ArticleTzu chi medical journal
Adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable biliary tract cancers: Current evidence and future directions - A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Tzu chi medical journal. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to address the uncertainty regarding the optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for resectable biliary tract cancers (BTCs), which remain challenging to treat due to high recurrence rates, especially in patients with high-risk features such as R1 resection or lymph node positivity. By conducting a network meta-analysis (NMA), we evaluate the efficacy of various adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in improving overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) to provide evidence-based insights for clinical decision-making. Materials and Methods: A NMA was conducted by systematically searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase on November 18, 2024, to evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for resectable BTCs. A comprehensive search identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting OS and RFS. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using random-effects models under a frequentist framework. Heterogeneity was assessed through τ Results: The NMA included 5 RCT studies with 10 treatment arms, including 1449 patients, were analyzed. No regimen demonstrated statistically significant OS or RFS benefits compared to observation. Gemcitabine showed the most favorable trends for OS (HR: 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-1.97) and RFS (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.47-1.31), while capecitabine demonstrated comparable trends for OS (HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.26-2.72) and RFS (HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.47-1.39). S-1 exhibited region-specific efficacy, particularly in Asian populations, with an OS HR of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.35-2.61). Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) did not show notable benefits for OS (HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.32-3.69). Substantial heterogeneity ( Conclusion: This study underscores the challenges of optimizing adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable BTCs, with no regimen demonstrating statistically significant survival benefits compared to observation. Gemcitabine and capecitabine showed comparable trends toward improved overall and RFS, while S-1 exhibited region-specific efficacy, particularly in Asian populations. These findings highlight substantial heterogeneity across studies and the need for large-scale, harmonized RCTs to evaluate high-risk subgroups (e.g., R1 resections and lymph node-positive patients), incorporate molecular stratification, and address quality-of-life and toxicity outcomes. By providing a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence, this study advances the understanding of adjuvant therapy in BTCs and informs future research directions.
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.