Comparison of the Efficacy between Gemcitabine-Cisplatin and Capecitabine-Cisplatin Combination Chemotherapy for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer

A Systematised Literature Review of Real-World Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Unresectable Advanced or Metastatic Biliary Tract Cancer

BACKGROUND

Biliary tract cancers are rare aggressive malignancies typically diagnosed when the disease is metastatic or unresectable, precluding curative treatment.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify treatment guidelines, real-world treatment patterns, and outcomes for unresectable advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancers in adult patients.

METHODS

Databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) were systematically searched between 1 January, 2000 and 25 November, 2021, and supplemented by hand searches. Eligible records were (1) treatment guidelines and (2) observational studies reporting real-world treatment outcomes, for unresectable advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancers. Only studies performed in the UK, Germany, France, Australia, Canada and South Korea were extracted, to moderate the number of records for synthesis while maintaining representation of a wide range of biliary tract cancer incidences.

RESULTS

A total of 66 relevant unique full-text records were extracted, including 16 treatment guidelines and 50 observational studies. Among guidelines, chemotherapies were most strongly recommended at first line (1L); the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GEMCIS) was recommended as the standard of care in 1L. Recommendations for systemic chemotherapy in the second line (2L) conflicted because of uncertainties around survival benefit. Guidelines on further lines of treatment included a range of locoregional modalities and stenting or best supportive care without providing clear recommendations because of data paucity. Fifty observational studies reporting real-world treatment outcomes were extracted, of which 25 (50%) and 9 (18%) reported outcomes in 1L and 2L, respectively; 22 (44%) reported outcomes for treatments described as 'palliative'. In 1L, outcomes for systemic chemotherapy were most frequently described (23/25 studies), and GEMCIS was the most common systemic chemotherapy used (10/23 studies) in line with guidelines. Median overall survival with 1L systemic chemotherapy was < 12 months in most studies (16/23; range 4.7-22.3 months). Most 2L studies (10/11) described outcomes for systemic chemotherapy, most commonly for fluoropyrimidine-based regimen (5/10 studies). Median overall survival with 2L systemic chemotherapy was < 12 months in 5/10 studies (range 4.9-21.5 months). Median progression-free survival was reported more rarely than median overall survival. Some studies with small sample sizes or specifically selected patient populations (e.g. higher performance status, or patients who had already responded to treatment) achieved higher median overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

At the time of this review, treatment options for unresectable advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancers confer poor real-world survival. For over a decade, GEMCIS remained the 1L standard of care, highlighting the lack of therapeutic innovation in this indication and the urgent unmet need for novel treatments with improved outcomes in this aggressive condition. Additional observational studies are needed to further understand the effectiveness of currently available treatments, as well as newly available therapies including the addition of immunotherapy in the evolving treatment landscape.

A Practical Guide for the Systemic Treatment of Biliary Tract Cancer in Canada

Biliary tract cancers (BTC) are rare and aggressive tumors with poor prognosis. Radical surgery offers the best chance for cure; however, most patients present with unresectable disease, and among those receiving curative-intent surgery, recurrence rates remain high. While other locoregional therapies for unresectable disease may be considered, only select patients may be eligible. Consequently, systemic therapy plays a significant role in the treatment of BTC. In the adjuvant setting, capecitabine is recommended following curative-intent resection. In the neoadjuvant setting, systemic therapy has mostly been explored for downstaging in borderline resectable tumours, although evidence for its routine use is lacking. For advanced unresectable or metastatic disease, gemcitabine-cisplatin plus durvalumab has become the standard of care, while the addition of pembrolizumab to gemcitabine-cisplatin has also recently demonstrated improved survival compared to chemotherapy alone. Following progression on gemcitabine-cisplatin, several chemotherapy combinations and biomarker-driven targeted agents have been explored. However, the optimum regimen remains unclear, and access to targeted agents remains challenging in Canada. Overall, this article serves as a practical guide for the systemic treatment of BTC in Canada, providing valuable insights into the current and future treatment landscape for this challenging disease.

Chemotherapy for Biliary Tract Cancer in 2021

Biliary tract cancer refers to a group of malignancies including cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, and ampullary cancer. While surgical resection is considered the only curative treatment, postoperative recurrence can sometimes occur. Adjuvant chemotherapy is used to prolong prognosis in some cases. Many unresectable cases are also treated with chemotherapy. Therefore, systemic chemotherapy is widely introduced for the treatment of biliary tract cancer. Evidence on chemotherapy for biliary tract cancer is recently on the increase. Combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin is currently the standard of care for first-line chemotherapy in advanced cases. Recently, FOLFOX also demonstrated efficacy as a second-line treatment. In addition, efficacies of isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors and fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors have been shown. In the adjuvant setting, capecitabine monotherapy has become the standard of care in Western countries. In addition to conventional cytotoxic agents, molecular-targeted agents and immunotherapy have been evaluated in multiple clinical trials. Genetic testing is used to check for genetic alterations and molecular-targeted agents and immunotherapy are introduced based on tumor characteristics. In this article, we review the latest evidence of chemotherapy for biliary tract cancer.

