ArticleOncotarget2017
The efficacy and safety of different pharmacological interventions for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: A network meta-analysis.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Chemotherapies for Patients With Advanced Biliary Tract Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- The Efficacy of Different Chemotherapy Regimens for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is the second common cancer in liver cancer. Chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatments for patients with advanced or metastatic disease, while fluorouracil (FU)-based and gemcitabine (GEM)-based treatments are most widely applied. This NMA aimed to figure out whether the addition of platinum (PLA) and target agents (TAR) can influence the efficacy and safety of standard chemotherapy. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted based on the records from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane. Eligible data was extracted from available qualified trials and outcomes. Software R 3.2.3 and STATA 13.0 were used to conduct the Bayesian NMA, calculating odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% credible interval (CrI) to evaluate different treatments.Almost all treatments were superior to best supportive care (BSC) and FU in terms of 1-OS, 2-OS and 1-PFS. GEM+PLA and GEM+PLA+TAR exhibited better efficacy than most treatments in 1-OS, 2-OS and 1-PFS, and yielded better results than BSC and GEM+FU in terms of 2-PFS. Most drug-containing treatments reported higher overall response rate (ORR) than BSC. GEM and GEM+FU were associated with a higher risk of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia compared to FU, FU+PLA and GEM+PLA. No statistical difference was detected in terms of nausea and vomiting.GEM+PLA and GEM+PLA+TAR were both efficacious and were associated with fewer adverse events. In conclusion, the addition of PLA can significantly improve the efficacy of FU and GEM-based treatments, and the addition of TAR to GEM+PLA can contribute to further improvement, but with a mild increase of adverse events.
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.