The efficacy and safety of 5-fluorouracil based adjuvant therapy in resected biliary tract cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

New trends in diagnosis and management of gallbladder carcinoma

Gallbladder (GB) carcinoma, although relatively rare, is the most common biliary tree cholangiocarcinoma with aggressiveness and poor prognosis. It is closely associated with cholelithiasis and long-standing large (> 3 cm) gallstones in up to 90% of cases. The other main predisposing factors for GB carcinoma include molecular factors such as mutated genes, GB wall calcification (porcelain) or mainly mucosal microcalcifications, and GB polyps ≥ 1 cm in size. Diagnosis is made by ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and, more precisely, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Preoperative staging is of great importance in decision-making regarding therapeutic management. Preoperative staging is based on MRI findings, the leading technique for liver metastasis imaging, enhanced three-phase CT angiography, or magnetic resonance angiography for major vessel assessment. It is also necessary to use positron emission tomography (PET)-CT or 18F-FDG PET-MRI to more accurately detect metastases and any other occult deposits with active metabolic uptake. Staging laparoscopy may detect dissemination not otherwise found in 20%-28.6% of cases. Multimodality treatment is needed, including surgical resection, targeted therapy by biological agents according to molecular testing gene mapping, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and immunotherapy. It is of great importance to understand the updated guidelines and current treatment options. The extent of surgical intervention depends on the disease stage, ranging from simple cholecystectomy (T1a) to extended resections and including extended cholecystectomy (T1b), with wide lymph node resection in every case or IV-V segmentectomy (T2), hepatic trisegmentectomy or major hepatectomy accompanied by hepaticojejunostomy Roux-Y, and adjacent organ resection if necessary (T3). Laparoscopic or robotic surgery shows fewer postoperative complications and equivalent oncological outcomes when compared to open surgery, but much attention must be paid to avoiding injuries. In addition to surgery, novel targeted treatment along with immunotherapy and recent improvements in radiotherapy and chemotherapy (neoadjuvant-adjuvant capecitabine, cisplatin, gemcitabine) have yielded promising results even in inoperable cases calling for palliation (T4). Thus, individualized treatment must be applied.

Clinical efficacy of adjuvant treatments for patients with resected biliary tract cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the benefits of adjuvant therapy in patients with resected biliary tract cancer (BTC) and identify the optimal adjuvant treatment scheme.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Studies comparing different adjuvant therapies in patients with BTC were searched in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from inception to December 2021. Additionally, the references were manually searched for the related literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible studies were identified, and data were extracted independently by two authors. A random-effects network meta-analysis was performed using R software. The pooled outcomes of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were measured using the combined HRs with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Nineteen eligible studies reporting three types of adjuvant therapies were included in our network meta-analysis. Adjuvant radiotherapy (ART, HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (ACRT; HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83) and adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT; HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98) were more effective in prolonging OS than that of observation, with no significant difference between the three adjuvant therapies. Moreover, the improvement in DFS was also found in ACRT and ACT compared with that of observation (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75; HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.97, respectively). Furthermore, ACRT obtained a slightly better DFS benefit compared with that of ACT (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Our primary results demonstrated that, compared with that of observation, ACRT and ACT after radical resection could provide better OS and DFS benefits in patients with BTC. However, ART only showed improvement in OS, but not in DFS. Due to the lack of head-to-head studies of ACT, ACRT and ART, the above results need to be further verified by prospective randomised controlled trials.