Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Manfred P. Lutz
Based on 9 articles published since 2010
(Why 9 articles?)
||||

Between 2010 and 2020, M. Lutz wrote the following 9 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Guideline Guidelines for time-to-event end-point definitions in trials for pancreatic cancer. Results of the DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials). 2014

Bonnetain, Franck / Bonsing, Bert / Conroy, Thierry / Dousseau, Adelaide / Glimelius, Bengt / Haustermans, Karin / Lacaine, François / Van Laethem, Jean Luc / Aparicio, Thomas / Aust, Daniela / Bassi, Claudio / Berger, Virginie / Chamorey, Emmanuel / Chibaudel, Benoist / Dahan, Laeticia / De Gramont, Aimery / Delpero, Jean Robert / Dervenis, Christos / Ducreux, Michel / Gal, Jocelyn / Gerber, Erich / Ghaneh, Paula / Hammel, Pascal / Hendlisz, Alain / Jooste, Valérie / Labianca, Roberto / Latouche, Aurelien / Lutz, Manfred / Macarulla, Teresa / Malka, David / Mauer, Muriel / Mitry, Emmanuel / Neoptolemos, John / Pessaux, Patrick / Sauvanet, Alain / Tabernero, Josep / Taieb, Julien / van Tienhoven, Geertjan / Gourgou-Bourgade, Sophie / Bellera, Carine / Mathoulin-Pélissier, Simone / Collette, Laurence. ·Methodology and Quality of Life Unit in Cancer, EA 3181, University Hospital of Besançon and CTD-INCa Gercor, UNICNCER GERICO, Besançon, France. Electronic address: franck.bonnetain@univ-fcomte.fr. · Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France. · Bordeaux Segalen University & CHRU, Bordeaux, France. · Department of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven, Belgium. · Digestive Surgical Department, Tenon hospital, Paris, France. · Gastro Intestinal Cancer Unit Erasme Hospital Brussels, Belgium. · Gastroenterology Department, Avicenne Hospital, Paris 13, Bobigny, France. · Institute for Pathology, University Hospital Carl-Gustav-Carus, Dresden, Germany. · Surgical and Gastroenterological Department, Endocrine and Pancreatic Unit, Hospital of 'G.B.Rossi', University of Verona, Italy. · Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest - Centre Paul Papin Centre de Lutte Contre le Cancer (CLCC), Angers, France. · Biostatistics Unit, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France. · Oncology Department, Hôpital Saint-Antoine & CTD-INCa GERCOR, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, UPMC Paris VI, Paris, France. · Gastroenterology Department, Hopital la Timone, Assitance publique des Hopitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France. · Department of Surgery, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France. · Department of Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece. · Department of Gastroenterology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. · Biostatistician, Biostatistics Unit, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France. · Department of Radiotherapy, Institut fuer Radioonkologie, Vienna, Austria. · Department of Surgical Oncology, Royal Liverpool Hospital, United Kingdom. · Department of Gastroenterology, Beaujon Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. · Digestive Oncology and Gastro-enterology Department, Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium. · Digestive Cancer Registry, INSERM U866, Dijon, France. · Medical Oncology Unit, Ospedali Riuniti di Bergamo, Bergame, Italy. · Inserm, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, U1018, Biostatistics Team, Villejuif, France. · Gastroenterology Department, Caritas Hospital, Saarbrücken, Germany. · Department of the Gastrointestinal Tumors and Phase I Unit, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. · Statistics Department, EORTC, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie, Hôpital René Huguenin, Saint-Cloud, France. · Division of Surgery and Oncology at the University of Liverpool and Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom. · Department of Digestive Surgery, Universitu Hospital Strasbourg, France. · Department of Hepato-pancreatic and Biliary Surgery, Beaujon Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. · Department of Hepato-gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Georges Pompidou European hospital, Paris, France. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Academisch Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Institut Du Cancer de Montpellier, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, and Data Center for Cancer Clinical Trials, CTD-INCa, Montpellier, France. · Clinical and Epidemiological Research Unit, Institut Bergonie, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Bordeaux, France; Data Center for Cancer Clinical Trials, CTD-INCa, Bordeaux, France; INSERM, Centre d'Investigation Clinique - Épidémiologie Clinique CIC-EC 7, F-33000 Bordeaux, France. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #25256896.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Using potential surrogate end-points for overall survival (OS) such as Disease-Free- (DFS) or Progression-Free Survival (PFS) is increasingly common in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, end-points are too often imprecisely defined which largely contributes to a lack of homogeneity across trials, hampering comparison between them. The aim of the DATECAN (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials)-Pancreas project is to provide guidelines for standardised definition of time-to-event end-points in RCTs for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Time-to-event end-points currently used were identified from a literature review of pancreatic RCT trials (2006-2009). Academic research groups were contacted for participation in order to select clinicians and methodologists to participate in the pilot and scoring groups (>30 experts). A consensus was built after 2 rounds of the modified Delphi formal consensus approach with the Rand scoring methodology (range: 1-9). RESULTS: For pancreatic cancer, 14 time to event end-points and 25 distinct event types applied to two settings (detectable disease and/or no detectable disease) were considered relevant and included in the questionnaire sent to 52 selected experts. Thirty experts answered both scoring rounds. A total of 204 events distributed over the 14 end-points were scored. After the first round, consensus was reached for 25 items; after the second consensus was reached for 156 items; and after the face-to-face meeting for 203 items. CONCLUSION: The formal consensus approach reached the elaboration of guidelines for standardised definitions of time-to-event end-points allowing cross-comparison of RCTs in pancreatic cancer.

