Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Clin Oncol. Jul 24, 2025; 16(7): 106107
Published online Jul 24, 2025. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v16.i7.106107
Table 1 An overview of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer definitions
CriteriaNCCN version 2.2024[19]MDSCC version 6 (2019)[18]AHPBA-SSO-SSAT[21]ASCO[20]JPS[24]
IAP[23]
BR-PV
BR-A
BR-PV
BR-A
CASolid-tumor contact ≤ 180° or contact > 180° without involvement of the aorta or GDANo involvementNo involvementNo interfaceNo tumor contact/invasionTumor contact/invasion of less than 180 without showing stenosis/deformityNo tumor contact/invasionTumor contact of less than 180 without showing deformity/stenosis
CHASolid-tumor contact without extension to CA or hepatic artery bifurcationShort-segment encasement or abutment of CHA or GDAGDA encasement up to hepatic artery with either short-segment encasement or direct no tumor contact/invasion abutment of hepatic arteryNo interfaceNo tumor contact/invasionTumor contact/invasion without showing tumor contact/invasion of the PHA and/or CA.No tumor contact/invasionTumor contact without showing tumor contact of the PHA and/or CA
SMASolid-tumor contact ≤ 180° or solid-tumor contact with variant arterial anatomyTumor abutment of ≤ 180°Tumor contact is not to exceed > 180°No interfaceNo tumor contact/invasionTumor contact/invasion of less than 180 without showing stenosis/deformityNo tumor contact/invasionTumor contact of less than 180 without showing deformity/stenosis
SMV or PVSolid-tumor contact > 180° or ≤ 180° with contour abnormality or thrombosis of the vein, provided there is a suitable proximal and distal vessel to allow venous resection and reconstructionShort-segment occlusion with patent vessels above and below the occlusionTumor abutment with or without impingement and narrowing of the lumen; encasement without encasement of the nearby arteries; short-segment occlusion with the suitable proximal and distal vessel, allowing safe resection and reconstructionNo interfaceTumor contact/invasion of 180 or more/occlusion, not exceeding the inferior border of the duodenumNo tumor contact/invasionTumor contact 180 or greater or bilateral narrowing/occlusion, not exceeding the inferior border of the duodenum-
Table 2 Studies including neoadjuvant chemoradiation in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer
Ref.
Period of study
Type of study
Number of patients (n)
Intervention
Resection rate
Category
R0
N0
resection
Survival (months)
Post-surgical complications
Combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in resectable pancreatic cancer
Golcher et al[41]2003-2009Phase II RCT, multicentre, randomizedn = 66; 2 armsNeoadj. Gemcitabine/cisplatin57.5% vs 70% (P = 0.31)RPC48% vs 52% (P = 0.81)30% vs 39% (P = 0.44)Median OS-14.4 vs 17.4 (P = 0.96)97% vs 66%
Sur (n = 33)Based CRT (50.4-55.8 Gy)-Sur-adj. Gemcitabine
Neoadj-Sur (n = 33)
Casadei et al[52]2007-2014RCT, single centre, randomizedn = 38; 2 armsNeoadj. Gemcitabine-based CRT75.0% vs 61.1%RPC25.0% vs 39% (P = 0.489)10% vs 28%Median OS-19.5 vs 22.4 (P = 0.973)45.0% vs 55.6%, P = 0.746
Sur (n = 20)(54 Gy)-Sur-adj. Gemcitabine
Neoadj-Sur (n = 18)
Combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in both resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer
Versteijne et al[55]2013-2017Phase III RCT, multicentre, randomizedn = 246; 2 armsNeoadj. Gemcitabine-based CRT72% vs 61% (P = 0.058)RPC and BRPC40% vs 71% (P < 0.001)78% vs 33% P < 0.001Median OS: 14 vs 16 months (P = 0.07)36% vs 41% (P = 0.44)
Sur (n = 127)(36 Gy)-Sur-adj. Gemcitabine
Neoadj-sur (n = 119)
Combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer
Jang et al[42]2012-2014Phase 2/3 RCT, multicentre, randomizedn = 50; 2 armsNeoadj. Gemcitabine-based CRT63% vs 78%BRPC26.1% vs 52% (P = 0.004)70.6% vs 16.7%Median OS: 12 vs 21 (P = 0.028)23.6% vs 16.8%
Sur (n = 23)(54 Gy)-Sur-adj. Gemcitabine2-YR OS: 26% vs 41%
Neoadj-sur (n = 27)
Ghaneh et al[63]2014-2018Phase II RCT, multicentre, randomizedn = 90Neoadj. Gemcitabine + capecitabine(Combined neoadjuvant group vs Sur)BRPC(Combined neoadjuvant group vs Sur) NR(Combined neoadjuvant group vs Sur)50% vs 38% (P = 0.54)
Sur (n = 33)Neoadj. mFOLFIRINOX68% vs 55% (P = 0.33)14% vs 23% (P = 0.49)1-year OS = 39% vs 78% vs 84% vs 60%, 1-year DFS = 33% and 59% (P = 0.016)
Neoadj. Gemcitabine/capecitabine (n = 20)Neoadj. Capecitabine-based CRT (50.4 Gy)
Neoadj. mFOLFIRINOX (n = 20)All of them received adj. Gemcitabine or adj. 5-FU/FA after Sur
Neoadj capacibine-based CRT (n = 17)
Katz et al[57]2013-2014Phase II, multicentre, single-armn = 22Neoadj. mFOLFIRINOX)-capecitabine-based68%BRPC93%NRMedian OS: 22 months53%
CRT (50.4 Gy)-Sur-adj. Gemcitabine
Murphy et al[60]2012-2016Phase II, single centre single-armn = 48FOLFIRINOX-short-course (25Gy/5 fractions) or long-course (50.4 Gy-58.8 Gy)65%BRPC97%NRMedian OS: 38 monthsNR
Capecitabine-based CRT-Sur
Takahashi et al[64]2019Phase II single-arm, multicentren = 52Neoadj. S1 (a prodrug of 5-fluorouracil)-based-BRPC52%NRMedian OS: 30.8 months7.5%
CRT (50.4 Gy)