Observational studyJournal of gastroenterology2025
Combination chemotherapy for older patients with unresectable biliary tract cancer: a prospective observational study using propensity-score matched analysis (JON2104-B).
Observational study in Journal of gastroenterology, 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
41 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystemic chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus S-1 (GEM + S-1), GEM + CDDP plus S-1 (GEM + CDDP + S-1), or gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GEM + CDDP) is standard treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination chemotherapy in older patients with aBTC.
methodsThis multicenter prospective observational study (JON2104-B, UMIN000045156) included patients aged ≥ 70 years with aBTC. Inverse-probability weighting propensity-score analyses (IPW) were used to compare overall survival (OS) as the primary endpoint and progression-free survival (PFS) across treatment groups.
resultsThis study included 305 patients between August 2021 and January 2023. Of them, 75, 131, 26, 52, and 10 received GEM + CDDP + S-1, GEM + CDDP, GEM + S-1, gemcitabine, and S-1; their median ages were 74, 75, 77.5, 80, and 80 years, and approximately 24%, 16.8%, 23.1%, 9.6%, and 0% had G-8 scores of > 14, respectively. GEM + CDDP had a safety profile comparable to that of GEM + CDDP + S-1 but was more toxic than gemcitabine. Per IPW, the hazard ratio (HR) for GEM + CDDP + S-1 versus GEM + CDDP was 0.80 for OS (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.17) and 0.55 for PFS (95% CI 0.38-0.80). The HR for GEM + CDDP versus gemcitabine was 0.74 for OS (95% CI 0.42-1.29) and 0.79 for PFS (95% CI 0.42-1.49).
conclusionsGEM + CDDP + S-1 was associated with longer PFS without additional toxicity than GEM + CDDP for fit older patients. However, the OS for both were not statistically different. The efficacies of GEM + CDDP and gemcitabine for vulnerable older patients did not also differ significantly. These findings highlight the importance of vulnerability in patients with aBTC.
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.