Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36576528›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2023

Comparison the efficacy and safety of different neoadjuvant regimens for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Xujia Li, Jinsheng Huang, Chang Jiang, Ping Chen, Qi Quan, Qi Jiang, Shengping Li, Guifang Guo

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xujia Li *VIP Department, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Jinsheng Huang *VIP Department, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Chang JiangVIP Department, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Ping ChenVIP Department, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Qi QuanVIP Department, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Qi JiangVIP Department, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Shengping LiState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China. lishp@sysucc.org.cn.
Guifang GuoVIP Department, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China. guogf@sysucc.org.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6283-7266
Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo date, the optimal recommended specific neoadjuvant regimens for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC or BRPC) remain an unanswered issue.

methodsWe systematically searched the electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different neoadjuvant therapy strategies for RPC or BRPC. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Comprehensive analyses and evaluations were performed using the single-arm, paired, and network meta-analyses.

resultsTwelve RCTs involving 1279 patients with RPC or BRPC were enrolled. The paired meta-analysis showed that neoadjuvant therapy improved OS for both RPC (hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95% c.i. 0.54 to 0.87) and BRPC (HR 0.60, 0.42 to 0.86) compared with upfront surgery (UP-S). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) also improved OS for both RPC (HR 0.63, 0.47 to 0.85) and BRPC (HR 0.44, 0.27 to 0.71), while neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACR) improved OS only for BRPC (HR 0.68, 0.52 to 0.89) and not for RPC (HR 0.79, 0.54 to 1.16). Network meta-analysis found that NAC was superior to NACR in OS for RPC/BRPC (HR 0.58, 0.37 to 0.90). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on modified fluorouracil/folinic acid/irinotecan/oxaliplatin (NAC-mFFX) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on abraxane/gemcitabine (NAC-AG) ranked first and second in OS for RPC/BRPC.

conclusionsBoth RPC and BRPC could obtain OS benefits from neoadjuvant therapy compared with UP-S, and NAC improved OS both in RPC and BRPC while NACR only improved OS in BRPC. Furthermore, NAC was superior to NACR, and NAC-mFFX and NAC-AG might be recommended sequentially as the best neoadjuvant therapy strategies.

Indexed as

Neoadjuvant TherapyPancreatic NeoplasmsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsGemcitabineHumansGemcitabineBorderline resectable pancreatic cancerNeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapyNeoadjuvant chemotherapyNeoadjuvant therapyNetwork meta-analysisResectable pancreatic cancer

Identifiers

PMID36576528
OpenAlexW4313237929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.