Background In nonrandomized trials, neoadjuvant treatment was reported to prolong survival in patients with pancreatic cancer. As neoadjuvant chemoradiation is established for the treatment of rectal cancer we examined the value of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in pancreatic cancer in a randomized phase II trial. Radiological staging defining resectability was basic information prior to randomization in contrast to adjuvant therapy trials resting on pathological staging. Patients and methods Patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head were randomized to primary surgery (Arm A) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (Arm B), which was followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in both arms. A total of 254 patients were required to detect a 4.33-month improvement in median overall survival (mOS). Results The trial was stopped after 73 patients; 66 patients were eligible for analysis. Twenty nine of 33 allocated patients received chemoradiotherapy. Radiotherapy was completed in all patients. Chemotherapy was changed in 3 patients due to toxicity. Tumor resection was performed in 23 vs. 19 patients (A vs. B). The R0 resection rate was 48 % (A) and 52 % (B, P = 0.81) and (y)pN0 was 30 % (A) vs. 39 % (B, P = 0.44), respectively. Postoperative complications were comparable in both groups. mOS was 14.4 vs. 17.4 months (A vs. B; intention-to-treat analysis; P = 0.96). After tumor resection, mOS was 18.9 vs. 25.0 months (A vs. B; P = 0.79). Conclusion This worldwide first randomized trial for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in pancreatic cancer showed that neoadjuvant chemoradiation is safe with respect to toxicity, perioperative morbidity, and mortality. Nevertheless, the trial was terminated early due to slow recruiting and the results were not significant. ISRCTN78805636; NCT00335543.

PURPOSE: To determine the benefit, measured as complete removal of a tumor so that no tumor cells are detectable during histopathologic examination of the resection margin (R0 resection rate), of induction chemotherapy plus chemoradiotherapy (CRT) compared with chemotherapy alone for unresectable pancreatic tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CONKO-007, an investigator-initiated open-label, multicentric, phase III randomized clinical trial, enrolled 525 patients with unresectable tumors, and 495 patients received induction chemotherapy (402 with fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin [FOLFIRINOX] and 93 with gemcitabine). Patients without progression after 3 months of induction chemotherapy (n = 336) were randomly assigned for continuation of the same chemotherapy (n = 167) or CRT (n = 169; 50.4Gy concurrently with gemcitabine). Resectability was centrally reassessed by a panel of surgeons. Surgery was recommended if possible. After an interim analysis, the primary end point was changed from overall survival (OS) to overall R0 resection rate because of slow recruitment. The median follow-up was 76 months. Important planned secondary end points were R0 resection rate in the surgically treated population and OS. RESULTS: The primary end point (overall R0 resection rate) was not significantly different between treatment arms with 25% (43 of 169) in the CRT arm versus 18% in the chemotherapy arm (30 of 167; P = .113). Secondary end point analysis showed that surgery was performed equally often ( P = .91); R0 resection rate in patients who underwent surgery was higher after CRT, 69.4% (43 of 62) compared with chemotherapy alone: 50.0% (30 of 60 patients, P = .04). Other parameters of resection (ratio of R0/R1/R2/no resection) also favored CRT ( P = .02). No difference in OS was seen between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.937 [95% CI, 0.747 to 1.174]; P = .57; randomly assigned intention-to-treat patients). Surgery was associated with longer OS ( P < .001, HR, 0.525 [95% CI, 0.408 to 0.676]). CONCLUSION: Although not improving overall R0 resection rate or survival, CRT enables a R0 resection in surgically treated patients more often than chemotherapy alone.

