Prognostic factors in localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant therapy and resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prognostic markers for overall survival in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma are well established but remain unclear following neoadjuvant therapy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine factors associated with overall survival following neoadjuvant therapy in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were systematically searched from January 2010 until May 2024. Studies that reported univariable and multivariable hazard ratios were included if patients underwent neoadjuvant therapy and resection for localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Study quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis was performed using generic inverse-variance random-effects models. RESULTS: Among 2208 unique articles identified by the search, 92 were included in the meta-analysis. Of these, 85 were of "good" and 7 of "poor" quality. The neoadjuvant therapy regimen was described in 84 studies of which 62 included patients treated with FOLFIRINOX. Margin status, nodal disease, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) T-stage, and normalization of cancer antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) after neoadjuvant therapy were prognostic for overall survival, whereas age, sex, perineural invasion, baseline tumor size, and baseline CA19-9 were not. The test for subgroup differences between ypN substages was not statistically significant in the multivariable model. Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX was associated with better survival than other regimens. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis identified margin status, nodal disease, AJCC T-stage, and normalization of CA19-9 after neoadjuvant therapy as prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with resected localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma following neoadjuvant therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".