Comparison between Fluoropyrimidine-Cisplatin and Gemcitabine-Cisplatin as First-Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Gemcitabine-cisplatin (GP) has been regarded as standard first-line chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). Fluoropyrimidine-cisplatin (FP) has also shown a survival benefit. However, the clinical choice between them is controversial.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of the two chemotherapy regimens.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies (2 randomized controlled trials, RCTs, and 3 retrospective studies) involving 727 patients were included. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in overall response rate, ORR (risk ratio, RR = 1.13, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.80-1.58, p = 0.489), disease control rate, DCR (RR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.91-1.13, p = 0.751), progression-free survival/time to progression (hazard rate, HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.86-1.05, p = 0.315) and overall survival (HR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.98-1.14, p = 0.125). As compared with GP, FP showed lower incidences of all grade 3/4 adverse events with statistical significance (p < 0.001). In a subgroup analysis of RCTs, no statistical differences were found between FP and GP in ORR (RR = 1.06; 95% CI 0.58-1.95; p = 0.842) and DCR (RR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.00-1.50; p = 0.056), but FP showed significantly lower incidences of all grade 3/4 adverse events compared with GP (p < 0.01). Some limitations of the meta-analysis are retrospective studies included, some end points within the trials missing rendering a pooled analysis of the two RCTs impossible and heterogeneous fluoropyrimidine combinations. All studies were performed in Asia which are not completely transferable to European patients.

CONCLUSION

With some limitations, the meta-analysis suggested that FP seems to be as effective as GP with a more favorable safety profile in first-line chemotherapy for Asian patients with advanced BTC.

The Efficacy of Different Chemotherapy Regimens for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Although gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) is considered as standard chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), the optimal regimen remains unknown.

Methods: Using Network meta-analysis (NMA), a systematic review was conducted to find the most effective chemotherapy regimen for advanced BTC. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library for articles published before October 6, 2018. Articles about chemotherapeutic comparisons were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were estimated while odd ratios (ORs) was assessed for objective response rate (ORR).

Results: The NMA included 25 studies and 3,312 individuals. Among all the regimens, Folfox-4 regimen obtained a superior difference in OS (BSC vs. Folfox-4, HR 3.4, 95% CI 1.7-6.7). XP was slightly better than GP in OS and GS approximately obtained the same efficacy to GP (HR for XP vs. GP 0.74, 95% CI 0.51-1.1; HR for GS vs. GP 1.1, 95% CI 0.71-1.5). Most of the targeted therapies included in this study tend to achieve better results in PFS and ORR but failed to improve OS, in which E-GEMOX achieved the best ORR when compared to BSC (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00-0.94).

Conclusions: Folfox-4 regimen is likely to be the optimal chemotherapy for patients with advanced BTC and the predominant targeted therapy hasn't achieved significant success currently. XP and GS can be considered as alternatives for advanced BTC.

A randomised phase II study of second-line XELIRI regimen versus irinotecan monotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer patients progressed on gemcitabine and cisplatin

Background

The majority of advanced biliary tract cancer (ABTC) patients will progress after gemcitabine and cisplatin (GP) doublet therapy, while the standard second-line regimen has not been established. We conducted this study to assess the efficacy and safety of second-line irinotecan and capecitabine (XELIRI) regimen vs. irinotecan monotherapy in ABTC patients progressed on GP.

Methods

Sixty-four GP refractory ABTC patients were randomised to either irinotecan 180 mg/m² on day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg/m² twice daily on days 1–10 of a 14-day cycle (XELIRI-arm) or single-agent irinotecan 180 mg/m² on day 1 of a 14-day cycle (IRI-arm). Treatments were repeated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Results

A total of 60 patients were included in the analysis. For XELIRI and IRI-arms, respectively, the median PFS was 3.7 vs. 2.4 months, 9-month survival rate 60.9% vs. 32.0%, median OS 10.1 vs. 7.3 months, and disease control rate 63.3% vs. 50.0%. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities were leucopaenia and neutropaenia.

