Perspectives of the medical oncologist regarding adjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer: An international expert survey and case vignette study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The decision to initiate chemotherapy involves both patient and physician factors, decision-specific criteria, and contextual considerations. This study aimed to assess medical oncologists' views on adjuvant chemotherapy following pancreatic resection for PDAC. METHODS: An online survey and case vignette study were distributed to medical oncologists via the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (DPCG), International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) and related networks. RESULTS: A total of 91 oncologists from 14 countries participated, 46 % of whom treated more than 40 new PDAC patients annually, with a median experience of 15 years. Significant discrepancies were noted in their recommendations for adjuvant chemotherapy across case vignettes. In patients over 70, 17 % advised against chemotherapy, while 31 % said age was not a factor. Oncologists with less than 10 years of experience and those in non-academic settings were less likely to recommend adjuvant therapy. While 87 % agreed mFOLFIRINOX is the preferred adjuvant treatment, consensus on individual cases was lacking. The recommended interval between surgery and chemotherapy ranged from 3 to 26 weeks, with varying reasons for withholding treatment, primarily due to postoperative recovery and performance status. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed substantial variation among oncologists in counseling on adjuvant chemotherapy after PDAC resection. This emphasizes the need for more patient involvement in decision-making and improving shared decision-making.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".