SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2025
The real-world clinical effectiveness of durvalumab in advanced biliary tract cancer: a mimic comparative analysis through survival data reconstruction.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The TOPAZ-1 study results represented significant advancement in the treatment of advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) by combining durvalumab with gemcitabine-cisplatin (DGC). However, the highly selected patient population may not reflect the real-world scenarios. To gain deeper insights into this combination regimen, we conducted an evidence collection and a mimic survival comparative analysis. Methods: Records were identified through a formal search of PubMed and Web of Science. Six retrospective cohort studies with real-world evidence were definitively included. The individual patient data for OS and PFS were reconstructed and analyzed. The outcomes different from TOPAZ-1 were summarized and compared. Results: Whether Asia or non-Asia group, the mOS was similar to the TOPAZ-1 (Asian group: 12.57 months vs. TOPAZ-1, HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.69-1.21, log rank P = 0.53; non-Asian group: 13.61 months vs. TOPAZ-1, HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.91-1.31, log rank P = 0.323). The mPFS for the Asian group did not show significant differences compared with TOPAZ-1 (5.63 months vs. TOPAZ-1, HR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.88-1.35, log rank P = 0.422), whereas for the non-Asian group differences exist (6.58 months vs. TOPAZ-1, HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.92, log rank P = 0.002), but potentially influenced by patient ethnicity. The disease control rate in the real world was not so favorable as that in TOPAZ-1. The most common adverse events (AEs) in real-world scenarios were fatigue (26.01%), leukopenia (24.64%), anemia (24.30%), and thrombocytopenia (21.14%). The incidence of immune-related AEs of grades 3-4 was slightly higher in the real world compared with TOPAZ-1 (4.0% vs. 2.4%). Factors such as ECOG-PS, age, alternative doses of durvalumab, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), baseline CEA levels, baseline CA19-9 levels, and metastatic disease could be prognostic factors under DGC regimen, with NLR showing a potential as a predictive marker for survival benefit. Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of the DGC regimen for patients with advanced BTC are confirmed through a comparative analysis and aggregation of real-world evidence in this study. Further real-world investigations are still warranted to determine if the DGC regimen has a broader therapeutic indication and to identify predictive markers for survival benefit. Efforts are required to improve the cost-effectiveness of the DGC regimen to facilitate its wider and standardized use.
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.