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
Published online Jul 24, 2025. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v16.i7.106107
Table 1 An overview of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer definitions
Criteria | NCCN 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 | |||||
CA | Solid-tumor contact ≤ 180° or contact > 180° without involvement of the aorta or GDA | No involvement | No involvement | No interface | No tumor contact/invasion | Tumor contact/invasion of less than 180 without showing stenosis/deformity | No tumor contact/invasion | Tumor contact of less than 180 without showing deformity/stenosis |
CHA | Solid-tumor contact without extension to CA or hepatic artery bifurcation | Short-segment encasement or abutment of CHA or GDA | GDA encasement up to hepatic artery with either short-segment encasement or direct no tumor contact/invasion abutment of hepatic artery | No interface | No tumor contact/invasion | Tumor contact/invasion without showing tumor contact/invasion of the PHA and/or CA. | No tumor contact/invasion | Tumor contact without showing tumor contact of the PHA and/or CA |
SMA | Solid-tumor contact ≤ 180° or solid-tumor contact with variant arterial anatomy | Tumor abutment | Tumor contact is not to exceed > 180° | No interface | No tumor contact/invasion | Tumor contact/invasion of less than 180 without showing stenosis/deformity | No tumor contact/invasion | Tumor contact of less than 180 without showing deformity/stenosis |
SMV or PV | Solid-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 reconstruction | Short-segment occlusion with patent vessels above and below the occlusion | Tumor 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 reconstruction | No interface | Tumor contact/invasion of 180 or more/occlusion, not exceeding the inferior border of the duodenum | No tumor contact/invasion | Tumor 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] | 2003-2009 | Phase II RCT, multicentre, randomized | n = 66; 2 arms | Neoadj. Gemcitabine/cisplatin | 57.5% vs 70% (P = 0.31) | RPC | 48% vs 52% (P = 0.81) | 30% vs 39% | Median OS-14.4 vs 17.4 | 97% vs 66% |
Sur (n = 33) | Based CRT (50.4-55.8 Gy)-Sur-adj. Gemcitabine | |||||||||
Neoadj-Sur (n = 33) | ||||||||||
Casadei et al[52] | 2007-2014 | RCT, single centre, randomized | n = 38; 2 arms | Neoadj. Gemcitabine-based CRT | 75.0% vs 61.1% | RPC | 25.0% vs 39% (P = 0.489) | 10% vs 28% | Median OS-19.5 vs 22.4 | 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] | 2013-2017 | Phase III RCT, multicentre, randomized | n = 246; 2 arms | Neoadj. Gemcitabine-based CRT | 72% vs 61% (P = 0.058) | RPC and BRPC | 40% vs 71% (P < 0.001) | 78% vs 33% | Median 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] | 2012-2014 | Phase 2/3 RCT, multicentre, randomized | n = 50; 2 arms | Neoadj. Gemcitabine-based CRT | 63% vs 78% | BRPC | 26.1% 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. Gemcitabine | 2-YR OS: 26% vs 41% | ||||||||
Neoadj-sur (n = 27) | ||||||||||
Ghaneh et al[63] | 2014-2018 | Phase II RCT, multicentre, randomized | n = 90 | Neoadj. 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. mFOLFIRINOX | 68% 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 | 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] | 2013-2014 | Phase II, multicentre, single-arm | n = 22 | Neoadj. mFOLFIRINOX)-capecitabine-based | 68% | BRPC | 93% | NR | Median OS: 22 months | 53% |
CRT (50.4 Gy)-Sur-adj. Gemcitabine | ||||||||||
Murphy et al[60] | 2012-2016 | Phase II, single centre single-arm | n = 48 | FOLFIRINOX-short-course (25Gy/5 fractions) or long-course (50.4 Gy-58.8 Gy) | 65% | BRPC | 97% | NR | Median OS: 38 months | NR |
Capecitabine-based CRT-Sur | ||||||||||
Takahashi et al[64] | 2019 | Phase II single-arm, multicentre | n = 52 | Neoadj. S1 (a prodrug of 5-fluorouracil)-based | - | BRPC | 52% | NR | Median OS: 30.8 months | 7.5% |
CRT (50.4 Gy) |
- Citation: Sarma G, Bora H, Medhi PP. Optimizing neoadjuvant chemoradiation in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: Evidence-based insights. World J Clin Oncol 2025; 16(7): 106107
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-4333/full/v16/i7/106107.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v16.i7.106107