ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2025
Benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus S-1 for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2025. 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.
- Article
- Article
- Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with Gemcitabine Plus S-1 in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Cancers · 2025Article
- Updates in the diagnosis and management of ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is usually performed even for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (rPDAC). The present study investigated the benefits of NAC with gemcitabine plus S-1 for rPDAC. The medical records of 170 patients diagnosed as having rPDAC based on preoperative imaging were reviewed retrospectively. Clinicopathological factors in the NAC group were compared with those in the upfront surgery (UpS) group. NAC was administered to 30 of the 170 patients. The period from first visit to treatment in the NAC group was shorter than that in the UpS group (P<0.001). Staging laparoscopy detected occult distant metastases in 12 of the 170 patients (7%), of whom all 12 were in the UpS group. All patients in the NAC group underwent surgical resection (P=0.028). Among the 158 patients who underwent pancreatectomy, the NAC group showed rapid induction of the treatment, non-inferior operative outcomes and a higher R0 rate compared with the UpS group. Rates of early recurrence (within 6 months) after surgery were 10% (3/30) in the NAC group and 29% (37/128) in the UpS group (P=0.021). NAC for rPDAC is beneficial in terms of rapid induction of the treatment, fewer occult metastases, and lower rate of early recurrence.
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.