MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Adjuvant chemotherapy and outcome in patients (pts) with nodal (N-) and resection margin negative (R0) pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PC): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2017· review· en· W2625620449 on OpenAlexaff
Nicola Flaum, Richard Hubner, Juan W. Valle, Eitan Amir, Mairéad G. McNamara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineMeta-analysisAdjuvantChemotherapySubgroup analysisOncologyOdds ratioAdjuvant therapyPancreatic cancerResection marginGastroenterologySurgeryCancerResection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4114 Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy following PC resection improves overall survival (OS). It is uncertain whether benefit is influenced by nodal and resection status or other factors. Methods: A systematic review of electronic databases identified published phase 2/3 studies investigating use of adjuvant chemotherapy in pts with resected PC. Efficacy (disease-free survival [DFS], OS, 5 yr OS) was explored using meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis explored effects based on nodal/resection status. Meta-regression also explored influence of age, gender, performance status [PS] and proportion of pts with head of pancreas (HOP) tumors on benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy. Results: Ten studies comprising 3644 pts were included. Two prospective phase 2 studies; 8 phase 3 trials. Median age was 63 yrs (range 24-84), 46% male. In 2268 pts with PS reported; 42% were PS 0, 51% PS 1. Tumor location was reported in 719 pts; 82% had HOP tumors. Of 3524 pts with available data; 33% N- and 67% R0. Overall, in studies of experimental vs control, adjuvant therapy significantly improved DFS (HR 0.67, CI 0.48-0.93, P = 0.02), OS (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.87, P < 0.001) and odds of death risk at 5 yrs (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41-0.70, P < 0.001). In studies comparing chemotherapy to surgery only, adjuvant therapy also significantly improved DFS (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.49-0.76, P < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.64-0.87, P < 0.001). There was a numerical but non-significant greater effect of adjuvant therapy in N- vs N+ pts (HR 0.58 vs 0.71, P for difference = 0.29). There was no difference in effect between pts with R0 or R1 disease (HR 0.70 vs 0.69, P for difference = 0.95). There was greater OS benefit from adjuvant therapy in pts with PS 0 (P = 0.04) and significantly less benefit on 5 yr OS in pts with HOP tumors (P = 0.04). Conclusions: The relative benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy seems similar in N-/N+ and in R0/R1 pts. This will translate into greater absolute benefit in the N+ and R1 pts due to their greater absolute risk of recurrence/death. Adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for all pts with resected PC, where clinically appropriate, and greater benefit was seen in pts with PS 0 and body/tail tumors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.018
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.393
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research→French-language works237,207→