ArticleBMC cancer2025
Comparison of monotherapy and combination therapy for older patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) is a combination chemotherapy regimen. However, whether the efficacy of combination therapy is superior to that of monotherapy in older patients with BTC remains unclear. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with those of combination therapy in such patients.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 157 patients with unresectable or recurrent BTC aged ≥ 75 years who received systemic chemotherapy between August 2011 and November 2020. We compared the efficacy and safety of combination therapy (gemcitabine [GEM] + cisplatin and GEM + S-1) with those of monotherapy (GEM or S-1 alone). We assessed patients' characteristics, survival, adverse events, and dose intensity. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsPatients who received monotherapy were older and had worse performance status (PS), lower albumin levels, and higher carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels than those who received combination therapy. The median overall survival (OS) was 16.4 and 12.8 months in the combination therapy and monotherapy groups, respectively (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-1.01), with a trend towards longer OS observed with combination therapy. However, multivariable analysis did not show superior OS with combination therapy (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.66-1.68). Multivariable analysis also revealed gallbladder cancer, CEA, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels as prognostic factors for OS. Regarding safety, the incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events was significantly higher in the combination therapy group than in the monotherapy group (79% vs. 53%, p = 0.001); however, the rate of treatment discontinuation was approximately 10% in both groups, with no treatment-related deaths, suggesting that toxicities are manageable even in older patients.
conclusionsCombination therapy is not necessarily recommended for older patients with BTC. Selecting an appropriate chemotherapy regimen based on an individual's condition is important.
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.