2 Guideline [S3-guideline exocrine pancreatic cancer]. 2013

Seufferlein, T / Porzner, M / Becker, T / Budach, V / Ceyhan, G / Esposito, I / Fietkau, R / Follmann, M / Friess, H / Galle, P / Geissler, M / Glanemann, M / Gress, T / Heinemann, V / Hohenberger, W / Hopt, U / Izbicki, J / Klar, E / Kleeff, J / Kopp, I / Kullmann, F / Langer, T / Langrehr, J / Lerch, M / Löhr, M / Lüttges, J / Lutz, M / Mayerle, J / Michl, P / Möller, P / Molls, M / Münter, M / Nothacker, M / Oettle, H / Post, S / Reinacher-Schick, A / Röcken, C / Roeb, E / Saeger, H / Schmid, R / Schmiegel, W / Schoenberg, M / Siveke, J / Stuschke, M / Tannapfel, A / Uhl, W / Unverzagt, S / van Oorschot, B / Vashist, Y / Werner, J / Yekebas, E / Anonymous260779 / Anonymous270779 / Anonymous280779. ·Klinik für Innere Medizin I, Universitätsklinikum Ulm. · Klinik für Allgemeine Chirurgie, Viszeral-, Thorax-, Transplantations- und Kinderchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Kiel. · Klinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin. · Chirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München. · Institut für Allgemeine Pathologie, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München. · Strahlenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen. · Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie, Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft e. V., Berlin. · I. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsmedizin Mainz. · Klinik für Allgemeine Innere Medizin, Onkologie/Hämatologie, Gastroenterologie und Infektiologie, Klinikum Esslingen. · Klinik für Allgemeine Chirurgie, Viszeral-, Gefäß- und Kinderchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes Homburg/Saar. · Klinik für Gastroenterologie, Endokrinologie und Stoffwechsel, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg. · Medizinischen Klinik und Poliklinik III, Klinikum der Universität München LMU. · Chirurgische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen. · Klinik für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg. · Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Thoraxchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf. · Klinik für Allgemeine Chirurgie, Thorax-, Gefäß- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universitätsmedizin Rostock. · AWMF-Institut für Medizinisches Wissensmanagement, Marburg. · Medizinische Klinik I, Klinikum Weiden. · Klinik für Allgemein-, Gefäß- und Viszeralchirurgie, Martin-Luther-Krankenhaus Berlin. · Klinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin A, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald. · Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm. · Institut für Pathologie, Marienkrankenhaus Hamburg. · Medizinische Klinik - Schwerpunkt Gastroenterologie, Endokrinologie, Infektiologie, Caritasklinikum Saarbrücken. · Institut für Pathologie, Universitätsklinikum Ulm. · Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie und Radiologische Onkologie, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München. · Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Klinikum Stuttgart. · AWMF-Institut für Medizinisches Wissensmanagement, Berlin. · Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Hämatologie und Onkologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin. · Chirurgische Klinik, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim. · Abt. für Hämatologie und Onkologie, St. Josef-Hospital, Klinikum der Ruhr-Universität Bochum. · Institut für Pathologie, Universitätsklinikum Kiel. · Medizinische Klinik II, SP Gastroenterologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg. · Klinik für Viszeral-, Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Dresden. · II. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München. · Medizinische Klinik, Klinikum der Ruhr-Universität Bochum. · Klinik für Chirurgie, Rotkreuzklinikum München. · Klinik für Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Essen. · Institut für Pathologie, Ruhr-Universität Bochum. · Chirurgische Klinik, St. Josef-Hospital, Klinikum der Ruhr-Universität Bochum. · Institut für Medizinische Epidemiologie, Biometrie und Informatik, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. · Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg. · Klinik für Allgemeine, Viszerale und Transplantationschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg. · Klinik für Allgemein-, Thorax- und Viszeralchirurgie, Klinikum Darmstadt. ·Z Gastroenterol · Pubmed #24338757.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

