ReviewAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2020
Genetic analysis in the clinical management of biliary tract cancer.
Review in Annals of gastroenterological surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine, cisplatin plus S-1 versus gemcitabine, cisplatin for advanced biliary tract cancer (KHBO1401- MITSUBA).Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences · 2023Trial
- Patterns of Hope and Loneliness Among Patients and Caregivers Affected by Biliary Tract Cancers.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- How to incorporate new agents into precise medicine for cholangiocarcinoma?American journal of cancer research · 2024Review
- Paradigm shift of chemotherapy and systemic treatment for biliary tract cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Review
- Clinical outcomes of second‑line chemotherapy after gemcitabine and cisplatin plus S‑1 treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer in the KHBO1401‑3A study.Oncology reports · 2023Article
- Review
- Advanced Bile Duct Cancers: A Focused Review on Current and Emerging Systemic Treatments.Cancers · 2022Review
- Genetic analysis in the clinical management of biliary tract cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is clinically and pathologically heterogeneous and responds inadequately to treatment. A small section of patients develop resectable disease, although the relapse rates are high; the benefits of adjuvant capecitabine chemotherapy for BTC are now understood, and gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy is the first line of therapeutic strategy for BTC; however, alternative therapy for BTC is not known. Genomic profiling can provide detailed information regarding the carcinogenesis, identification, and therapy for BTC. Currently, confirmed restorative targets for BTC are lacking. In this review, we aimed to analyze the preclinical and clinical implications of a spectrum of genomic alterations associated with new potentially remedial targets. We focused on eight draggable genes for BTC, which were described as having evidence of therapeutic impact (evidence level 2A-3B) based on the clinical practice guidance for next-generation sequencing in cancer diagnosis and treatment; these include ERBB2, NTRK1, RNF43, CDK6, CDKN2B, FGFR2, IDH1, and IDH2. Moreover, some of the BTC present microsatellite instability, hypermutation, and germline variants, which we also reviewed. Finally, we discussed the therapeutic options based on the next-generation sequencing findings in BTC. Studies have demonstrated that BTC includes subgroups with individually distinct driver mutations, most of which will be targeted with new treatment plans.
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.