©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 14, 2013; 19(42): 7461-7471
Published online Nov 14, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i42.7461
Published online Nov 14, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i42.7461
Table 1 Characteristics of the eligible trials included in the meta-analysis
| Ref. | Treatment arms | No. of participants | Sex (male/female) | Median age (yr) | PS 0-2/KPS≥50 | Pathology (W/M/P/other) | Location of primary tumor(head of pancreas/other) | Jad score |
| Loehrer et al[9] | RT 50.4 Gy + GEM vs GEM | 37 | 18/19 | 67 | 100% | 4/6/5/22 | 12/25 | |
| 34 | 19/15 | 65.3 | 100% | 6/8/7/13 | 20/14 | 3 | ||
| Klaassen et al[10] | RT 40 Gy + 5FU vs 5FU | 44 | 31/13 | 100% | NR | NR | ||
| 47 | 22/25 | NR | 100% | 3 | ||||
| Moertel et al[11] | RT 35-40 Gy + saline vs RT 35-40 Gy + 5FU | 32 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | |
| 32 | 4 | |||||||
| GITSG et al[12] | RT 60 Gy vs RT 60Gy + 5FU vs RT 40 Gy + 5FU | 28 | 12/16 | NR | 100% | 8/17/3/0 | 10/18 | |
| 32 | 17/15 | 100% | 6/20/6/0 | 9/23 | 3 | |||
| 29 | 16/13 | 100% | 6/18/5/0 | 6/23 | ||||
| Cohen et al[13] | RT 59.4 Gy vs RT 59.4 Gy + 5FU + MMC | 49 | 27/22 | 62 | 100% | 7/21/11/10 | NR | |
| 55 | 37/18 | 64 | 100% | 12/19/17/7 | 3 | |||
| Chauffert et al[6] | RT 60 Gy + 5FU + DDP + GEM vs GEM | 59 | 31/28 | 60 | 100% | NR | 46/13 | |
| 60 | 34/26 | 62 | 100% | 40/20 | 3 | |||
| Moertel et al[14] | RT 60 Gy vs RT 60 Gy + 5FU vs RT 40 Gy + 5FU | 25 | 54 | 88% | 5/8/2/10 | 8/17 | 3 | |
| 86 | 60 | 95% | 20/39/9/14 | 68/18 | ||||
| 83 | 61 | 95% | 13/30/9/31 | 64/19 | ||||
| Sun et al[15] | RT 45-50 Gy + GEM vs GEM | 25 | 32/22 | NR | 100% | NR | NR | 3 |
| 29 | 100% | |||||||
| Sun et al[16] | RT 50-60 Gy + GEM vs GEM + DDP | 26 | 33/23 | NR | 100% | NR | NR | 3 |
| 30 | 100% | |||||||
| Wu et al[17] | RT 48-56 Gy vs RT 48-60 Gy + GEM + DDP | 31 | 50/14 | 57 | 98% | NR | NR | 3 |
| 33 | 57 | 99% | ||||||
| Wu et al[18] | RT 60 Gy vs RT 50 Gy + GEM | 34 | 43/27 | NR | 87% | NR | NR | 3 |
| 36 | 90% | |||||||
| Ding et al[19] | RT 45-50 Gy + 5FU + GEM vs 5FU + GEM | 25 | 32/22 | NR | 100% | NR | NR | 3 |
| 29 | 100% | |||||||
| Childs et al[20] | RT 35-40 Gy + saline vs RT 35-40 Gy + 5FU | 12 | 11/1 | 58.8 | NR | NR | NR | 4 |
| 13 | 8/5 | 56.3 | ||||||
| GITSG et al[21] | RT 54 Gy + 5FU + SMF vs SMF | 22 | 8/14 | 61 | 100% | NR | 3/18 | 3 |
| 21 | 8/13 | 60 | 100% | 3/19 | ||||
| Hazel et al[22] | RT 46 Gy + 5FU vs 5FU + CCNU | 15 | 10/5 | 62 | NR | NR | NR | 2 |
| 15 | 10/5 | 62 |
- Citation: Chen Y, Sun XJ, Jiang TH, Mao AW. Combined radiochemotherapy in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19(42): 7461-7471
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v19/i42/7461.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i42.7461