ArticleThe oncologist2019
Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX for Patients with Borderline Resectable or Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Results of a Decision Analysis.
Article in The oncologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical Perspective on Proteomic and Glycomic Biomarkers for Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Prediction of Pancreatic Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Pooled it
- Multicenter, randomized comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of 19-gauge stainless steel and nitinol-based needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic masses.United European gastroenterology journal · 2020Trial
- The value of FOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer: balancing efficacy, toxicity, and quality of life.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Advances in neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer: Current trends and future directions.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Surgery and neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: an umbrella review of survival, resection outcomes, and cost-effectiveness.Gland surgery · 2025Review
- Cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Advanced iron oxide nanotheranostics for multimodal and precision treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2022Review
- Article
- Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for borderline resectable and upfront resectable pancreatic cancer increasing overall survival and disease-free survival?Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Pancreatoduodenectomy associated with colonic resections: indications, pitfalls, and outcomes.Updates in surgery · 2021Review
- Extended distal pancreatectomy with thoracic wall resection after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX: Is there a limit of resection for pancreatic cancer after downstaging?Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (nFOLFIRINOX) for patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA PDAC) are unknown. Our objective was to determine whether nFOLFIRINOX is more effective or cost-effective for patients with BR/LA PDAC compared with upfront resection surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEM/CAPE) or gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a decision-analysis to assess the value of nFOLFIRINOX versus GEM/CAPE or GEM using a mathematical simulation model. Model transition probabilities were estimated using published and institutional clinical data. Model outcomes included overall and disease-free survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cost in U.S. dollars, and cost-effectiveness expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the uncertainty of model assumptions.
resultsModel results found median overall survival (34.5/28.0/22.0 months) and disease-free survival (15.0/14.0/13.0 months) were better for nFOLFIRINOX compared with GEM/CAPE and GEM. nFOLFIRINOX was the optimal strategy on an efficiency frontier, resulting in an additional 0.35 life-years, or 0.30 QALYs, at a cost of $46,200/QALY gained compared with GEM/CAPE. Sensitivity analysis found that cancer recurrence and complete resection rates most affected model results, but were otherwise robust. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses found that nFOLFIRINOX was cost-effective 92.4% of the time at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY.
conclusionOur modeling analysis suggests that nFOLFIRINOX is preferable to upfront surgery for patients with BR/LA PDAC from both an effectiveness and cost-effectiveness standpoint. Additional clinical data that further define the long-term effectiveness of nFOLFIRINOX are needed to confirm our results. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Increasingly, neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX has been used for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer with the goal of rendering them resectable and decreasing risk of recurrence. Despite many efforts to show the benefits of neoadjuvant over adjuvant therapies, clinical evidence to guide this decision is largely lacking. Decision-analytic modeling can provide a methodologic platform that integrates the best available data to quantitatively explore clinical decisions by simulating a hypothetical clinical trial. This modeling analysis suggests that neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX is preferable to upfront surgery and adjuvant therapies by various outcome metrics including quality-adjusted life years, overall survival, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
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.