3 Guideline New strategies and designs in pancreatic cancer research: consensus guidelines report from a European expert panel. 2012

Van Laethem, J-L / Verslype, C / Iovanna, J L / Michl, P / Conroy, T / Louvet, C / Hammel, P / Mitry, E / Ducreux, M / Maraculla, T / Uhl, W / Van Tienhoven, G / Bachet, J B / Maréchal, R / Hendlisz, A / Bali, M / Demetter, P / Ulrich, F / Aust, D / Luttges, J / Peeters, M / Mauer, M / Roth, A / Neoptolemos, J P / Lutz, M / Anonymous6430701. ·Gastrointestinal Cancer Unit, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. jl.vanlaethem@erasme.ulb.ac.be ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #21810728.

ABSTRACT: Although the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a huge challenge, it is entering a new era with the development of new strategies and trial designs. Because there is an increasing number of novel therapeutic agents and potential combinations available to test in patients with PDAC, the identification of robust prognostic and predictive markers and of new targets and relevant pathways is a top priority as well as the design of adequate trials incorporating molecular-driven hypothesis. We presently report a consensus strategy for research in pancreatic cancer that was developed by a multidisciplinary panel of experts from different European institutions and collaborative groups involved in pancreatic cancer. The expert panel embraces the concept of exploratory early proof of concept studies, based on the prediction of response to novel agents and combinations, and randomised phase II studies permitting the selection of the best therapeutic approach to go forward into phase III, where the recommended primary end point remains overall survival. Trials should contain as many translational components as possible, relying on standardised tissue and blood processing and robust biobanking, and including dynamic imaging. Attention should not only be paid to the pancreatic cancer cells but also to microenvironmental factors and stem/stellate cells.

4 Review Immunotherapy and Combination Strategies in Pancreatic Cancer: Current Status and Emerging Trends. 2018

Cheung, Phyllis F / Lutz, Manfred / Siveke, Jens T. · ·Oncol Res Treat · Pubmed #29705789.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic cancer is among the most aggressive malignancies with no effective therapeutic options thus far. Immunotherapy has recently emerged as a promising alternative for the treatment of various solid tumors. In particular, promising results in clinical trials were observed for therapies targeting immune checkpoint molecules. Efforts have been put into investigating the potential of immunotherapy in treating pancreatic cancer. While most of the clinical trial results are still being awaited, several intrinsic features of pancreatic cancer such as low mutational load and the presence of highly immunosuppressive desmoplasia significantly hamper the efficacy of immunotherapy in this disease. These unique features of pancreatic cancer, however, have advanced our understanding of tumor immunology and might help to tailor the future direction of immunotherapy. In this review, we summarize the current immunotherapeutic strategies and clinical trials targeting checkpoint molecules in pancreatic cancer. Emerging trends towards various combinations with therapies targeting immunosuppressive myeloid cells are also discussed.

5 Review Targeting Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Related Signaling Pathways in Pancreatic Cancer. 2015

Philip, Philip A / Lutz, Manfred P. ·From the *Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; and †CaritasKlinikum Saarbrücken, Saarbrücken, Germany. ·Pancreas · Pubmed #26355547.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic cancer is aggressive, chemoresistant, and characterized by complex and poorly understood molecular biology. The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathway is frequently activated in pancreatic cancer; therefore, it is a rational target for new treatments. However, the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib is currently the only targeted therapy to demonstrate a very modest survival benefit when added to gemcitabine in the treatment of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. There is no molecular biomarker to predict the outcome of erlotinib treatment, although rash may be predictive of improved survival; EGFR expression does not predict the biologic activity of anti-EGFR drugs in pancreatic cancer, and no EGFR mutations are identified as enabling the selection of patients likely to benefit from treatment. Here, we review clinical studies of EGFR-targeted therapies in combination with conventional cytotoxic regimens or multitargeted strategies in advanced pancreatic cancer, as well as research directed at molecules downstream of EGFR as alternatives or adjuncts to receptor targeting. Limitations of preclinical models, patient selection, and trial design, as well as the complex mechanisms underlying resistance to EGFR-targeted agents, are discussed. Future clinical trials must incorporate translational research end points to aid patient selection and circumvent resistance to EGFR inhibitors.

