Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32839360›Full record

ArticleGut and liver2021

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer According to the Neoadjuvant Chemo-Regimens: Gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX.

Yoo Jin Choi, Yoonhyeong Byun, Jae Seung Kang, Hyeong Seok Kim, Youngmin Han, Hongbeom Kim, Wooil Kwon, Do-Youn Oh, Woo Hyun Paik, Sang Hyub Lee and 6 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Gut and liver, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparative In Vitro Cytotoxicity ofCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: Certainties and controversies.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021
    Review
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

16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yoo Jin ChoiDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-1142-1842
Yoonhyeong ByunDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-4258-891X
Jae Seung KangDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6587-9579
Hyeong Seok KimDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-4711-3603
Youngmin HanDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-0456-7824
Hongbeom KimDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-1595-0135
Wooil KwonDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-4827-7805
Do-Youn OhDepartments of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1663-9901
Woo Hyun PaikDepartments of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8708-3280
Sang Hyub LeeDepartments of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2174-9726
Ji Kon RyuDepartments of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8798-0491
Yong-Tae KimDepartments of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-7843-9705
Kyungbun LeeDepartments of Pathology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8427-3003
Haeryoung KimDepartments of Pathology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-4205-9081
Eui Kyu ChieDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2027-7472
Jin-Young JangDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-3312-0503
Seoul National University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/Aims: Although many studies have reported the promising effect of neoadjuvant treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) to increase resectability, only a few studies have recommended the use of first-line chemotherapeutic agents as neoadjuvant treatment for BRPC. The current study compared clinical outcomes between gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) in patients with BRPC. Methods: In this single-center retrospective study, 100 BRPC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resection from 2008 to 2018 were reviewed. Clinical outcomes included overall survival, resectability, and recurrence patterns after gemcitabine or FOLFIRINOX treatment. Results: For neoadjuvant chemotherapy, gemcitabine was administered to 34 patients and FOLFIRINOX to 66. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was administered to 27 patients (79.4%) treated with gemcitabine and 19 (28.8%) treated with FOLFIRINOX (p<0.001). The 2- and 5-year survival rates (YSRs) were significantly higher after FOLFIRINOX (2YSR, 72.2%; 5YSR, 46.0%) than after gemcitabine (2YSR, 58.4%; 5YSR, 19.1%; p=0.041). The margin negative rate was comparable (gemcitabine, 94.1%; FOLFIRINOX, 92.4%; p=0.753), and the tumor size change in percentage showed only a marginal difference (gemcitabine, 20.5%; FOLFIRINOX, 29.0%; p=0.069). Notably, the metastatic recurrence rate was significantly lower in the FOLFIRINOX group (n=20, 52.6%) than in the gemcitabine group (n=22, 78.6%; p=0.001). The rate of adverse events after chemotherapy was significantly higher with FOLFIRINOX than with gemcitabine (43.9%, 20.6%, respectively; p=0.037). Conclusions: FOLFIRINOX provided more clinical and oncological benefit than gemcitabine, with significantly higher overall survival and lower cumulative recurrence rates in BRPC. However, since FOLFIRINOX causes more adverse effects, the regimen should be individualized based on patient's general condition and clinical status.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaPancreatic NeoplasmsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsDeoxycytidineFluorouracilGemcitabineHumansIrinotecanLeucovorinNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOxaliplatinRetrospective StudiesDeoxycytidineFluorouracilfolfirinoxGemcitabineIrinotecanLeucovorinOxaliplatinNeoadjuvant therapyPancreatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID32839360
PMCPMC8129663
OpenAlexW3080639459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.