The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Gemcitabine alone or in combination with cisplatin in patients with biliary tract cancer: a comparative multicentre study in Japan
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: A British randomised study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) combination showed promising results in biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients. In our study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of this combination compared with gemcitabine alone (G) in Japanese BTC patients. METHODS: Overall, 84 advanced BTC patients were randomised to either cisplatin 25 mg m(-2) plus gemcitabine 1000 mg m(-2) on days 1, 8 of a 21-day cycle (GC-arm), or single-agent gemcitabine 1000 mg m(-2) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle (G-arm). Treatments were repeated for at least 12 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred, up to a maximum of 48 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients were included in the analysis. For the GC and G-arms, respectively, the 1-year survival rate was 39.0 vs 31.0%, median survival time 11.2 vs 7.7 months, median progression-free survival time 5.8 vs 3.7 months and overall response rate 19.5 vs 11.9%. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities (GC-arm/G-arm) were neutropenia (56.1%/38.1%), thrombocytopenia (39.0%/7.1%), leukopenia (29.3%/19.0%), haemoglobin decrease (36.6%/16.7%) and gamma-GTP increase (29.3%/35.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin combination therapy was found to be effective and well tolerated, suggesting that it could also be a standard regimen for Japanese patients.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Cholangiocarcinoma 2020: the next horizon in mechanisms and management
Banales, J. M., Marin, J. J. G., Lamarca, A., Rodrigues, P. M., Khan, S. A., Roberts, L. R., Cardinale, V., Carpino, G., Andersen, J. B., Braconi, C., et al. (2020) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/s41575-020-0310-z · Cited by 2,411
Cholangiocarcinoma — evolving concepts and therapeutic strategies
Ilyas, S. I., Khan, S. A., Hallemeier, C. L., Kelley, R. K., & Gores, G. J. (2018) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.157 · Cited by 1,626
Banales, J. M., Cardinale, V., Carpino, G., Marzioni, M., Andersen, J. B., Invernizzi, P., Lind, G. E., Folseraas, T., Forbes, S. J., Fouassier, L., et al. (2016) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2016.51 · Cited by 1,376
Durvalumab plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer
Oh, D.-Y., Ruth He, A., Qin, S., Chen, L.-T., Okusaka, T., Vogel, A., Kim, J. W., Suksombooncharoen, T., Ah Lee, M., Kitano, M., et al. (2022) · NEJM Evidence · doi:10.1056/evidoa2200015 · Cited by 1,217
Self-citationPrimary sclerosing cholangitis – a comprehensive review
Karlsen, T. H., Folseraas, T., Thorburn, D., & Vesterhus, M. (2017) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2017.07.022 · Cited by 868
Metadata
- Authors
- Okusaka, T., Nakachi, K., Fukutomi, A., Mizuno, N., Ohkawa, S., Funakoshi, A., Nagino, M., Kondo, S., Nagaoka, S., Funai, J., Koshiji, M., Nambu, Y., Furuse, J., Miyazaki, M., & Nimura, Y.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 2010-07-13
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 469-474
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W2087336559
- Cited by
- 744
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gemcitabine alone or in combination with cisplatin in patients with biliary tract cancer: a comparative multicentre study in Japan. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605779
- The paper
- Okusaka, T., Nakachi, K., Fukutomi, A., Mizuno, N., Ohkawa, S., Funakoshi, A., Nagino, M., Kondo, S., Nagaoka, S., Funai, J., Koshiji, M., Nambu, Y., Furuse, J., Miyazaki, M., & Nimura, Y. (2010). Gemcitabine alone or in combination with cisplatin in patients with biliary tract cancer: a comparative multicentre study in Japan. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605779
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
