ArticleCancer medicine2021
Perception versus reality: A National Cohort Analysis of the surgery-first approach for resectable pancreatic cancer.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Role of CA 19.9 in the Management of Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: State of the Art and Future Perspectives.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Perception versus reality: A National Cohort Analysis of the surgery-first approach for resectable pancreatic cancer.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAlthough surgical resection is necessary, it is not sufficient for long-term survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We sought to evaluate survival after up-front surgery (UFS) in anatomically resectable PDAC in the context of three critical factors: (A) margin status; (B) CA19-9; and (C) receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy.
methodsThe National Cancer Data Base (2010-2015) was reviewed for clinically resectable (stage 0/I/II) PDAC patients. Surgical margins, pre-operative CA19-9, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy were evaluated. Patient overall survival was stratified based on these factors and their respective combinations. Outcomes after UFS were compared to equivalently staged patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis.
resultsTwelve thousand and eighty-nine patients were included (n = 9197 UFS, n = 2892 ITT neoadjuvant). In the UFS cohort, only 20.4% had all three factors (median OS = 31.2 months). Nearly 1/3rd (32.7%) of UFS patients had none or only one factor with concomitant worst survival (median OS = 14.7 months). Survival after UFS decreased with each failing factor (two factors: 23 months, one factor: 15.5 months, no factors: 7.9 months) and this persisted after adjustment. Overall survival was superior in the ITT-neoadjuvant cohort (27.9 vs. 22 months) to UFS.
conclusionDespite the perceived benefit of UFS, only 1-in-5 UFS patients actually realize maximal survival when known factors highly associated with outcomes are assessed. Patients are proportionally more likely to do worst, rather than best after UFS treatment. Similarly staged patients undergoing ITT-neoadjuvant therapy achieve survival superior to the majority of UFS patients. Patients and providers should be aware of the false perception of 'optimal' survival benefit with UFS in anatomically resectable PDAC.
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.