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 pati...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Cao, Y. (Author), Chen, Y. (Author), Liu, C. (Author), Lyu, C. (Author), Qiu, M. (Author), Zhang, B. (Author)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: NLM (Medline) 2022
Subjects:
Online Access:View Fulltext in Publisher
Description
Summary: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. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
ISBN:20446055 (ISSN)
DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051421