ReviewOncoTargets and therapy2019
Comparison of neoadjuvant therapy and upfront surgery in resectable pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Review in OncoTargets and therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the upfront surgery and neoadjuvant therapy in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Preoperative frailty as a predictive factor for postoperative complications in patients with pancreatic cancer.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2023Article
- Prognostic analysis of uveal melanoma based on the characteristic genes of M2-type macrophages in the tumor microenvironment.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- An integrative multi-omics analysis based on disulfidptosis-related prognostic signature and distinct subtypes of clear cell renal cell carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic radical resection following neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A retrospective study.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Article
- Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy and Prognosis in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.Gut and liver · 2022Article
- Neoadjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Where Do We Go?Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Article
- Neoadjuvant Treatment for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy?Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Effect of neoadjuvant radiotherapy on survival of non-metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a SEER database analysis.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Article
- Open and Minimal Approaches to Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe role of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC) remains controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical differences between NAT and upfront surgery in RPC. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases. Only patients with RPC who underwent tumor resection and received adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment were enrolled. The OR or HR and 95% CIs were calculated employing fixed-effects or random-effects models. The HR and its 95% CI were extracted from each article that provided survival curve. Publication bias was estimated using funnel plots and Egger's regression test.
resultsIn total, eleven studies were included with 9,386 patients. Of these patients, 2,508 (26.7%) received NAT. For patients with RPC, NAT resulted in an increased R0 resection rate (OR=1.89; 95% CI=1.26-2.83) and a reduced positive lymph node rate (OR=0.34; 95% CI=0.31-0.37) compared with upfront surgery. Nevertheless, patients receiving NAT did not exhibit a significantly increased overall survival (OS) time (HR=0.91; 95% CI=0.79-1.05).
conclusionIn patients with RPC, R0 resection rate and positive lymph node rate after NAT were superior to those of patients with upfront surgery. The NAT group exhibited no significant effect on OS time when compared with the upfront surgery group. However, this conclusion requires more clinical evidence to improve its credibility.
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.