Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer According to the Neoadjuvant Chemo-Regimens: Gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX

Background/Aims@#Although many studies have reported the promising effect of neoadjuvant treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) to increase resectability, only a few studies have recommended the use of first-line chemotherapeutic agents as neoadjuvant treatment for BRPC. The current study compared clinical outcomes between gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) in patients with BRPC. @*Methods@#In this single-center retrospective study, 100 BRPC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resection from 2008 to 2018 were reviewed. Clinical outcomes included overall survival, resectability, and recurrence patterns after gemcitabine or FOLFIRINOX treatment. @*Results@#For neoadjuvant chemotherapy, gemcitabine was administered to 34 patients and FOLFIRINOX to 66. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was administered to 27 patients (79.4%) treated with gemcitabine and 19 (28.8%) treated with FOLFIRINOX (p<0.001). The 2- and 5-year survival rates (YSRs) were significantly higher after FOLFIRINOX (2YSR, 72.2%; 5YSR, 46.0%) than after gemcitabine (2YSR, 58.4%; 5YSR, 19.1%; p=0.041). The margin negative rate was comparable (gemcitabine, 94.1%; FOLFIRINOX, 92.4%; p=0.753), and the tumor size change in percentage showed only a marginal difference (gemcitabine, 20.5%; FOLFIRINOX, 29.0%; p=0.069). Notably, the metastatic recurrence rate was significantly lower in the FOLFIRINOX group (n=20, 52.6%) than in the gemcitabine group (n=22, 78.6%; p=0.001). The rate of adverse events after chemotherapy was significantly higher with FOLFIRINOX than with gemcitabine (43.9%, 20.6%, respectively; p=0.037). @*Conclusions@#FOLFIRINOX provided more clinical and oncological benefit than gemcitabine, with significantly higher overall survival and lower cumulative recurrence rates in BRPC. However, since FOLFIRINOX causes more adverse effects, the regimen should be individualized based on patient’s general condition and clinical status.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer According to the Neoadjuvant Chemo-Regimens: Gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX

Background/Aims@#Although many studies have reported the promising effect of neoadjuvant treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) to increase resectability, only a few studies have recommended the use of first-line chemotherapeutic agents as neoadjuvant treatment for BRPC. The current study compared clinical outcomes between gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) in patients with BRPC. @*Methods@#In this single-center retrospective study, 100 BRPC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resection from 2008 to 2018 were reviewed. Clinical outcomes included overall survival, resectability, and recurrence patterns after gemcitabine or FOLFIRINOX treatment. @*Results@#For neoadjuvant chemotherapy, gemcitabine was administered to 34 patients and FOLFIRINOX to 66. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was administered to 27 patients (79.4%) treated with gemcitabine and 19 (28.8%) treated with FOLFIRINOX (p<0.001). The 2- and 5-year survival rates (YSRs) were significantly higher after FOLFIRINOX (2YSR, 72.2%; 5YSR, 46.0%) than after gemcitabine (2YSR, 58.4%; 5YSR, 19.1%; p=0.041). The margin negative rate was comparable (gemcitabine, 94.1%; FOLFIRINOX, 92.4%; p=0.753), and the tumor size change in percentage showed only a marginal difference (gemcitabine, 20.5%; FOLFIRINOX, 29.0%; p=0.069). Notably, the metastatic recurrence rate was significantly lower in the FOLFIRINOX group (n=20, 52.6%) than in the gemcitabine group (n=22, 78.6%; p=0.001). The rate of adverse events after chemotherapy was significantly higher with FOLFIRINOX than with gemcitabine (43.9%, 20.6%, respectively; p=0.037). @*Conclusions@#FOLFIRINOX provided more clinical and oncological benefit than gemcitabine, with significantly higher overall survival and lower cumulative recurrence rates in BRPC. However, since FOLFIRINOX causes more adverse effects, the regimen should be individualized based on patient’s general condition and clinical status.

Preoperative Selective Desensitization of Live Donor Liver Transplant Recipients Considering the Degree of T Lymphocyte Cross-Match Titer, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score, and Graft Liver Volume

Several studies have suggested that a positive lymphocyte cross-matching (XM) is associated with low graft survival rates and a high prevalence of acute rejection after adult living donor liver transplantations (ALDLTs) using a small-for-size graft. However, there is still no consensus on preoperative desensitization. We adopted the desensitization protocol from ABO-incompatible LDLT. We performed desensitization for the selected patients according to the degree of T lymphocyte cross-match titer, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, and graft liver volume. We retrospectively evaluated 230 consecutive ALDLT recipients for 5 yr. Eleven recipients (4.8%) showed a positive XM. Among them, five patients with the high titer (> 1:16) by antihuman globulin-augmented method (T-AHG) and one with a low titer but a high MELD score of 36 were selected for desensitization: rituximab injection and plasmapheresis before the transplantation. There were no major side effects of desensitization. Four of the patients showed successful depletion of the T-AHG titer. There was no mortality and hyperacute rejection in lymphocyte XM-positive patients, showing no significant difference in survival outcome between two groups (P=1.000). In conclusion, this desensitization protocol for the selected recipients considering the degree of T lymphocyte cross-match titer, MELD score, and graft liver volume is feasible and safe.

Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology of Kuttner Tumor of the Submandibular Gland: A Case Report

Kuttner tumor is a relatively uncommon benign tumor-like lesion of the salivary gland that clinically mimics neoplasm because of its presentation as a hard mass. It is also known as chronic sclerosing sialadenitis or cirrhosis of the submandibular gland. We present here the aspiration cytological findings of a case of Kuttner tumor in a 58-year old woman. The aspiration specimen of this lesion showed numerous lymphoid cells that were similar to lymph node aspirates, with several scattered benign ductal cells and eosinophilic fibrous tissue. The lymphoid cells were composed of mature bland lymphocytes and follicular center cells. Any acinar cells were not identified. The excised mass was ill-demarcated, hard and fibrotic, and it histologically exhibited an intense lymphocytic infiltration with irregular lymphoid follicle formation, dense periductal and stromal sclerosis, and loss of acini. No evidence of neoplasm or sialolithiasis was discovered, and this led to the diagnosis of Kuttner tumor.