<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_465"
                     title="Genetic Pathways Play Role in NSCLC Survival (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.013"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/LungCancer/tb/18396?impressionId=1265768787496"
                     
      Researchers say they&apos;ve found genetic characteristics associated with age and sex differences observed in recurrence-free survival among non-small cell lung cancer patients.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Older patients at higher risk for recurrence had increased activation of wound-healing and invasiveness pathways, while high-risk women had increased activation of invasiveness and &lt;em&gt;STAT3&lt;/em&gt; pathways, Anil Potti, MD, of Duke University, and colleagues reported in the Feb. 10 issue of the &lt;em&gt;Journal of the American Medical Association&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;High-risk men had increased activation of the &lt;em&gt;STAT3&lt;/em&gt;, tumor necrosis factor, &lt;em&gt;EGFR&lt;/em&gt;, and wound-healing pathways, Potti the researchers found.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&quot;This analysis represents one of the first large-scale attempts to comprehensively characterize the biology of early-stage [non-small cell lung cancer] at a molecular pathway level and demonstrates a clear distinction in gene expression profiles within relevant age and sex categories,&quot; they wrote.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There&apos;s lots of evidence that clinical and pathologic factors are clinically relevant, the researchers noted, but little is known about the underlying biological differences in lung tumor gene expression among patients with different characteristics, including age and gender.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So Potti and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis of 787 patients with predominantly early stage non-small cell lung cancer at Duke University from July 2008 to June 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They stratified their results by risk of recurrence, age, and gender.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They found that high-risk patients under 70 had greater activation of the &lt;em&gt;Src&lt;/em&gt; and tumor necrosis factor pathways than low-risk patients (25% versus 6%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001; and 76% versus 42%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001, respectively).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In patients 70 and older, those at high risk for recurrence had greater activation of the wound-healing and invasiveness pathways than low-risk patients (40% versus 24%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.02; and 64% versus 20%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001, respectively).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Although this is a novel finding, biologically this is not entirely unexpected,&quot; the researchers wrote in reference to the data in older patients. &quot;The invasiveness and wound-healing gene signatures likely identify tumors at high risk of metastasis, along with the wound-healing signature identifying activation of angiogenesis pathways.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Their findings also corroborated previous evidence that biology and clinical course of the disease are sex-specific, as the analysis found that women had significantly better progression-free survival than men (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.008).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In general, men had a higher probability of activation of these pathways than women:&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;Chromosomal instability (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.001)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Epigenetic stem cell (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.03)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Invasiveness (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.005)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;Myc&lt;/em&gt; (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.02)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Wound-healing (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.004)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Women, meanwhile, had a higher probability of activation of the &lt;em&gt;E2F1&lt;/em&gt; pathway (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.04).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When stratified by risk, high-risk women had increased activation of the invasiveness and &lt;em&gt;STAT3&lt;/em&gt; pathways compared with low-risk women (99% versus 2%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001; and 72% versus 35%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001, respectively).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Compared with low-risk men, those with high risk had increased activation of the following pathways:&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;STAT3&lt;/em&gt; (87% versus 18%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Tumor necrosis factor (90% versus 46%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001) &lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;&lt;em&gt;EGFR&lt;/em&gt; (13% versus 2%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Wound-healing pathways (50% versus 22%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Multivariate analyses confirmed pathway-based subphenotypes in women (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.03, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001) and in patients under 70 (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.71, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.003).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;While differences in clinical outcomes and the biology of [non-small cell lung cancer] based on age and sex have been previously noted, we were able to describe the molecular networks contributing to these differences,&quot; the researchers wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They said the findings are &quot;apt for therapeutic interventions when planning clinical trials with drugs that target specific pathway-related abnormalities or tumor biology.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;With genomic assays now being increasingly practical and clinically applicable, with turnaround times of five to seven days,&quot; they concluded, &quot;we believe our findings, while hypothesis generating and needing further validation, represent a step forward in defining pathway-driven cohorts of [non-small cell lung cancer] that likely explain the age-and sex-specific differences.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by grants from the Emilene Brown Cancer Research Fund, the Harold and Linda Chapman Lung Cancer Fund, the Jimmy V Foundation, the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_284"
