Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36139520›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Oncologic Benefits of Neoadjuvant Treatment versus Upfront Surgery in Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Hye-Sol Jung, Hyeong Seok Kim, Jae Seung Kang, Yoon Hyung Kang, Hee Ju Sohn, Yoonhyeong Byun, Youngmin Han, Won-Gun Yun, Young Jae Cho, Mirang Lee and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparison of postoperative survival after neoadjuvant treatmentAnnals of surgical treatment and research · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hye-Sol JungDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul 03080, Korea.
Hyeong Seok KimDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul 03080, Korea.
Jae Seung KangDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul 03080, Korea.
Yoon Hyung KangDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul 03080, Korea.
Hee Ju SohnDepartment of Surgery, Chung-Ang University Gwang-Myeong Hospital, Gwangmyeong 14353, Korea.
Yoonhyeong ByunDepartment of Surgery, Uijeongbu Eulji Medical Center, School of Medicine, Eulji University, Daejeon 34824, Korea.
Youngmin HanDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul 03080, Korea.
Won-Gun YunDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul 03080, Korea.
Young Jae ChoDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul 03080, Korea.
Mirang LeeDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul 03080, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3171-2540
Wooil KwonDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul 03080, Korea.
Jin-Young JangDepartment of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul 03080, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-3312-0503
Seoul National University · KRChung-Ang University · KREulji University · KR

Funding

Ministry of Science ICT and Future Planning 2022R1A2C2011122
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) followed by surgery is the primary treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC). However, there is limited high-level evidence supporting the efficacy of NAT in BRPC. PubMed was searched to identify studies that compared the survival between BRPC patients who underwent NAT and those who underwent upfront surgery (UFS). The overall survival (OS) was compared using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. A total of 1204 publications were identified, and 19 publications with 21 data sets (2906 patients; NAT, 1516; UFS, 1390) were analyzed. Two randomized controlled trials and two prospective studies were included. Thirteen studies performed an ITT analysis, while six presented the data of resected patients. The NAT group had significantly better OS than the UFS group in the ITT analyses (HR: 0.63, 95% CI = 0.53-0.76) and resected patients (HR: 0.68, 95% CI = 0.60-0.78). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine or S-1 and FOLFIRINOX improved the survival outcomes. Among the resected patients, the R0 resection and node-negativity rates were significantly higher in the NAT group. NAT improved the OS, R0 resection rate, and node-negativity rate compared with UFS. Standardizing treatment regimens based on high-quality evidence is fundamental for developing an optimal protocol.

Indexed as

borderline resectablemeta-analysisneoadjuvantpancreatic cancerprognosis

Identifiers

PMID36139520
PMCPMC9497278
OpenAlexW4295106638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.