Background/Aims: Controversy regarding the effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) still exists. Here, we aimed to identify the potential benefits of neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery for resectable PDAC. Methods: We reviewed radiologically resectable PDAC patients who received resection with curative intent at a tertiary hospital in South Korea between January 2012 and August 2019. A total of 202 patients underwent curative resection for resectable PDAC: 167 underwent surgical resection first during this period, and 35 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy/chemoradiation therapy followed by surgery. Resectable PDAC patients were subdivided, and 1:3 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce selection bias. Results: Compared with the group that received surgery first, the group that received neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgery had significantly smaller tumors (22.0 mm vs 27.0 mm, p=0.004), a smaller proportion of patients with postoperative pathologic T stage (p=0.026), a smaller proportion of patients with lymphovascular invasion (20.0% vs 40.7%, p=0.022), and a larger proportion of patients with negative resection margins (74.3% vs 51.5%, p=0.049). After PSM, the group that received neoadjuvant therapy had a significantly longer progression-free survival than those in the group that underwent surgery first (29.6 months vs 15.1 months, p=0.002). Overall survival was not significantly different between the two groups after PSM analysis. Conclusions We observed significantly better surgical outcomes and progression-free survival with the addition of neoadjuvant therapy to the management of resectable PDAC. However, despite PSM, there was still selection bias due to the use of different regimens between the groups receiving surgery first and neoadjuvant therapy. Large homogeneous samples are needed in the future prospective studies.

This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety profiles of 2 fenofibric acid formulations under fasting and fed conditions. The reference was a 135 mg capsule, while the test was a 110 mg enteric-coated tablet. This randomized, open-label, two-sequence, two-period crossover phase 1 clinical trial was conducted in healthy Korean men. Sixty participants were enrolled in each of the fasting and feeding groups. Blood samples were collected 72 hours after drug administration. PK parameters were calculated using a noncompartmental method with Phoenix WinNonlin ® . A total of 53 and 51 participants from the fasting and feeding groups, respectively, completed the study. The geometric mean ratio and 90% confidence intervals of the maximum concentration (C max ) and area under the concentration-time curve to the last measurable plasma concentration were 0.9195 (0.8795–0.9614) and 0.8630 (0.8472–0.8791) in the fasting study and 1.0926 (1.0102–1.1818) and 0.9998 (0.9675–1.0332) in the fed study, respectively. The time to reach C max of the enteric-coated tablet compared to that of the capsule was extended by 1 and 3 hours under fasting and fed conditions, respectively. In conclusion, enteric-coated tablets have a higher bioavailability than capsules. In addition, the enteric-coated tablet was smaller than the capsule, making it easier for patients to swallow.