The Treatment of Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Practice Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the fourth most common cause of adult cancer death. About 50% of patients present with metastatic disease, 20% with resectable disease and the remaining 30% of patients are diagnosed with incurable, locally advanced unresectable but nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the current evidence regarding treatment of incurable, locally advanced, unresectable but nonmetastatic pancreatic cancer and produce an evidence-based practice guideline. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed. The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and Cochrane Library databases were searched using the following medical subject heading search terms: 'pancreatic neoplasms', 'chemotherapy, adjuvant', 'radiotherapy', 'immunotherapy', combined with the text words: 'chemotherapy', 'radiotherapy', 'radiation', 'immunotherapy', combined with terms for the following study designs or publication types: practice guidelines, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials. The Physician Data Query clinical trials database and the proceedings of the annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (1996 to 2001) and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (1999 to 2001) were searched for reports of new or ongoing trials. Relevant literature was selected and reviewed independently, and the reference lists from these sources were searched for additional trials. Interpretation of evidence was resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Eight randomized trials were obtained that met the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations are to offer combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy to suitable patients. The preferred chemotherapeutic agent to combine with radiotherapy is bolus or infusional 5-fluorouracil, but the optimal mode and duration of 5-fluorouracil delivery is unclear. Chemotherapy alone with gem-citabine is an acceptable alternative.
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 | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".