Are older patients less likely to be treated for pancreatic cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Pancreatic cancer is the seventh commonest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Although prognosis is poor, both surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy improve survival. However, it has been suggested that not all pancreatic cancer patients who may benefit from treatment receive it. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the existence of age-related inequalities in receipt of first-line pancreatic cancer treatment. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and grey literature were searched for population-based studies investigating treatment receipt, reported by age, for patients with primary pancreatic cancer from inception until 4th June 2020, and updated 5th August 2021. Studies from countries with universal healthcare were included, to minimise influence of health system-related economic factors. A modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken comparing likelihood of treatment receipt in older versus younger patients. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted. Eighteen papers were included; 12 independent populations were eligible for meta-analysis. In most studies, < 10% of older patients were treated. Older age (generally ≥65) was significantly associated with reduced receipt of any treatment (OR=0.14, 95% CI 0.10-0.21, n = 12 studies), surgery (OR=0.15, 95% CI 0.09-0.24, n = 9 studies) and chemotherapy as a primary treatment (OR=0.13, 95% CI 0.07-0.24, n = 5 studies). The effect of age was independent of methodological quality, patient population or time-period of patient diagnosis and remained in studies with confounder adjustment. The mean quality score of included studies was 6/8. Inequalities in receipt of healthcare interventions across social groups is a recognised concern internationally. This review shows that older age is significantly, and consistently, associated with non-receipt of treatment in pancreatic cancer. However, there are risks and side-effects associated with pancreatic cancer treatment. Further research on what influences patient and professional treatment decision-making is required to better understand these apparent inequalities.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,036 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».