Next Article in Journal
Physician Perceptions on Cancer Screening for LGBTQ+ Patients
Next Article in Special Issue
deepPERFECT: Novel Deep Learning CT Synthesis Method for Expeditious Pancreatic Cancer Radiotherapy
Previous Article in Journal
Stromal–Epithelial Interactions in Cancer Progression and Therapy Response
Previous Article in Special Issue
Survival Outcomes and Failure Patterns in Patients with Inoperable Non-Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Treated with Definitive Radiotherapy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/cancers15113016
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Ablative vs. Non-Ablative Radiotherapy in Palliating Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Single Institution Experience and a Systematic Review of the Literature

by
Randa Kamel
1,*,
Kristopher Dennis
2,
Janice Doody
2 and
Jason Pantarotto
2
1
Department of Radiation Oncology, UZ Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussel, Belgium
2
Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital, Smyth Road 501, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2023, 15(11), 3016; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15113016
Submission received: 24 April 2023 / Revised: 28 May 2023 / Accepted: 29 May 2023 / Published: 1 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Radiation Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The very poor prognosis and the absence of radical treatment options in cases of unresectable “locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC)” focus its management on palliation. An “overall survival (OS)” benefit has been shown with new systemic therapy agents; however, not all patients are good candidates for systemic treatments at diagnosis, and LAPC is often associated with a high symptom burden that greatly impacts patients’ quality of life. Studying dose optimization of radiation as an option for local progression cessation is therefore necessary. Research in this setting as opposed to other treatment sites is under-represented in the literature and the guidelines are based on very scarce data. We aim to present the outcomes of “stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT)” (ablative radiotherapy) vs. non-ablative radiotherapy through our patient population and the available data in the literature.

Abstract

We studied the dose–local control (LC) relationship in ablative vs. non-ablative radiotherapy in a non-radical treatment setting of “locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC)” by comparing our patients (n = 89) treated with SBRT on the CyberKnife unit vs. conventional radiation between January 2005 and January 2021, and by reviewing the literature. A systematic search was performed leveraging Medline for references on SBRT use in pancreatic cancer without date terms or language restrictions. A total of 3702 references were identified and the search was then repeated in Embase and the Cochrane database. Ultimately, 12 studies were eligible for inclusion, which either compared SBRT to conventional radiation, or SBRT use in dose escalation for primary LAPC in a non-neoadjuvant setting. Our cohort’s median overall survival was 152 days (CI 95%, 118–185); including 371 days (CI 95%, 230–511) vs. 126 days (CI 95%, 90–161) favoring SBRT, p = 0.004. The median time to local progression was 170 days (48–923) for SBRT vs. 107 days (27–489) for the non-ablative group. In our SBRT patients, no local progressions were seen with BED10 > 60 Gy. Even when palliating LAPC, SBRT should be considered as an alternative to conventional radiation, especially in patients with a low disease burden. BED10 ≥ 60–70 Gy offers better local control without increasing toxicity rates. Less local progression may provide a better quality of life to those patients who already have a short life expectancy.

1. Introduction

While surgery is the current sole radical treatment option in pancreatic cancer, only a minority of patients present with resectable disease at the time of diagnosis. Studies addressing newer chemotherapy regimens show a survival benefit for “locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC)” [1,2]; however, local progression remains problematic and often presents with a high symptom burden. The main goal of “radiotherapy (RT)” in this setting is to prevent or delay local progression.
The role of RT in unresectable pancreatic cancer has always been controversial regarding its relatively radioresistant nature and the modest 1-year “local control (LC)” rates that “conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT)” offers. While this role is currently evolving due to the advancement of RT techniques allowing for higher dose delivery and expansion of the therapeutic window [3], the guidelines on RT dose as a monotherapy in LAPC are based on very scarce data [4,5].
“Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT)” in fewer fractions is more convenient to patients in terms of logistics than CFRT and can decrease the elapsed time to undergo another treatment modality. Moreover, SBRT yields a higher “biologically effective dose (BED)” which could potentially allow for better LC rates. In 2004, Koong et al. [6] was the first to show feasibility of using SBRT in LAPC. In this phase I dose escalation study, doses up to 25 Gy in a single fraction were delivered and the 1-year local control rate was 100% in the patient subgroup who received 25 Gy, without grade 3 or higher acute gastrointestinal toxicity. Since then, there has been an increased interest in using SBRT in LAPC; however, this is with few prospective data and no phase III trials comparing its use to CFRT.
At The Ottawa Hospital, we previously studied the outcomes of using different dose schemes of non-ablative hypo-fractionated RT with a palliative intent to the primary unresectable LAPC, treated between 2005 and 2019. The results showed a survival benefit for the group of patients who were treated within the higher dose range of ≥30–40 Gy in 10–15 fractions, however, local progressions were common. (Manuscript submitted, under review). We aimed here to study the difference in outcomes between SBRT and conventional RT and observe if higher biologically effective doses could defer local progression without substantially increasing toxicity. We compared our higher dose range palliative patients to those who received SBRT in a non-curative setting, hypothesizing that performance status and the disease extent in these two groups were likely not that different and that local control is probably better with SBRT. We then conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify studies that similarly compared different dose arms in LAPC in a non-curative, non-neoadjuvant setting.