6 Clinical Trial Cationic liposomal paclitaxel plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled phase II trial. 2012

Löhr, J M / Haas, S L / Bechstein, W-O / Bodoky, G / Cwiertka, K / Fischbach, W / Fölsch, U R / Jäger, D / Osinsky, D / Prausova, J / Schmidt, W E / Lutz, M P / Anonymous3910704. ·Department of Medicine II, University Hospital Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany. matthias.lohr@ki.se ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #21896540.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel embedded in cationic liposomes (EndoTAG™-1; ET) is an innovative agent targeting tumor endothelial cells. This randomized controlled phase II trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of ET in combination with gemcitabine (GEM) in advanced pancreatic cancer (PDAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive weekly GEM 1000 mg/m(2) or GEM plus twice-weekly ET 11, 22 or 44 mg/m(2) for 7 weeks. After a safety run-in of 100 patients, a second cohort continued treatment. End points included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), tumor response and safety. RESULTS: Two hundred and twelve patients were randomly allocated to the study and 200 were treated (80% metastatic, 20% locally advanced). Adverse events were manageable and reversible. Transient thrombocytopenia and infusion reactions with chills and pyrexia mostly grade 1 or 2 occurred in the ET groups. Disease control rate after the first treatment cycle was 43% with GEM and 60%, 65% and 52% in the GEM + ET cohorts. Median PFS reached 2.7 compared with 4.1, 4.6 and 4.4 months, respectively. Median OS was 6.8 compared with 8.1, 8.7 and 9.3 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of advanced PDAC with GEM + ET was generally well tolerated. GEM + ET showed beneficial survival and efficacy. A randomized phase III trial should confirm this positive trend.

7 Clinical Trial Adjuvant gemcitabine alone versus gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy after curative resection for pancreatic cancer: a randomized EORTC-40013-22012/FFCD-9203/GERCOR phase II study. 2010

Van Laethem, Jean-Luc / Hammel, Pascal / Mornex, Françoise / Azria, David / Van Tienhoven, Geertjan / Vergauwe, Philippe / Peeters, Marc / Polus, Marc / Praet, Michel / Mauer, Murielle / Collette, Laurence / Budach, Volker / Lutz, Manfred / Van Cutsem, Eric / Haustermans, Karin. ·Department of Gastroenterology, Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. JL.Vanlaethem@erasme.ulb.ac.be ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #20837948.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The role of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in resectable pancreatic cancer is still debated. This randomized phase II intergroup study explores the feasibility and tolerability of a gemcitabine-based CRT regimen after R0 resection of pancreatic head cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within 8 weeks after surgery, patients were randomly assigned to receive either four cycles of gemcitabine (control arm) or gemcitabine for two cycles followed by weekly gemcitabine with concurrent radiation (50.4 Gy; CRT arm). The primary objective was to exclude a < 60% treatment completion and a > 40% rate of grade 4 hematologic or GI toxicity in the CRT arm with type I and II errors of 10%. Secondary end points were late toxicity, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Between September 2004 and January 2007, 90 patients were randomly assigned (45:45). Patient characteristics were similar in both arms. Treatment was completed per protocol by 86.7% and 73.3% (80% CI, 63.1% to 81.9%; 95% CI, 58.1% to 85.4%) in the control and CRT arms, respectively, and grade 4 toxicity was 0% and 4.7% (two of 43; 80% CI, 1.2% to 11.9%), respectively. In the CRT arm, three patients experienced grade 3-related late toxicity. Median DFS was 12 months in the CRT arm and 11 months in the control arm. Median OS was 24 months in both arms. First local recurrence was less frequent in the CRT arm (11% v 24%). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant gemcitabine-based CRT is feasible, well-tolerated, and not deleterious; adding this treatment to full-dose adjuvant gemcitabine after resection of pancreatic cancer should be evaluated in a phase III trial.

8 Article Opinions and use of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced pancreatic cancer: international survey and case-vignette study. 2019

