Survival benefit of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Backgrounds/Aims: While patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) are a target population for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), formal guidelines for neoadjuvant therapy are lacking. We assessed the perioperative and oncological outcomes in patients with BRPC undergoing NAC with FOLFIRINOX for patients undergoing upfront surgery (US). Methods: The AHPBA criteria for borderline resectability and/or a CA19-9 level > 100 μ/mL defined borderline resectable tumors retrieved from a prospectively populated institutional registry from 2007 to 2020. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) at 1 and 3 years. A Cox Proportional Hazard model based on intention to treat was used. A receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) curve was constructed to assess the discriminatory capability of the use of CA19-9 > 100 μ/mL to predict resectability and mortality. Results: = 0.001). CA19-9 > 100 μ/mL showed poor discrimination in predicting mortality, but was a moderate predictor of resectability. Conclusions: We found a survival benefit of NAC with FOLFIRINOX for BRPC. Greater pre-treatment of CA19-9 and multivessel involvement on initial imaging were associated with progression of the disease following NAC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".