2. Materials and Methods

This is a single-institution, ethics approved, retrospective study carried out at a large Canadian cancer center, the main treatment facility for approximately1.4 million people. Electronic records were reviewed for all patients who received SBRT to the pancreas on a CyberKnife robotic radiosurgery unit (Accuray Incorporated., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) from September 2010 to January 2021. In the non-ablative RT group, all patients who received ≥30–40 Gy in 10–15 fractions to the pancreas between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2019 were included. In the primary analysis, primary pancreatic irradiations and local recurrences from both groups were included. All included patients had a biopsy-proven diagnosis. Patients who received non-ablative RT doses of <30 Gy were excluded because they had worse performance statuses and experienced more anti-symptomatic RT (e.g., bleeding due to invasion of nearby organs, etc.). Patients who had concurrent chemotherapy during RT were also excluded. The potential end for follow-ups was 1 February 2021.
Outcomes of interest included demographics, clinical, and RT details. Baseline diagnostic images and reports were reviewed to assign TNM values according to the AJCC 8th edition system for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas. Descriptive statistics summarized data including medians and ranges for continuous variables, as well as frequencies and proportions for categorical variables. The Kaplan–Meier method was used for time-to-event analyses on SPSS statistical software; version 28.0.1.0 (142).
Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the start of the RT course until death from any cause, and patients were censored at the last follow-up if alive. In-field progression was calculated from the start of the RT course until radiographic confirmation of local progression, either on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging.
Then, a systematic search was conducted leveraging Medline via PubMed for all references reporting on the use of SBRT or ablative radiation in pancreatic cancer without date terms or language restrictions, for which the search flow diagram is described in Figure 1. From Medline, 3702 references were identified and screened, from which 190 references were deemed relevant. Then, the search was repeated in Embase and the Cochrane database for systematic reviews, including the Cochrane central trials database where 1675 references were screened and relevant references were identified. After removing duplicates, an extra 72 references were added to a total of 262 references. Following further screening, 149 articles reporting on the clinical use and outcomes of SBRT in pancreatic cancer were studied for eligibility, including their reference lists. The databanks were last checked on 22 September 2022.
The eligibility criteria included studies which compared different RT dose scheme outcomes, either by comparing SBRT to CFRT, or by comparing different SBRT doses to report on dose effects on local control in primary LAPC in a non-neoadjuvant setting.
Ultimately, 12 studies were eligible for our review: 11 full-text articles and 1 abstract. Since no randomized trials were conducted in this setting, the risk of bias assessment was performed using the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) tool [7]. Data were abstracted and categorized for comparison. The main points of interest were the full radiotherapy dose data; the calculation of the BED10; the 1-year LC (or 2-year if the 1-year data were not reported); the recurrence rate; the free from local progression rate; and the local progression-free survival. Other points of interest were the overall survival rate and chemotherapy administration. Table 1 summarizes the data extracted from the eligible studies.

