Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30324343›Full record

ArticleInvestigational new drugs2018

Second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced or recurrent biliary tract cancer: a single center, retrospective analysis of 294 cases.

Naminatsu Takahara, Yousuke Nakai, Hiroyuki Isayama, Takashi Sasaki, Kei Saito, Hiroki Oyama, Sachiko Kanai, Tatsunori Suzuki, Tatsuya Sato, Ryunosuke Hakuta and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Investigational new drugs, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Chemotherapy for Biliary Tract Cancer in 2021.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021
    Review
  5. Article
  6. A review of systemic therapy in biliary tract carcinoma.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2020
    Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Naminatsu TakaharaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Yousuke NakaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. ynakai-tky@umin.ac.jp.
Hiroyuki IsayamaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan.
Takashi SasakiDivision of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Kei SaitoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Hiroki OyamaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Sachiko KanaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Tatsunori SuzukiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Tatsuya SatoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Ryunosuke HakutaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Kazunaga IshigakiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Tsuyoshi TakedaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Tomotaka SaitoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Suguru MizunoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Hirofumi KogureDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Minoru TadaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Kazuhiko KoikeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
The University of Tokyo · JPJapanese Foundation For Cancer Research · JPJuntendo University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose The survival benefit of first-line chemotherapy (CT1) for biliary tract cancer (BTC) is now established but the role of second-line chemotherapy (CT2) has not been fully elucidated yet. Methods Consecutive advanced BTC patients receiving CT1 between 2000 and 2016 were retrospectively studied. We investigated the safety and efficacy of CT2, prognostic factors for residual survival after CT1, and explored subgroups who would benefit from CT2. Results Among 294 patients receiving CT1 for advanced BTC, CT2 was given in 139 patients (47%). CT2 provided a response rate of 4%, a disease control rate of 52%, a median progression-free survival of 2.8 and overall survival of 7.7 months, respectively. CT2 was associated with longer residual survival after CT1 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, p < 0.01), as well as PS of 0-1 (HR 0.53, p < 0.01), best response to CT1 of PD (HR 1.46, p = 0.01), and CEA ≥5.0 ng/mL (HR 1.69, p < 0.01). The effects of CT2 were homogeneous across almost all subgroups but were more prominent in patients with age ≥ 70 years (HR 0.32, p for interaction =0.02), CA19-9 ≥ 200 IU/mL (HR 0.41, p for interaction = 0.08) and CEA ≥5.0 ng/mL (HR 0.41, p for interaction = 0.06). Conclusions The introduction rate of CT2 was 47%. Although the efficacy of CT2 was modest in terms of tumor response, it was associated with better survival. Further investigations are necessary both to develop more effective regimens and to select patients who will benefit from CT2.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic AgentsBiliary Tract NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPrognosisRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultAntineoplastic AgentsBiliary tract cancerPrognostic factorsRetrospective studySecond-line chemotherapy

Identifiers

PMID30324343
OpenAlexW2896507933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.