4.2 Review

Pharmacotherapeutic options for biliary tract cancer: current standard of care and new perspectives

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON PHARMACOTHERAPY
卷 20, 期 17, 页码 2121-2137

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2019.1667335

关键词

Biliary tract cancer; chemotherapy; cholangiocarcinoma; gallbladder cancer; gemcitabine; immunotherapy; targeted therapy

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Health [NET2011-02352137]
  2. Fondazione Piemontese per la Ricerca sul Cancro
  3. Fondazione del Piemonte per l'Oncologia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Biliary tract cancer (BTC), which comprises gallbladder cancer, ampullary cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma, is a rare and heterogeneous entity, with limited approved therapeutic options. However, interest in this disease has grown exponentially in recent years, as a mounting body of evidence has shed light on the complex molecular and microenvironmental background of BTC, and clinical investigations have explored a variety of new agents and combinations, with promising results. Areas covered: This review describes the standard of care in advanced BTC and summarizes the most recent evidence available on the pharmacological treatment of resected and advanced disease, focusing on chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. Expert opinion: The therapeutic armamentarium of BTC has made radical progress after almost a decade of very few positive results. Phase-III evidence now supports the use of adjuvant capecitabine after resection of localized disease, while investigations into improved regimens in the advanced setting are underway, exploring alternative options to the standard gemcitabine-cisplatin doublet. The first positive phase-III trial supports the use of the mFOLFOX6 regimen as a second-line chemotherapy. Targeted therapy against specific genomic alterations can combine with chemotherapy in specific subsets of patients. Despite recent advancements, conducting clinical trials for BTC is still a real challenge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据