Background 
Pancreatic cancer has an extremely poor prognosis and prolonged survival is achieved only by resection with macroscopic tumor clearance. There is a strong rationale for a neoadjuvant approach, since a relevant percentage of pancreatic cancer patients present with non-metastatic but locally advanced disease and microscopic incomplete resections are common. The objective of the present analysis was to systematically review studies concerning the effects of neoadjuvant therapy on tumor response, toxicity, resection, and survival percentages in pancreatic cancer.
Methods and Findings 
Trials were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1966 to December 2009 as well as through reference lists of articles and proceedings of major meetings. Retrospective and prospective studies analyzing neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy of pancreatic cancer patients, followed by re-staging, and surgical exploration/resection were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects models. Primary outcome measures were proportions of tumor response categories and percentages of exploration and resection. A total of 111 studies (n = 4,394) including 56 phase I–II trials were analyzed. A median of 31 (interquartile range [IQR] 19–46) patients per study were included. Studies were subdivided into surveys considering initially resectable tumors (group 1) and initially non-resectable (borderline resectable/unresectable) tumors (group 2). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was given in 96.4% of the studies with the main agents gemcitabine, 5-FU (and oral analogues), mitomycin C, and platinum compounds. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was applied in 93.7% of the studies with doses ranging from 24 to 63 Gy. Averaged complete/partial response probabilities were 3.6% (95% CI 2%–5.5%)/30.6% (95% CI 20.7%–41.4%) and 4.8% (95% CI 3.5%–6.4%)/30.2% (95% CI 24.5%–36.3%) for groups 1 and 2, respectively; whereas progressive disease fraction was estimated to 20.9% (95% CI 16.9%–25.3%) and 20.8% (95% CI 14.5%–27.8%). In group 1, resectability was estimated to 73.6% (95% CI 65.9%–80.6%) compared to 33.2% (95% CI 25.8%–41.1%) in group 2. Higher resection-associated morbidity and mortality rates were observed in group 2 versus group 1 (26.7%, 95% CI 20.7%–33.3% versus 39.1%, 95% CI 29.5%–49.1%; and 3.9%, 95% CI 2.2%–6% versus 7.1%, 95% CI 5.1%–9.5%). Combination chemotherapies resulted in higher estimated response and resection probabilities for patients with initially non-resectable tumors (“non-resectable tumor patients”) compared to monotherapy. Estimated median survival following resection was 23.3 (range 12–54) mo for group 1 and 20.5 (range 9–62) mo for group 2 patients.
Conclusions 
In patients with initially resectable tumors (“resectable tumor patients”), resection frequencies and survival after neoadjuvant therapy are similar to those of patients with primarily resected tumors and adjuvant therapy. Approximately one-third of initially staged non-resectable tumor patients would be expected to have resectable tumors following neoadjuvant therapy, with comparable survival as initially resectable tumor patients. Thus, patients with locally non-resectable tumors should be included in neoadjuvant protocols and subsequently re-evaluated for resection.

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

/pdf/preoperative-neoadjuvant-therapy-in-pancreatic-cancer-a-31hum8qmaw.pdf

Preoperative/Neoadjuvant Therapy in Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Response and Resection Percentages

Background Determining the stage of non–small-cell lung cancer often requires multiple preoperative tests and invasive procedures. Whole-body positron-emission tomography (PET) may simplify and improve the evaluation of patients with this tumor. Methods We prospectively compared the ability of a standard approach to staging (computed tomography [CT], ultrasonography, bone scanning, and, when indicated, needle biopsies) and one involving PET to detect metastases in mediastinal lymph nodes and at distant sites in 102 patients with resectable non–small-cell lung cancer. The presence of mediastinal metastatic disease was confirmed histopathologically. Distant metastases that were detected by PET were further evaluated by standard imaging tests and biopsies. Patients were followed postoperatively for six months by standard methods to detect occult metastases. Logistic-regression analysis was used to evaluate the ability of PET and CT to identify malignant mediastinal lymph nodes. Results The sensitivity and sp...

Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography.

