ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Benefit and safety of capecitabine after resection of biliary tract cancer: a real-world study with propensity score matching.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is a high mortality disease, with few patients eligible for resection. Even post-surgery, recurrence rates remain high. The benefit of capecitabine as adjuvant therapy is uncertain, as seen in the BILCAP trial results. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of capecitabine in a real-world setting among patients who underwent surgery for localized BTC. This retrospective observational study compared a cohort of patients who received adjuvant capecitabine with an observation-only cohort. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated and compared between the two groups, with propensity score matching to minimize selection bias. Differences in RFS were also analyzed between patients completing the full capecitabine protocol and those on an adapted protocol. From January 2017 to May 2023, 117 patients were included in the observation cohort, and 43 patients were included in the capecitabine cohort. After propensity score matching, no difference in RFS was found (HR = 0.700,
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.