Original Article
Safety and efficacy of locoregional therapy for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to the liver: a single-center experience
Abstract
Background: Many patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are diagnosed with liver metastatic disease (mPDAC), and few are surgical candidates. Interventional oncology (IO) locoregional therapies (LRT) have proven beneficial in other primary and metastatic hepatic malignancies. Systemic chemotherapy is the standard of care for patients with mPDAC. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of LRT including thermal ablation, chemoembolization, and radioembolization for mPDAC.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of 28 patients with mPDAC referred to IR clinic for consideration of LRT from 01/2006 to 08/2017, of whom 20 underwent treatment. Laboratory values were analyzed at 0, 3, and 6 months post-treatment. Imaging response was evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months post-intervention by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) criteria. Adverse events (AE) were classified by CTCAE v5.0. Overall survival (OS) from the diagnosis of PDAC, survival from the time of mPDAC diagnosis, and survival from the time of LRT were calculated.
Results: Median OS (mOS) was 25 months. Median survival from time of mPDAC diagnosis and post LRT were 16.25 and 9.7 months, respectively. At one month post-intervention, 12 of 17 patients demonstrated disease response (CR or PR per mRECIST). Survival among responders was 9 months vs. 6 months for patients with stable or progressive disease (P=0.08). There were two grade 3 AE which included post-embolization syndrome and transient renal failure. Chemotherapy was briefly delayed in one of these patients, but ultimately resumed.
Conclusions: The use of LRT in patients with mPDAC is safe. Additionally, no significant chemotherapy limiting toxicities were observed. Responders to therapy demonstrated a survival benefit trend in this small and heterogeneous cohort. Further investigations with randomized trials are warranted.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of 28 patients with mPDAC referred to IR clinic for consideration of LRT from 01/2006 to 08/2017, of whom 20 underwent treatment. Laboratory values were analyzed at 0, 3, and 6 months post-treatment. Imaging response was evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months post-intervention by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) criteria. Adverse events (AE) were classified by CTCAE v5.0. Overall survival (OS) from the diagnosis of PDAC, survival from the time of mPDAC diagnosis, and survival from the time of LRT were calculated.
Results: Median OS (mOS) was 25 months. Median survival from time of mPDAC diagnosis and post LRT were 16.25 and 9.7 months, respectively. At one month post-intervention, 12 of 17 patients demonstrated disease response (CR or PR per mRECIST). Survival among responders was 9 months vs. 6 months for patients with stable or progressive disease (P=0.08). There were two grade 3 AE which included post-embolization syndrome and transient renal failure. Chemotherapy was briefly delayed in one of these patients, but ultimately resumed.
Conclusions: The use of LRT in patients with mPDAC is safe. Additionally, no significant chemotherapy limiting toxicities were observed. Responders to therapy demonstrated a survival benefit trend in this small and heterogeneous cohort. Further investigations with randomized trials are warranted.
