was also developed reaching an AUC of 68% (CI 58,7%-77,4%). SBRT treatment emerged as a positive predictive factor for improved LC. Findings deriving from our three studies suggest that SBRT is comparable to standard of care (definitive chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy) in terms of outcomes. SBRT seems to be an emerging therapeutic option in LAPC significantly improving local control. Furthermore, we have shown the potential of a predictive model for LC. Randomized trials are needed to compare these different therapeutic options in LAPC.

Robotic Approach in the Treatment of Locally Advanced (Stage IIIA-pN2) non Small Cell Lung Cancer after Induction Therapy

Introduction: Despite there are already many studies on robotic surgery as minimally invasive approach for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, the use of this technique for stage III disease is still poorly described. These are the preliminary results of our prospective study on safety and effectiveness of robotic approach in patients with locally advanced NSCLC, in terms of postoperative complications and oncological outcome. Methods: Since 2016, we prospectively investigated, using standardized questionnaire and protocol, 21 consecutive patients with NSCLC stage IIIA-pN2 (diagnosed by EBUS-TBNA) who underwent lobectomy and radical lymph node dissection with robotic approach after induction treatment. Then, we performed a matched case-control study with 54 patients treated with open surgery during the same period of time, with similar age, clinical and pathological tumor stage. Results: The individual matched population was composed of 14 robot-assisted thoracic surgery and 14 patients who underwent open surgery. The median time range of resection was inferior in the open group compared to robotic lobectomy (148 vs 229 minutes; P=0.002). Lymph nodes resection and positivity were not statistically significantly different (p=0.66 and p=0.73 respectively). No difference was observed also for PFS (P=0.99) or OS (P=0.94). Conclusions: Our preliminary results demonstrated that the early outcomes and oncological results of N2-patients after robotic lobectomy were similar to open surgery. Considering the advantages of minimally invasive surgery, robotic assisted lobectomy should be a safe approach also to patients with local advanced disease.

Surgery after biological therapy in locally advanced NSCLC with molecular driver: feasibility and effectiveness of a new multidisciplinary approach

Introduction: Surgical outcomes after biological therapy have not been investigated yet and no information about timing, postoperative complications and survival have been recorded. Methods: This is a prospective study which compares a group of stage IIIA and IIIB NSCLC patients treated with biological therapy with patients undergoing standard induction chemotherapy. Data reported are preliminary results on the safety and effectiveness of surgery after target therapy. Results: We compared 22 patients treated with standard chemotherapy (Group 1) and 6 patients who received target therapy (Group 2). No differences were observed with an important bias due to the limited number of cases. The median time of resection was 159.8 ± 62.8 for group 1 and 201 ± 57.8 for group 2 (p=0.194). Complete resection was obtained in all Group 1-cases. Post-operative complication rate was 22% vs 16% (p=1). Pathologists reported necrosis >50% in 13% in group 1, Fibrosis >50% was presents respectively in 27% and 33% of patients (p=1). Residual vital tumor was >50% in 77% of patients undergone CT and in 66% of patients undergone TT (p=0.622). A total of 6 (31%) patients in the CT-group developed recurrence, 3 in the TT- group (64.2%), p was 0.634. No difference was observed both in terms of OS (P=0.29, Figure 3) and in term of DFS (P=0.106, Figure 4). Discussion: There is no consensus in the use of target therapy for advanced tumor in association with surgery. EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors showed higher and more rapid response and our study wants to demonstrate that surgery after target therapy gives full access to the advantage of definitive local treatment. In our series, despite fibrosis, radical surgery has been achieved in all patients operated. The intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complication rate seems to be similar.