ReviewWorld journal of oncology2023
Folfirinox vs. Gemcitabine + Nab-Paclitaxel as the First-Line Treatment for Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in World journal of oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimization of first-line treatment selection in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma using artificial intelligence.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Comparative Proteomic Profiling of Responses to Standard Systemic Treatment Regimens in Pancreatic Cancer.Cells · 2026Article
- Real-world comparative effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in metastatic pancreatic cancer: prognostic impact of metastatic site and burden in a Middle Eastern cohort.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- FOLFIRINOX vs. Gemcitabine Nab-Paclitaxel in Pancreatic Cancer: A Real-World Single-Center Analysis of Efficacy and Safety.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Article
- Multidisciplinary Therapeutic Approaches to Pancreatic Cancer According to the Resectability Status.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer-Current Landscape and Future Directions.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
- Enhancing Neoadjuvant Virotherapy's Effectiveness by Targeting Stroma to Improve Resectability in Pancreatic Cancer.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Survival benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy after conversion surgery in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Insights into autotaxin- and lysophosphatidate-mediated signaling in the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumor microenvironment: a survey of pathway gene expression.American journal of cancer research · 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
13 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The efficacy and safety of Folfirinox (FFX) or gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GnP) to be used as the first-line drugs for pancreatic cancer (PC) is yet to be established. We conducted an analysis of retrospective studies to assess the efficacy and safety of these two regimens by comparing their survival and safety outcomes in patients with PC. Methods: We conducted an extensive review of two electronic databases from inception till February 2023 to include all the relevant studies that compared FFX with GnP published and unpublished work. Retrospective studies were only included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled using hazard ratios (HRs), while objective response rate (ORR) and safety outcomes were pooled using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random effects model. Results: A total of 7,030 patients were identified in a total of 21 articles that were shortlisted. Pooled results concluded that neither FFX nor GnP was associated to increase the OS time (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.83 - 1.04; P = 0.0001); however, FFX was more likely associated with increased PFS when compared to GnP (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81 - 0.97; P < 0.0001). ORR proved to be non-significant between the two regimens (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.64 - 1.27; P = 0.15). Safety outcomes included neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia and diarrhea. GnP was more associated with diarrhea (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.22 - 3.15; P = 0.001), while FFX was seen to cause anemia (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51 - 0.98; P = 0.10) in PC patients. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were in-significant in the two drug regimens (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.92 - 1.31; P = 0.33 and OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60 - 1.13; P = 0.23, respectively). Conclusion: FFX and GnP showed a significant difference in increasing the PFS, while no difference was observed while measuring OS. Safety outcomes showed that FFX and GnP shared similar safety profiles as FFX was associated with hematological outcomes, while GnP was more associated with non-hematological outcomes.
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.