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
2840 - Effects of Aerobic and Resistance Exercise on Android:Gynoid Fat Ratio in Breast Cancer Survivors
Presenter: Christina Dieli-Conwright
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
869 - Impact of Education for Breast self examination in Rural Indian Women on Early Detection - results of POC study
Presenter: Sneha Parchuri
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1951 - Breast cancer incidence and survival in renal transplant patients: 35-year experience
Presenter: Michalis Kontos
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
2017 - The changing landscape of breast cancer incidence after treatment for Hodgkin’s disease
Presenter: Amelia Benjamin
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1780 - Number of deliveries as a prognostic factor in different breast cancer subtypes
Presenter: Anniina Jääskeläinen
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
4650 - Effects of supervised and adapted exercise program in the quality of life and strength of breast cancer survivors: MAMA MOVE Gaia trial
Presenter: Ana Joaquim
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
4962 - Study On the Socioeconomic and Clinical Factors Affecting the Proportion of Breast Conserving Surgery in Chinese Women Breast Cancer
Presenter: Jin Zhang
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5451 - Clinical decision making and multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) in early breast cancer. Is the agreement between planned and applied therapeutic program?
Presenter: Marco Giavarra
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
888 - The value of genetic counselling in breast cancer genetic testing and clinical management
Presenter: Vicki Kiesel
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
4005 - Elderly patients in the Japanese Breast Cancer Registry
Presenter: Masataka Sawaki
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract