Posted on 07/27/2025 5:57:49 PM PDT by ransomnote
Bump
Bum0
I found few for your cancer, but the following one showed a new therapy approach that showed this success (overall survival (OS)):
Different outcomes for positive, negative pancreatic cancer patients receiving chemoradiation and systemic therapy
“The primary endpoint for the trial was OS, which was only improved for patients with node-negative disease (5-year OS 48.1% for patients on the Chemo+CRT arm versus 28.6% on the Chemo arm).”
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-06-outcomes-positive-negative-pancreatic-cancer.html
It sounded like you may be considered node negative right now. If so, consider this option, which greatly increases overall survival at five years.
As this condition is rare and has less on it, my final review becomes the most manual review, which is a search of the studies off search terms from the NIH PubMed site:
Why do I limit my use of AI? Because the output is beset by political correctness around what are the most professionally-agreed upon answers, which hides the one-off studies of something novel. Why do I like “novel?” Because it can be harmless to try out, yet, not have a Cochrane Review-level of “authority.” I have had great success with these “hidden”opportunities. “Novel” does not mean “scientifically implausible,” however.
General website searches can also bring up these actionable study references, but often, study outcomes are just included in a paragraph with no named study to go back and reference. I do find search engines have the same bias (“weighting”) that can prevent less known research from sparking an idea path to then follow with a deeper dive. The NIH site seems largely free from bias, compared with most search engines.
Ampullary cancer is less the 0.5% of pancreatic type cancers. Pancreatic cancer is termed "peri-Ampullary". The number of studied cases is small, yet the survival statistics aren't very encouraging.
Thank you for your research and links.
The main article I used (“Molecular pathways in periampullary cancer: An overview” ($27.95)) included ampullary cancer:
Periampullary adenocarcinoma (PAC) arises in the area surrounding Ampulla of Vater.It accounts for approximately 0.5–2% of all gastrointestinal malignancies and 20% of all tumors of the extrahepatic biliary tree [[1], [2], [3]](It includes tumors of heterogenous origin which are anatomically closely related and have a similar clinical presentation, itis anatomically categorized into tumors originating in the head of the pancreas (60%), the ampulla of Vater (20%), distal common bile duct (10%), and the duodenum (10%) [4].Ampullary carcinoma is the second most common type of periampullary malignancy and represent approximately 10% of cancers resected via Whipple's procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy) [5,6]. The incidence of PAC is higher in men (0.7 in 100,000) as compared to women (0.4 in 100,000) and is mostly seen in older patients with the tumors rarely occurring before the age of 50 years
From a snip of a recent International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association HPB Journal article, “Long-term survival after minimally invasive resection versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary cancers: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression:”
Definitions
Periampullary cancers were defined as cancers arising within 2 cm of the major papilla in the duodenum, encompassing four different types of cancers: (i) ampullary (ampulla of Vater); (ii) biliary (intrapancreatic distal bile duct); (iii) pancreatic (head–uncinate process) and (iv) duodenal (mainly from the second portion).17,18
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1365182X20311825
If you had ampullary cancer (cancer of the ampulla of Vater), my research holds for you.
There were 3 histological stains performed on the tumor. Stains were MUC1 (positive), CK20 (positive), CDX2 (weak). Morphologically, the ampullar tumor appears to be pancreatobiliary type. Adenocarcinoma invading from the Ampulla of Vater directly into the pancreas.
The above text extracted from the pathology report. I read the linked report below last year. The principal focus of that report was comparing MIPD (laparoscopic, robotic) to OPD (open PD). Mine was OPD. The paper demonstrates the difficulty of performing a meta-analysis on a broad set of papers and just how much has to be "tossed" because it isn't trustworthy for various reasons.
I spent considerable time with ChatGPT and grok3 entering all of the fine details of my experience last year. My weight loss (161 -> 136), multiple post-operative infections and histology data pushed me to the 23% end of the 23% to 67% 5 year survival. The multiple CT scans also uncovered a abdominal aortic aneurysm that is inoperable and likely to take me out before a recurrence of the cancer. It has been an "interesting" year.
Is your aneurysm inoperable because of calcium deposits?
Focal penetrating ulceration of the supraceliac abdominal aorta just above the level of the celiac artery. Yes, calcified.
You can pull off calcium and reduce soft plaques and even increase a form of elasticity with a few supplements and eating healthier.
Here is one set of items I posted a bit ago to get that started (and done):
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4181485/posts?page=11#11
Read the Arterosil study results and the other links, as well. There are a few more things beyond those you can do, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.