Abstract 1169
Background
Locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) represents more than one third of pancreatic cancers and owns poor survival after the standard chemotherapy. Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a novel method and has been recently used in LAPC. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of IRE combined with chemotherapy and chemotheraoy alone for patients with LAPC.
Methods
Locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) represents more than one third of pancreatic cancers and owns poor survival after the standard chemotherapy. Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a novel method and has been recently used in LAPC. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of IRE combined with chemotherapy and chemotheraoy alone for patients with LAPC.
Results
Before PSM analysis, patients with LAPC had better overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and progression-free survival (PFS) after IRE combined with chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone (median OS, 16.0 months vs 8.0 months in SEER dataset, P < 0.001, 21.6 months vs 7.1 months in SYSUCC dataset, P = 0.006; median CSS, 18 months vs 8 months, P < 0.001; median PFS, 7.7 months vs 4.9 months, P = 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that IRE combined with chemotherapy was identified as a significant prognostic factor for OS, CSS and PFS in LAPC patients of both the whole cohort and the matched cohort.Table: 703P
Univariate and multivariate analyses of OS in patients
Characteristic | Before PSM | After PSM | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||||||||
HR | 95%CI | P | HR | 95%CI | P | HR | 95%CI | P | HR | 95% CI | P | ||
SEER dataset | |||||||||||||
Age (years) | ≤ 60 / > 60 | 1.295 | 1.193-1.406 | <0.001 | 1.281 | 1.180-1.391 | <0.001 | 1.304 | 1.186-1.435 | <0.001 | 1.283 | 1.166-1.412 | <0.001 |
Gender | Female / Male | 0.999 | 0.928-1.075 | 0.984 | NI | 0.994 | 0.914-1.082 | 0.895 | NI | ||||
Race | Black / White / Others | 0.949 | 0.876-1.027 | 0.194 | NI | 0.937 | 0.855-1.026 | 0.159 | |||||
Tumor size (cm) | ≤ 2 / 2∼4 / >4 | 1.137 | 1.066-1.213 | <0.001 | 1.148 | 1.075-1.225 | <0.001 | 1.135 | 1.054-1.222 | 0.001 | 1.138 | 1.056-1.226 | 0.001 |
Tumor grade | Well / Moderate / Poor | 1.115 | 1.048-1.186 | 0.001 | 1.077 | 1.012-1.147 | 0.019 | 1.119 | 1.043-1.200 | 0.002 | 1.081 | 1.007-1.160 | 0.032 |
LN metastasis | Absent / Present | 1.076 | 0.996-1.162 | 0.064 | NI | 1.072 | 0.981-1.172 | 0.123 | NI | ||||
Tumor site | Head / Body / Tail | 0.956 | 0.909-1.006 | 0.082 | NI | 0.960 | 0.960-1.016 | 0.157 | NI | ||||
Radiotherapy | No / Yes | 0.640 | 0.592-0.691 | <0.001 | 0.610 | 0.565-0.660 | <0.001 | 0.630 | 0.572-0.694 | <0.001 | 0.608 | 0.552-0.671 | <0.001 |
Chemotherapy | Without IRE / With IRE | 0.428 | 0.351-0.522 | <0.001 | 0.369 | 0.302-0.451 | <0.001 | 0.403 | 0.329-0.492 | <0.001 | 0.370 | 0.302-0.453 | <0.001 |
SYSUCC dataset | |||||||||||||
Age (years) | ≤ 60 / > 60 | 1.154 | 0.600-2.222 | 0.668 | NI | 0.889 | 0.351-0.253 | 0.804 | NI | ||||
Gender | Female / Male | 2.399 | 1.077-5.343 | 0.052 | NI | 4.630 | 1.317-16.275 | 0.017 | 4.975 | 1.081-22.891 | 0.039 | ||
Tumor size (cm) | ≤ 2 / 2∼4 / >4 | 1.657 | 0.843-3.257 | 0.143 | NI | 2.863 | 1.021-8.033 | 0.046 | 2.012 | 0.764-5.294 | 0.157 | ||
Tumor grade | Well / Moderate / Poor | 1.182 | 0.669-2.086 | 0.565 | NI | 1.797 | 0.680-3.293 | 0.316 | NI | ||||
LN metastasis | Absent / Present | 7.966 | 3.285-19.315 | <0.001 | 4.091 | 1.484-11.278 | 0.006 | 7.264 | 2.220-23.775 | 0.001 | 4.799 | 1.173-19.625 | 0.029 |
Tumor site | Head / Body / Tail | 1.317 | 0.879-1.973 | 0.182 | NI | 1.310 | 0.700-2.452 | 0.398 | NI | ||||
WBC (*109) | ≤ 10 / > 10 | 1.058 | 0.371-3.019 | 0.916 | NI | 0.463 | 0.061-3.527 | 0.457 | NI | ||||
HGB (g/L) | ≤ 120 / > 120 | 0.852 | 0.419-1.733 | 0.659 | NI | 1.401 | 0.461-4.264 | 0.552 | NI | ||||
PLT (*109) | ≤ 300 / > 300 | 0.513 | 0.181-1.455 | 0.209 | NI | 0.484 | 0.110-2.126 | 0.337 | NI | ||||
