Evidence Hub

Role of neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma- A systematic review and meta-analysis

Hsiao-Yu Wu, Hsiao-Hui Tsou, Long-Sheng Lu, Hsin-Lun Lee, Fong-Chi-Ou Jeng, Hui-Ju Ch'ang

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2025

912 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials and meta-analyses have indicated longer survival with neoadjuvant than with adjuvant therapy in patients with resectable or borderline resectable (R/BR) pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Despite the efficacy of chemotherapy, the role of radiotherapy as an adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment for patients with R/BR pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains unclear. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the benefits of additional chemoradiotherapy (CRT) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) with NAC alone for R/BR pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. Median overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included disease-free survival (DFS), resection rate and R0 resection rate.

RESULTS

This review and meta-analysis included 31 prospective studies, of which 9 were randomized trials. In these studies, 658 patients from 14 study arms received NAC alone and 912 patients from 19 study arms received both NAC and CRT (NAC-CRT). The pooled median OS was 25.55 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 21.59-30.24 months) for NAC alone and 17.55 months (95% CI = 16.47-18.70 months, p < 0.0001) for NAC-CRT. The pooled R0 resection rate was higher with NAC-CRT (83.43%) than with NAC (69.97%, p < 0.0001). No significant difference was observed in DFS or resection rate between the two groups. In patients who received 5 or more cycles of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 912 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free