Delouya, Guila

AbstractBackgroundSeveral registry-based analyses suggested a survival advantage for married versus single patients with pancreatic cancer. The mechanisms underlying the association of marital status and survival are likely multiple and complex and, therefore, may be obscured in analyses generated from large population-based databases. The goal of this research was to characterize this potential association of marital status with outcomes in patients with resected pancreatic cancer who underwent combined modality adjuvant therapy on a prospective clinical trial.Materials and MethodsThis is an ancillary analysis of 367 patients with known marital status treated on NRG Oncology/RTOG 97-04. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model.ResultsOf 367 patients, 271 (74%) were married or partnered and 96 (26%) were single. Married or partnered patients were more likely to be male. There was no association between marital status and overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) on univariate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09 and 1.01, respectively) or multivariate analyses (HR, 1.05 and 0.98, respectively). Married or partnered male patients did not have improved survival compared with female or single patients.ConclusionAncillary analysis of data from NRG Oncology/RTOG 97-04 demonstrated no association between marital and/or partner status and OS or DFS in patients with resected pancreatic cancer who received adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy followed by concurrent external beam radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Clinical trial identification number. NCT00003216.

347 Background: 9,704 was the first phase 3 pancreatic cancer trial to validate the prognostic value of postresection CA19-9 for overall survival (OS), with values > 90/180 associated with worse OS. All pts received adjuvant gemcitabine or 5-FU and chemo-radiotherapy (RT). This analysis evaluates patterns of disease failure. Methods: SMS was negative, positive, or unknown. CA19-9 was analyzed at cut points 90, 180 and continuously. LRF and DF were estimated by cumulative incidence and Gray’s test compared. Cox hazard models were used for multivariate analyses (MVA) and included treatment, tumor site, size and nodal status. To adjust for multiple comparisons a p-value < 0.01 is statistically significant and 0.01 to < 0.05 a trend. Results: 538 pts accrued, with 451 eligible and analyzable for SMS and 385 for CA19-9. For CA19-9, 132 (34%) were Lewis Antigen negative (no CA19-9 expression), 200 (52%) < 90 and 220 (57%) < 180. 188 (42%) had negative margins, 152 (34%) positive and 111 (25%) unknown (i.e., no margin comment in path report; shown to have outcomes similar to negative margin pts). Pts with CA19-9 ≥ 180 were more likely to have tumors ≥ 3 cm and pts with positive SMS more likely to have KPS 60 - 80, T3/T4, or N1 disease. On univariate analysis (UVA) CA19-9 cut at 90 was associated with significant increases in both LRF (trend) and DF; in the gemcitabine arm this was seen in DF, not in LRF; in the 5-FU arm it was seen in both. Results were similar at the 180 cut point and continuously. SMS on UVA was not associated with increase in LRF/DF; see Table. On MVA, CA19-9 > 90 was significantly associated with LRF and DF; positive SMS showed only a trend for DF. Conclusions: Postresection CA19-9 has significant association with both LRF and DF not seen with SMS. These findings support continued use of RT in trials and consideration of dose intensification among pts with elevated postresection CA19-9. Grants: NCI U10, CA21661, CA37422, CA180868, CA180822. Clinical trial information: 0000000. [Table: see text]