3. Results

In our cohort, a total of 89 patients were analyzed with the full patients’ characteristics summarized in Table 2. A total of 74 patients received non-ablative hypo-fractionated RT and 15 patients received SBRT. The biologically effective dose was calculated for an α/β of 10 Gy (BED10). The non-ablative RT group received a median dose of 30 Gy in 10 fractions (range: ≥30–40 Gy in 10–15 fractions) and a median BED10 of 39 Gy (range: 39–56 Gy), while the SBRT group received a median dose of 21 Gy in three fractions (range: 21–50 Gy in 3–5 fractions) and a median BED10 of 35.7 Gy (range: 35.7–100 Gy). The full RT data are described in Table 3.
In the non-ablative RT group, 67 patients were treated for their primary tumor, while seven patients were treated for local recurrences post resection. In the SBRT group, 12 patients were treated for their primary tumor, while three patients were treated for recurrences (two patients were post resection and one patient was post prior chemoradiotherapy, where the prior RT regimen was conventionally delivered to a dose of 50.4 Gy). In addition, five SBRT patients received elective nodal irradiation post SBRT of 45 Gy, delivered using intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).
The median age for the whole cohort was 68 years (range 44–83). There were slightly more male (n = 46/89, 52%) than female (n = 43/89, 48%) patients. All patients in the SBRT group were ECOG 1 at the RT start, while half of the patients in the non-ablative RT group were ECOG 1 (n = 36/74), three patients were ECOG 0, and the rest were ECOG 2–3. Only one of the non-ablative RT patients who began the treatment as outpatients required hospitalization prior to the RT completion, while all patients from the SBRT group started and ended the RT as outpatients. Most primary tumors were T4 (n = 52/89, 58.5%) and most of them were located in the pancreatic head (n = 47/89, 53%). Almost half of the non-ablative RT patients were node-positive and were metastatic at the RT start, while all SBRT patients were node-negative and non-metastatic at the RT start. Of the whole cohort, 42% (n = 37/89) of the patients were stented at the RT start. A total of 44% (n = 39/89) of patients received neoadjuvant systemic therapy, mainly Gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX. Only one patient received a second course of antihemorrhagic RT; this patient belonged to the non-ablative group, and only information from the first RT course was used for this analysis. Most patients in the non-ablative RT group were treated with 3D conformal RT (n = 41/74, 55%) or IMRT/VMAT (n = 28/74), from which only 10% (n = 8/74) from the non-ablative group were simulated with four-dimensional CT. All SBRT patients had endoscopically or percutaneously placed fiducials and four-dimensional CT at simulation with intravenous contrast.

3.1. Overall Survival

The median OS of the whole cohort was 152 days (5 months) from the RT start (CI 95%, 118–185 days). For the SBRT group, the median OS was 371 days (12 months, CI 95%, 230–511 days) vs. 126 days (4 months) for the non-ablative RT group (CI 95%, 90–161 days). On the log rank test, there was a significant survival benefit favoring the SBRT group, p = 0.004 (see Figure 2a).

3.2. Subgroup Analysis

We performed a subgroup analysis restricted to the non-metastatic patients who received RT to their primary tumors; these were 27 patients from the non-ablative RT group vs. 12 patients from the SBRT group. The overall survival was 322 days (11 months, CI 95%, 140–503 days) for the SBRT group vs. 162 days (5.5 months, CI 95%, 126–197 days) for the non-ablative RT group. The survival benefit remained significant favoring the SBRT group, p = 0.018 (see Figure 3).

3.3. Local Progression

A total of 24/74 patients in the non-ablative RT group experienced local progression, with a median of 107 days (>3 months, range: 27–489 days) from the RT start. While 9/15 SBRT patients recurred locally with a median of 170 days (>6 months, range: 48–923 days). This difference was non-statistically significant (p = 0.1, see Figure 2b). No local progression was seen in patients who received SBRT with a dose >30 Gy in three fractions (BED10 > 60 Gy).

3.4. Systematic Review Data

Six out of twelve eligible studies compared dose escalation between SBRT arms. In five studies, a significant LC benefit was found, favoring high dose groups. Pollom et al. [8], Toesca et al. [9], Zhu et al. [10], and Mazzola et al. [12] showed statistically better local control rates using EBD10 doses of >70 Gy. Arcelli et al. [13] compared BED10 ≥ 48 Gy vs. less, and a significant local control benefit was still found favoring the higher dose group. One study by Abi Jaoude et al. [11] showed no benefit when comparing BED10 ≥ 72 Gy vs. less. Three studies showed an OS benefit for the higher dose groups, one study did not provide information on the OS, and two studies found the OS was non-statistically significant. The remaining six studies compared CFRT to SBRT; however, in all cases, the doses had overlapping BED10 ranges. Only two out of six studies showed a statistically significant LC benefit favoring the SBRT group, seen in Lin et al. [18] and Arcelli et al. [15].

