ArticleThe oncologist2025
Economic and clinical outcomes among patients with cholangiocarcinoma receiving pemigatinib with or without history of cancer of unknown primary.
Article in The oncologist, 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.
- Real-world patient characteristics and utilization patterns in patients with cholangiocarcinoma who received pemigatinib in the United States of America.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited evidence regarding the economic burden, treatment patterns, and overall survival (OS) of patients with cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and cancer of unknown primary (CUP) who initiated the FGFR inhibitor pemigatinib. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe used the Komodo Healthcare Map to identify patients with CCA who initiated pemigatinib between 4/17/2020 and 5/31/2023. Follow-up began at initiation and lasted ≥ 1 month. Outcomes included health care resource utilization (HCRU), costs, treatment patterns, and OS.
resultsTwo hundred twenty-one patients were included: 78 patients (35.3%) with CUP (median follow-up, 5.9 months) and 143 patients (64.7%) without CUP (median follow-up, 7.3 months). Pemigatinib was similarly well-tolerated in CUP vs non-CUP. Discontinuation was observed in 43.6% vs 49.0% (P = .445). Medication possession ratio ≥ 0.80 was achieved by 71.6% vs 67.2% (P = .504). CUP was associated with significantly higher prevalence of metastatic disease (100.0% vs 63.6%), per patient per month (PPPM) ambulatory HCRU (8.2 vs 5.5), and ambulatory costs ($8584 vs $5308). Medical costs averaged $13 444 vs $9881 PPPM for CUP and non-CUP, respectively (P = .066). Median OS was significantly shorter with CUP (10.2 vs 30.7 months).
conclusionAlthough pemigatinib was similarly well-tolerated regardless of CUP status, patients with CUP incurred greater ambulatory burden and had poorer OS. Patients with CUP were more likely to have evidence of metastatic disease at pemigatinib initiation, which may help explain these results. With the advent of targeted treatments for gene-altered CCA, reflexive genomic testing should be encouraged for all patients with CUP.
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.