SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Efficacy and toxicities of modified FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) are both recommended as standard first-line regimens for unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC). However, direct head-to-head comparative evidence remains scarce, and prior studies have largely failed to distinguish mFFX from standard FOLFIRINOX (sFFX). We systematically compared mFFX with GnP to evaluate their efficacy and toxicities. Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing mFFX with GnP as first-line therapy for unresectable PC published between January 2013 and May 2026. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using hazard ratios (HRs). Objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were evaluated using risk ratios (RRs). Events of toxicities were assessed using odds ratios (ORs). Results: Five studies (three RCTs and two retrospective studies) involving 1204 patients (578 in the mFFX arm and 626 in the GnP arm) were included. Compared with GnP, mFFX was associated with a shorter OS (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09-1.45; Conclusions: GnP was associated with more favorable OS and PFS than mFFX, a borderline DCR advantage, and distinct toxicity profiles. Given the modest effect size and the limitations of this study, clinical decision-making should integrate patient age, performance status, and anticipated second-line therapy. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420251175959.
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.