                     title="STS: Leg Artery Access Linked to Dissection (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.003"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/STS/tb/18139?impressionId=1265768787496"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;FORT LAUDERDALE  --  Avoiding femoral artery cannulization during cardiac surgery might eliminate some of the rare but potentially catastrophic aortic dissections that occur during the procedure, researchers said here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Doctors identified the femoral location as an increased risk factor in an analysis of records from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons&apos; national database of more than 2.2 million cardiac surgeries. That search yielded 1,294 incidents of aortic dissection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Prevention is the key,&quot; Matthew Williams, MD, of the University of Louisville, said at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Williams and colleagues reported that aortic dissection occurs in only 0.06% of cardiac surgeries but accounts for almost one percent of perioperative deaths.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Aortic dissection is a low frequency but catastrophic event,&quot; Williams said, noting that 48% of aortic dissections during surgery prove fatal. Some 9% of the survivors suffer strokes and 14% experience kidney failure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He recalled becoming interested in the research after one of his patients, a woman, experienced aortic dissection during a procedure. &quot;She walked out of the hospital,&quot; he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt; that &quot;the incidence of these aortic dissections is so small that only a large database project such as this one could possibly get at these cases.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to his presentation materials, researchers created a logistic regression model based on 2004-2007 STS data. The analysis turned up nine significant risk factors, including femoral cannulization, preoperative steroids, and Asian race. Diabetes appeared to be protective.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When aortic dissection occurs during surgery, Williams said, doctors generally stop the operation and attempt to restart it by cannulization in another area.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He said he has considered femoral access as a last resort and prefers either central aortic cannulization or axial cannulization.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He said improving outcomes and identifying what causes aortic dissection in these surgical cases may require changes and updates in the information captured by the database. He said a clinical trial would require so many patients that it would not be practical.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Aubrey Galloway, MD, of the New York University School of Medicine, who was the discussant for Williams&apos; talk, said that the imprecise nature of the way the data are gathered might have misidentified the femoral access point as a culprit procedure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It may be that femoral access was employed in response to another dissection site,&quot; he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Williams responded that by tweaking the information acquired by the database it might be possible to better determine these associations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Williams listed no relevant disclosures; Galloway disclosed financial relationships with Medtronic and Edwards Life Sciences and Estech.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_250"
                     title="Cancer Research &quot;Giant&quot; Lawrence Garfinkel Dies at 88"
                     score="-0.001"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pulmonology/Smoking/tb/18108?impressionId=1265768787496"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Epidemiologist Lawrence Garfinkel, MA, a legendary researcher for the American Cancer Society whose work helped establish a link between cancer and smoking and other activities, died of cardiovascular disease Thursday in Seattle, Washington at 88.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The American Cancer Society today mourns the loss of one of its most important historical figures,&quot; said John R. Seffrin, PhD, the society&apos;s chief executive officer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Larry Garfinkel joined the American Cancer Society as a young scientist in 1947, and for more than four decades played an instrumental role in expanding knowledge of and reducing death from smoking.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Garfinkel&apos;s 1982 Cancer Prevention Study-II (CPS-II) is the largest contemporary study of tobacco and mortality, with 1.2 million participants and 77,000 data-compiling volunteers across 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CPS-II uncovered the effects of lifestyle factors, such as obesity, alcohol consumption, medications, genetic elements, that affect cancer and other chronic diseases, the analysis of which still reveals important clues about cancer today.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The study also found lung cancer mortality rates in women increased five-fold from data collected in the original Cancer Prevention Study, while cancer rates among non-smoking women remained the same. This information provided strong evidence that lung cancer was almost exclusively a disease found in smokers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Garfinkel was born on January 11, 1922 in Manhattan&apos;s Lower East Side and was raised in the South Bronx.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He served in the army during World War II, where he was seriously injured in northern France in August, 1944.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, Garfinkel graduated from the City College of New York and received a Masters Degree from Columbia University. He also received several honorary doctorates.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Garfinkel began work for the ACS in 1947.