Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18577990›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2008

Meta-analyses of chemotherapy for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer: results of secondary end points analyses.

A Sultana, C Tudur Smith, D Cunningham, N Starling, J P Neoptolemos, P Ghaneh

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pancreatic cancer.BMJ clinical evidence · 2010
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Polymeric immunoglobulin receptor (pIgR) in cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Dual delivery nanoscale device for miR-345 and gemcitabine co-delivery to treat pancreatic cancer.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

A SultanaCRUK Liverpool Cancer Trials Unit, Cancer Research Centre, 200 London Road, Liverpool, L3 9TA, UK.
C Tudur Smith
D Cunningham
N Starling
J P Neoptolemos
P Ghaneh

Funding

Cancer Research UKMedical Research Council G9900432
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In advanced pancreatic cancer, level one evidence has established a significant survival advantage with chemotherapy, compared to best supportive care. The treatment-associated toxicity needs to be evaluated. This study examines the secondary outcome measures for chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer using meta-analyses. A systematic review was undertaken employing Cochrane methodology, with search of databases, conference proceedings and trial registers. The secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS)/time to progression (TTP) (summarised using the hazard ratio (HR)), response rate and toxicity (summarised using relative risk). There was no significant advantage of 5FU combinations vs 5FU alone for TTP (HR=1.02; 95% CI=0.85-1.23) and toxicity. Progression-free survival (HR 0.78; CI 0.70-0.88), TTP (HR=0.85; 95% CI=0.72-0.99) and overall response rate (RR=0.56; 95% CI=0.46-0.68) were significantly better for gemcitabine combination chemotherapy, but offset by the greater grade 3/4 toxicity thrombocytopenia (RR=1.94; 95% CI=1.32-2.84), leucopenia (RR=1.46; 95% CI=1.15-1.86), neutropenia (RR=1.48; 95% CI=1.07-2.05), nausea (RR=1.77; 95% CI=1.37-2.29), vomiting (RR=1.64; 95% CI=1.24-2.16) and diarrhoea (RR=2.73; 95% CI=1.87-3.98). There is no significant advantage on secondary end point analyses for administering 5FU in combination over 5FU alone. There is improved PFS/TTP and response rate, with gemcitabine-based combinations, although this comes with greater toxicity.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsDeoxycytidineDisease ProgressionDrug Therapy, CombinationFluorouracilGemcitabineHumansNeoplasm StagingPancreatic NeoplasmsSurvival AnalysisAntineoplastic AgentsDeoxycytidineFluorouracilGemcitabine

Identifiers

PMID18577990
PMCPMC2453014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.