SynthesisCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2020
A systematic review and network meta-analysis of adjuvant therapy for curatively resected biliary tract cancers.
Synthesis in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- The epidemiological trends of biliary tract cancers in the United States of America.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Oncogenic KRAS Requires Complete Loss of BAP1 Function for Development of Murine Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.Cancers · 2021Article
- Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Propensity Score Survival Analysis Supporting Use in Patients with High-Risk Disease.Annals of surgical oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recent randomized controlled trials (rcts) have contributed high-quality data about adjuvant therapy in curatively resected biliary tract cancer (btc); however, a standard approach to treating those patients still has not been developed. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of published studies and abstracts up to and including June 2018, choosing rcts involving patients with btc receiving adjuvant chemotherapy after complete surgical resection. Network meta-analysis methods were used for indirect comparisons of overall survival (os) and relapse-free survival (rfs) for various adjuvant therapies. Results: Five rcts were included in qualitative synthesis, and three rcts (bilcap, prodige 12-accord 18, and bcat) had data sufficient for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Results from the indirect comparison demonstrated no significant improvement in os for capecitabine compared with gemcitabine or with gemcitabine-oxaliplatin (gemox), the hazard ratios (hrs) being 0.82 [95% confidence interval (ci): 0.53 to 1.27] and 0.86 (95% ci: 0.56 to 1.34) respectively. Similarly, no significant improvement in rfs was observed for capecitabine compared with gemcitabine or gemox. Conclusions: Although in the present analysis, we found no statistically significant improvements in os or rfs for capecitabine compared with gemox or gemcitabine, capecitabine can-until further prospective trials are completed-be considered the standard of care in the adjuvant setting based on a single randomized phase iii study.
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.