Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2025 Dec;60(12):1584-1595.
doi: 10.1007/s00535-025-02294-0. Epub 2025 Sep 6.

Combination chemotherapy for older patients with unresectable biliary tract cancer: a prospective observational study using propensity-score matched analysis (JON2104-B)

Affiliations
Observational Study

Combination chemotherapy for older patients with unresectable biliary tract cancer: a prospective observational study using propensity-score matched analysis (JON2104-B)

Satoshi Kobayashi et al. J Gastroenterol. 2025 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Systemic chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus S-1 (GEM + S-1), GEM + CDDP plus S-1 (GEM + CDDP + S-1), or gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GEM + CDDP) is standard treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination chemotherapy in older patients with aBTC.

Methods: This multicenter prospective observational study (JON2104-B, UMIN000045156) included patients aged ≥ 70 years with aBTC. Inverse-probability weighting propensity-score analyses (IPW) were used to compare overall survival (OS) as the primary endpoint and progression-free survival (PFS) across treatment groups.

Results: This study included 305 patients between August 2021 and January 2023. Of them, 75, 131, 26, 52, and 10 received GEM + CDDP + S-1, GEM + CDDP, GEM + S-1, gemcitabine, and S-1; their median ages were 74, 75, 77.5, 80, and 80 years, and approximately 24%, 16.8%, 23.1%, 9.6%, and 0% had G-8 scores of > 14, respectively. GEM + CDDP had a safety profile comparable to that of GEM + CDDP + S-1 but was more toxic than gemcitabine. Per IPW, the hazard ratio (HR) for GEM + CDDP + S-1 versus GEM + CDDP was 0.80 for OS (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.17) and 0.55 for PFS (95% CI 0.38-0.80). The HR for GEM + CDDP versus gemcitabine was 0.74 for OS (95% CI 0.42-1.29) and 0.79 for PFS (95% CI 0.42-1.49).

Conclusions: GEM + CDDP + S-1 was associated with longer PFS without additional toxicity than GEM + CDDP for fit older patients. However, the OS for both were not statistically different. The efficacies of GEM + CDDP and gemcitabine for vulnerable older patients did not also differ significantly. These findings highlight the importance of vulnerability in patients with aBTC.

Keywords: Biliary tract cancer; Chemotherapy; Older; Survival; Unresectable.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethical approval: Approved by the institutional review board of each participating institution. Informed consent: Written informed consent was obtained individually.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overall survival (A) and progression-free survival (B) according to first-line chemotherapy. The blue, yellow, grey, orange, and pale blue lines represent the gemcitabine + cisplatin + S-1, gemcitabine + cisplatin, gemcitabine + S-1, gemcitabine monotherapy, and S-1 monotherapy groups, respectively
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of overall survival (A) and progression-free survival (B) between gemcitabine + cisplatin + S-1 and gemcitabine + cisplatin groups using propensity-score-matched analysis. The blue and orange line represents gemcitabine + cisplatin + S-1 and gemcitabine + cisplatin groups, respectively
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of overall survival (A) and progression-free survival (B) between gemcitabine + cisplatin and gemcitabine monotherapy groups using propensity-score-matched analysis. The blue and orange line represents gemcitabine + cisplatin and gemcitabine monotherapy groups, respectively

References

    1. Valle JW, Kelley RK, Nervi B, et al. Biliary tract cancer. Lancet. 2021;397:428–44. - DOI - PubMed
    1. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Global Cancer Observatory, Cancer Today. https://gco.iarc.fr/en [Accessed on 03 November, 2024]
    1. Cancer Statistics. Cancer Information Service, National Cancer Center, Japan (National Cancer Registry, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare). https://ganjoho.jp/reg_stat/statistics/stat/cancer/9_gallbladder.html [Accessed 01 November, 2024]
    1. Okusaka T, Ishii H, Funakoshi A, et al. Phase II study of single-agent gemcitabine in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2006;57:647–53. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Suzuki E, Furuse J, Ikeda M, et al. Treatment efficacy/safety and prognostic factors in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer receiving gemcitabine monotherapy: an analysis of 100 cases. Oncology. 2010;79:39–45. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources