Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40126570›Full record

SynthesisBJS open2025

Neoadjuvant treatment versus upfront surgery in borderline resectable and resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: meta-analysis.

Luke D Dickerson, Jayden Gittens, Chris Brunning, Richard Jackson, Michael C Schmid, Ainhoa Mielgo, Daniel Palmer, Christopher M Halloran, Paula Ghaneh

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Luke D DickersonInstitute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6281-8658
Jayden GittensInstitute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Chris BrunningInstitute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Richard JacksonInstitute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Michael C SchmidInstitute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Ainhoa MielgoInstitute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Daniel PalmerInstitute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Christopher M HalloranInstitute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Paula GhanehInstitute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPancreatic cancer prognosis remains poor despite advances in adjuvant treatment. Neoadjuvant treatment may improve survival and disease-free survival. This meta-analysis evaluates the outcomes for patients with borderline-resectable (borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer) or resectable disease (resectable pancreatic cancer) in randomized trials of neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery.

methodsThe review was performed according to PRISMA guidance. Articles were included from the start of the database until 1 May 2024. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival, resection rate, R0 rate, N0 rate, vascular resection rate, surgical complications, significant adverse events and rates of adjuvant therapy. Data was collected from study manuscripts or through individual patient-level data extraction. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model with subgroup comparisons for resectability status (resectable pancreatic cancer versus borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer) and treatment modality (chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy).

resultsNine trials were included representing 1194 patients. Four trials recruited borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer, four resectable pancreatic cancer and one both. Four trials reported chemotherapy, four chemoradiotherapy and one both treatments. Neoadjuvant treatment improved overall survival (HR 0.73, 95% c.i. 0.55 to 0.98; P = 0.001) and progression-free survival (HR 0.80, 95% c.i. 0.65 to 0.99; P = 0.041). Subgroup analysis demonstrated neoadjuvant treatment improved overall survival for borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer (HR 0.60, 95% c.i. 0.38 to 0.96) but not resectable pancreatic cancer (HR 0.90, 95% c.i. 0.63 to 1.28). The overall resection rate was lower in neoadjuvant treatment (72.6% versus 80.6%, RR 0.94, 95% c.i. 0.89 to 0.99; P = 0.020). R0 rate (43.8% versus 23.0%, RR 1.35, 95% c.i. 1.16 to 1.57; P = 0.002) and N0 rate (30.9% versus 15.0%, RR 2.03, 95% c.i. 1.50 to 2.74; P = 0.001) was improved in neoadjuvant treatment. Significant adverse events occurred more frequently in neoadjuvant treatment (56.1% versus 27.0%, RR 1.92, 95% c.i. 1.28 to 1.89; P = 0.007).

conclusionNeoadjuvant treatment significantly improves survival in borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer but not resectable pancreatic cancer. It should be regarded as standard of care for these patients. Further work is needed to identify the optimum neoadjuvant regimen and a possible role in the treatment of resectable pancreatic cancer.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalNeoadjuvant TherapyPancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID40126570
PMCPMC11932015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.