ArticleBMC cancer2025
Efficacy of second-line treatment for gemcitabine-refractory unresectable pancreatic cancer in a real-world setting.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the benefits and identify the best second-line treatment regimen for gemcitabine-refractory unresectable pancreatic cancers. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective analysis included 144 patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer who underwent a gemcitabine-based regimen as the first-line treatment. 57, 37, and 50 patients received oxaliplatin-, irinotecan-based, and modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) regimens, respectively. The primary endpoint of this study was progression-free survival (PFS) and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), response rate, and treatment-related toxicity.
resultsThere were no significant differences in median PFS (mPFS) (4.6 months vs. 2.9 months, P = 0.627, HR = 1.128, 95%CI 0.693-1.836) and median OS (mOS) (6.5 months vs. 10.2 months, P = 0.108, HR = 0.664, 95%CI 0.392-1.125) between irinotecan- and oxaliplatin-based groups. The mOS was significantly longer in the mFFX group than in the Iri/Oxa group (pooled the irinotecan- and oxaliplatin-based groups) (10.7 months vs. 8.8 months, P = 0.035, HR = 1.560, 95%CI 1.037-2.347), whereas no statistical difference was observed in mPFS between the two groups (4.4 months vs. 4.2 months, P = 0.222, HR = 1.247, 95%CI 0.866-1.797). However, after propensity score matching adjustment, no significant differences were found in mPFS (3.5 months vs. 4.2 months, P = 0.290, HR = 0.763, 95%CI 0.448-1.297) and mOS (8.5 months vs. 12.4 months, P = 0.464, HR = 1.262, 95%CI 0.673-2.367) between mFFX and Iri/Oxa groups. Survival analysis by performance status showed that patients with good performance status lived longer than those with poor performance status (10.8 months vs. 7.7 months, P = 0.000, HR = 2.194, 95%CI 1.408-3.420), suggesting that patient performance status, rather than the treatment regimen, was the primary factor affecting overall survival during second-line treatment.
conclusionsIn the second-line treatment of pancreatic cancer, the efficacy of common treatment regimens is not significantly different, while a good performance status is the key factor influencing survival. Thus, it is recommended that supportive care be enhanced concurrently with systemic therapy in patients with pancreatic cancer.
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.