Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37760596›Full record

ReviewCancers2023

Neo-Adjuvant Treatment in Primary Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and PRISMA-Compliant Updated Metanalysis of Oncological Outcomes.

Raffaello Roesel, Letizia Deantonio, Lorenzo Bernardi, Maria Luisa Garo, Pietro Majno-Hurst, Alberto Vannelli, Marco Cefalì, Maria Celeste Palmarocchi, Maria Carla Valli, Guido Pesola and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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 2 countries.

Raffaello RoeselDepartment of Visceral Surgery, Hospital of Lugano (EOC), 6900 Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-1711-7622
Letizia DeantonioRadiation Oncology Department, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), EOC, 6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland.
Lorenzo BernardiDepartment of Visceral Surgery, Hospital of Lugano (EOC), 6900 Lugano, Switzerland.
Maria Luisa GaroIndependent Researcher, 00199 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6308-975X
Pietro Majno-HurstDepartment of Visceral Surgery, Hospital of Lugano (EOC), 6900 Lugano, Switzerland.
Alberto VannelliDepartment of General Surgery, Ospedale Valduce, 22100 Como, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8894-5361
Marco CefalìMedical Oncology Department, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), EOC, 6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-7578-9603
Maria Celeste PalmarocchiMedical Oncology Department, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), EOC, 6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland.
Maria Carla ValliRadiation Oncology Department, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), EOC, 6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland.
Guido PesolaMedical Oncology Department, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), EOC, 6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland.
Alessandra CristaudiDepartment of Visceral Surgery, Hospital of Lugano (EOC), 6900 Lugano, Switzerland.
Sara De DossoFaculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera Italiana (USI), 6900 Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6424-6307
Institute of Oncology Research · CHOspedale regionale di Lugano · CHOspedale Valduce · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite advances in treatment, the prognosis of resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains poor. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has gained great interest in hopes of improving survival. However, the results of available studies based on different treatment approaches, such as chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy, showed contrasting results. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to clarify the benefit of NAT compared to upfront surgery (US) in primarily resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

methodsA PRISMA literature review identified 139 studies, of which 15 were finally included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. All data from eligible articles was summarized in a systematic summary and then used for the meta-analysis. Specifically, we used HR for OS and DFS and risk estimates (odds ratios) for the R0 resection rate and the N+ rate. The risk of bias was correctly assessed according to the nature of the studies included.

resultsFrom the pooled HRs, OS for NAT patients was better, with an HR for death of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72-0.90) at a significance level of less than 1%. In the sub-group analysis, no difference was found between patients treated with chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy exclusively. The meta-analysis of seven studies that reported DFS for NAT resulted in a pooled HR for progression of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.56-0.79) with a significance level of less than 1%. A significantly lower risk of positive lymph nodes (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.32-0.63) and an improved R0 resection rate (OR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.23-2.36) were also found in patients treated with NAT, despite high heterogeneity.

conclusionsNAT is associated with improved survival for patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma; however, the optimal treatment strategy has yet to be defined, and further studies are required.

Indexed as

neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapyneoadjuvant chemotherapyneo-adjuvant treatmentpancreatic adenocarcinomaresectable pancreatic cancer

Identifiers

PMID37760596
PMCPMC10526896
OpenAlexW4386895132

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.