ReviewGland surgery2025
Surgery and neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: an umbrella review of survival, resection outcomes, and cost-effectiveness.
Review in Gland surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with synchronous liver metastases: a study based on the SEER database and an external cohort.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Adjusted gemcitabine plus S-1 regimen as first‑line chemotherapy in unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer: a long-term survival case report.AME case reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis, particularly for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has emerged as a promising strategy to improve resectability and survival outcomes in LAPC. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the effectiveness of NAT and surgical interventions in LAPC, focusing on resection and R0 resection rates and overall survival (OS). Methods: This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024565454). A comprehensive literature search was conducted in June 2024 across four databases. Studies reporting on NAT and/or surgery in LAPC were selected, and the methodological quality of each meta-analysis was assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed comparing FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin calcium, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel as NAT regimens. Results: Nine systematic reviews with meta-analyses published between 2014 and 2023 were included. They covered a variety of treatment strategies, including NAT followed by resection, induction therapy comparing FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, and different surgical techniques. FOLFIRINOX demonstrated significantly higher R0 resection rates [risk ratio (RR): 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60-0.97, P<0.05] and improved OS compared to gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel [hazard ratio (HR): 0.68, 95% CI: 0.46-0.99, P<0.05]. Surgical resection following NAT was associated with significantly better survival outcomes than induction therapy alone or palliative treatments. The CEA revealed that FOLFIRINOX, despite its higher cost, yielded an incremental OS benefit of 5.19 months and maintained a 60-63% probability of being cost-effective within a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per additional month of OS gained. Conclusions: This review highlights the superior efficacy of FOLFIRINOX as a NAT regimen for LAPC, particularly in increasing resectability and R0 resection rates. Combining NAT with surgery offers significant survival benefits, making this strategy a standard of care for eligible LAPC patients.
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.