Observational studyInternational journal of cancer2026
Adjuvant Chemotherapy Regimens in Resected Biliary Tract Cancers: National, Comparative, Observational Study (TOG/GI-SAFRADJU-2501).
Observational study in International journal of cancer, 2026. 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
61 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recommended adjuvant chemotherapy (adj-ChT) regimen for resected biliary tract cancers (BTC) is capecitabine (Cape); yet, the recommendation is based on limited evidence. Although varied adj-ChTs have been employed in practice, robust real-world data is scarce. We conducted a national, multicenter, hospital-based registry study to evaluate adj-ChTs in resected BTCs. Patients who received adj-ChT (± radiotherapy) between 2010 and 2024 were included. Recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by adjusted Cox-regression and propensity score-based inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighting (IPTW), addressing selection bias. Among 617 patients from 44 centers, 513 were eligible. The most frequent adj-ChTs were Cape (35.5% [n = 182]), gemcitabine-cisplatin (Gem-Cis; 22.4% [n = 115]), gemcitabine-capecitabine (Gem-Cape; 20.1% [n = 103]), and gemcitabine (Gem; 10.7% [n = 55]). Median RFS and OS with Cape were 19.7 (95% Confidence Interval [95% CI]: 14.2-41.1) and 41.9 months (95% CI: 25.9-69.2). In adjusted/controlled comparisons with Cape, no differences in RFS or OS were observed with Gem-Cis (RFS: Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.13 [95% CI: 0.77-1.66]; OS: HR: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.66-1.61]), Gem-Cape (RFS: HR 0.97 [95% CI: 0.68-1.38]; OS: HR: 0.81 [95% CI: 0.52-1.24]), or Gem (RFS: HR 1.00 [95% CI: 0.63-1.59]; OS: HR: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.55-1.57]). Similarly, IPTW analyses showed no difference in RFS and OS. Radiotherapy appeared to be associated with improved survival. Performance status, T-stage, lymph-node positivity, and R1-resection were independently associated with RFS and OS. In conclusion, this real-world study did not identify a regimen superior to Cape. Given the modest benefit of adj-ChTs, novel approaches, including neoadjuvant and targeted/immunotherapy strategies, are needed.
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.