ALT (U/L) | ≤ 40 / > 40 | 0.929 | 0.435-1.981 | 0.848 | NI | 1.034 | 0.365-2.929 | 0.950 | NI | ||||
AST (U/L) | ≤ 40 / > 40 | 1.006 | 0.417-2.428 | 0.989 | NI | 0.623 | 0.143-2.719 | 0.529 | NI | ||||
ALP (U/L) | ≤ 100 / > 100 | 1.686 | 0.867-3.277 | 0.124 | NI | 1.395 | 0.549-3.546 | 0.484 | NI | ||||
GGT (U/L) | ≤ 45 / > 45 | 1.646 | 0.840-3.224 | 0.146 | NI | 2.106 | 0.821-5.400 | 0.121 | NI | ||||
ALB (g/L) | ≤ 40 / > 40 | 0.261 | 0.133-0.515 | 0.101 | NI | 0.437 | 0.153-1.244 | 0.121 | NI | ||||
TBIL (umol/L) | ≤ 20.5 / > 20.5 | 0.712 | 0.296-1.715 | 0.449 | NI | 0.360 | 0.083-1.569 | 0.174 | NI | ||||
IBIL (umol/L) | ≤ 15 / > 15 | 0.354 | 0.048-2.589 | 0.306 | NI | 0.043 | 0.001-77.525 | 0.411 | NI | ||||
CRP (ng/L) | ≤ 3 / > 3 | 3.312 | 1.582-6.936 | 0.001 | 1.741 | 0.757-4.005 | 0.192 | 3.094 | 1.136-8.428 | 0.127 | NI | ||
CEA (ng/mL) | ≤ 5 / > 5 | 1.029 | 0.527-2.011 | 0.933 | NI | 1.264 | 0.495-3.232 | 0.624 | NI | ||||
CA19-9 (U/ml) | ≤ 35 / > 35 | 1.745 | 0.676-4.507 | 0.250 | NI | 1.714 | 0.494-5.951 | 0.396 | NI | ||||
HBsAg | Negative/Positive | 0.220 | 0.030-1.610 | 0.136 | NI | 0.264 | 0.094-0.738 | 0.011 | NI | ||||
Chemotherapy | Without IRE/ With IRE | 0.206 | 0.082-0.515 | 0.001 | 0.363 | 0.132-0.998 | 0.050 | 0.264 | 0.094-0.738 | 0.011 | 0.313 | 0.098-0.992 | 0.048 |
Cheotherapy type | FOLFIRINOX/Gem | 0.910 | 0.648-1.277 | 0.584 | NI | 0.852 | 0.513-1.414 | 0.535 | NI |
Conclusions
IRE combined with chemotherapy is superior to chemotherapy alone in terms of OS, CSS and PFS for patients with LAPC. This combination method may be a more suitable way of treatment for patients with LAPC.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
The National Natural Science Funds (No. 81672390) and the National Key Research and Development Plan (No.2017YFC0910002).
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
3905 - Loss of CDX-2 expression is an independent poor prognostic biomarker in colorectal cancer
Presenter: Krittiya Korphaisarn
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
3963 - Robot-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for radical resection of colorectal cancer
Presenter: Zhengchuan Niu
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
3989 - Bevacizumab as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer: Updated results from the AVANT phase III Study by the GERCOR Group
Presenter: Thierry André
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
4741 - Real world data on adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk stage II colorectal cancer – the role of tumor side
Presenter: Camila Araujo de Carvalho
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
4973 - Oncological Outcome and Safety of Bevacizumab (BV) Therapy in Patients with Occlusive Colon Cancer and Self-Expandable Metal Stents (SEMS)
Presenter: Vilma Pacheco-Barcia
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
2295 - Active chronic hepatitis B increases the risk of liver metastasis of colorectal cancer- a retrospective clinical study of 7187 consecutive cases of newly diagnosed colorectal cancer
Presenter: Lei Zhao
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
3845 - Comprehensive Evaluation of Recurrence Risk (CERR) Score for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Development and Validation
Presenter: Wei Ye
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1976 - BRAF-mutated colorectal metastases: what is the benefit of liver surgery? Results from a cohort of 91 patients.
Presenter: Sahir Javed
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
2688 - The smallest colorectal liver metastasis size as a prognosis factor after laparoscopic liver resection
Presenter: Baptiste Cervantes
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
4961 - Validation of GAME score risk groups in resected colorectal cancer liver metastases and the prognostic relevance of KRAS, NRAS and BRAF mutation analysis
Presenter: Berta Martin-Cullell
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract