Recent advances in systemic therapy for advanced biliary tract cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis using reconstructed RCT survival data
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Gemcitabine/cisplatin (GemCis) was the long-standing first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs). Following positive results from the TOPAZ-01 and KEYNOTE-966 trials, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with chemotherapy are now the standard of care. We aim to compare the efficacy of first-line therapies for advanced BTCs. Our systematic review included studies from five databases focusing on English-language articles published between January 2010 and June 2024. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that featured GemCis in a treatment arm for treatment-naive adults with advanced BTCs. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival. We conducted a one-stage meta-analysis using reconstructed survival data, Cox-based models, and restricted mean survival time (RMST). After screening 8,797 studies, 17 RCTs were selected, involving a total of 4,584 patients. Of these, 2,140 (46.7%) received GemCis. The majority (68.9%) were diagnosed with intrahepatic or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and 80% had metastatic disease at the time of treatment. The pooled median OS in the GemCis group was 11.6 months (95% CI 11.3–12.2 months). GemCis plus pembrolizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–0.99; p <0.001), GemCis plus durvalumab (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97–0.99; p = 0.015), GemCis plus S-1 (HR 0.97 95% CI 0.95–0.99; p <0.001), and GemCis plus nab-paclitaxel (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.98–0.99; p <0.001) demonstrated superior OS compared with GemCis alone. These combinations also showed increases in RMST by +1.1, +2.5, +2.8, and +2.1 months, respectively. In terms of progression-free survival, GemCis with ICIs (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78–0.94; p <0.001), GemCis plus S-1 (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96–0.99; p = 0.003), and GemCis plus nab-paclitaxel (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97–0.99; p <0.001) also demonstrated superiority, with corresponding RMST increases of +0.7, +1.9, and +2.5 months, respectively. Despite incremental advancements, a breakthrough in advanced BTC treatment remains elusive. Further improvements in treatment efficacy may require biomarker identification to optimize combinational therapies for better patient selection. This study analyzed recent RCTs, including KEYNOTE-966, TOPAZ-1, NIFE, and SWOG 1815, involving 4,584 patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. A meta-analysis of 17 treatment arms, using reconstructed survival data, confirmed the modest survival benefit of GemCis plus ICIs, supporting its guideline adoption. The findings, however, highlight the need for biomarker identification and better patient selection. • Reconstructed data meta-analysis enabled pooled survival analysis of first-line advanced BTC treatments over 20 years. • The addition of S-1, nab-paclitaxel, or immune checkpoint inhibitors to GemCis showed modest survival improvements. • Median survival with GemCis remained at 12 months over time, indicating no significant second-line treatment improvement.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,016 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».