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He assisted E. Cuyler Hammond, MD, and Daniel Horn, MD, in the first ACS prospective mortality study of 187,783 males in the late 1940&apos;s by coordinating much of the field work, including training thousands of ACS volunteers in data collection techniques.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Garfinkel acted as the co-principal investigator of the larger Cancer Prevention Study I (CPS-I) in 1959. The study enrolled 1 million participants across 25 states and required over 68,000 volunteers to collect data.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the 1960s, he contributed to more than two dozen major papers on the relation between smoking and health. He was co-author of one of the first reports combining epidemiology with pathology and provided some of the first direct evidence of lung damage related to smoking.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Garfinkel also contributed to issuance of the landmark 1964 Surgeon General&apos;s report on smoking and health.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He was appointed director of ACS research in 1979 after Hammond&apos;s retirement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Garfinkel retired from the ACS in 1989. Over the course of his career, he had contributed to more than 100 journal articles.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Richard D. Klausner, MD, then-director of the National Cancer Institute, said at the time: &quot;Few individuals have contributed as much to our present-day knowledge about the disease consequences of smoking.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;His remarkable achievement is an important reminder what a tremendous impact an individual can make, and inspires all of us to continue the fight against cancer.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Garfinkel continued to volunteer with the ACS after his retirement and taught biostatistics at the New York University Dental School.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He is survived by his brothers, Harold and Melvin; his sons, Martin and Herb; a daughter-in-law, Margaret Cary, and two grandchildren.&lt;/p&gt;

    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_248"
                     title="Continued Smoking Worsens Lung Cancer Prognosis (CME/CE)"
                     score="-0.001"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/LungCancer/tb/18105?impressionId=1265768787496"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;It&apos;s never too late to stop smoking, even for smokers already diagnosed with lung cancer, a new analysis shows.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A systematic review of published trials of smokers diagnosed with early stage lung cancer disclosed that patients who stopped smoking when diagnosed were about twice as likely to survive for five years as those who continued to smoke after diagnosis, wrote Amanda Parsons, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Birmingham in England, and colleagues in a paper published online Jan. 22 by &lt;em&gt;BMJ.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Continuing smoking was associated with a significantly increased risk of all cause mortality (hazard ratio 2.94, 95% CI, 1.15 to 7.54) as well as increased risk of cancer recurrence (HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.41), they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors extrapolated the benefit of smoking cessation from both the recurrence and mortality data, since none of the studies contained specific information on the &quot;effect of quitting smoking on cancer specific mortality or on development of a second primary tumor in non-small cell lung cancer.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They used life table-modeling to come up with the estimate that 33% of smokers diagnosed with early stage NSCLC at age 65 would survive for five years if they continued to smoke, versus an estimated 70% among those who quit smoking after diagnosis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This review has found evidence that after lung cancer has been diagnosed, reductions in risk of developing a second primary or recurrence were associated with quitting within seven years, suggesting that, even at this stage the prognostic outlook can be improved by smoking cessation,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Whether this observation can be explained by nicotine or by other components of tobacco smoke is unknown, but regardless of the exact mechanism of harm, the authors wrote, the findings &quot;support the hypothesis that continued smoking affects the behavior of a lung tumor.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an accompanying editorial, Tom Treasure, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon at University College London, and psychiatrist Janet Treasure, PhD, also from University College, wrote that Parsons et al demonstrated that the impact of continued smoking is so large that both patients and &quot;those caring for them should be given this information because the potential benefit is great.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is one significant problem both for patients and doctors, the editorialists noted: &quot;Fewer than one in three patients with lung cancer survive even one year, so the patients likely to benefit are probably healthier to begin with. So, although the information is valuable, it&apos;s application may be limited.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Discussing its limitations, the review&apos;s authors noted that it was based on data from 10 observational studies, which raises the &quot;possibility of uncontrolled confounding.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Moreover, definitions of smoking &quot;abstinence were generally poor and only five of the 10 studies assigned patients to smoking categories on the basis of smoking status recorded at six months or more after diagnosis.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Additionally, they noted, it appears that &quot;smokers with unfavorable prognostic factors were most likely to give up smoking, so that unadjusted estimates underestimated the benefits of quitting.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was funded by the UK Center for Tobacco Control Studies, the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, and the National Institute for Health Research.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Parsons said she has been reimbursed by Pfizer, maker of varenicline (Chantix) and nicotine nasal spray and inhaler products (Nicotrol).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The editorial writers disclosed no competing interests.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_196"
