ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2025
Landscape targeted of therapy in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [2010-2024].
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 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.
- Ranking targeted therapies in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: insights from a network meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) remains a formidable challenge with limited therapeutic options. Gemcitabine-based regimens, often combined with novel targeted therapies, are widely employed, yet their comparative efficacy is poorly understood. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy of various targeted drug combinations in previously treated patients with advanced or metastatic PA. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted to retrieve relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2010 and 2024. Studies comparing targeted drug combinations with chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone in advanced/metastatic PA were included in the NMA. The primary outcomes of the study were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), which were assessed using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and presented in a Forest plot. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores were calculated to rank treatment efficacy. Results: In total, 13 RCTs, comprising 4,665 patients and evaluating 13 targeted drug combinations, were included in the NMA. While no statistically significant improvements in OS or PFS were observed for most targeted drug combinations compared with gemcitabine monotherapy, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted agents, particularly nimotuzumab, demonstrated a significant survival benefit in specific subgroups. Similarly, indirect comparisons among targeted therapies revealed no significant differences. The SUCRA rankings identified gemcitabine plus nimotuzumab (Gem-Nimot; 98%) as having the highest probability of ranking first for OS, followed by gemcitabine plus masitinib (Gem-Masit; 80%), gemcitabine plus erlotinib (Gem-Erlot; 70%), and gemcitabine plus sorafenib (Gem-Soraf; 23%). For PFS, Gem-Nimot (98%) ranked highest, followed by Gem-Erlot (73%), gemcitabine plus rigosertib (Gem-Rigos; 57%), and gemcitabine plus sunitinib (Gem-Sunit; 8%). Conclusions: This NMA combining network and forest plot results showed that Gem-Nimot provided significant survival benefits in advanced PA. EGFR-targeted combinations demonstrated a significant advantage in both OS and PFS compared with gemcitabine alone, indicating that EGFR inhibition may provide real clinical benefits.
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.