ArticleSurgery today2020
Clinical impact of additional therapy for residual pancreatic cancer.
Article in Surgery today, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic factors in conversion surgery following nab-paclitaxel with gemcitabine and subsequent chemoradiotherapy for unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer: Results of a dual-center study.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to explore the prognostic significance of the resection margin (R) status of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) or adjuvant chemotherapy (AC).
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 427 consecutive patients, and the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed based on the R status by a propensity score analysis (PSA).
resultsThe R0 ratio of the NAT (+) group was significantly higher than that of the NAT (-) group (97.2% vs. 69.6%, P < 0.0001). Local recurrence was well controlled in the NAT (+) group compared to the NAT (-) group (15.3% vs. 34.1%, P = 0.0013). The PSA revealed no significant survival difference between R0 and R1 resection among those treated with AC (median survival time [MST]: 43.0 vs. 33.3 months, matching hazard ratio [HR]: 1.212, P = 0.5708). Furthermore, the DFS in R0 and R1 resection followed by AC was identical (MST: 20.6 vs. 17.7 months, matching HR: 1.020, P = 0.9482).
conclusionsNAT was a significant predictor of R0 resection. When patients completed AC, there were no marked differences in the OS or DFS between R0 and R1 resection. Our results demonstrated that the clinical impact of the R1 status has waned in the current era of PDAC management.
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.