ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX versus other first-line chemotherapy regimens in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a retrospective study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (Gem-NabP), modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX), and NALIRIFOX are all recommended by current clinical guidelines as first-line treatment options for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC), the optimal regimen in real-world practice remains uncertain. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of different first-line chemotherapy regimens for mPDAC. Design: This was a single-center retrospective study. We included 215 patients with previously untreated mPDAC who received first-line chemotherapy at our institution between September 2023 and February 2025: Gem-NabP Methods: The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR), while overall survival (OS) was a secondary endpoint. Tumor response was evaluated according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. Exploratory subgroup analyses were also performed. Results: NALIRIFOX showed the most favorable efficacy profile, with a median PFS of 9.0 months, a 6-month OS rate of 92.0%, an ORR of 30.77%, and a DCR of 89.74%, compared with 3.5 months, 74.6%, 18.18%, and 64.46% in the Gem-NabP group and 5.0 months, 82.6%, 16.36%, and 76.36% in the mFOLFIRINOX group, respectively (PFS, Conclusion: In this retrospective single-center cohort, NALIRIFOX was associated with longer PFS and favorable short-term survival, with manageable toxicity. These findings require validation in larger prospective multicenter studies.
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.