Summary Background Bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy is standard treatment for first-line and bevacizumab-naive second-line metastatic colorectal cancer. We assessed continued use of bevacizumab plus standard second-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer progressing after standard first-line bevacizumab-based treatment. Methods In an open-label, phase 3 study in 220 centres in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland, patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable, histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer progressing up to 3 months after discontinuing first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to second-line chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab 2·5 mg/kg per week equivalent (either 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks, intravenously). The choice between oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based second-line chemotherapy depended on the first-line regimen (switch of chemotherapy). A combination of a permuted block design and the Pocock and Simon minimisation algorithm was used for the randomisation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00700102. Findings Between Feb 1, 2006, and June 9, 2010, 409 (50%) patients were assigned to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy and 411 (50%) to chemotherapy alone. Median follow-up was 11·1 months (IQR 6·4–15·6) in the bevacizumab plus chemotherapy group and 9·6 months (5·4–13·9) in the chemotherapy alone group. Median overall survival was 11·2 months (95% CI 10·4–12·2) for bevacizumab plus chemotherapy and 9·8 months (8·9–10·7) for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·69–0·94; unstratified log-rank test p=0·0062). Grade 3–5 bleeding or haemorrhage (eight [2%] vs one [ vs three [ vs 12 [3%]) were more common in the bevacizumab plus chemotherapy group than in the chemotherapy alone group. The most frequently reported grade 3–5 adverse events were neutropenia (65 [16%] in the bevacizumab and chemotherapy group vs 52 [13%] in the chemotherapy alone group), diarrhoea (40 [10%] vs 34 [8%], respectively), and asthenia (23 [6%] vs 17 [4%], respectively). Treatment-related deaths were reported for four patients in the bevacizumab plus chemotherapy group and three in the chemotherapy alone group. Interpretation Maintenance of VEGF inhibition with bevacizumab plus standard second-line chemotherapy beyond disease progression has clinical benefits in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. This approach is also being investigated in other tumour types, including metastatic breast and non-small cell lung cancers. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche.

/pdf/continuation-of-bevacizumab-after-first-progression-in-5enjbd3jn3.pdf

Continuation of bevacizumab after first progression in metastatic colorectal cancer (ML18147): a randomised phase 3 trial

Predictive and prognostic factors for treatment and survival in 305 patients with advanced gastrointestinal neuroendocrine carcinoma (WHO G3): The NORDIC NEC study

The presence of bone metastases predicts the presence of pain and is the most common cause of cancer-related pain. Although bone metastases do not involve vital organs, they may determine deleterious effects in patients with prolonged survival. Bone fractures, hypercalcaemia, neurologic deficits and reduced activity associated with bone metastases result in an overall compromise in the patient's quality of life. A metastasis is a consequence of a cascade of events including a progressive growth at the primary site, vascularization phase, invasion, detachment, embolization, survival in the circulation, arrest at the site of a metastasis, extravasion, evasion of host defense and progressive growth. Once cancer cells establish in the bone, the normal process of bone turnover is disturbed. The different mechanisms responsible for osteoclast activation correspond to typical radiologic features showing lytic, sclerotic or mixed metastases, according to the primary tumor. The release of chemical mediators, the increased pressure within the bone, microfractures, the stretching of periosteum, reactive muscle spasm, nerve root infiltration and compression of nerves by the collapse of vertebrae are the possible mechanisms of malignant bone pain. Pain is often disproportionate to the size or degree of bone involvement. A comprehensive assessment including a trusting relationship with the patient, taking a careful history of the pain complaint, the characteristics of the pain, the evaluation of the psychological status of the patient, neurological examination, the reviewing of diagnostic studies and laboratory findings, and individualization of the therapeutic approach, should precede any treatment. Radiotherapy is the cornerstone of the treatment. Low doses given in a single session are safe and effective, and reduce distress and inconvenience associated with repeated session. Radioisotopes are more imprecise in delivering specific doses of radiation, but have less toxicity and easy administration as well as effectiveness in subclinical sites of metastases, although storage, dispensing and administration should be under strict control. Chemotherapy and endocrine therapy are difficult to measure in terms of pain relief. Prophylactic fixation surgery can lead to improved survival and quality of life of patients with bone metastases. Surgical treatment should be undertaken when fracture occurs. Careful selection of patients for surgical spinal decompression is required. The potential benefits of surgical interventions have to be tempered with patient survival. The use of analgesics according to the WHO ladder is recommended. There is no clear evidence that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have a specific efficacy in malignant bone pain. The difficulty with incident pain is not a lack of response to systemic opioids, but rather that the doses required to control the incidental pain produce unacceptable side-effects at rest. Alternative measures are often required. The inhibition of bone resorption and hypercalcaemia can be reduced by the use of bisphosphonates. This class of drugs potentiate the effects of analgesics in improving metastatic bone pain. Invasive techniques are rarely indicated, but may provide analgesia in the treatment of pain resistant to the other modalities. Neural blockade should never be used as the sole modality for malignant bone pain, but should be considered as a helpful in specific pain situations. Careful appraisal and the application of a correct approach should enable the patient with bone metastases to obtain an acceptable pain relief despite the advanced nature of their malignant disease.

Malignant bone pain: pathophysiology and treatment.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast represents a heterogeneous group of neoplastic lesions in the breast ducts. The goal for management of DCIS is to prevent the development of invasive breast cancer. This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.

https://www.unitypoint.org/desmoines/filesimages/Cancer%20Education/Oncology%20Nursing%20Conference/2015/2014%20NCCN%20Clin%20Pract%20Guidelines%20Male%20Sex%20Dysf.pdf

Steven J. Isakoff

Papers

Clinical practice guidelines in oncology