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
4732 - Progesterone Receptor Isoform Ratio Dictates Antiprogestins/Progestins Effects on Metastatic Breast Cancer Models
Presenter: Maria Abascal
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5737 - PAM50 and CGH-array genomic characterization of HER2-Equivocal Breast Cancers defined by the 2018 ASCO/CAP recommendations.
Presenter: Carine Ngo
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1096 - OncotypeDX® predictive nomogram for recurrence score output: a machine learning system based on quantitative immunochemistry analysis - ADAPTED01
Presenter: Fabio Marazzi
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5426 - Geriatric parameters predict both disease-related and patient-reported outcomes in older patients with breast cancer
Presenter: Willeke van der Plas-Krijgsman
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5865 - Patients with a 21-gene assay in South East London differ from the TAILORx trial population
Presenter: Charalampos Gousis
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1312 - Predictive tools in adjuvant breast cancer – what is the standard of evidence supporting their utility? A literature review examining validation of Adjuvant!, Cancermath and NHS Predict
Presenter: Alice Loft
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
2445 - Oncologic outcome of invasive lobular carcinoma: Is it different from that of invasive ductal carcinoma?
Presenter: Hee Jun Choi
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
2476 - Pathologic response and survival efficacy in patients with initial nodal involvement after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer
Presenter: SERAFIN MORALES Murillo
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
3761 - Chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea: prognostic impact on premenopausal Egyptian patients with breast cancer
Presenter: Khaled Abdel Karim
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
4687 - Predicting the presence of breast cancer using circulating small RNA in the serum
Presenter: Yumiko Koi
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract