Table 3. Selected studies evaluating neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) in PDAC.

Study/first author	Types of study	N	Interventions	Resection rates	mOS (months)	Interpretation
BRPC/LAPC
Sadot et al [39]	R	0/101	FOLFIRINOX +/- CTRT	31	25	Feasibility
Rangelova et al [40]	R	22/132	FOLFIRINOX	33(BRPC/NR (LAPC)	31.9(BR)/21.8 (LA)	Feasibility
Maggino et al [51]	R	267/413	53% FOLFIRINOX 21% G-Nab-Paclitaxel 25% RT	15.1	12.8	Feasibility
Katz et al [52]	Single arm, phase II	22/0	FOLFIRINOX + CTRT	68	22	Feasibility
Hammel et al [61]	RCT, Phase III	0/442	G-Erlotinib vs. G-Erlotinib + CTRT	4	16.5 vs. 15.2	CTRT did not improve OS
Janssen et al [38]	M	313/0	FOLFIRINOX	67.8	22.2	Patient level metanalysis
Suker et al [37]	M	0/315	FOLFIRINOX	25.9	24.2	Patient level metanalysis
Jang et al [54]	RCT, Phase II/III	58/0	NACTRT → Sx vs. upfront Sx	52 vs. 26	21 vs. 12	Improved resection rates and OS with NACTRT
PREOPANC [55,56]	RCT, Phase III	246 (BRPC and Resectable)	NACTRT → G --> Sx vs. Sx → G	61 vs. 72	16 vs 14.3	Neoadjuvant approach did not improve OS
Alliance A021501 [62]	RCT, Phase II	126	FOLFIRINOX → Sx vs. FOLFIRINOX + SBRT → Sx	51 vs 58	31 vs. 17.1	Addition of SBRT did not improve resectability rates compared to historical controls
Resectable PDAC
O’ Reilly [66]	Phase II, single arm	38	GEMOX → Sx	71	27.2	Feasibility
Prep-02/JSAP-05 [67]	RCT, Phase II/III	364	G-S1 → Sx → S1 vs. Sx→ S1	Similar	36.7 vs. 26.6	NAT with G-S1 improved OS
SWOG S1505 [68]	Phase II, Pick the winner design	102	FOLFIRINOX → Sx vs GN → Sx	73 vs 70	23.2 and 23.6	Both arms did not improve OS compared to historical cohorts

N, Total no of patients; mOS, Median overall survival; Sx, Surgery; RCT, Randomized clinical trial; OS, Overall survival; G, Gemcitabine; 5 FU, 5 Fluorouracil; FOLFIRINOX, 5-fluorouracil-leucovorin-irinotecan-oxaliplatin; GEMOX, Gemcitabine-oxaliplatin; RT, Radiotherapy; NACTRT, Neoadjuvant chemoradiation; NACT, Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; NR, Not reported; SWOG, South West Oncology Group