ObjectiveThe role of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC) remains controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical differences between NAT and upfront surgery in RPC.Materials and methodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases. Only patients with RPC who underwent tumor resection and received adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment were enrolled. The OR or HR and 95% CIs were calculated employing fixed-effects or random-effects models. The HR and its 95% CI were extracted from each article that provided survival curve. Publication bias was estimated using funnel plots and Egger’s regression test.ResultsIn total, eleven studies were included with 9,386 patients. Of these patients, 2,508 (26.7%) received NAT. For patients with RPC, NAT resulted in an increased R0 resection rate (OR=1.89; 95% CI=1.26–2.83) and a reduced positive lymph node rate (OR=0.34; 95% CI=0.31–0.37) compared with upfront surgery. Nevertheless, patients receiving NAT did not exhibit a significantly increased overall survival (OS) time (HR=0.91; 95% CI=0.79–1.05).ConclusionIn patients with RPC, R0 resection rate and positive lymph node rate after NAT were superior to those of patients with upfront surgery. The NAT group exhibited no significant effect on OS time when compared with the upfront surgery group. However, this conclusion requires more clinical evidence to improve its credibility.

Background With the improvement of therapeutic strategies from cytotoxic chemotherapy to immunotherapy, the possibility of achieving timely intervention for lung cancer has dramatically increased. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCT) on immunotherapy in lung cancer. Methods The RCTs evaluating the efficacy of immunotherapy in lung cancer published up to 2021 were searched and collected from PUBMED and EMBASE by two investigators. The 2010 Consolidated Standards for Test Reports (CONSORT) statement‐based 28‐point overall quality score (OQS) and the 2001 CONSORT statement‐based 19‐point OQS was utilized for assessing the overall quality of each report. Results One hundred and fifty‐two related RCTs were retrieved in this study, including 81,931 patients. The average OQS in 2010 was 17.89 (range, 7.5–24.5). Overall, studies have sufficiently reported the eligibility criteria (143/152; 94.07%), described the scientific background (150/152; 98.7%) and discussed interventions (147/152; 96.7%). However, the RCTs did not consistently report the changes to trial after commencement (48/152; 31.6%), allocation, enrollment and assignment personnel (34/152; 22.4%), blinding (48/152; 31.6%), or randomization method (58/152; 38.2%). Conclusions The overall reporting quality of RCTs on immunotherapy in lung cancer was found to be unsatisfactory despite the fact that the CONSORT statement was issued more than a decade ago. Furthermore, there was virtual selectivity and heterogeneity in reporting some key issues in these trials. This is the first study to enlighten lung cancer researchers especially focusing on immunotherapy, and also to remind editors and peer reviewers to strengthen their due diligence.