4. Discussion

In this paper, we questioned the feasibility of using SBRT as an alternative to conventional radiation when treating LAPC that is non amenable to local resection and where treatment is focused on palliation. In these cases, the decision on RT dose and technique is usually based on the treating physician’s intuition rather than evidence-based guidelines. We assumed that SBRT could be more convenient due to less visits and could provide a better local control. We presented the outcomes of our institution, together with the available data in the literature in this setting, while acknowledging the limitations of this retrospectively collected data.
In our cohort, both groups had similar demographics; however, patients in the SBRT group had less disease burden when they started treatment and were all non-metastatic, while more than half the patients in the conventional group were metastatic at the RT start. This can explain their better OS in the primary analysis. This survival benefit was nevertheless still significant (p = 0.018) in the subgroup analysis restricted to the primary irradiation of non-metastatic patients from each group. Looking at local progression, the SBRT patients showed more time to local progression than the conventional group, but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.1) which is likely explained by the overlapping median BED10 doses between both arms. We noticed, however, that all patients who received SBRT doses higher than 30 Gy in three fractions (BED10 > 60 Gy) did not experience local progression. SBRT was generally well tolerated and no patients needed hospitalization during treatment, but the toxicity data was not prospectively documented, limiting its interpretation. The systematic review data showed no significant OS or PFS difference when SBRT was compared to CFRT when similar BED10 doses were used in the compared arms. On the other hand, studies that compared different SBRT dose arms showed a better PFS when BED10 dose exceeded 70 Gy.
Over the past two decades, many single-institution retrospective studies have shown the feasibility of delivering SBRT in LAPC in different treatment settings with acceptable toxicity profiles [20]. Vornhülz et al. and Buwenge et al. [21,22] favored SBRT at reducing pain and quality-of-life improvement, even in elderly patients with poor performance status as studied by Rosati et al. and Ciabatti et al. [23,24]. Similarly, several studies compared the use of SBRT to CFRT where an OS benefit favoring SBRT was shown; however, most data are retrospective and included small patient groups [25,26,27,28,29,30]. In 2020, Mahadevan et al. [31] reviewed and analyzed data from 39 studies on the use of hypofractionated SBRT for pancreatic cancer in various clinical scenarios (e.g., preoperative [neoadjuvant], borderline resectable, and LAPC) and concluded that, in three-fraction equivalents, doses more than 28 Gy (BED10 > 54 Gy) resulted in better local control. They mentioned that Grade 3 toxicities associated with doses beyond 36 Gy in three fractions (BED10: 79.2 Gy) outweigh any potential benefits. Reddy et al. [32] also concluded inferior local control in local pancreatic cancer recurrences with BED10 < 54.8 Gy.
Zhu et al. [33] concluded better tumor response in advanced or medically inoperable pancreatic cancer with BED10 ≥ 60 Gy with significantly less toxicity rates when the BED10 dose did not exceed 70 Gy. Goldsmith et al. [34] recommended BED10 > 70 Gy with caution to the duodenum, especially with large treatment target volumes. Interestingly, Jolissant et al. [35] from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center retrospectively compared outcomes of ablative radiation after induction chemotherapy for T4 localized pancreatic cancer or tumor encasement of the big vessels vs. surgical resection. Patients were irradiated to BED10 doses > 97 Gy in hyperfractionated schemes of 3–4.5 Gy/fraction and had similar locoregional control rates as surgery, with similar major adverse gastrointestinal events in the two groups at 25%.
The above suggests that higher SBRT doses probably offer better survival, as well as local control rates with acceptable toxicity when BED10 did not exceed 70 Gy.

5. Conclusions

Even in a non-curative setting, SBRT can be considered as an alternative to conventionally fractionated RT in LAPC; especially in patients with a low disease burden. Moderately higher BED10 doses of ≥60–70 Gy offer better local control with acceptable toxicity rates. Less local progression can translate into a better quality of life to that subgroup of patients who already have a short life expectancy. Prospective data over toxicity using higher SBRT doses in LAPC is needed.

