The efficacy of fluoropyrimidine-based adjuvant chemotherapy on biliary tract cancer after R0 resection

The effect and therapeutic compliance of adjuvant therapy in patients with cholangiocarcinoma after R0 resection: a retrospective study

BACKGRUOUND

This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between surveillance and adjuvant therapy (AT) groups after R0 resection for cholangiocarcinoma (CCA).

METHODS

A total of 154 patients who underwent R0 resection for CCA at the Daegu Catholic University Medical Center between January 2010 and December 2019 were included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median follow-up duration was 899 days. There were 109 patients in the AT group and 45 patients in the surveillance group. The patients in the AT group were younger (67 years vs. 74 years, p<0.001) and included more males (64.2% vs. 46.7%, p=0.044). The proportion of patients with stage III CCA was larger in the AT group than in the surveillance group (13.8% vs. 2.2%, p=0.005). In addition, AT did not improve OS (5-year OS rate, 69.3% in the AT group vs. 64.2% in the surveillance group, p=0.806) or PFS (5-year PFS rate, 42.6% in the AT group vs. 48.9% in the surveillance group, p=0.113). In multivariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model, stage III CCA (hazard ratio [HR], 10.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.92-40.00; p<0.001) was a significant predictor of OS. American Society of Anesthesiologists classification II (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.81; p=0.005), and American Joint Committee on Cancer stages II (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.25-7.89; p=0.015) and III (HR, 8.08; 95% CI, 2.80-23.32; p<0.001) were independent predictors of PFS.

CONCLUSION

AT after R0 resection for CCA did not improve OS or PFS.

Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Therapy in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is the second most common primary liver cancer and causes major economic and health burdens throughout the world. Although the incidence of ICC is relatively low, an upward trend has been seen over the past few decades. Owing to the lack of specific manifestations and tools for early diagnosis, most ICC patients have relatively advanced disease at diagnosis. Thus, neoadjuvant therapy is necessary to evaluate tumor biology and downstage these patients so that appropriate candidates can be selected for radical liver resection. However, even after radical resection, the recurrence rate is relatively high and is a main cause leading to death after surgery, which makes adjuvant therapy necessary. Because of its low incidence, studies in both neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings of ICC are lagging compared with other types of malignancy. While standard neoadjuvant and adjuvant regimens are not available in the current guidelines due to a lack of high-level evidence, some progress has been achieved in recent years. In this review, the available literature on advances in neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategies in ICC are evaluated, and possible challenges and opportunities for clinical and translational investigations in the near future are discussed.

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.

The Efficacy of S-1 as Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Resected Biliary Tract Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matching Analysis

Even though S-1 is a widely used chemotherapeutic agent, there is no evidence for its use in an adjuvant setting for biliary tract carcinoma (BTC). Patients who underwent surgical treatment for BTC between August 2007 and December 2018 were selected. Propensity score matching was performed between patients who received S-1 as adjuvant chemotherapy (S-1 group) and those who underwent surgical treatment alone (observation group). Of 170 eligible patients, 38 patients were selected in each group after propensity score matching. Among those in the matched cohort, both the median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in the S-1 group were significantly longer than those in the observation group (RFS, 61.2 vs. 13.1 months, p = 0.033; OS, not available vs. 28.2 months, p = 0.003). A multivariate analysis of the OS revealed that perineural invasion and adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy were independent prognostic factors. According to a subgroup analysis of the OS, the S-1 group showed significantly better prognoses than the observation group among patients with perineural invasion (p < 0.001). S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy might improve the prognosis of BTC, especially in patients with perineural invasion.

The Significance of Adjuvant Therapy for Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma After Surgery

Extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EHCC) is a rare malignant tumor, and current treatment methods are also relatively limited. Radical surgery is the only potentially curative method for the long survival time. However, despite undergoing radical resection, prognosis remained poor due to the high recurrence rate and distant metastasis. Therefore, adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy should be offered to patients who have undergone surgery. Unfortunately, the low incidence of this disease has resulted in a lack of high-level evidence to confirm the importance of adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy. At present, it is still controversial whether adjuvant therapy can prolong the survival of patients after operation, especially patients with negative margins or lymph nodes. Furthermore, standard regimens of adjuvant have not been identified. This review summarizes the currently available evidence of the effect of adjuvant therapy in the management of EHCC. Ultimately, we concluded that adjuvant therapy may improve survival in high-risk (positive margin or lymph node or advanced stage) patients and adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by chemotherapy may be the optimum selection for them. This needs to be verified by randomized prospective clinical trials.

The efficiency and regimen choice of adjuvant chemotherapy in biliary tract cancer: A STROBE-compliant retrospective cohort study

Biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients have poor prognosis even following radical resection. To improve the current status, more evidence is required clarifying the role of adjuvant chemotherapy. This study aim is to evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy and discuss the regimen choices.We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 80 patients who underwent curative-intent R0 resection from 2008 to 2016. Among them, 40 patients had received adjuvant chemotherapy, and the others in the observation group were 1:1 matched by clinical characteristics including gender, age, tumor stage, and ECOG performance status score. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to compare DFS and OS. Potential confounding factors were adjusted by Multivariate analysis.In the entire patient cohort, the mean disease-free survival (DFS) time of BTC patients with adjuvant chemotherapy and observation was 18.63 ± 3.63 months versus 10.36 ± 1.67 months, respectively (P = .029). There was no significant difference observed in overall survival (OS) time (33.72 ± 5.02 vs 21.05 ± 4.12 months, P = .114). On multivariate analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy and N factor were found to be significant factors for DFS, and sex, age, T factor were found to be significant factors for OS. Besides, subgroup analysis indicated that combination chemotherapy prolonged DFS time of BTC patients than single-agent to some extent, and oral agents showed efficacy to improve OS.This retrospective study demonstrates that adjuvant chemotherapy contributes to DFS, but is unsatisfactory for improving OS. Combination chemotherapy contained oral agents provides a possibility of therapeutic strategy for improving surgical outcomes of BTC patients.

Randomized clinical trial of adjuvant gemcitabine chemotherapy versus observation in resected bile duct cancer

BACKGROUND

Although some retrospective studies have suggested the value of adjuvant therapy, no recommended standard exists in bile duct cancer. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that adjuvant gemcitabine chemotherapy would improve survival probability in resected bile duct cancer.

METHODS

This was a randomized phase III trial. Patients with resected bile duct cancer were assigned randomly to gemcitabine and observation groups, which were balanced with respect to lymph node status, residual tumour status and tumour location. Gemcitabine was given intravenously at a dose of 1000 mg/m2 , administered on days 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks for six cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and secondary endpoints were relapse-free survival, subgroup analysis and toxicity.

RESULTS

Some 225 patients were included (117 gemcitabine, 108 observation). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the gemcitabine and observation groups. There were no significant differences in overall survival (median 62·3 versus 63·8 months respectively; hazard ratio 1·01, 95 per cent c.i. 0·70 to 1·45; P = 0·964) and relapse-free survival (median 36·0 versus 39·9 months; hazard ratio 0·93, 0·66 to 1·32; P = 0·693). There were no survival differences between the two groups in subsets stratified by lymph node status and margin status. Although haematological toxicity occurred frequently in the gemcitabine group, most toxicities were transient, and grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicity was rare.

CONCLUSION

The survival probability in patients with resected bile duct cancer was not significantly different between the gemcitabine adjuvant chemotherapy group and the observation group. Registration number: UMIN 000000820 (http://www.umin.ac.jp/).