Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 340

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Need for Standardization and Methods for Optimal Clinical Trial Design

Open access
Katz, Matthew H. G., Marsh, Robert, Herman, Joseph M., Shi, Qian, Collison, Eric, Venook, Alan P., Kindler, Hedy L., Alberts, Steven R., Philip, Philip, Lowy, Andrew M., Pisters, Peter W. T., Posner, Mitchell C., Berlin, Jordan D., Ahmad, Syed A.·2013·Annals of Surgical Oncology

Abstract

BackgroundMethodological limitations of prior studies have prevented progress in the treatment of patients with borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Shortcomings have included an absence of staging and treatment standards and pre-existing biases with regard to the use of neoadjuvant therapy and the role of vascular resection at pancreatectomy.MethodsIn this manuscript, we review limitations of studies of borderline resectable PDAC reported to date, highlight important controversies related to this disease stage, emphasize the research infrastructure necessary for its future study, and present a recently-approved Intergroup pilot study (Alliance A021101) that will provide a foundation upon which subsequent well-designed clinical trials can be performed.ResultsWe identified twenty-three studies published since 2001 which report outcomes of patients with tumors labeled as borderline resectable and who were treated with neoadjuvant therapy prior to planned pancreatectomy. These studies were heterogeneous in terms of the populations studied, the metrics used to characterize therapeutic response, and the indications used to select patients for surgery. Mechanisms used to standardize these and other issues that are incorporated into Alliance A021101 are reviewed.ConclusionsRigorous standards of clinical trial design incorporated into trials of other disease stages must be adopted in all future studies of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. The Intergroup trial should serve as a paradigm for such investigations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1245/s10434-013-2886-9

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Cited by

See all 340

Metadata

Authors
Katz, M. H. G., Marsh, R., Herman, J. M., Shi, Q., Collison, E., Venook, A. P., Kindler, H. L., Alberts, S. R., Philip, P., Lowy, A. M., Pisters, P. W. T., Posner, M. C., Berlin, J. D., & Ahmad, S. A.
Venue
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published
2013-02-23
Volume
20
Issue
8
Pages
2787-2795
ISSN
  • 1068-9265 (ISSN-L)
  • 1534-4681
OpenAlex
W2030126221
Cited by
340
References
24
FWCI
16.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Need for Standardization and Methods for Optimal Clinical Trial Design. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1245/s10434-013-2886-9
The paper
Katz, M. H. G., Marsh, R., Herman, J. M., Shi, Q., Collison, E., Venook, A. P., Kindler, H. L., Alberts, S. R., Philip, P., Lowy, A. M., Pisters, P. W. T., Posner, M. C., Berlin, J. D., & Ahmad, S. A. (2013). Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: Need for Standardization and Methods for Optimal Clinical Trial Design. Annals of Surgical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-2886-9

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.