ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2024
Prognostic Significance of Biologic Factors in Patients with a Modest Radiologic Response to Neoadjuvant Treatment for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancers: Impact of the Combination Index of Sialyl-Lewis Antigen-Related Tumor Markers.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrepancy Between Radiographic and Pathological Response Assessment in Neoadjuvant Treatment for Pancreatic Cancer: A Comparison Between Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2025Article
- ASO Author Reflections: A Novel Combination Index of Sialyl-Lewis Antigen-Related Tumor Markers Enhances Predictive Significance in Patients with a Modest Radiological Response to Neoadjuvant Treatment for Pancreatic Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAppropriate re-evaluation after neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) is important for optimal treatment selection. Nonetheless, determining the operative eligibility of patients with a modest radiologic response remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the prognostic significance of biologic factors for patients showing a modest radiologic response to NAT and investigate the tumor markers (TMs), CA19-9 alone, DUPAN-II alone, and their combination, to create an index that combines these sialyl-Lewis antigen-related TMs associated with treatment outcomes.
methodsThis study enrolled patients deemed to have a "stable disease" by RECIST classification with slight progression (tumor size increase rate, ≤20%) as their radiologic response after NAT. A sialyl-Lewis-related index (sLe index), calculated by adding one fourth of the serum DUPAN-II value to the CA19-9 value, was created. The prognostic significances of CA19-9, DUPAN-II, and the sLe index were assessed in relation to postoperative outcomes.
resultsAn sLe index lower than the cutoff value (45.25) was significantly associated with favorable disease-free survival. Moreover, the post-NAT sLe index had a higher area under the curve value for recurrence within 24 months than the post-NAT levels of CA19-9 or DUPAN-II alone. Multivariable analysis showed that a post-NAT sLe index higher than 45.25 was the single independent predictive factor for recurrence within 24 months.
conclusionsAdditional evaluation of biologic factors can potentially enhance patient selection, particularly for patients showing a limited radiologic response to NAT. The authors' index is a simple indicator for the biologic evaluation of multiple combined sialyl-Lewis antigen-related TMs and may offer a better predictive significance.
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.