ReviewClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2009
Consensus on the treatment of pancreatic cancer in Spain.
Review in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Open-label trial on efficacy and security of treatment with gemcitabine and oral modulation with tegafur and levofolinic acid (GEMTG) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2011Trial
- Quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines on pancreatic cancer: a PRISMA-compliant article.Medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer (PC) represents one of the greatest oncological challenges of our century, due to its high mortality and incidence. A group of Spanish experts in PC treatment reviewed data available on different therapeutic combinations and established consensus on what would be the best strategy in PC management, depending on the stage of the disease. Surgery with complete resection may produce 5-year survival rates of 18-24%, but definitive control is still precarious. In the absence of consensus, the best evidence suggests that adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine for 6 months using the CONKO-001 regime is the treatment of choice after resection of PC for patients with acceptable functional status. This group recommends chemoradiotherapy (CT-RT) in patients with factors for poor loco-regional prognosis. However, chemotherapy is an option for the treatment of locally advanced PC in patients with good general status and in the absence of metastatic disease the recommended treatment is CT-RT followed by gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. A period of chemotherapy followed by consolidation CT-RT may be appropriate, as it allows selection of patients with locally advanced disease who may benefit most from combined treatment. Erlotinib combined with gemcitabine shows significant survival improvement in PC and must be considered an option in the first-line treatment of advanced and metastatic PC. The gemcitabine-erlotinib combination is proposed as the standard treatment for metastatic PC in patients with PS=/>2. In patients with PS<2, gemcitabine-erlotinib is recommended as the first-line treatment option, supported by a maximum degree of evidence, without ruling out other options, such as gemcitabine-oxaliplatin, gemcitabine-capecitabine or gemcitabine alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.