Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 3, 2026

An Orthotopic Resectional Mouse Model of Pancreatic Cancer
Published on: September 24, 2020
Meta-analysis on resected pancreatic cancer: a comparison between adjuvant treatments and gemcitabine alone
Hua Chen1, Ruizhi He1, Xiuhui Shi1
1Department of Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Affiliated Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.
Background:
Pancreatic cancer is a highly malignant tumor with a poor prognosis. Chemotherapy such as gemcitabine is still an important treatment. Gemcitabine (Gem) may prolong survival time and delay the development of recurrent disease after complete resection of pancreatic cancer. Currently, some control studies have been performed between certain drugs and gemcitabine monotherapy after pancreatic cancer surgery, but the outcomes were uncertain. Here, we implemented meta-analysis to compare the efficacy between adjuvant treatments and gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer.
Methods:
PubMed, Embase and the Central Registry of Controlled Trials of the Cochrane Library searches were undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Date of search ranged from January 1997 to December 2017. The meta-analysis included six RCTs. The major endpoints involved overall survival (OS), disease-free survival/progress free survival/relapse-free survival (DFS/PFS/RFS) and grade 3-4 toxicity.
Results:
Pooled meta-analytic estimates were derived using random-effects model. Subgroup analysis used fixed-effects model. The outcome showed that there was no difference in OS (hazard ratio (HR), 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.07; P = 0.19) and DFS (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.02; P = 0.08) between the adjuvant treatments group (fluorouracil+folinic acid, S-1, gemcitabine+capecitabine, gemcitabine+erlotinib and gemcitabine+uracil/tegafur) and Gem monotherapy group. However, the subgroup analysis showed that only S-1 chemotherapy, which is an oral fluoropyrimidine agent containing tegafur, gimeracil and oteracil, was significant in OS (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.74; P < 0.0001) and DFS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.75; P < 0.00001) compared with Gem alone. Toxicity analysis showed there was an increased incidence of grade 3/4 diarrhea (risk ratio (RR), 5.11; 95%CI, 3.24-8.05; P < 0.00001) and decreased incidence of grade 3/4 leucopenia (RR, 0.55; 95%CI, 0.31-0.98; P = 0.04), thrombocytopenia (RR, 0.61; 95%CI, 0.39-0.97; P = 0.04) in adjuvant treatments group. Neutropenia (RR, 0.69; 95%CI, 0.36-1.29; P = 0.24) and fatigue (RR, 1.29; 95%CI, 0.95-1.77; P = 0.11) for patients between the two groups were not significantly different.
Conclusions:
In our meta-analysis, a significant survival benefit is only observed in the S-1 regimen, but the results are yet to be determined. Optimal cytotoxicity or targeted drug regimens need further validation in clinical trials in the future.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Treatment Resistant Cancers
Cancer Survival Analysis
Directing Effect of Substituents: meta-Directing Groups
The Sense of Self: Reflected Self-Appraisal and Social Comparison
Multiple Comparison Tests
It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...
Evolutionary Relationships through Genome Comparisons

