Relationship between pancreatic cancer resection rate and survival at population level: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgery combined with chemotherapy provides the best chance of survival in pancreatic cancer. This study investigated whether increasing the resection rate at a population level improves overall survival and modelled the interaction between resection rate, perioperative mortality rate, and population survival. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted on studies reporting resection rate and survival outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer at a population level. MEDLINE, Embase and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews were searched up to February 2024. The primary outcome was overall population-level survival. A model for 1-year survival incorporating varying resection and perioperative mortality rates was developed. RESULTS: The search identified 3967 studies; 19 were eligible (516 789 patients). A significant association was observed between resection rate and pancreatic cancer population survival at 1 year (r2 = 0.46, P = 0.001). A weak but significant association was noted between resection rate and (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy (r2 = 0.26, P = 0.03). One-year pancreatic cancer population survival was significantly associated with chemotherapy (r2 = 0.63; P = 0.004), but the effect was weaker than for resection rate (regression slope 0.26 versus 0.94 respectively). According to the developed model, for example, increasing the resection rate from 10 to 15% and perioperative mortality rate from 2 to 3% would lead to a 1-year survival increase from 17.6% to 22.1%. CONCLUSION: A higher resection rate at a population level was associated with improved survival of the pancreatic cancer population. While some of this benefit was linked to increasing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy use, the effect of resection rate was stronger. Strategies to enhance the resection rate at national and regional levels should be explored. Establishing a benchmark for resection rate could support patient-centred healthcare and promote equitable access to high-quality pancreatic cancer care.
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 | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".