ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus Chemotherapy in Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Article in Annals of surgical 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.
- ASO Author Reflections: It is Time to Define an Optimal Duration of Neoadjuvant Treatment in Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study was designed to evaluate the comparative outcomes of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACR) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
methodsSystematic search of electronic data sources was conducted, and all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating outcomes of NACR and NAC in patients with PDAC were considered. Surgical resection rate, R0 resection, radiological response to treatment, and 1-5 years and overall survival were the evaluated outcome measures.
resultsTwenty-four RCTs reporting a total of 2273 patients who received NACR (n = 1152) and NAC (n = 1121) for PDAC were included. Both NACR and NAT were associated with comparable rate of partial response [11.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-19.8) vs. 20.1% (95% CI 11.7-28.6)], stable disease [41.2% (95% CI 28-54.5%) vs. 47.1% (95% CI 30.3-63.8%)], or disease progression [17.3% (95% CI 4.1-30.5%) vs. 25.2% (95% CI 12.6-37.9%)] during treatment. The comparative meta-analyses demonstrated that there was no significant difference in surgical resection rate (68.9% vs. 71.5%, odds ratio [OR] 0.96; 95% CI 0.89-1.05, p = 0.39), R0 resection (70.7% vs. 64.2%, OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.90-1.20, p = 0.58), 1 year (71.3% vs. 72.4%, OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81-1.20, p = 0.90), 3 years (21.9% vs. 21.4%, OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.68-1.29, p = 0.68), and overall survival (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.61-1.01, p = 0.06) between NACR and NAC. Subgroup analyses on resectable or borderline resectable PDAC were consistent with the main analyses.
conclusionsThe meta-analysis of best available evidence (level 1a) demonstrates that NACR and NAC are associated with comparable surgical resection rate, R0 resection, and survival in patients with PDAC. The available evidence may be subject to type 2 error and future randomised evidence is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42545416What 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.