Background: One critical step in the therapy of patients with localized pancreatic cancer is the determination of local resectability. The decision between primary surgery versus upfront local or systemic cancer therapy seems especially to differ between pancreatic cancer centers. In our cohort study, we analyzed the independent judgement of resectability of five experienced high volume pancreatic surgeons in 200 consecutive patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Methods: Pretherapeutic CT or MRI scans of 200 consecutive patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer were evaluated by 5 independent pancreatic surgeons. Resectability and the degree of abutment of the tumor to the venous and arterial structures adjacent to the pancreas were reported. Interrater reliability and dispersion indices were compared. Results: One hundred ninety-four CT scans and 6 MRI scans were evaluated and all parameters were evaluated by all surgeons in 133 (66.5%) cases. Low agreement was observed for tumor infiltration of venous structures (κ = 0.265 and κ = 0.285) while good agreement was achieved for the abutment of the tumor to arterial structures (interrater reliability celiac trunk κ = 0.708 P < 0.001). In patients with vascular tumor contact indicating locally advanced disease, surgeons highly agreed on unresectability, but in patients with vascular tumor abutment consistent with borderline resectable disease, the judgement of resectability was less uniform (dispersion index locally advanced vs. borderline resectable p < 0.05). Conclusion: Excellent agreement between surgeons exists in determining the presence of arterial abutment and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The determination of resectability in borderline resectable patients is influenced by additional subjective factors. Trial registration: EudraCT:2009-014476-21 (2013-02-22) and NCT01827553 (2013-04-09).

Mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinomas are highly malignant tumors with both adenocarcinomatous and neuroendocrine components. They can originate in any organ but are more common in the rectum. Due to their rarity, current treatment recommendations for mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma are based on limited data and follow general guidelines for the management of adenocarcinomas and neuroendocrine neoplasms. Uncertainty regarding the efficacy of the available local and systemic treatment strategies is a compounding issue. Even those patients with locally limited disease have a relatively short life expectancy. In this report, we describe a case of deep rectal mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma with long survival after chemoradiation. A 48-year-old Caucasian woman was diagnosed with a grade 3 rectal adenocarcinoma combined with a poorly differentiated large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma component and synchronous metastases (cT3cN1cM1) in both lobes of the liver in 2012. She received concomitant chemoradiotherapy followed by four additional cycles of cisplatin plus irinotecan. Initial treatment induced complete remission of the rectal tumor and liver metastases. Consequently, it was not necessary to surgically resect the primary tumor or any of the metastases. Three months after the end of treatment, one metastasis in the first segment of the liver showed regrowth, and stereotactic body radiotherapy of the metastasis and chemotherapy resulted in a clinical complete response. The patient has been recurrence-free for more than 5 years. Extended long-term control of a poorly differentiated metastatic (stage IV) mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma is rare. The multimodal first- and second-line regimens of radiotherapy and chemotherapy described in this case report represent a new therapeutic approach. Encouraged by the results in this case, we compiled a review of the literature on mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma.

A response to Seiler et al: Interrupted or continuous slowly absorbable sutures for closure of primary elective midline abdominal incisions: a multicenter randomized trial (INSECT: ISRCTN24023541). Ann Surg 2009, 249(4):576-582. Existing evidence suggests that the transfer of results of randomized controlled trials into clinical practice may be limited. Potential reasons can be attributed to aspects of external validity. The aim of this study is to investigate issues related to the external validity of the INSECT trial. All participating surgical departments were categorized and the clinical and baseline characteristics of randomized patients were evaluated. In addition, demographic and clinical data of all screened and randomized patients at the Departments of Surgery in Heidelberg and Erlangen were analyzed. Twenty-five centers enrolled a total of 625 patients. These centers included eight primary, 11 secondary, and six tertiary care centers. The tertiary care centers enrolled the most patients (n = 237, 38%) followed by the primary care centers (n = 199, 32%) and the secondary care centers (n = 189 patients; 30%). The mean number and baseline data of randomized patients did not differ between the three types of care centers (p = 0.09). Overall, the treatment according to protocol was at least 92%. At the Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, 307 patients were screened and 60 out of 130 eligible patients were randomized. There were no differences in demographic and clinical baseline data between included and non-included patients. In Erlangen, 351 patients were screened and 57 out of 106 eligible patients randomized. Results of the INSECT trial are applicable to a broad spectrum of patients treated at different hospital levels.