Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©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
Table 1 Characteristics of the eligible trials included in the meta-analysis
Ref.Treatment armsNo. of participantsSex (male/female)Median age (yr)PS 0-2/KPS50Pathology (W/M/P/other)Location of primary tumor(head of pancreas/other)Jad score
Loehrer et al[9]RT 50.4 Gy + GEM vs GEM3718/1967100%4/6/5/2212/25
3419/1565.3100%6/8/7/1320/143
Klaassen et al[10]RT 40 Gy + 5FU vs 5FU4431/13100%NRNR
4722/25NR100%3
Moertel et al[11]RT 35-40 Gy + saline vs RT 35-40 Gy + 5FU32NRNRNRNRNR
324
GITSG et al[12]RT 60 Gy vs RT 60Gy + 5FU vs RT 40 Gy + 5FU2812/16NR100%8/17/3/010/18
3217/15100%6/20/6/09/233
2916/13100%6/18/5/06/23
Cohen et al[13]RT 59.4 Gy vs RT 59.4 Gy + 5FU + MMC4927/2262100%7/21/11/10NR
5537/1864100%12/19/17/73
Chauffert et al[6]RT 60 Gy + 5FU + DDP + GEM vs GEM5931/2860100%NR46/13
6034/2662100%40/203
Moertel et al[14]RT 60 Gy vs RT 60 Gy + 5FU vs RT 40 Gy + 5FU255488%5/8/2/108/173
866095%20/39/9/1468/18
836195%13/30/9/3164/19
Sun et al[15]RT 45-50 Gy + GEM vs GEM2532/22NR100%NRNR3
29100%
Sun et al[16]RT 50-60 Gy + GEM vs GEM + DDP2633/23NR100%NRNR3
30100%
Wu et al[17]RT 48-56 Gy vs RT 48-60 Gy + GEM + DDP3150/145798%NRNR3
335799%
Wu et al[18]RT 60 Gy vs RT 50 Gy + GEM3443/27NR87%NRNR3
3690%
Ding et al[19]RT 45-50 Gy + 5FU + GEM vs 5FU + GEM2532/22NR100%NRNR3
29100%
Childs et al[20]RT 35-40 Gy + saline vs RT 35-40 Gy + 5FU1211/158.8NRNRNR4
138/556.3
GITSG et al[21]RT 54 Gy + 5FU + SMF vs SMF228/1461100%NR3/183
218/1360100%3/19
Hazel et al[22]RT 46 Gy + 5FU vs 5FU + CCNU1510/562NRNRNR2
1510/562