Trial reportAnnals of surgical oncology2024
Results of a Randomized Clinical Study of Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel Versus Gemcitabine Plus S-1 as Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (RCT, CSGO-HBP-015).
Trial report 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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Post hoc subgroup analysis of neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus S1 vs gemcitabine plus nab paclitaxel in elderly resectable/borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus Chemotherapy in Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Preoperative predictors of early recurrence after neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus S-1 in resectable pancreatic cancer: a multicenter study.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Associations between obesity and lymph node metastasis and early recurrence in pancreatic head cancer: A single-center retrospective cohort study.Surgery in practice and science · 2026Article
- Is neoadjuvant therapy necessary for resectable pancreatic cancer? A review of randomized controlled trials to date: a narrative review.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- Surgery based on resectability status of pancreatic cancer: a narrative review.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- The C11orf24 Gene as a Useful Biomarker for Predicting Severe Neutropenia in Modified FOLFIRINOX for Pancreatic Cancer.Cancer science · 2025Article
- Pancreatic Cancer: Pathogenesis and Clinical Studies.MedComm · 2025Review
- Synergistic Inhibition of Pancreatic Cancer Cell Growth and Migration by Gemcitabine and Withaferin A.Biomolecules · 2024Article
- Natural products as inhibitors against pancreatic cancer cell proliferation and invasion: possible mechanisms.American journal of cancer research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimen for patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains uncertain. This trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimens, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GA) and gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS), in patients with resectable/borderline-resectable (R/BR) PDAC. PATIENTS AND
methodsTreatment-naïve patients with R/BR-PDAC were enrolled and randomly allocated. They received two cycles (2 months) of each standard protocol, followed by radical surgery for those without tumor progression in general hospitals belonging to our intergroup. The primary endpoint was to determine the superior regimen on the basis of achieving a 10% increase in the rate of patients with progression-free survival (PFS) at 2 years from allocation.
resultsA total of 100 patients were enrolled, with 94 patients randomly assigned to the GS arm (N = 46) or GA arm (N = 48). The 2-year PFS rates did not show the stipulated difference [GA, 31% (24-38%)/GS, 26% (18-33%)], but the Kaplan-Myer analysis showed significance (median PFS, GA/GS 14 months/9 months, P = 0.048; HR 0.71). Secondary endpoint comparisons yielded the following results (GA/GS arm, P-value): rates of severe adverse events during NAC, 73%/78%, P = 0.55; completion rates of the stipulated NAC, 92%/83%, P = 0.71; resection rates, 85%/72%, P = 0.10; average tumor marker (CA19-9) reduction rates, -50%/-21%, P = 0.01; average numbers of lymph node metastasis, 1.7/3.2, P = 0.04; and median overall survival times, 42/22 months, P = 0.26.
conclusionsThis study found that GA and GS are viable neoadjuvant treatment regimens in R/BR-PDAC. Although the GA group exhibited a favorable PFS outcome, the primary endpoint was not achieved.
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.