In the relentless pursuit of more effective treatments for advanced biliary tract cancer (ABTC), a recent multicentre, randomized phase II clinical trial has unveiled promising insights into chemotherapy regimens that could alter the therapeutic landscape. Published in BMC Cancer, this study rigorously compared the efficacy and safety profiles of nab-paclitaxel combined with cisplatin versus the conventional gemcitabine plus cisplatin regimen, which has long remained the standard first-line treatment despite its unsatisfactory outcomes.
Biliary tract cancers, encompassing a heterogeneous group of malignancies arising from the biliary epithelium, are notoriously aggressive and frequently diagnosed at unresectable or metastatic stages. The bleak prognosis associated with ABTC has galvanized research efforts toward identifying chemotherapy combinations that improve patient survival while minimizing debilitating side effects. This new trial, spearheaded by Yang, X., Dai, YH., Peng, H. and colleagues, undertook this challenge by enrolling 75 patients diagnosed with unresectable advanced-stage tumors or those experiencing recurrence or metastasis post radical surgery.
The participants were meticulously randomized into two treatment arms: one receiving the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC), the current clinical standard, and the other receiving nab-paclitaxel plus cisplatin (NC). Nab-paclitaxel, an albumin-bound formulation of paclitaxel, has been gaining traction in various solid tumors due to its improved delivery and tolerability. The investigators aimed to determine whether NC could provide superior progression-free survival (PFS) and maintain manageable safety profiles relative to the GC regimen.
.adsslot_BbyN1eRjp9{ width:728px !important; height:90px !important; }
@media (max-width:1199px) { .adsslot_BbyN1eRjp9{ width:468px !important; height:60px !important; } }
@media (max-width:767px) { .adsslot_BbyN1eRjp9{ width:320px !important; height:50px !important; } }
ADVERTISEMENT
Over an 11-month median follow-up period, the researchers observed noteworthy differences in outcomes between the two groups. The NC cohort demonstrated a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 7.8 months, compared to 7.0 months for the GC group. Statistical analysis revealed that this difference was significant, with a p-value of 0.0034 and a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.5136, underscoring a nearly 50% reduction in the risk of disease progression favoring the NC regimen.
Interestingly, despite the clear advantage in PFS, overall survival (OS) differences between the two treatment arms were not statistically significant. The median OS was 12.4 months for patients receiving NC and 12.1 months for those on GC, with a p-value of 0.4592. This suggests that while NC delayed disease progression more effectively, it did not translate into longer overall survival within the study’s follow-up timeframe, a notion warranting further exploration in larger, possibly phase III trials.
The objective response rate (ORR), a secondary endpoint assessing tumor shrinkage, showed comparable results across both regimens. Approximately 37.8% of patients in the NC group and 34.2% in the GC group achieved a measurable response, indicating similar antitumor potency between the two chemotherapy combinations.
Safety profiles between the two cohorts revealed nuanced trade-offs, elucidating considerations critical for clinical decision-making. Thrombocytopenia, a hematologic toxicity characterized by low platelet counts and increased bleeding risk, was significantly less frequent in the NC group (27%) compared to the GC group (50%), a difference with a p-value of 0.041. This reduction in hematologic toxicity signifies a potentially improved tolerance for patients undergoing NC therapy.
Conversely, sensory neuropathy, a neurological side effect marked by numbness and tingling often associated with taxane chemotherapy, was more prevalent among patients treated with NC, reported in 62.1% of cases versus 36.8% in the GC group (p=0.028). This finding highlights the delicate balance between efficacy and adverse events, underscoring the need for vigilant symptom management in patients receiving nab-paclitaxel.
The investigators contextualize these findings within the framework of a non-inferiority trial, emphasizing that the NC regimen demonstrated comparable effectiveness to the longstanding GC regimen with a trend toward improved progression-free survival and a favorable hematological toxicity profile. They advocate for continued investigation to validate these preliminary results, particularly in an era increasingly influenced by immunotherapy’s integration into oncologic treatment paradigms.
The study’s design incorporated rigorous inclusion criteria, enrolling patients with advanced biliary tract carcinomas either unresectable at presentation or those with recurrence and metastasis after primary surgery. Enrollment spanned from January 2021 to November 2022 across multiple centers, enhancing the generalizability of the results. Randomization ensured balanced cohorts, mitigating selection biases and enabling robust comparative analyses.
This trial’s outcomes challenge the entrenched paradigm that gemcitabine plus cisplatin is the unequivocal first-line standard for ABTC. Nab-paclitaxel’s formulation allows for increased drug delivery to tumor sites, potentially accounting for the observed improvement in progression-free survival. Moreover, the favorable hematologic side effect profile positions NC as a compelling alternative for patients vulnerable to myelosuppression.
Despite the encouraging data, questions remain about the optimal sequencing and combination of chemotherapy with emerging treatments such as checkpoint inhibitors and targeted agents. Further large-scale clinical trials incorporating biomarker-driven stratification may elucidate patient subsets most likely to benefit from nab-paclitaxel-based regimens.
The authors also underscore the importance of integrating quality-of-life assessments in future studies, given the differing toxicity profiles. For instance, while NC reduces the risk of thrombocytopenia, its association with higher rates of sensory neuropathy may impact patients’ daily functioning and treatment adherence.
This trial’s registration under ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04692051) and its public documentation via the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=38440) reflect the transparent and collaborative nature of contemporary clinical oncology research, inviting peer scrutiny and fostering international knowledge exchange.
In sum, this phase II study illuminates the therapeutic potential of nab-paclitaxel plus cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer, demonstrating comparable – and in some aspects favorable – efficacy and safety compared to the conventional gemcitabine-cisplatin regimen. As oncology moves toward personalized medicine frameworks, these findings inject fresh momentum into optimizing chemotherapy backbones amidst an evolving therapeutic armamentarium for this challenging malignancy.
Subject of Research: Evaluation of nab-paclitaxel plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin as first-line treatment regimens for advanced biliary tract cancer.
Article Title: Nab-paclitaxel plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin as first-line treatment in advanced biliary tract cancer: results of a multicentre, randomised, phase II trial
Article References:
Yang, X., Dai, YH., Peng, H. et al. Nab-paclitaxel plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin as first-line treatment in advanced biliary tract cancer: results of a multicentre, randomised, phase II trial. BMC Cancer 25, 1321 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14581-3
Image Credits: Scienmag.com
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14581-3
Tags: advanced biliary cancer clinical trialalbumin-bound paclitaxel benefitsbiliary tract cancer treatmentcancer research advancementschemotherapy side effects managementfirst-line cancer treatment optionsgemcitabine cisplatin comparisonmetastatic biliary cancer therapiesnab-paclitaxel chemotherapy regimenpatient survival biliary cancerphase II cancer researchtherapeutic landscape biliary cancer