Encapsulating fibrosis following neoadjuvant chemotherapy is correlated with outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 14; no. 9; p. e0222155
• Main Authors: Matsuda, Yoko, Inoue, Yosuke, Hiratsuka, Makiko, Kawakatsu, Shoji, Arai, Tomio, Matsueda, Kiyoshi, Saiura, Akio, Takazawa, Yutaka
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 06-09-2019; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Adjuvant chemotherapy; Adult; Aged; Antigens; Bioindicators; Biological markers; Biology and Life Sciences; Biomarkers; Cancer; Cancer metastasis; Cancer patients; Cancer research; Cancer therapies; Cancer treatment; Capsules; CAT scans; Chemotherapy; Complications and side effects; Computed tomography; Correlation; Diagnosis; Diagnostic imaging; Encapsulation; Evaluation; Female; Fibroblasts; Fibrosis; Gemcitabine; Geriatrics; Health aspects; Humans; Lymph nodes; Male; Medical prognosis; Medical research; Medical societies; Medicine and Health Sciences; Metastases; Middle Aged; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Paclitaxel; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic cancer; Pancreatic Neoplasms - drug therapy; Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology; Pancreatic Neoplasms - surgery; Pathology; Patients; Stroma; Surgery; Survival; Survival Analysis; Tomography; Treatment Outcome; Tumors; Japan
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222155

Pathological assessments of the treatment effect are critical for predicting patient outcomes after surgery. This study included 82 localized pancreatic cancer, 40 of whom were treated with neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) using four courses of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) followed by pancreatectomy (GnP group). The remaining 42 patients were treated with upfront pancreatectomy (UP) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (UP group). We reviewed clinicopathological data of these patients to assess differences between the GnP and UP groups and further evaluate the prognostic impact of residual tumors after GnP treatment. Adjuvant treatment (S1, GnP or gemcitabine) was administered for 36 patients in the GnP group and 33 patients in the UP group. Compared to the UP group, the GnP group showed lower serum CA19-9 levels, microscopic tumor volume, and tumor-stroma ratio and decreased number of lymph node metastasis and vascular invasion. Higher incidence of encapsulating fibrosis was observed in the GnP group than in the UP group. Relative to the UP group (69%), a higher R0 rate was observed in the GnP group (85%). As for prognosis, encapsulating fibrosis was correlated with the overall survival of patients in the GnP group. However, overall survival did not show any correlation with other clinicopathological factors, including tumor reduction ratio (determined by computed tomography) and tumor regression grade (determined following criteria of Evans' grading system or those of the College of American Pathologists). In conclusion, the present study revealed that GnP-induced encapsulating fibrosis could predict patients' outcome. Nevertheless, large cohort studies are warranted to further evaluate the prognostic value of fibrosis, possibly with the help of imaging and biomarkers.