ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2021
Dosing Schedules of Gemcitabine and nab-Paclitaxel for Older Adults With Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer.
Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- NALIRIFOX versus gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in Chinese patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a randomized, open-label phase II trial.Nature communications · 2026Trial
- Polypharmacy in Elderly Patients Receiving First-Line Treatment for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Analysis of Potential Drug-Drug Interactions and Outcome.Oncology research · 2026Article
- Comparing Combination vs Monochemotherapy in Late-Elderly Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Insights From a Single-Center Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GA) is a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPDAC). The traditional dosing schedule of GA is days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Frequently, older adults are given a modified dosing schedule using 2 doses per cycle because of toxicity. We retrospectively analyzed treatment patterns and outcomes of older adults with mPDAC given these 2 dosing schedules. Methods: Patients 65 years or older with mPDAC treated with GA in a nationwide real-world database between January 1, 2014, and May 31, 2019, were included. Demographic, disease, and treatment information were collected. Patients were grouped by dosing at treatment initiation (traditional vs modified dosing schedules). Endpoints were time on treatment (TOT) and overall survival (OS) in patients receiving at least 2 cycles. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: 1317 patients were included (traditional dosing schedule: n = 842; modified dosing schedule: n = 475). Median age at diagnosis was 72 and 73 years for traditional and modified dosing schedules, respectively ( Conclusion: In this real-world cohort, treatment of older mPDAC patients with a modified dosing schedule of GA resulted in shorter TOT and worse OS vs a traditional dosing schedule. With the caveats of potential confounding that exist in a nonrandomized retrospective database, these results suggest that dose intensity may be important, and prospective studies are necessary to ensure we treat our patients most effectively.
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.