ReviewCancer management and research2022
Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Challenges for Clinical Management.
Review in Cancer management and research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immune-Mitochondrial Crosstalk in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Systematic Identification of Prognostic Biomarkers Through Immune Dictionary FrameworkEndocrine, metabolic & immune disorders drug targets · 2026Article
- Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy With Chemoradiotherapy for Patients With Borderline Resectable or Locally Advanced Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma-Retrospective Review From a Tertiary Care Hospital.Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Review
- Molecular mechanism of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: The heterogeneity of cancer-associated fibroblasts and key signaling pathways.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- ITGB6 promotes pancreatic fibrosis and aggravates the malignant process of pancreatic cancer via JAK2/STAT3 signaling pathway.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a significant worldwide health problem with a poor prognosis. A borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR-PDAC) is a tumor with limited vascular involvement that is technically resectable but with a high risk of positive margins (R1 resection). Objective: To identify the current challenges that exist in the management of BR-PDAC. Methods: A review of the literature was conducted to identify articles discussing the definitions and management of BR-PDAC. Key Findings: Several anatomic definitions of BR-PDAC exist, and there is significant heterogeneity in their utilization across published trials. To improve the odds of a margin negative (R0) resection, a neoadjuvant treatment approach involving chemotherapy with or without radiation is currently preferred. While supporting the efficacy of a neoadjuvant approach in BR-PDAC, the largest published randomized trials have utilized older gemcitabine-based regimens. Recently published Phase II evidence and meta-analyses have supported the use of modern multi-agent regimens such as FOLFIRINOX. The utility of adding radiation to a chemotherapy backbone remains in question. Due to remnant fibrosis and edema following neoadjuvant therapy, accurately selecting patients for resection based on a restaging CT scan is challenging. Furthermore, the role of adjuvant therapy in BR-PDAC patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy needs to be defined. Conclusion: Though progress has been made, the optimal management of BR-PDAC is uncertain. Phase III trials utilizing modern chemotherapeutic regimens are needed to establish a standard of care.
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.