ArticleClinical Medicine Insights. Oncology2026
Beta-Blocker Use and Survival Outcomes in Pancreatic Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology, 2026. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pancreatic cancers (PCs)-especially pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)-are among the deadliest digestive system cancers, with a 5 year survival of approximately 13%. Beta blockers (BBs), which inhibit beta-adrenergic receptor-mediated angiogenesis and immunosuppression, are potential candidates for oncological drug repurposing. However, the clinical evidence is inconsistent, and robust subgroup analyses are lacking. This study systematically evaluated the association between BB use and survival in PC patients. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were conducted to clarify differential clinical effects. Methods: This study was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251106076). The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify observational studies on all-cause mortality (ACM) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using RevMan 5.3 and R, and the results were presented in forest plots. Results: This analysis included nine retrospective cohort studies involving over 30 000 patients. There were no significant associations between BB use and ACM (HR = 1.07; 95% CI [0.95-1.20]) or CSM (HR = 0.89; 95% CI [0.70-1.14]). However, subgroup analysis revealed that BB use was significantly associated with increased ACM risk in surgical patients (HR = 1.18; 95% CI [1.05-1.31]). Moreover, non-selective BB (NSBB) use significantly reduced CSM risk (HR = 0.81; 95% CI [0.68-0.97]). Both sensitivity and trim-and-fill analyses confirmed the robustness and consistency of these results. Conclusions: This meta-analysis presents the first systematic evidence regarding the potential role of NSBBs in mitigating CSM, thus providing support for their potential repurposing. In addition, these findings indicate that perioperative BB use may be associated with increased ACM risk, highlighting the need for careful perioperative risk assessment. To further substantiate these findings, future prospective studies should explore combined approaches, particularly those integrating immune or anti-angiogenic therapies.
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.