Observational studyLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
Upfront surgery vs. neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer with venous involvement: a multicenter retrospective analysis.
Observational study in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe benefits of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for pancreatic cancer (PC) with portal venous involvement remain debated. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of surgery with or without NAT in patients with PC with suspected venous involvement.
methodsA multicentre retrospective cohort study compared patients who underwent upfront surgery (US) or surgery following NAT for PC with suspicion of venous involvement between 2007 and 2017. The primary endpoints were short-term morbidity and mortality, overall survival and disease-free survival.
resultsWe included 361 patients who received NAT and 690 patients who underwent US at nine centres. NAT patients had greater suspicion of venous involvement (96.9% vs. 83.6%, p<0.001), but underwent fewer venous resections (53.7% vs. 79.3%, p<0.001), and had less venous infiltration (52.3% vs 65.9%, p<0.001), perineural invasion (75.2% vs. 90.1%, p<0.001), angioinvasion (59.9% vs. 76.7%, p<0.001), lymph node involvement (60.6% vs. 83.6%, p<0.001) and R1 resections (44.7% vs. 67.2%, p<0.001) than patients who underwent US. Among patients undergoing venous resection, major postoperative complications were similar between the groups. However, without venous resection, NAT patients had significantly fewer (Clavien-Dindo ≥IIIb) postoperative complications (10.8% vs. 24.4%, p=0.02), fewer reoperations (3.0% vs. 11.2%, p=0.006), and lower 90-day mortality (2.4% vs. 7.7%, p=0.03). NAT patients showed improved survival (27.3 vs. 21.2 months, p=0.003).
conclusionsNAT maybe beneficial for patients with PC with venous involvement, as it might allow better patient selection for surgery and is associated with fewer major postoperative complications and better overall survival.
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.