Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://repository.monashhealth.org/monashhealthjspui/handle/1/50263
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRoss P.J.-
dc.contributor.authorBurnett D.-
dc.contributor.authorNikfarjam M.-
dc.contributor.authorNguyen N.-
dc.contributor.authorWasan H.-
dc.contributor.authorAghmesheh M.-
dc.contributor.authorNagrial A.-
dc.contributor.authorTurner D.-
dc.contributor.authorCroagh D.-
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-21T06:22:18Z-
dc.date.available2023-09-21T06:22:18Z-
dc.date.copyright2023-
dc.date.issued2023-09-05en
dc.identifier.citationHPB. Conference: 15th Biennial Congress of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA). Lyon France. 25(Supplement 2) (pp S412), 2023. Date of Publication: January 2023.-
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.monashhealth.org/monashhealthjspui/handle/1/50263-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: uLAPC has poor prognosis. We report post-hoc analysis of resected vs. non-resected cohorts in a study of beta-radiation-emitting Phosphorous-32 (32P)-microparticles, implanted into tumours via endoscopic-ultrasound (EUS) guidance, and standard-of-care chemotherapy in uLAPC. Method(s): Eligible uLAPC, ECOG 0/1 patients received gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel or FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy. 32P-microparticles (OncoSilTM) implantation was planned at weeks 4-5 to deliver 100Gy absorbed dose. Primary endpoint was safety/tolerability (CTCAE v4.0). Result(s): Fifty patients were enrolled (Intention-to-Treat); 40 received gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel and 10 FOLFIRINOX; 42 were implanted with 32P-microparticles (Per Protocol [PP]) at median day 31. Median follow-up: 31.6 months. Ten participants (23.8% PP) underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (median 4.4 months post-implant; 8/10 R0). Although baseline characteristics were similar (age; tumour longest diameter [LD]/volume), resected participants were more likely to be ECOG 0 (80% vs. 45%) and female (60% vs. 28%) vs. non-resected PP-cohort. Resected participants had greater tumour response as defined by median reductions at week 16 in tumour LD (-21.5% vs. -8.1%), tumour volume (-59.5% vs. -30.8%), CA 19-9 (-95.9% vs. -75.2%) and week 12 FDG-PET vs. non-resected PP-cohort. 39 AEs occurred <30 days post-resection with none attributed to 32P-microparticles/implantation. 180-day post-resection mortality was 0%. Resected participants median survival was not reached (95%CI: 21.1 months-non-calculable). Four resected participants survived 18.8-22.1 months post-enrolment; 6 remained alive at study completion (5 without recurrence) 26.4-35.3 months post-enrolment. Conclusion(s): EUS-guided 32P-microparticle implantation appears safe, with encouraging clinical outcomes and may convert uLAPC to surgical resection. Nearly one-quarter of PP participants (23.8%) underwent resection following substantial response with encouraging survival. Further studies are ongoing.Copyright © 2023-
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.-
dc.relation.ispartofHPB-
dc.subject.meshadvanced cancer-
dc.subject.meshcancer chemotherapy-
dc.subject.meshcancer patient-
dc.subject.meshcancer recurrence-
dc.subject.meshcancer size-
dc.subject.meshcancer surgery-
dc.subject.meshcancer survival-
dc.subject.meshendoscopic ultrasonography-
dc.subject.meshpancreas cancer-
dc.subject.meshpancreaticoduodenectomy-
dc.subject.meshsurgery-
dc.subject.meshgemcitabine-
dc.subject.meshpaclitaxel-
dc.titleComparison of Resected vs. Non-resected PanCO Study Patients with Unresectable Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer (uLAPC) Receiving 32P-microparticles and Chemotherapy.-
dc.typeConference Abstract-
dc.identifier.affiliationDeakin University - Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Monash Health partnership-
dc.description.conferencename15th Biennial Congress of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA)-
dc.description.conferencelocationLyon, France-
dc.type.studyortrialObservational study (cohort, case-control, cross sectional, or survey)-
dc.identifier.doihttp://monash.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2023.07.454-
local.date.conferencestart2023-06-06-
dc.identifier.institution(Ross) Guy's & St. Thomas' Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Oncology, London, United Kingdom-
dc.identifier.institution(Burnett) John Hunter Hospital, HPB Surgery, Newcastle, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Nikfarjam) Austin Hospital, HPB Surgery, Melbourne, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Nguyen) Royal Adelaide Hospital, Gastroenterology, Adelaide, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Wasan) Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Medical Oncology, London, United Kingdom-
dc.identifier.institution(Aghmesheh) Southern Medical Day Care Centre, Medical Oncology, Wollongong, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Nagrial) Westmead Hospital, Medical Oncology, Westmead, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Turner) OncoSil Medical Ltd, Medical Affairs, Sydney, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Croagh) Monash Health, Upper Gastrointestinal and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Clayton, Australia-
local.date.conferenceend2023-06-09-
dc.identifier.affiliationmh(Ockerby) Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Monash Health Partnership, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairetypeConference Abstract-
crisitem.author.deptUpper Gastrointestinal and Hepatobiliary Surgery-
Appears in Collections:Conferences
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

92
checked on Aug 28, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in Monash Health Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.