ArticleAnnals of surgery2025
Evaluation of Short and Long-term Outcomes After Resection in Patients With Locally Advanced Versus (Borderline) Resectable Pancreatic Cancer.
Article in Annals of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes after surgery for locally advanced pancreatic cancer compared to borderline and upfront resectable pancreatic cancer.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
- Review
- Pancreatectomy with arterial resection following neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX: A single-institution experience.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
17 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate short and long-term outcomes after pancreatectomy in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) compared with patients with (borderline) resectable pancreatic cancer [(B)RPC].
backgroundSelected patients diagnosed with LAPC are increasingly undergoing resection after induction chemotherapy. To evaluate the benefit of this treatment approach, it is helpful to compare outcomes in resected patients with primary LAPC to outcomes in resected patients with primary (B)RPC.
methodsTwo prospectively maintained nationwide databases were used for this study. Patients with (B)RPC undergoing upfront tumor resection and patients with resected LAPC after induction therapy were included. Outcomes were postoperative pancreas-specific complications, 90-day mortality, pathologic outcomes, disease-free interval, and overall survival.
resultsOverall, 879 patients were included; 103 with LAPC (12%) and 776 with (B)RPC (88%). Patients with LAPC had a lower World Health Organization performance score and ageadjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index. Postoperative pancreas-specific complications were comparable between groups, except delayed gastric emptying grade C, which occurred more often in patients with LAPC (9% vs 3%, P = 0.03). Ninety-day mortality was comparable. About half of the patients in both groups [54% in LAPC vs 48% in (B)RPC, P = 0.21] had a radical resection (R0). Disease-free interval was 13 months in both groups ( P = 0.12) and overall survival from the date of diagnosis was 24 months in patients with LAPC and 19 months in patients with (B)RPC ( P = 0.34).
conclusionsIn our nationwide prospective databases, pancreas-specific complications, mortality, and survival in patients with LAPC after pancreatectomy are comparable with those undergoing resection for (B)RPC. These outcomes suggest that postoperative morbidity and mortality after tumor resection in carefully selected patients with LAPC are acceptable.
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.