Heinrich, Stefan / Besselink, Marc / Moehler, Markus / van Laethem, Jean-Luc / Ducreux, Michel / Grimminger, Peter / Mittler, Jens / Lang, Hauke / Lutz, Manfred P / Lesurtel, Mickael / Anonymous301018. ·Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Mainz, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany. stefan.heinrich@unimedizin-mainz.de. · Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · First Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Mainz, Mainz, Germany. · Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Erasme Hospital, 1070, Brussels, Belgium. · Gastrointestinal Unit, Institute Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. · Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Mainz, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany. · Department of Internal Medicine, CaritasKlinikum, Saarbrücken, Germany. · Department of Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Croix-Rousse University Hospital, University of Lyon, Lyon, France. ·BMC Cancer · Pubmed #31288786.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Several new treatment options have become available for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), but the support for their use for resectable, borderline resectable and locally advanced PDAC is unclear. METHODS: A survey was distributed to the members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato Biliary Association (E-AHPBA) and the pancreas group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) regarding 1) definitions of local resectability, 2) indications for neoadjuvant therapy and 3) case-vignettes regarding the resectability and treatment of PDAC. RESULTS: In total, 114 participants from 37 countries were registered. About 35% of respondents, each, were of the opinion that borderline resectability is defined by any venous tumor contact and venous involvement < 180° or > 180°, respectively. The majority (75.4%) of participants believed that borderline resectable PDAC has a high risk for R1 resection and that neoadjuvant therapy might increase the R0-resection rate (79.8%) and improve oncological patient selection (84.2%). Chemotherapy was regarded useful to convert locally advanced to resectable PDAC by 55.7% of respondents. In the cases with resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced PDAC, 10 (8.8%), 78 (68.4%), 55 (48.2%) of participants would start with chemotherapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although definitions for borderline resectability differ among European surgeons, there seems to be a rather strong support for preoperative chemotherapy in PDAC aiming at minimizing R1 resections while increasing resection rates.

9 Article 3rd St. Gallen EORTC Gastrointestinal Cancer Conference: Consensus recommendations on controversial issues in the primary treatment of pancreatic cancer. 2017

Lutz, Manfred P / Zalcberg, John R / Ducreux, Michel / Aust, Daniela / Bruno, Marco J / Büchler, Markus W / Delpero, Jean-Robert / Gloor, Beat / Glynne-Jones, Rob / Hartwig, Werner / Huguet, Florence / Laurent-Puig, Pierre / Lordick, Florian / Maisonneuve, Patrick / Mayerle, Julia / Martignoni, Marc / Neoptolemos, John / Rhim, Andrew D / Schmied, Bruno M / Seufferlein, Thomas / Werner, Jens / van Laethem, Jean-Luc / Otto, Florian. ·CaritasKlinikum St. Theresia, Saarbrücken, Germany. Electronic address: m.lutz@caritasklinikum.de. · Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Monash University, The Alfred Centre, Melbourne, Australia. · Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. · Department of Pathology, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany. · Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands. · Chirurgische Universitätsklinik, Heidelberg, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France. · Klinik für Viszerale und Transplantationschirurgie, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland. · Department of Medical Oncology, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK. · Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany. · Radiooncology Service, Hôpital Tenon (Hôpitaux Universitaires Est Parisien), Paris Cedex 20, France. · Université René Descartes, UFR Biomédicale des Saints-Pères, Paris, France. · University Cancer Center Leipzig (UCCL), University Medicine Leipzig, Germany. · Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, Divisione di Epidemiologia e Biostatistica, Milan, Italy. · Klinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin A, Universitätsmedizin, Greifswald, Germany; Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany. · Chirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, Munich, Germany. · Department of Surgery, Liverpool University, Liverpool, UK. · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. · Klinik für Chirurgie, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland. · Department of Internal Medicine I, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany. · Hopital Erasme, Anderlecht, Belgium. · Tumor- und Brustzentrum ZeTuP, St. Gallen, Switzerland. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #28460245.

ABSTRACT: The primary treatment of pancreatic cancer was the topic of the 3rd St. Gallen Conference 2016. A multidisciplinary panel reviewed the current evidence and discussed controversial issues in a moderated consensus session. Here we report on the key expert recommendations. It was generally accepted that radical surgical resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy offers the only evidence-based treatment with a chance for cure. Initial staging should classify localised tumours as resectable or unresectable (i.e. locally advanced pancreatic cancer) although there remains a large grey-zone of potentially resectable disease between these two categories which has recently been named as borderline resectable, a concept which was generally accepted by the panel members. However, the definition of these borderline-resectable (BR) tumours varies between classifications due to their focus on either (i) technical hurdles (e.g. the feasibility of vascular resection) or (ii) oncological outcome (e.g. predicting the risk of a R1 resection and/or occult metastases). The resulting expert discussion focussed on imaging standards as well as the value of pretherapeutic laparoscopy. Indications for biliary drainage were seen especially before neoadjuvant therapy. Following standard resection, the panel unanimously voted for the use of adjuvant chemotherapy after R0 resection and considered it as a reasonable standard of care after R1 resection, even though the optimal pathologic evaluation and the definition of R0/R1 was the issue of an ongoing debate. The general concept of BR tumours was considered as a good basis to select patients for preoperative therapy, albeit its current impact on the therapeutic strategy was far less clear. Main focus of the conference was to discuss the limits of surgical resection and to identify ways to standardise procedures and to improve curative outcome, including adjuvant and perioperative treatment.