Pancreatic cancer develops from DNA damage to cells in the pancreas that causes uncontrolled growth. Most cases are ductal adenocarcinoma. Risk factors include smoking, obesity, family history, and chronic pancreatitis. Symptoms include jaundice, abdominal pain, weight loss, and fatigue. Diagnosis involves imaging like CT, MRI, and endoscopic ultrasound. Only 20% of cases are surgically resectable; the remainder receive chemotherapy, radiation, or supportive care. Prognosis is generally poor with a median survival of 4-6 months for metastatic disease.
3. Overview
• Pancreatic cancer develops when a cell in
the pancreas acquires damage to its DNA that causes
A single cell to grows and divides rapidly, becoming a
tumor that does not respect normal boundaries in
the body.
5. • Pathology:
– mostly ductal adenocarcinoma
(metastasizes early; presents late)
Location of tumor:
- 60% head
- 25% body
- 15% tail
6. Epidemiology:
• 10th most common cancer .
• 4th leading cause of cancer death.
• 80% of cases are adenocarcinomas from exocrine
pancreas
– Less common exocrine tumors include:
• IPMN
• Mucinouscystadenocarcimomas
• Most common in black males
• Median age of diagnosis is 70
7. Causes And Risk Factors:
• Pancreatic cancer is fundamentally a disease caused by
damage to the DNA. This damage is often referred to as
mutations.(Inheritance or Carcinogens).
• Smoking
• Age, gender
• Obesity
• Diet – high fat, low fibre
• Chronic pancreatitis
• Family history – BRCA2
• Β-napthylamine
8. Sign & Symptoms :
Jaundice
Pain in the upper or middle abdomen and back
Unexplaind weight loss
Loss of appetite
Fatigue
Trousseau’s syndrome
Clinical Depression
9. Diagnostic Procedures:
• Identifying risk factors.
• Mass during physical Examination
• Ultrasound
– Bile duct distension
– Mass
• CT scan with IV contrast
– Triple phase CT (pancreas protocol) 90% accurate at finding
lesions
– A scanner takes multiple X-ray pictures, and a computer
reconstructs them into detailed images of the inside of the
abdomen
10. • Endoscopic ultrasound
– Help find lesions not seen on CT
– Help determine resectability
– Excellent way to get biopsy
• MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), which can be
used to look at the pancreatic and bile ducts, is described
below in the section on cholangiopancreatography.
• MR angiography (MRA), which looks at blood vessels, is
mentioned below in the section on angiography.
12. Endoscopic retrograde
cholangiopancreatography (ERCP):
• For this test, an endoscope (a thin, flexible tube with a tiny video
camera on the end) is passed down the throat, through the
esophagus and stomach, and into the first part of the small
intestine. This is usually done while you are sedated (given
medicine to make you sleepy).
• A small amount of dye (contrast material) is then injected into the
common bile duct, and x-rays are taken.
• The x-ray images can show narrowing or blockage in these ducts
that might be due to pancreatic cancer.
• ERCP can also be used to place a stent (small tube) into a bile or
pancreatic duct to keep it open if a nearby tumor is pressing on it.
18. • Surgery:
Surgery with the intention of a cure is only
possible in around one-fifth (20%) of new cases.
• Whipple`s procedure
• total pancreatectomy
• distal pancreatectomy
– radiation therapy
– chemotherapy
21. Management of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer:
• Pain Control
– Long-acting narcotics
– Neurolytic celiac plexus block (NCPB)
• PERT
– PPI
– Bacterial overgrowth
• Endoscopic Stenting of Biliary and Pancreatic
Obstruction
22. Chemotherapy for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer
• 5-FU
• Gemcitabine
– Median survival times versus 5-FU
– Survival rate at 12-months
– Toxicities
– Optimizing efficiency
Combination Chemotherapy Trials
23. Prognosis:
• Overall prognosis seems dismal
• 70-80% of patients present as inoperable due to
metastatic disease or locally advanced disease
– Median survival only 4-6 months
• 20-30% are operable with localized or resectable
locally advanced disease
• Successful operation can give five year survivals from
20-30%
24. Conclusions
Since 1996, 20 randomized phase III trials have
failed to produce improvement in survival
outcomes.
Metastatic pancreatic cancer is one of the most
frustrating malignancies to treat.
For now, gemcitabine, gemcitabine + erlotinib, and
second-line treatment with OFF has shown benefit.
Supportive care strategies should be emphasized.
25. References:
Fujino Y, Sakai T, Kuroda Y. Palliative pancreatectomy with postoperative gemcitabine for patients with
advanced pancreatic cancer. Journal of Gastroenterology 2008; 43(3): 233-238
Gress FG, Howell DA, Bonis PAL. 2008. The role of endoscopic ultrasound in the staging of pancreatic
adenocarcinoma. [Online] (Updated April 2007). Available at:
http://www.uptodate.com/online/content/topic.do?topicKey=pancdis/2512&selectedTitle=18~117&sou
rce=search_result [Accessed 14 Sept 2008]
Gunaratnam NT, Howell DA, Bonis PAL. Et al. 2008. Endosonography-guided celiac plexus neurolysis.
[Online] (Updated Sept 2006). Available at: http:// www.uptodate.com /online /content
/topic.do?topicKey=pancdis/9683&selectedTitle=7~117&source=search_result. [Accessed 13 Sept 2008]
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E. et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56:106
Johns Hopkins - Surgical Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer [Online] Available at: http: //pathology
.jhu.edu/pancreas/TreatmentSurgery.php [Accessed 15 Sept 2008]
Karnam US, Kruskal JB, Reddy KR. 2008. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography.[Online]
(Updated 8 May 2008) Available at: http://www.uptodate.com /online/content / topic.do? Topic
Key=biliaryt/6181&selectedTitle=12~117&source=search_result [Accessed 14 Sept 2008]
Laurent-Puig P, Talieb J. Lessons from Tarceva in pancreatic cancer: where are we now, and how should
future trials be designed in pancreatic cancer? Current Opinion in Oncology 2008; 20(4): 454-458
Lee CJ, Dosch J, Simeone DM. Pancreatic cancer stem cells. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2008; 26(17):
2806-2812
McWilliams RR, Rabe KG, Olswold C, et al. Risk of malignancy in first-degree relatives of patients with
pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer 2005; 104:388