Author Contributions

R.K.: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, writing—original draft; K.D.: writing—review and editing; J.D.: data curation, writing—review and editing; J.P.: conceptualization, writing—review and editing, supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute -CRRF 2016/Protocol 20200166-01H—8 April 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived because in this study charts and records were retrospectively reviewed without any change in interventions or treatment plans, and no risk to the quality of care. Furthermore, patients were de-identified. This was thoroughly reviewed by the ethical committee of the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Balaban, E.P.; Mangu, P.B.; Khorana, A.A.; Shah, M.A.; Mukherjee, S.; Crane, C.H.; Javle, M.M.; Eads, J.R.; Allen, P.; Ko, A.H.; et al. Locally Advanced, Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 2654–2668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Tonneau, M.; Lacornerie, T.; Mirabel, X.; Pasquier, D. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: A systemic review. Cancer Radiother. 2021, 25, 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Moningi, S.; Lei, X.; Fang, P.; Taniguchi, C.M.; Holliday, E.B.; Koay, E.J.; Koong, A.C.; Ludmir, E.B.; Minsky, B.D.; Das, P.; et al. Contemporary use and outcomes of radiation and chemotherapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer. Clin. Transl. Radiat. Oncol. 2022, 35, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. NCCN Guidelines v1. 2022. Available online: www.nccn.org (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  5. Palta, M.; Godfrey, D.; Goodman, K.A.; Hoffe, S.; Dawson, L.A.; Dessert, D.; Hall, W.A.; Herman, J.M.; Khorana, A.A.; Merchant, N.; et al. Radiation Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer: Executive Summary of an ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2019, 9, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Koong, A.C.; Christofferson, E.; Le, Q.-T.; Goodman, K.A.; Ho, A.; Kuo, T.; Ford, J.M.; Fisher, G.A.; Greco, R.; Norton, J.; et al. Phase II study to assess the efficacy of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy followed by a stereotactic radiosurgery boost in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2005, 63, 320–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Sterne, J.A.C.; Hernán, M.A.; Reeves, B.C.; Savović, J.; Berkman, N.D.; Viswanathan, M.; Henry, D.; Altman, D.G.; Ansari, M.T.; Boutron, I.; et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016, 355, i4919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Pollom, E.L.; Alagappan, M.; von Eyben, R.; Kunz, P.L.; Fisher, G.A.; Ford, J.A.; Poultsides, G.A.; Visser, B.C.; Norton, J.A.; Kamaya, A.; et al. Single-versus multifraction stereotactic body radiation therapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Outcomes and toxicity. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2014, 90, 918–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Toesca, D.A.; Ahmed, F.; Kashyap, M.; Baclay, J.R.M.; von Eyben, R.; Pollom, E.L.; Koong, A.C.; Chang, D.T. Intensified systemic therapy and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy dose for patients with unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Radiother. Oncol. 2020, 152, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhu, X.; Cao, Y.; Su, T.; Zhu, X.; Ju, X.; Zhao, X.; Jiang, L.; Ye, Y.; Cao, F.; Qing, S.; et al. Failure patterns and outcomes of dose escalation of stereotactic body radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: A multicenter cohort study. Ther. Adv. Med Oncol. 2020, 12, 1758835920977155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jaoude, J.A.; Niedzielski, J.; Yu, S.; Taniguchi, C. Dose Escalation SBRT in Patients with Localized Pancreatic Cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2022, 114, e188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mazzola, R.; Fersino, S.; Aiello, D.; Gregucci, F.; Tebano, U.; Corradini, S.; Di Paola, G.; Cirillo, M.; Tondulli, L.; Ruffo, G.; et al. Linac-based stereotactic body radiation therapy for unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer: Risk-adapted dose prescription and image-guided delivery. