Cochrane · systematic review · CD011746
Gemcitabine‐based chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract carcinomas
Abdel‐Rahman, O, Elsayed, Z, Elhalawani, H · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
Hepato-BiliaryAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
45
current version
GRADE rated
22
No studies
23
Included studies
NR
No studies 23 · 51.1%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 22 · 48.9%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Gemcitabine plus vandetanib compared with vandetanib for advanced biliary tract carcinomas
Population: people with advanced biliary tract carcinomas
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality at 1 year Gemcitabine plus vandetanib vs vandetanib | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Serious adverse events Gemcitabine plus vandetanib vs vandetanib | RR 0.95 [0.52, 1.74] | 1 study · 117 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Health‐related quality of life Gemcitabine plus vandetanib vs vandetanib | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall response rate Gemcitabine plus vandetanib vs vandetanib | RR 5.4 [1.25, 23.29] | 1 study · 113 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Time to progression of the tumour Gemcitabine plus vandetanib vs vandetanib | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Grade 1 ‐ 4 anaemia Gemcitabine plus vandetanib vs vandetanib | RR 7.12 [0.9, 56.08] | 1 study · 117 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Gemcitabine versus vandetanib for advanced biliary tract carcinomas
Population: people with advanced biliary tract carcinomas
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality at 1 year Gemcitabine vs vandetanib | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Serious adverse events Gemcitabine vs vandetanib | RR 0.79 [0.41, 1.52] | 1 study · 115 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Helath‐related quality of life Gemcitabine vs vandetanib | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall response rate Gemcitabine vs vandetanib | RR 3.77 [0.82, 17.33] | 1 study · 108 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Time to progression of the tumour Gemcitabine vs vandetanib | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Grade 1 ‐ 4 anaemia Gemcitabine vs vandetanib | RR 7.38 [0.94, 58.05] | 1 study · 115 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Gemcitabine plus cisplatin compared with S‐1 plus cisplatin for advanced biliary tract carcinomas
Population: people with advanced biliary tract carcinomas
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality at 1 year Gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs S‐1 plus cisplatin | RR 0.76 [0.58, 0.98] | 1 study · 96 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Serious adverse events Gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs S‐1 plus cisplatin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs S‐1 plus cisplatin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall response rate Gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs S‐1 plus cisplatin | RR 0.82 [0.37, 1.82] | 1 study · 88 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Time to progression of the tumour Gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs S‐1 plus cisplatin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Grade 1 ‐ 4 anaemia Gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs S‐1 plus cisplatin | RR 11.27 [4.41, 28.83] | 1 study · 96 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Gemcitabine plus S‐1 compared with S‐1 for advanced biliary tract carcinomas
Population: people with advanced biliary tract carcinomas
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality at 1 year Gemcitabine plus S‐1 vs S‐1 | RR 0.61 [0.33, 1.13] | 2 studies · 151 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Serious adverse events Gemcitabine plus S‐1 vs S‐1 | RR 1.05 [0.15, 7.1] | 1 study · 90 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Health‐related quality of life Gemcitabine plus S‐1 vs S‐1 | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall response rate Gemcitabine plus S‐1 vs S‐1 | RR 2.46 [1.27, 4.75] | 2 studies · 140 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Time to progression of the tumour Gemcitabine plus S‐1 vs S‐1 | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Grade 1 ‐ 4 anaemia Gemcitabine plus S‐1 vs S‐1 | RR 1.26 [1, 1.59] | 2 studies · 151 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with best supportive care for advanced biliary tract carcinomas
Population: people with advanced biliary tract carcinomas
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality at 1 year Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin vs best supportive care | RR 0.78 [0.53, 1.15] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Serious adverse events Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin vs best supportive care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin vs best supportive care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall response rate Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin vs best supportive care | RR 34 [2.11, 547.54] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Time to progression of the tumour Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin vs best supportive care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with 5‐fluorouracil plus folinic acid for advanced biliary tract carcinomas
Population: people with advanced biliary tract carcinomas
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality at 1 year Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin vs 5‐fluorouracil plus folinic acid | RR 0.81 [0.55, 1.2] | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Serious adverse events Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin vs 5‐fluorouracil plus folinic acid | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Helath‐related quality of life Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin vs 5‐fluorouracil plus folinic acid | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall response rate Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin vs 5‐fluorouracil plus folinic acid | RR 2.15 [0.64, 7.29] | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Time to progression of the tumour Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin vs 5‐fluorouracil plus folinic acid | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with 5‐fluorouracil plus cisplatin plus radiotherapy for advanced biliary tract carcinomas
Population: people with advanced biliary tract carcinomas
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality at 1 year Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin vs 5‐fluorouracil plus cisplatin plus radiotherapy | RR 0.56 [0.21, 1.52] | 1 study · 34 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Serious adverse events Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin vs 5‐fluorouracil plus cisplatin plus radiotherapy | RR 1.5 [0.66, 3.39] | 1 study · 34 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Health‐related quality of life Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin vs 5‐fluorouracil plus cisplatin plus radiotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall response rate Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin vs 5‐fluorouracil plus cisplatin plus radiotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Time to progression of the tumour Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin vs 5‐fluorouracil plus cisplatin plus radiotherapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Gemcitabine plus mitomycin C compared with capecitabine plus mitomycin C for advanced biliary tract carcinomas
Population: people with advanced biliary tract carcinomas
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause mortality at 1 year Gemcitabine plus mitomycin C vs capecitabine plus mitomycin C | RR 1.14 [0.89, 1.48] | 1 study · 51 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Serious adverse events Gemcitabine plus mitomycin C vs capecitabine plus mitomycin C | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health‐related quality of life Gemcitabine plus mitomycin C vs capecitabine plus mitomycin C | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall response rate Gemcitabine plus mitomycin C vs capecitabine plus mitomycin C | RR 0.65 [0.25, 1.72] | 1 study · 51 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Time to progression of the tumour Gemcitabine plus mitomycin C vs capecitabine plus mitomycin C | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Grade 1 ‐ 4 thrombocytopenia Gemcitabine plus mitomycin C vs capecitabine plus mitomycin C | RR 0.56 [0.29, 1.06] | 1 study · 47 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |