UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Medline ® Abstracts for References 6-9

of 'Supportive care of the patient with locally advanced or metastatic exocrine pancreatic cancer'

6
TI
Potentially Curable Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline.
AU
Khorana AA, Mangu PB, Berlin J, Engebretson A, Hong TS, Maitra A, Mohile SG, Mumber M, Schulick R, Shapiro M, Urba S, Zeh HJ, Katz MH
SO
J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(21):2541.
 
PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others on potentially curative therapy for patients with localized pancreatic cancer.
METHODS: ASCO convened a panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, palliative care, and advocacy experts and conducted a systematic review of literature from January 2002 to June 2015. Outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria.
RECOMMENDATIONS: A multiphase computed tomography scan of the abdomen and pelvis or magnetic resonance imaging should be performed for all patients to assess the anatomic relationships of the primary tumor and for the presence of intra-abdominal metastases. Baseline performance status, comorbidity profile, and goals of care should be evaluated and established. Primary surgical resection is recommended for all patients who have no metastases, appropriate performance and comorbidity profiles, and no radiographic interface between primary tumor and mesenteric vasculature. Preoperative therapy is recommended for patients who meet specific characteristics. All patients with resected pancreatic cancer who did not receive preoperative therapy should be offered 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy in the absence of contraindications. Adjuvant chemoradiation may be offered to patients who did not receive preoperative therapy with microscopically positive margins (R1) after resection and/or who had node-positive disease after completion of 4 to 6 months of systemic adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients should have a full assessment of symptoms, psychological status, and social supports and should receive palliative care early. Patients who have completed treatment and have no evidence of disease should be monitored. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/PCPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.
AD
Alok A. Khorana and Marc Shapiro, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Jordan Berlin, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Theodore S. Hong, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Anirban Maitra and Matthew H.G. Katz, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Supriya G. Mohile, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY; Matthew Mumber, Harbin Clinic, Rome, GA; Richard Schulick, University of Colorado at Denver, Denver, CO; Susan Urba, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; and Herbert J. Zeh, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
PMID
7
TI
Locally Advanced, Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline.
AU
Balaban EP, Mangu PB, Khorana AA, Shah MA, Mukherjee S, Crane CH, Javle MM, Eads JR, Allen P, Ko AH, Engebretson A, Herman JM, Strickler JH, Benson AB 3rd, Urba S, Yee NS
SO
J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(22):2654. Epub 2016 May 31.
 
PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others for treatment of patients with locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer.
METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, gastroenterology, palliative care, and advocacy experts and conducted a systematic review of the literature from January 2002 to June 2015. Outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Twenty-six randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria.
RECOMMENDATIONS: A multiphase computed tomography scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed. Baseline performance status and comorbidity profile should be evaluated. The goals of care, patient preferences, psychological status, support systems, and symptoms should guide decisions for treatments. A palliative care referral should occur at first visit. Initial systemic chemotherapy (6 months) with a combination regimen is recommended for most patients (for some patients radiation therapy may be offered up front) with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 and a favorable comorbidity profile. There is no clear evidence to support one regimen over another. The gemcitabine-based combinations and treatments recommended in the metastatic setting (eg, fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin and gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel) have not been evaluated in randomized controlled trials involving locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer. If there is local disease progression after induction chemotherapy, without metastasis, then radiation therapy or stereotactic body radiotherapy may be offered also with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status≤2 and an adequate comorbidity profile. If there is stable disease after 6 months of induction chemotherapy but unacceptable toxicities, radiation therapy may be offered as an alternative. Patients with disease progression should be offered treatment per the ASCO Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Treatment Guideline. Follow-up visits every 3 to 4 months are recommended. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/LAPC and www.asco.org/guidelines/MetPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.
AD
Edward P. Balaban, Cancer Care Partnership, State College; Edward P. Balaban and Nelson S. Yee, Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic; Jennifer R. Eads, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Peter Allen, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Somnath Mukherjee, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Christopher H. Crane and Milind M. Javle, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Andrew H. Ko, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Joseph M. Herman, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD; John H. Strickler, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Al B. Benson III, Lurie Comprehensive
PMID
8
TI
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline.
AU
Sohal DP, Mangu PB, Khorana AA, Shah MA, Philip PA, O'Reilly EM, Uronis HE, Ramanathan RK, Crane CH, Engebretson A, Ruggiero JT, Copur MS, Lau M, Urba S, Laheru D
SO
J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(23):2784. Epub 2016 May 31.
 
PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others for the treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.
METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, gastroenterology, palliative care, and advocacy experts to conduct a systematic review of the literature from April 2004 to June 2015. Outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria.
RECOMMENDATIONS: A multiphase computed tomography scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed. Baseline performance status and comorbidity profile should be evaluated. Goals of care, patient preferences, treatment response, psychological status, support systems, and symptom burden should guide decisions for treatments. A palliative care referral should occur at first visit. FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin; favorable comorbidity profile) or gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (NAB) -paclitaxel (adequate comorbidity profile) should be offered to patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0 to 1 based on patient preference and support system available. Gemcitabine alone is recommended for patients with ECOG PS 2 or with a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens; the addition of capecitabine or erlotinib may be offered. Patients with an ECOG PS≥3 and poorly controlled comorbid conditions should be offered cancer-directed therapy only on a case-by-case basis; supportive care should be emphasized. For second-line therapy, gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with FOLFIRINOX, an ECOG PS 0 to 1, and a favorable comorbidity profile; fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or nanoliposomal irinotecan should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel, ECOG PS 0 to 1, and favorable comorbidity profile, and gemcitabineor fluorouracil should be offered to patients with either an ECOG PS 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/MetPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.
AD
Davendra P.S. Sohal and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center; Philip A. Philip, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit; Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI; Eileen M. O'Reilly, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Joseph T. Ruggiero, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY; Hope E. Uronis, Duke University, Durham, NC; Ramesh K. Ramanathan, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale; Michelle Lau, Community Hospital Based Cancer Center, Tempe, AZ; Christopher H. Crane, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR; Mehmet S. Copur, St Francis Medical Center, Grand Island, NE; and Daniel Laheru, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD.
PMID
9
TI
Systematic versus on-demand early palliative care: results from a multicentre, randomised clinical trial.
AU
Maltoni M, Scarpi E, Dall'Agata M, Zagonel V, BertèR, Ferrari D, Broglia CM, Bortolussi R, Trentin L, Valgiusti M, Pini S, Farolfi A, Casadei Gardini A, Nanni O, Amadori D, Early Palliative Care Italian Study Group (EPCISG)
SO
Eur J Cancer. 2016;65:61. Epub 2016 Jul 26.
 
BACKGROUND: Early palliative care (EPC) in oncology has been shown to have a positive impact on clinical outcome, quality-of-care outcomes, and costs. However, the optimal way for activating EPC has yet to be defined.
METHODS: This prospective, multicentre, randomised study was conducted on 207 outpatients with metastatic or locally advanced inoperable pancreatic cancer. Patients were randomised to receive 'standard cancer care plus on-demand EPC' (n = 100) or 'standard cancer care plus systematic EPC' (n = 107). Primary outcome was change in quality of life (QoL) evaluated through the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Hepatobiliary questionnaire between baseline (T0) and after 12 weeks (T1), in particular the integration of physical, functional, and Hepatic Cancer Subscale (HCS) combined in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI). Patient mood, survival, relatives' satisfaction with care, and indicators of aggressiveness of care were also evaluated.
FINDINGS: The mean changes in TOI score and HCS score between T0 and T1 were -4.47 and -0.63, with a difference between groups of 3.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]0.10-7.57) (p = 0.041), and -2.23 and 0.28 (difference between groups of 2.51, 95% CI 0.40-4.61, p = 0.013), in favour of interventional group. QoL scores at T1 of TOI scale and HCS were 84.4 versus 78.1 (p = 0.022) and 52.0 versus 48.2 (p = 0.008), respectively, for interventional and standard arm. Until February 2016, 143 (76.9%) of the 186 evaluable patients had died. There was no difference in overall survival between treatment arms.
INTERPRETATIONS: Systematic EPC in advanced pancreatic cancer patients significantly improved QoL with respect to on-demand EPC.
AD
Palliative Care Unit, Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST)-IRCCS, Meldola, Italy.
PMID