ArticleJournal of gastroenterology2026
Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in patients over 80 years old based on a nationwide clinical database.
Article in Journal of gastroenterology, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe proportion of elderly patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is increasing. This study aimed to investigate whether neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) and adjuvant therapy (AT) are effective in PDAC patients over 80 years of age.
methodsPatients over 80 years of age who underwent pancreatectomy for PDAC in 2012-2020 and were recorded in the Japan Society for Gastroenterological Surgery and Japan Pancreas Society databases were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to determine whether NAT and AT contribute to survival. In patients treated from 2017 onward, resectability status was incorporated into the PSM model.
resultsOf the 3438 patients in the study population, the primary resectability-adjusted PSM analysis of NAT among patients treated from 2017 onward compared 274 matched pairs. The MST was 30.5 (95% CI, 26.2-NA) and 29.0 (95% CI, 22.3-38.0) months in the NAT and non-NAT groups, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.205 [stratified log-rank]). In a complementary full-cohort PSM analysis, 393 matched pairs were compared; the MST was 32.9 and 30.2 months, respectively, with no significant difference. In a PSM-matched comparison of 1213 patients who received AT versus 1213 patients who did not, MST was longer in the former (30.7 [95% CI, 27.3-33.2] versus 23.7 [95% CI, 21.8-26.1] months, p < 0.001 [stratified log-rank]).
conclusionNAT did not show a statistically significant survival benefit in PDAC patients aged 80 years or older, however, this finding should be interpreted with caution. In contrast, AT was associated with improved survival.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42463583What 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.