ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2017
Gemcitabine and capecitabine for advanced biliary cancer.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes of Resectable Gallbladder Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis From a Tertiary Care Centre in India.Cureus · 2024Article
- LINC01714 Enhances Gemcitabine Sensitivity by Modulating FOXO3 Phosphorylation in Cholangiocarcinoma.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2020Article
- Comparison of the clinical results of surgical resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas: Hilar cholangiocarcinoma and mid-to-distal cholangiocarcinoma.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGemcitabine with capecitabine (gem-cap) is an established regimen for advanced biliary cancer (ABC) supported by our previously reported phase II trial. Here, we provide our updated experience.
methodsSingle institution, retrospective study from 2005 to 2015 of ABC treated with gem-cap.
resultsA total of 372 patients with ABC were identified, of whom 227 (61.0%) were treated with chemotherapy. 153 patients (67.4%) received gem-cap, of which 129 (56.8%) received it in the first line. Thirty two point six percent (42/129) were locally advanced, 67.4% (87/129) had metastatic disease, and 18.6% (24/129) received it as adjuvant therapy. Disease sites included 48.8% [63] intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), 24.0% [31] extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EHCC) and 27.1% [35] gallbladder carcinoma (GBC). Median follow-up was 49.7 months (mo). The median PFS and OS were 8.0 mo [95% confidence intervals (CI): 6.0-9.3] and 13.0 mo (95% CI: 10.7-17.4), respectively. Overall, 53.5% (69/129) experienced a grade 3/4 toxicity. The most common (35.7%) was a hematologic toxicity (neutropenia or thrombocytopenia) followed by infection (25.6%).
conclusionsGem-cap provides similar survival outcomes to gemcitabine/cisplatin based on historical comparison to the ABC-2 trial (median PFS =8.0 mo and OS =11.7 mo). Gem-cap may offer the advantage of fewer adverse events compared to the levels reported in ABC-2 (grade 3/4 events 70.7%).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.