ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021
A proposal to modify the 8th edition of the UICC staging system for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preoperative Biomarker Panel With Fibrinogen, FVIII, and CA 19-9 as a Tool for Prognostic Evaluation in Neoadjuvant-Treated Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- FecalGastro hep advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to validate and improve the 8th edition of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) staging system for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
methodsPrognostic impact of the pathological tumor (pT) and lymph node (pN) stages between the 7th and 8th editions were compared using a single-center cohort of 311 patients who underwent curative pancreatic resection for PDAC.
resultsApplying the 7th edition T staging system resulted in a clustering of pT3 cases (92.3%) and failed to show significant prognostic differences between the three pT stages. However, applying the 8th edition T staging system yielded a more even distribution and resulted in an excellent prognostic separation between the pT stages based on decreases in median survival (month [pT1: 69.4, pT2: 27.6, pT3: 16.7], p=0.001). In pN staging system, the 8th edition provided more precise prognostication in median survival (month [pN0: 41.7, pN1: 25.6, pN2: 14.4], p<0.001). Moreover, in the 8th edition pT2 category, patients with portal vein invasion (PVI) showed significantly worse survival than those without PVI (median survival months [without PVI: 38.2, with PVI: 17.1], p<0.001).
conclusionsThe 8th edition provides a more even distribution among stages and better stage discriminations compared to the 7th edition. The 8th edition pT2 category should be subdivided according to PVI status of the patient to allow for more precise patient prognostication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33855599What 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.