Are older patients less likely to be treated for pancreatic cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.036 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".