Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29017581›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2017

Neoadjuvant treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 5520 patients.

Mashaal Dhir, Gautam K Malhotra, Davendra P S Sohal, Nicholas A Hein, Lynette M Smith, Eileen M O'Reilly, Nathan Bahary, Chandrakanth Are

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

75 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 139 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Locally Advanced Pancreas Cancer, Is There a Role for Surgery?The Surgical clinics of North America · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Mashaal DhirDepartment of Surgery, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, 13210, USA.
Gautam K MalhotraDepartment of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 98198, USA.
Davendra P S SohalDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Nicholas A HeinDepartment of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198, USA.
Lynette M SmithDepartment of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198, USA.
Eileen M O'ReillyDavid M. Rubenstein Center for Pancreatic Cancer, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Nathan BaharyDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, 15232, USA.
Chandrakanth AreDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 98198, USA. care@unmc.edu.
University of Nebraska Medical Center · USCleveland Clinic · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USSUNY Upstate Medical University · USUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent years have seen standardization of the anatomic definitions of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and increasing utilization of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). The aim of the current review was to summarize the evidence for NAT in pancreatic adenocarcinoma since 2009, when consensus criteria for resectable (R), borderline resectable (BR), and locally advanced (LA) disease were endorsed.

methodsPubMed search was undertaken along with extensive backward search of the references of published articles to identify studies utilizing NAT for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Abstracts from ASCO-GI 2014 and 2015 were also searched.

resultsA total of 96 studies including 5520 patients were included in the final quantitative synthesis. Pooled estimates revealed 36% grade ≥ 3 toxicities, 5% biliary complications, 21% hospitalization rate and low mortality (0%, range 0-16%) during NAT. The majority of patients (59%) had stable disease. On an intention-to-treat basis, R0-resection rates varied from 63% among R patients to 23% among LA patients. R0 rates were > 80% among all patients who were resected after NAT. Among R and BR patients who underwent resection after NAT, median OS was 30 and 27.4 months, respectively.

conclusionsThe current study summarizes the recent literature for NAT in pancreatic adenocarcinoma and demonstrates improving outcomes after NAT compared to those historically associated with a surgery-first approach for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaBiliary Tract DiseasesCombined Modality TherapyHospitalizationHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyPancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeNeoadjuvant therapyOutcomesPancreatic adenocarcinomaPancreatic cancerSurvival

Identifiers

PMID29017581
PMCPMC5634869
OpenAlexW2761846603

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.