Conclusions

This randomised, phase II study of irinotecan-containing regimens in good PS second-line ABTC patients showed a clear benefit of XELIRI regimen over irinotecan monotherapy in prolonging PFS, with acceptable toxicity.

Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract carcinomas

BACKGROUND

Biliary tract cancers are a group of rare heterogeneous malignant tumours. They include intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, gallbladder carcinomas, and ampullary carcinomas. Surgery remains the optimal modality of therapy leading to long-term survival for people diagnosed with resectable biliary tract carcinomas. Unfortunately, most people with biliary tract carcinomas are diagnosed with either unresectable locally-advanced or metastatic disease, and they are only suitable for palliative chemotherapy or supportive care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of intravenous administration of gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy versus placebo, or no intervention, or other treatments (excluding gemcitabine) in adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed electronic searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science up to June 2017. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies and review articles manually, for further related articles (cross-references).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language or publication status, comparing intravenous administration of gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine-based combination to placebo, to no intervention, or to treatments other than gemcitabine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risks of bias of the included trials using definitions of predefined bias risk domains, and presented the review results incorporating the methodological quality of the trials using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven published randomised clinical trials with 600 participants. All included trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as very low quality. Cointerventions were equally applied in three trials (gemcitabine plus S-1 (a combination of tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil) versus S-1 monotherapy; gemcitabine plus S-1 versus gemcitabine monotherapy versus S-1 monotherapy; and gemcitabine plus vandetanib versus gemcitabine plus placebo versus vandetanib monotherapy), while four trials compared gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin; gemcitabine plus mitomycin C versus capecitabine plus mitomycin C; gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus chemoradiotherapy; and gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus best supportive care. The seven trials were conducted in India, Japan, France, China, Austria, South Korea, and Italy. The median age of the participants in the seven trials was between 50 and 60 years, and the male/female ratios were comparable in most of the trials. Based on these seven trials, we established eight comparisons. We could not perform all planned analyses in all comparisons because of insufficient data.Gemcitabine versus vandetanibOne three-arm trial compared gemcitabine versus vandetanib versus both drugs in combination. It reported no data for mortality, health-related quality of life, or tumour progression outcomes. We rated the increased risk of serious adverse events, anaemia, and overall response rate as very low-certainty evidence.Gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatinFrom one trial of 96 participants, we found very low-certainty evidence that gemcitabine can lower the risk of mortality at one year when used with cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.98; P = 0.04; participants = 96). The trial did not report data for serious adverse events, quality of life, or tumour response outcomes. There is very low-certainty evidence that gemcitabine plus cisplatin combination leads to a higher risk of high-grade thrombocytopenia compared with S-1 plus cisplatin combination (RR 5.28, 95% CI 1.23 to 22.55; P = 0.02; participants = 96).Gemcitabine plus S-1 versus S-1From two trials enrolling 151 participants, we found no difference between the two groups in terms of risk of mortality at one year or risk of serious adverse events. Gemcitabine plus S-1 combination was associated with a higher overall response rate compared with S-1 alone (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.75; P = 0.007; participants = 140; trials = 2; I² = 0%; very low certainty of evidence). Neither of the trials reported data for health-related quality of life or time to progression of the tumour.Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus best supportive careOne three-arm trial compared gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus best supportive care. It reported no data for serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, or tumour progression. We rated the evidence for mortality and for overall response rate as of very low certainty.Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin plus radiotherapyOne trial of 34 participants compared gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin plus radiotherapy. It reported no data for quality of life, overall response rate, or tumour progression outcomes. We rated the evidence for mortality and serious adverse events as of very low certainty.Gemcitabine plus mitomycin C versus capecitabine plus mitomycin COne trial of 51 participants compared gemcitabine plus mitomycin C versus capecitabine plus mitomycin C. It reported no data for serious adverse events, quality of life, or tumour progression. We rated the evidence for mortality, overall response rate and thrombocytopenia as of very low certainty.We also identified three ongoing trials evaluating outcomes of interest for our review, which we can incorporate in future updates.For-profit bias: there was a high risk of for-profit bias in two trials (because of industry sponsorship) while there was a low risk of for-profit bias in another three trials, and unclear risk in two trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas, the effects of gemcitabine or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy are uncertain on mortality and overall response compared with a range of inactive or active controls. The very low certainty of evidence is due to risk of bias, lack of information in the analyses and hence large imprecision, and possible publication bias. The confidence intervals do not rule out meaningful benefits or lack of effect of gemcitabine in all comparisons but one on mortality where gemcitabine plus cisplatin is compared with S-1 plus cisplatin. Gemcitabine-based regimens showed an increase in non-serious adverse events (particularly haematological toxicities). Further randomised clinical trials are mandatory, to further explore the best therapeutic options for adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas.

