Trial reportScientific reports2025
Impact of ERCC1 on the outcomes of chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The phase III randomized trial, JCOG1113 has demonstrated the non-inferiority of gemcitabine and S-1 (GS) therapy to gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) therapy for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). However, biomarkers for favorable therapy or to predict patient prognosis remain lacking. In this study, we evaluated five candidate biomarkers potentially involved in the efficacy of cisplatin or S-1 by immunostaining tumor specimens obtained from JCOG1113 participants. The participants were randomly divided into training or test sets and classified into high- or low-expression groups based on the cutoff value calculated from the immunostaining results for each biomarker in the training set. Associations between the expression of each biomarker and the outcomes in JCOG1113 were analyzed. Among the 148 eligible participants, no interaction was observed between the treatment arms of GC or GS for any factor or biomarker. However, high excision repair cross-complementing gene 1 (ERCC1) was associated with poor overall survival (HR, 2.226; 95% CI, 1.160-4.272) and progression-free survival (HR, 1.793; 95% CI, 0.945-3.402) compared with low ERCC1 in the training set. Similar trends were observed for the test set. Our results indicate that in advanced BTC, high ERCC1 expression is a poor prognostic factor.
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.