ReviewHeliyon2024
Efficacy and safety of first-line chemotherapies for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeting Oncogenic KRAS Using Peptide Nucleic Acid Oligomers Attached to Cell-Penetrating Peptides.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Review
- Impact of Long-Term Chemotherapy on Outcomes in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Real-World UK Multi-Centre Study.Cancers · 2025Article
- Phase I Study of Sorafenib Combined with Gemcitabine and Carboplatin in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.Oncology and therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a lethal disease, often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Systemic chemotherapy is the primary treatment, but direct comparisons of different regimens are limited. This study conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy and safety of various chemotherapy regimens, with the unique advantage of only including Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: NMA was conducted regarding the searched phase III RCTs by comparing overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) of different chemotherapy protocols. Results: The analysis included 24 studies with 11470 patients across 25 treatment modalities. Among the chemotherapy regimens evaluated, FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) demonstrated the highest OS and PFS, with a risk ratio (logHR) of 4.5 (95 % confidence interval 4.32-4.68) compared to gemcitabine monotherapy. The PEFG regimen (cisplatin, epirubicin, 5-fluorouracil, and gemcitabine) exhibited the highest ORR, with an odds ratio (OR) of 6.67 (2.08-20) compared to gemcitabine monotherapy. Notably, gemcitabine plus sorafenib was associated with the lowest hematological toxicity, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.1 (0.02-0.48). Conclusion: Combination therapies may offer greater benefits but also cause more toxic effects. However, combinations with targeted agents seem to have fewer adverse reactions.
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.