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2018, 194, 835–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Arcelli, A.; Guido, A.; Buwenge, M.; Simoni, N.; Mazzarotto, R.; Macchia, G.; Deodato, F.; Cilla, S.; Bonomo, P.; Scotti, V.; et al. Higher Biologically Effective Dose Predicts Survival in SBRT of Pancreatic Cancer: A Multicentric Analysis (PAULA-1). Anticancer Res. 2020, 40, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rudra, S.; Jiang, N.; Rosenberg, S.A.; Olsen, J.R.; Roach, M.; Wan, L.; Portelance, L.; Mellon, E.A.; Bruynzeel, A.; Lagerwaard, F.; et al. Using adaptive magnetic resonance image-guided radiation therapy for treatment of inoperable pancreatic cancer. Cancer Med. 2019, 8, 2123–2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Arcelli, A.; Buwenge, M.; Macchia, G.; Bertini, F.; Guido, A.; Deodato, F.; Cilla, S.; Scotti, V.; Rosetto, M.E.; Djan, I.; et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy vs conventionally fractionated chemoradiation in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: A multicenter case-control study (PAULA-1). Cancer Med. 2020, 9, 7879–7887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Shin, Y.S.; Park, H.H.; Park, J.-H.; Seo, D.-W.; Lee, S.S.; Yoo, C.; Kim, S.; Yoon, S.M.; Jung, J.; Kim, M.-H.; et al. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy versus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. Cancers 2022, 14, 1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Park, J.J.; Hajj, C.; Reyngold, M.; Shi, W.; Zhang, Z.; Cuaron, J.J.; Crane, C.H.; O’reilly, E.M.; Lowery, M.A.; Yu, K.H.; et al. Stereotactic body radiation vs. intensity-modulated radiation for unresectable pancreatic cancer. Acta Oncol. 2017, 56, 1746–1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lin, J.-C.; Jen, Y.-M.; Li, M.-H.; Chao, H.-L.; Tsai, J.-T. Comparing outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2015, 27, 259–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jaoude, J.A.; Thunshelle, C.P.; Kouzy, R.; Nguyen, N.D.; Lin, D.; Prakash, L.; Bumanlag, I.M.; Noticewala, S.S.; Niedzielski, J.S.; Beddar, S.; et al. Stereotactic Versus Conventional Radiation Therapy for Patients with Pancreatic Cancer in the Modern Era. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 2021, 6, 100763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Petrelli, F.; Comito, T.; Ghidini, A.; Torri, V.; Scorsetti, M.; Barni, S. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of 19 Trials. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2017, 97, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vornhülz, M.; Anton, S.; Eross, B.; Szakács, Z.; Hegyi, P.; Regel, I.; Belka, C.; Niyazi, M.; Mayerle, J.; Beyer, G. Role of stereotactic body radiation in the enhancement of the quality of life in locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A systematic review. Radiat. Oncol. 2022, 17, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Buwenge, M.; Arcelli, A.; Cellini, F.; Deodato, F.; Macchia, G.; Cilla, S.; Galietta, E.; Strigari, L.; Malizia, C.; Cammelli, S.; et al. Pain Relief after Stereotactic Radiotherapy of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review. Curr. Oncol. 2022, 29, 2616–2629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Rosati, L.M.; Herman, J.M. Role of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Elderly and Poor Performance Status Patients With Pancreatic Cancer. J. Oncol. Pract. 2017, 13, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ciabatti, S.; Cammelli, S.; Frakulli, R.; Arcelli, A.; Macchia, G.; Deodato, F.; Cilla, S.; Giaccherini, L.; Buwenge, M.; Morganti, A.G. Radiotherapy of pancreatic cancer in older patients: A systematic review. J. Geriatr. Oncol. 2019, 10, 534–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. de Geus, S.W.L.; Eskander, M.F.; Kasumova, G.G.; Ng, S.C.; Kent, T.S.; Mancias, J.D.; Callery, M.P.; Mahadevan, A.; Tseng, J.F. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for unresected pancreatic cancer: A nationwide review. Cancer 2017, 123, 4158–4167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dohopolski, M.J.; Glaser, S.M.; Vargo, J.A.; Balasubramani, G.K.; Beriwal, S. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for locally-advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer-patterns of care and overall survival. J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2017, 8, 766–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ma, S.J.; Serra, L.M.; Bartl, A.J.; Han, H.R.; Fekrmandi, F.; Iovoli, A.J.; Prezzano, K.M.; Hermann, G.M.; Yu, H.; Singh, A.K. Association of survival with stereotactic body radiation therapy following induction chemotherapy for unresected locally advanced pancreatic cancer. J. Radiother. Pract. 