Search

Simple Summary: Pancreatic cancer presents a challenge due to its high mortality rates and limited treatment options. In an effort to improve patient outcomes, neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) has emerged as a promising approach for both resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of evidence from published (n = 14) and ongoing (n = 12) randomized Phase II and III trials, shedding light on the current status of NAT. The efficacy of NAT in terms of survival benefits for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer has been still controversial. However, the efficacy of NAT has been affirmed in cases of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, although the ideal treatment regimens remain subject to debate. Ongoing trials are actively exploring novel approaches, including immunotherapy, underscoring the dynamic nature of pancreatic cancer treatment. Future efforts aim to refine treatment strategies by integrating systemic chemotherapy with immunotherapy, guided by molecular-based biomarkers to achieve precision oncology. Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a lethal disease that requires innovative therapeutic approaches to enhance the survival outcomes. Neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) has gained attention for resectable and borderline resectable PC, offering improved resection rates and enabling early intervention and patient selection. Several retrospective studies have validated its efficacy. However, previous studies have lacked intention-to-treat analyses and appropriate resectability classifications. Randomized comparative trials may help to enhance the clinical applicability of evidence. Therefore, after searching the MEDLINE database, this scoping review presents a comprehensive summary of the evidence from published (n = 14) and ongoing (n = 12) randomized Phase II and III trials. Diverse regimens and their outcomes were explored for both resectable and borderline resectable PC. While some trials have supported the efficacy of NAT, others have demonstrated no clear survival benefits for patients with resectable PC. The utility of NAT has been confirmed in patients with borderline resectable PC, but the optimal regimens remain debatable. Ongoing trials are investigating novel regimens, including immunotherapy, thereby highlighting the dynamic landscape of PC treatment. Studies should focus on biomarker identification, which may enable precision in oncology. Future endeavors aim to refine treatment strategies, guided by precision oncology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The role of surgery in stage IV gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis (PM) remains unclear. The objective of the current single-center study was to define the impact of gastrectomy with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) on outcomes among Central European GC patients with limited peritoneal disease progression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed GC who underwent curative-intent multimodal treatment between 2013 and 2023 were included. Patients without adenocarcinoma, who did not undergo gastrectomy, had early (cT1) or metastatic GC at the time of initial diagnosis, who underwent multivisceral resection, incomplete cytoreduction or palliative care, died before planned curative-intent treatment, or had incomplete clinical or pathological missing information were excluded. Results: A total of 74 patients who underwent curative-intent treatment for GC with PM were included in the final analytic cohort. Patients who underwent gastrectomy with CRS+HIPEC were less likely to achieve TOO (CRS+HIPEC: 28% vs. CRS: 57.1%, p = 0.033) compared with individuals after CRS alone. Specifically, patients who underwent gastrectomy with CRS+HIPEC had a higher likelihood of postoperative complications (CRS+HIPEC: 48% vs. CRS: 20.4%, p = 0.018) and longer hospital LOS (median, CRS+HIPEC: 12 vs. CRS: 10, p = 0.019). While administration of HIPEC did not impact long-term survival (median OS, CRS+HIPEC: 16 months vs. CRS: 12 months, p = 0.55), postoperative complications (median OS, CCI < 30:16 months vs. CCI > 30:5 months, p = 0.024) and ICU stay (median OS, no ICU stay: 16 months vs. ICU stay: 5 months, p = 0.008) were associated with worsened long-term survival among GC patients with PM. Conclusions: Data from the current study demonstrated a lack of survival benefit among advanced GC patients with PM undergoing gastrectomy with CRS+HIPEC when compared with individuals after gastrectomy with CRS alone. Administration of perioperative chemotherapy and achievement of TO failed to withstand the peritoneal disease progression during NAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]