ArticleESMO gastrointestinal oncology2026
Third-line treatment of biliary tract cancers in a real-life setting.
Article in ESMO gastrointestinal oncology, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Biliary tract cancers represent rare, aggressive malignancies of the bile duct epithelium. Only 20% cases are eligible for curative surgery because most cases are diagnosed at advanced stages, and prognosis is overall poor. The systemic treatment landscape has evolved, with gemcitabine cisplatin plus immunotherapy being now first-line standard. For second-line treatment, options include targeted therapies or chemotherapy for patients with or without specific actionable genetic alterations, respectively. However, no third-line treatment standard has been validated by randomized clinical trials. Patients and methods: This retrospective analysis from a specialized French center aimed to assess patient outcomes receiving third-line chemotherapy, from 2012 to 2023. Results: Overall, 256 patients receiving third-line treatment were included. Treatment distribution was as follows: FOLFIRI ( Conclusion: Paclitaxel seemed better than FOLFIRI as third-line treatment in patients without actionable alteration. This highlights the need for further research, especially in identifying prognostic factors and refining treatment strategies.
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.