The efficacy and safety of different pharmacological interventions for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: A network meta-analysis

Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is the second common cancer in liver cancer. Chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatments for patients with advanced or metastatic disease, while fluorouracil (FU)-based and gemcitabine (GEM)-based treatments are most widely applied. This NMA aimed to figure out whether the addition of platinum (PLA) and target agents (TAR) can influence the efficacy and safety of standard chemotherapy. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted based on the records from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane. Eligible data was extracted from available qualified trials and outcomes. Software R 3.2.3 and STATA 13.0 were used to conduct the Bayesian NMA, calculating odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% credible interval (CrI) to evaluate different treatments.Almost all treatments were superior to best supportive care (BSC) and FU in terms of 1-OS, 2-OS and 1-PFS. GEM+PLA and GEM+PLA+TAR exhibited better efficacy than most treatments in 1-OS, 2-OS and 1-PFS, and yielded better results than BSC and GEM+FU in terms of 2-PFS. Most drug-containing treatments reported higher overall response rate (ORR) than BSC. GEM and GEM+FU were associated with a higher risk of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia compared to FU, FU+PLA and GEM+PLA. No statistical difference was detected in terms of nausea and vomiting.GEM+PLA and GEM+PLA+TAR were both efficacious and were associated with fewer adverse events. In conclusion, the addition of PLA can significantly improve the efficacy of FU and GEM-based treatments, and the addition of TAR to GEM+PLA can contribute to further improvement, but with a mild increase of adverse events.

Combination Therapy with Capecitabine and Cisplatin as Second-Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer

Background/Aims: Palliative chemotherapy is the main treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). However, there is a lack of established second-line chemotherapy to treat disease progression after first-line chemotherapy. We examined combination therapy with capecitabine and cisplatin for advanced BTC as a second-line regimen. Methods: We analyzed the medical records of 40 patients diagnosed with BTC who received palliative second-line chemotherapy with capecitabine and cisplatin. Results: The median overall survival from the start of second-line chemotherapy was 6.3 months. The median overall survival from diagnosis was 17.9 months. The median progression-free survival during second-line chemotherapy was 2.3 months. Nine (30%) patients experienced adverse events of grade ≥3. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score was an independent predictor of adverse events. Conclusions: Combination therapy with capecitabine and cisplatin may be an option for second-line chemotherapy in some of patients with advanced BTC.

CA19-9 or CEA Decline after the First Cycle of Treatment Predicts Survival in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer Patients Treated with S-1 and Cisplatin Chemotherapy

Purpose

While tumor markers (carbohydrate antigen 19-9 [CA 19-9] and carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA]) can aid in the diagnosis of biliary tract cancer, their prognostic role has not been clearly elucidated. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the prognostic role of tumor markers and tumor marker change in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer.

Materials and Methods

Patients with pathologically proven metastatic or relapsed biliary tract cancer who were treated in a phase II trial of first-line S-1 and cisplatin chemotherapy were enrolled. Serum tumor markers were measured at baseline and after the first cycle of chemotherapy.

Results

Among a total of 104 patients, 80 (77%) had elevated baseline tumor markers (69 with CA 19-9 elevation and 40 with CEA). A decline ≥ 30% of the elevated tumor marker level after the first cycle of chemotherapy conferred an improved time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and better chemotherapy response. Multivariate analysis revealed tumor marker decline as an independent positive prognostic factor of TTP (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; p=0.003) and OS (adjusted HR, 0.37; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed similar results in each group of patients with CA 19-9 elevation and CEA elevation. In addition, elevated baseline CEA was associated with poor survival in both univariate and multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

Tumor marker decline was associated with improved survival in biliary tract cancer. Measuring tumor marker after the first cycle of chemotherapy can be used as an early assessment of treatment outcome.

Cholangiocarcinoma

Biliary tract cancer accounts for <1% of all cancers and affects chiefly an elderly population, with predominance in men. We distinguish cholangiocarcinoma (intrahepatic, hilar and distal) and gallbladder cancer, with different pathogenesis and prognosis. The treatment is based on surgery (whenever possible), radiotherapy in selected cases, and chemotherapy. The standard cytotoxic treatment for advanced/metastatic disease is represented by the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin, whereas fluoropyrimidines are generally administered in second line setting. At the present time, no biologic drug demonstrated a clear efficacy in this cancer, although the molecular characterisation could provide a promising basis for experimental treatments. A good supportive care and an early palliative care are warranted in most patients and should be delivered as a part of a global approach.