SynthesisBMC cancer2018
Meta-analysis on resected pancreatic cancer: a comparison between adjuvant treatments and gemcitabine alone.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a novel multi-functional integrated bioconjugate effectively targeting K-Ras mutant pancreatic cancer.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2022Article
- TRAIL receptors are expressed in both malignant and stromal cells in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.American journal of cancer research · 2021Article
- Therapeutic targeting of pancreatic cancer stem cells by dexamethasone modulation of the MKP-1-JNK axis.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPancreatic cancer is a highly malignant tumor with a poor prognosis. Chemotherapy such as gemcitabine is still an important treatment. Gemcitabine (Gem) may prolong survival time and delay the development of recurrent disease after complete resection of pancreatic cancer. Currently, some control studies have been performed between certain drugs and gemcitabine monotherapy after pancreatic cancer surgery, but the outcomes were uncertain. Here, we implemented meta-analysis to compare the efficacy between adjuvant treatments and gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer.
methodsPubMed, Embase and the Central Registry of Controlled Trials of the Cochrane Library searches were undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Date of search ranged from January 1997 to December 2017. The meta-analysis included six RCTs. The major endpoints involved overall survival (OS), disease-free survival/progress free survival/relapse-free survival (DFS/PFS/RFS) and grade 3-4 toxicity.
resultsPooled meta-analytic estimates were derived using random-effects model. Subgroup analysis used fixed-effects model. The outcome showed that there was no difference in OS (hazard ratio (HR), 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.07; P = 0.19) and DFS (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.02; P = 0.08) between the adjuvant treatments group (fluorouracil+folinic acid, S-1, gemcitabine+capecitabine, gemcitabine+erlotinib and gemcitabine+uracil/tegafur) and Gem monotherapy group. However, the subgroup analysis showed that only S-1 chemotherapy, which is an oral fluoropyrimidine agent containing tegafur, gimeracil and oteracil, was significant in OS (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.74; P < 0.0001) and DFS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.75; P < 0.00001) compared with Gem alone. Toxicity analysis showed there was an increased incidence of grade 3/4 diarrhea (risk ratio (RR), 5.11; 95%CI, 3.24-8.05; P < 0.00001) and decreased incidence of grade 3/4 leucopenia (RR, 0.55; 95%CI, 0.31-0.98; P = 0.04), thrombocytopenia (RR, 0.61; 95%CI, 0.39-0.97; P = 0.04) in adjuvant treatments group. Neutropenia (RR, 0.69; 95%CI, 0.36-1.29; P = 0.24) and fatigue (RR, 1.29; 95%CI, 0.95-1.77; P = 0.11) for patients between the two groups were not significantly different.
conclusionsIn our meta-analysis, a significant survival benefit is only observed in the S-1 regimen, but the results are yet to be determined. Optimal cytotoxicity or targeted drug regimens need further validation in clinical trials in the future.
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.