Feasibility and benefits of second-line chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer: A large retrospective study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e14524 Background: Chemotherapy is effective in advanced biliary tract cancer (ABTC). The benefits of second-line chemotherapy (CT2) are unclear. Methods: We retrospectively studied all patients starting at least one line of chemotherapy for ABTC at our institution between 1991 and 2011. We analyzed patient and chemotherapy characteristics in order to: 1) characterize patients eligible for CT2; 2) evaluate the efficacy of CT2. Results: Three hundred and ninety five, 100 (25%), and 25 (6%) patients received CT1, CT2, and CT3, respectively. Primary tumor location was the gallbladder (29%), intraphepatic (19%), perihilar (17%), distal common bile duct (19%), and ampulla of Vater (14%). Ninety-one percent had a baseline performance status (PS) of 0-1 prior to CT1. Females (p=0.005), age≤60 years (p=0.009), and patients with progression free survival (PFS) >6 months following CT1 (p=0.01) were more likely to be offered CT2. Objective response rates and stable disease with CT2 were 10% and 35%, respectively. Median PFS and median overall survival (OS) from the beginning of CT2 were 2.8 and 8.0 months, respectively. Prognostic factors impacting PFS with CT2 were the regimen type (doublet versus monotherapy, p=0.004) and PS<2 (p<0.0001). Conclusions: Among patients with ABTC, 25% received CT2, typically younger patients and those with longer PFS following CT1. Disease control occurred in 45% of patients, and more often with a doublet than single agent. However, clearly more effective therapies must be found.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".