2022, 21, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ng, S.P.; Koay, E.J. Current and emerging radiotherapy strategies for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Stereotactic, intensity modulated and particle radiotherapy. Ann. Pancreat. Cancer 2018, 1, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tchelebi, L.T.; Lehrer, E.J.; Trifiletti, D.M.; Do, N.K.S.; Gusani, N.J.; Crane, C.H.; Zaorsky, N.G. Conventionally fractionated radiation therapy versus stereotactic body radiation therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (CRiSP): An international systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer 2020, 126, 2120–2131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhong, J.; Patel, K.; Switchenko, J.; Cassidy, R.J.; Hall, W.A.; Gillespie, T.; Patel, P.R.; Kooby, D.; Landry, J. Outcomes for patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy versus conventionally fractionated radiation. Cancer 2017, 123, 3486–3493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mahadevan, A.; Moningi, S.; Grimm, J.; Li, X.A.; Forster, K.M.; Palta, M.; Prior, P.; Goodman, K.A.; Narang, A.; Heron, D.E.; et al. Maximizing Tumor Control and Limiting Complications with Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2021, 110, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Reddy, A.V.; Hill, C.S.; Sehgal, S.; He, J.; Zheng, L.; Herman, J.M.; Meyer, J.; Narang, A.K. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for the treatment of locally recurrent pancreatic cancer after surgical resection. J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2022, 13, 1402–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Zhu, X.; Li, F.; Ju, X.; Cao, F.; Cao, Y.; Fang, F.; Qing, S.; Shen, Y.; Jia, Z.; Zhang, H. Prognostic role of stereotactic body radiation therapy for elderly patients with advanced and medically inoperable pancreatic cancer. Cancer Med. 2017, 6, 2263–2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Goldsmith, C.; Plowman, P.N.; Green, M.M.; Dale, R.G.; Price, P.M. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as primary, adjuvant, consolidation and re-treatment option in pancreatic cancer: Scope for dose escalation and lessons for toxicity. Radiat. Oncol. 2018, 13, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Jolissaint, J.S.; Reyngold, M.; Bassmann, J.; Seier, K.P.; Gönen, M.; Varghese, A.M.; Yu, K.H.; Park, W.; O’reilly, E.M.; Balachandran, V.P.; et al. Local Control and Survival after Induction Chemotherapy and Ablative Radiation Versus Resection for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma with Vascular Involvement. Ann. Surg. 2021, 274, 894–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 15 03016 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow diagram of literature search.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of literature search.
Cancers 15 03016 g001
Cancers 15 03016 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Overall survival in days; (b) days from RT to local progression.
Figure 2. (a) Overall survival in days; (b) days from RT to local progression.
Cancers 15 03016 g002
Cancers 15 03016 g003 550
Figure 3. Overall survival in subgroup analysis.
Figure 3. Overall survival in subgroup analysis.
Cancers 15 03016 g003
Table
Table 1. Data extracted from eligible studies.
Table 1. Data extracted from eligible studies.
Author, YearStudy Description and Total No. of PatientsTreatment Arms: Dose and No. of Fractions (fx)BED10Chemotherapy ReceivedMedian Follow-UpLC ResultsOverall SurvivalRisk of Bias According to ROBINS-I Tool
Pollom, 2014 [8]Retrospective single-institution study, 167 patients25 Gy in 1 “fraction (fx)”vs. median of 33 Gy (25–45 Gy) in 5 fx87.5 Gy vs. median 54.8 Gy (37.5–85.5 Gy)Yes, (neo)adjuvant7.9 months1-year local recurrence rate 9.5 vs. 11.7%, p = 0.8Median 13.6 months; 30.8% vs. 34.9% at 1-year; no differenceModerate
Toesca, 2020 [9]Retrospective single-institution study, 149 patients≥40 Gy in 5 fx vs. <40 Gy≥72 Gy vs. lessYes, neoadjuvant15 monthsMedian PFS 13 vs. 10 months, p = 0.007; 1-year PFS 57% vs. 36%Median 16 months; 82% vs. 57% at 1 year; statistically significantModerate
Zhu, 2020 [10]Retrospective multicenter study, 972 patients42 Gy in 5–8 fx (40–49.6 Gy) vs. 37 Gy in 5–8 fx (36–40.8 Gy)74.6 Gy (range: 71.4–88.3 Gy) vs. 64.4 Gy (60.2–69.4 Gy)Yes, adjuvant20.2 monthsMedian PFS 15.4 vs. 13.3 months, p < 0.001Median OS 20.3 vs. 18.2 months, p < 0.001Moderate
Abi Jaoude, 2022 [11]Retrospective single-institution study, 89 patients≥40 Gy vs. <40 Gy in 5 fx≥72 Gy vs. lessNo informationNo information16.7 vs. 30.4% at 1 year, not statistically significantNo informationNot enough information for a full assessment
Mazzola, 2018 [12]Prospective single-institution study, 33 patients42–45 Gy in 6 fx vs. 36 Gy in 6 fx>70 Gy vs. lessYes18 monthsOverall, 81% at 1 yearWhole group 75% at 1-year; no statistically significant survival benefitLow
