Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 716

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Adjuvant Therapy in the Treatment of Biliary Tract Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Horgan, Anne M., Amir, Eitan, Walter, Thomas, Knox, Jennifer J.·2012·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: The benefit of adjuvant therapy (AT) for biliary tract cancer (BTC) is unclear, with conflicting results from nonrandomized studies. We report a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the impact of AT on survival. Methods: Studies published between 1960 and November 2010, which evaluated adjuvant chemotherapy (CT), radiotherapy (RT), or both (CRT) compared with curative-intent surgery alone for resected BTC were included. Only tumors of the gallbladder and bile ducts were assessed. Published data were extracted and computed into odds ratios (ORs) for death at 5 years. Subgroup analyses of benefit based on lymph node (LN) or resection margin positivity (R1) were prespecified. Data were weighted by generic inverse variance and pooled using random-effect modeling. Results: Twenty studies involving 6,712 patients were analyzed. There was a nonsignificant improvement in overall survival with any AT compared with surgery alone (pooled OR, 0.74; P = .06). There was no difference between gallbladder and bile duct tumors (P = .68). The association was significant when the two registry analyses were excluded. Those receiving CT or CRT derived statistically greater benefit than RT alone (OR, 0.39, 0.61, and 0.98, respectively; P = .02). The greatest benefit for AT was in those with LN-positive disease (OR, 0.49; P = .004) and R1 disease (OR, 0.36; P = .002). Conclusion: This analysis supports AT for BTC. Prospective randomized trials are needed to provide better rationale for this commonly used strategy. On the basis of our data, such trials could involve two active comparators rather than a no-treatment arm among patients with LN-positive or R1 disease.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2011.40.5381

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 716

Metadata

Authors
Horgan, A. M., Amir, E., Walter, T., & Knox, J. J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2012-06-01
Volume
30
Issue
16
Pages
1934-1940
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2148899606
Cited by
716
References
2
FWCI
7.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Adjuvant Therapy in the Treatment of Biliary Tract Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2011.40.5381
The paper
Horgan, A. M., Amir, E., Walter, T., & Knox, J. J. (2012). Adjuvant Therapy in the Treatment of Biliary Tract Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.40.5381

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.