                     title="Adjuvant Therapy Improves Survival in Pancreatic Cancer (CME/CE)"
                     score="-0.004"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Oncology/OtherCancers/tb/18039?impressionId=1265768787496"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy significantly improves survival of patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, according to medical records of almost 3,000 patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chemoradiotherapy extended median survival by more than 30% compared with surgical resection only, researchers reported in the January &lt;em&gt;Archives of Surgery&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt; &lt;/em&gt;In a multivariate analysis, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy proved to be one of only three predictors of improved survival, the other two being treatment at high-volume and academic centers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This analysis provides strong evidence in a real-world setting that postoperative chemoradiotherapy and possibly adjuvant radiotherapy alone improve clinical outcome in patients with pancreatic cancer,&quot; Relin Yang, MD, of the University of Miami, and colleagues wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;We further substantiate that this benefit is independent of the improved clinical outcomes obtained at high-volume centers and teaching facilities,&quot; they added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Nonetheless, this benefit remains modest, underscoring that further investigation is needed to establish a better adjuvant regimen after complete resection of pancreatic cancer.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Complete surgical resection remains the only curative option for patients with early-stage pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Fewer than 25% of patients have cancer amenable to resection. For that small subset of patients, the role of adjuvant therapy remains controversial, the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To address the issue, Yang and colleagues analyzed data from a population-based cancer registry. They augmented the data&apos;s predictive potential with information related to patient demographics, comorbidities, treatment, and type of facility.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors identified 2,877 patients whose pancreatic adenocarcinoma was diagnosed and treated surgically with curative intent from 1998 to 2002. About 60% of the patients were older than 65. Some 90% were white (86.7% non-Hispanic), and 90% had no history of alcohol abuse.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors reported that 51.9% of patients received neither chemotherapy nor chemoradiotherapy. About 25% received chemoradiotherapy, and another 10% received chemotherapy alone. Most patients were treated at low-volume centers (57.6%) and nonteaching facilities (72.8%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Median overall survival was 15 months, and 90-day postsurgical survival was 88.8%. Patients younger than 40 had the best survival (25.7 months versus 13.4 months for patients older than 65, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Race, ethnicity, and abstention from alcohol and tobacco did not significantly influence survival. Survival decreased as a patient&apos;s poverty level increased. Localized disease, well-differentiated tumors, and smaller tumor size were associated with significantly better survival (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients treated with surgery only had a significantly lower (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001) median overall survival of 12.6 months compared with patients who received chemotherapy or radiation preoperatively (19.9 months) or postoperatively (17.0 months).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Median survival was 18.2 months among patients treated at high-volume centers versus 13.1 months at low-volume centers (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001). Treatment at a teaching facility was associated with a median survival of 19.8 months compared with 13.6 months for nonteaching facilities (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Multivariate analysis correcting for comorbidities showed that postoperative chemoradiotherapy significantly reduced the mortality hazard ratio (HR 0.69, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.04). The reduced hazard exceeded the benefit associated with treatment at a high-volume center (HR 0.85, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001) or at a teaching facility (HR 0.84, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001) and was independent of facility type.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors confirmed findings from other studies showing a beneficial effect of treatment in high-volume and teaching facilities, and a benefit for all patients who receive adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, Nita Ahuja, MD, of Johns Hopkins, wrote in a commentary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the study had several prominent weaknesses: missing information on cancer stage in more than 50% of patients, unknown margin status, and no information on the type or duration of adjuvant therapy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The study also did not address another major controversy involving adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;At the end of the day, the present study will do little to quell the debate over the relative benefits of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone after surgical resection of pancreatic cancer,&quot; Ahuja wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;North Americans have a bias toward adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, supported primarily by data from a single small randomized clinical trial and several retrospective studies, Ahuja continued. European clinicians favor adjuvant chemotherapy based on one large clinical trial showing a benefit for chemotherapy and another showing no survival advantage for chemoradiotherapy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The present study will do little to change the minds of either camp,&quot; Ahuja concluded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Neither Yang and co-authors nor Ahuja had any disclosures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>