Arcelli, 2020 [13]Retrospective multicenter study, 56 patients≥30 Gy with a median of 6 Gy per fx vs. <30 Gy≥48 Gy vs. lessYes, (neo)adjuvant15 monthsBetter LC for BED ≥ 48 Gy and ≥6 Gy dose per fraction; p = 0.045 and p = 0.003, respectivelyMedian OS 20 vs. 15 months, p = 0.042Moderate
Rudra, 2019 [14]Retrospective multicenter study using ViewRay MRIdian, 44 patients40–55 Gy in 25–28 fx vs. 30–35 Gy in 5 fx vs. 40–52 Gy in 5 fx vs. 50–67.5 Gy in 10–15 fxMedian 55.5 Gy vs. 55.8 Gy vs. 77.6 Gy vs. 82.7 Gy
(divided in 2 groups > 70 Gy vs. less)		Yes, (neo)adjuvant17 months77 vs. 57% at 2 years, p = 0.1549% vs. 30% at 2 years, p = 0.03 favoring high dose groupModerate
Arcelli, 2020 [15]Retrospective multicenter case control study, 80 patientsMedian: 30 Gy in 6 Gy/fx vs. 50.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy/fxMedian 48 Gy vs. 59.4 GyYes (neo)adjuvant15 monthsMedian LC 22 vs. 16 months; 1-year LC 80.4 vs. 53%, p = 0.017No differenceModerate
Shin, 2022 [16]Retrospective single-institution study, 161 patientsMedian 28 Gy in 4 fx (24–36 Gy) vs. median 54 Gy in 1.8–2 Gy/fx (40–59.4 Gy)Median 47.6 Gy (38.4–68.4 Gy) vs. median 64.8 Gy (48–70 Gy)Yes, (neo)adjuvant15.5 monthsFree from local progression 77.2 vs. 87.1%; p = 0.691 at 1-year66.7 vs. 80% at 1-yearModerate to serious
Park, 2017 [17]Retrospective single-institution study, 270 patients30–33 Gy in 5 fx vs. 45–56 Gy in 25–28 fx48–54.7 Gy vs. 53.1–67.2 GyYes, (neo)adjuvant12.9 months34.4 vs. 30.2% at 1 year; not significantMedian 15.7 months, 56.2% vs. 59.6% at 1 year, p = 0.75Moderate
Lin, 2015 [18]Retrospective single-institution study, 41 patients35–45 Gy in 7–9 Gy/fx
vs. 45–50 Gy in 1.8–2 Gy/fx		59.5–85.5 Gy
vs. 53.1–60 Gy		Yes, adjuvant in CFRT group16 monthsSignificantly better LC favoring SBRT, p = 0.00480 vs. 70.7% at 1 year, p = 0.127Moderate to serious
Abi Jaoude, 2021 [19]Retrospective single-institution study, 104 patientsMedian 36 Gy (25–55 Gy) in 5 fx vs. median 50.4 Gy (50–50.4 Gy) in 25–28 fxMedian 61.9 Gy (37.5–115.5 Gy) vs. median 59.4 Gy (59.4–60 Gy)Yes, neoadjuvant22 monthsPFS 16.1 vs. 12.3 months, p = 0.81Median 29.6 vs. 24.1 months, p = 0.18Moderate
Table
Table 2. Patients’ characteristics.
Table 2. Patients’ characteristics.
CharacteristicsNon-Ablative RT GroupSBRT Group
NumberN = 74N = 15
Median Age67 years (44–89)69 years (53–83)
Gender
Male388
Female367
Performance Status
ECOG 030
ECOG 13615
ECOG 2200
ECOG 3150
ECOG 400
Hospitalization Status
Inpatient110
Outpatient6315
TNM
T102
T221
T3113
T3/4120
T4466
Tx35
N03315
N1260
N260
Nx90
M03115
M1430
Mx00
Tumor Location
Head398
Neck31
Uncinate01
Body165
Tail160
Histology
Adenocarcinoma7015
Neuroendocrine carcinoma20
Non-small cell carcinoma10
Squamous cell carcinoma10
Stents In-Situ at RT start
Yes307
No448
Prior Systemic Therapy
Yes309
No446
Table
Table 3. Radiotherapy data.
Table 3. Radiotherapy data.
Total Dose ReceivedNumber of FractionsBED10n(% of
89 Patients)
Non-ablative RT Group (n = 74)30 Gy1039 Gy5461%
34 Gy1541.7 Gy11%
35 Gy1047.2 Gy67%
36 Gy1544.6 Gy22%
40 Gy1056 Gy11%
40 Gy1550.6 Gy1011%
SBRT Group (n = 15)21 Gy335.7 Gy89%
24 Gy343.2 Gy11%
30 Gy360 Gy33.5%
40 Gy572 Gy22%
50 Gy5100 Gy11%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kamel, R.; Dennis, K.; Doody, J.; Pantarotto, J. Ablative vs. Non-Ablative Radiotherapy in Palliating Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Single Institution Experience and a Systematic Review of the Literature. Cancers 2023, 15, 3016. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15113016

AMA Style

Kamel R, Dennis K, Doody J, Pantarotto J. Ablative vs. Non-Ablative Radiotherapy in Palliating Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Single Institution Experience and a Systematic Review of the Literature. Cancers. 2023; 15(11):3016. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15113016

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kamel, Randa, Kristopher Dennis, Janice Doody, and Jason Pantarotto. 2023. "Ablative vs. Non-Ablative Radiotherapy in Palliating Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Single Institution Experience and a Systematic Review of the Literature" Cancers 15, no. 11: 3016. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15113016

APA Style

Kamel, R., Dennis, K., Doody, J., & Pantarotto, J. (2023). Ablative vs. Non-Ablative Radiotherapy in Palliating Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Single Institution Experience and a Systematic Review of the Literature. Cancers, 15(11), 3016. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15113016

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop