The efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy for curative resected biliary tract cancers: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Yishan Peng; Aijun Liang; Zhi Chen; Bin Yang; Wenke Yu; Jingduo Deng; Yu Fu; Yu Nie; Yuan Cheng

doi:10.1097/JS9.0000000000002161

The efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy for curative resected biliary tract cancers: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Int J Surg. 2024 Dec 20. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000002161. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Yishan Peng¹, Aijun Liang², Zhi Chen¹, Bin Yang¹, Wenke Yu¹, Jingduo Deng¹, Yu Fu³, Yu Nie^{1

4}, Yuan Cheng¹

Affiliations

¹ General Surgery Center, Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery II, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China.
² Clinical Research and Transformation Center for Artificial Liver, Institute of Regenerative Medicine, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China.
³ Shenzhen Longhua Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, China.
⁴ Clinical Research Center, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China.

PMID: 39705155
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000002161

Abstract

Background: Despite complete resection, recurrence rate of biliary duct cancer (BTC) remains high, leading to poor prognosis. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) following radical resection may substantially reduce the recurrence risk by eradicating micrometastatic lesions. However, the benefits of postoperative ACT and the optimal ACT strategy are still unclear for BTC. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the prognostic value of ACT and compare the effectiveness of different ACTs among BTC patients after curative resection.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and EMBASE database to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the benefits of ACT versus no intervention or other ACTs in BTC patients after curative resection. A random-effects network meta-analysis was performed to compare overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). The quality of evidence was rated using the GRADE-framework.

Results: Eight RCTs comprising 1803 patients were included in the meta-analysis. ACT was associated with significant improvements in 5-year all-cause mortality (4 RCTs, HR 0.93; 95%CI 0.87-1.00, marginally significant; low-certainty evidence), RFS (5 RCTs, HR 0.87; 95%CI 0.78-0.98; moderate-certainty evidence) and OS (7 studies, HR 0.85; 95%CI 0.75-0.96; low-certainty evidence) compared with observation. ACT had significantly better survival benefits on patients with negative margin(R0), lymph node positive (N +) and TNM-stage I/II (P < 0.05). Further network meta-analysis demonstrated fluorouracil-based ACT was significantly inferior to gemcitabine-based ACT (HR 1.20, 95%CI 1.10-1.25) in improving RFS. However, both were superior to observation (P < 0.05). No statistical difference in OS was observed between gemcitabine-based and fluorouracil-based chemotherapy (HR 1.00, 95%CI 0.86-1.20). In subgroup analysis, fluorouracil-based ACT but not gemcitabine-based ACT achieved significantly better OS benefits on patients with N + (HR 0.67; 95%CI 0.52-0.86) and R0 (HR 0.69; 95%CI 0.54-0.88).

Conclusion: Compared with observation, ACT should be routinely recommended to improve survival outcomes in BTC patients after curative resection, especially for those with R0, N + and TNM stage I/II. Gemcitabine-based ACT performed better than other chemotherapies on improving RFS. This network meta-analysis provides precise information for determining the best adjuvant treatment for resected BTC. Further thorough and high quality RCTs are needed.