Importance of resectability status in neoadjuvant treatment for XXXX .

@entity1 @entity788 @entity1211 @entity5
BACKGROUND: Much attention has been paid to neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) as a new strategy especially for borderline resectable @entity788 (BRPC). However, the optimal indication of NAT remains undetermined. METHODS: We analyzed 248 @entity1 with @entity788 ( @entity788 ). One hundred resectable @entity5 were classified as R group. @entity5 with @entity1211 were classified as BR-P group, while 31 @entity5 with arterial involvement were classified as BR-A group. Ninety-nine @entity1 received NAT. Furthermore, 48 unresectable locally advanced @entity788 served as controls (LAPC group). Among them, 11 @entity1 received adjuvant surgery afterwards (Ad-surg group). RESULTS: The overall median survival time in the R, BR-P and BR-A groups was 45.3, 24.8 and 16.8   months. In the R and BR-P groups, @entity1 treated with NAT had a better prognosis than those without. In contrast, NAT had no impact on prognosis in the BR-A group. @entity1 treated with NAT in the BR-P, but not BR-A group, had a better prognosis than @entity1 in the LAPC group. Furthermore, @entity1 in the Ad-surg group had a significantly better prognosis than @entity1 in the BR-A group. CONCLUSIONS: Borderline resectable @entity788 with @entity1211 , but without arterial involvement, may be a good indication for NAT. Our data highlight the importance of preoperative resectability assessment to evaluate the indication and efficacy of NAT.
