Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine-based chemotherapies in biliary tract cancer: A meta-analysis

Table 1 Study characteristics

Ref.	Year	Treatment	n	Male (%)	Age	DRR	DCR	PFS	OS
					mean (range), yr	(%)	(%)	(mo)	(mo)
Valle et al[10]	2010	GEM + CIS	204	52.9	63.9 (32.8-81.9)	21.6	81.4	8.0	11.7
		GEM	206	52.4	63.2 (23.4-84.8)	15.5	71.8	5.0	8.0
Okusaka et al[18]	2010	GEM + CIS	41	43.9	65 (43-80)	19.5	68.3	5.8	11.2
		GEM	42	50.0	66.5 (49-78)	11.9	50.0	3.7	7.7
Sasaki et al[12]	2013	GEM + S-1	30	53.3	68 (47-83)	20.0	70.0	5.6	8.9
		GEM	32	66.7	75 (55-86)	9.4	62.5	4.3	9.2
Kornek et al[14]	2004	GEM + MMC	25	32.0	67 (44-75)	21.7	60.9	4.2	6.7
		MMC + CAPE	26	38.5	65 (45-75)	33.3	70.8	5.3	9.3
Sharma et al[17]	2010	GEM + OX	26	19.2	49	30.7	68.7	8.5	9.5
		FUFA	28	17.9	47	14.3	21.4	3.5	4.6
Kang et al[11]	2012	GEM + CIS	49	63.3	59 (32-77)	19.6	71.7	5.7	10.1
		S-1 + CIS	48	64.6	60 (36-77)	23.8	85.7	5.4	9.9
Morizane et al[13]	2013	GEM + S-1	50	54.0	66 (39-78)	36.4	59.1	7.1	12.5
		S-1	51	47.1	62.5 (49-79)	17.4	39.1	4.2	9.0

CAPE: Capecitabine; CIS: Cisplatin; DCR: Disease control rate; DRR: Disease response rate; FUFA: Fluorouracil-folinic acid; GEM: Gemcitabine; MMC: Mitomycin C; OS: Overall survival; OX: Oxaliplatin; PFS: Progression-free survival.