MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404993583 · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2024.5191

Best Practices for Delivering Neoadjuvant Therapy in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

2024· article· en· W4404993583 on OpenAlexaff
Jordan M. Cloyd, Angela Sarna, Matthew J. Arango, Susan E. Bates, Manoop S. Bhutani, Mark Bloomston, Vincent Chung, Efrat Dotan, Cristina R. Ferrone, Patricia Gambino, Ajit H. Goenka, Karyn A. Goodman, William A. Hall, Jing He, Melissa E. Hogg, Shiva Jayaraman, Avinash Kambadakone, Matthew H. G. Katz, Alok A. Khorana, Andrew Ko, Eugene J. Koay, David A. Kooby, Somashekar G. Krishna, Liliana Larsson, Richard T. Lee, Anirban Maitra, Nader N. Massarweh, Sameh Mikhail, Mahvish Muzaffar, Eileen M. O’Reilly, Manisha Palta, Maria Q. B. Petzel, P. A. Philip, Marsha Reyngold, Daniel Santa Mina, Davendra Sohal, Tilak Sundaresan, Susan Tsai, Kea Turner, Timothy J. Vreeland, Steve Walston, M. Kay Washington, Terence M. Williams, Jennifer Y. Wo, Rebecca A. Snyder

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineBest practicePancreatic ductal adenocarcinomaPancreatic cancerFamily medicineDelphi methodInternal medicineGeneral surgeryOncologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is an increasingly used treatment strategy for patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Little research has been conducted on cancer care delivery during NT, and the standards for optimal delivery of NT have not been defined. Objective: To develop consensus best practices for delivering NT to patients with localized PDAC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study used a modified Delphi approach consisting of 2 rounds of voting, and a series of virtual conferences (from October to December 2023) to reach expert consensus on candidate best practice statements generated from a systematic review of the literature and expert opinion. An interdisciplinary panel was formed including 47 North American experts from surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, gastroenterology, integrative oncology, anesthesia, pharmacy, nursing, cancer care delivery research, and nutrition as well as patient and caregiver stakeholders. Main Outcome and Measures: Statements that reached 75% agreement or greater were included in final consensus statements. Results: Of the 47 participating panel members, 27 (57.64%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 47.6 (8.2) years. Physicians reported completing training a mean (SD) 14.6 (8.6) years prior and seeing a mean (SD) 110.6 (38.4) patients with PDAC annually; 35 (77.7%) were in academic practice. Final consensus was reached on 82 best practices for delivering NT. Of these, 38 statements focused on pre-NT practices, including diagnosis and staging (n = 15), evaluation and optimization (n = 20), and decision-making (n = 3); 29 statements defined best practices during NT, including initiation (n = 3), delivery of therapy (n = 8), restaging practices (n = 12), and management of complications during NT (n = 6); and 15 best practices were identified to guide treatment post-NT, focusing on surgery (n = 7), pathology (n = 4), and follow-up (n = 3). Conclusions: Using a modified Delphi consensus technique, best practice guidelines were developed focusing on the optimal standards for delivering NT to patients with localized PDAC. Given the prognostic importance of completing multimodality therapy, efforts to standardize and optimize the delivery of NT represent an immediate opportunity to decrease care variation and improve outcomes for patients with PDAC. Future research should focus on validating and implementing best practice standards into clinical practice.

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)0.136
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.164
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1360.164
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA SurgerySame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207