SynthesisTargeted oncology2025
Efficacy and Toxicity of Pemigatinib in Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma Harboring FGFR Fusions or Rearrangements: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Targeted oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy and safety of pemigatinib in advanced cholangiocarcinoma (aCCA) were presented in phase I-II trials and retrospective reports, with small sample sizes and variable results.
methodsA systematic literature search included studies investigating the efficacy/safety of pemigatinib in aCCA harboring FGFR fusions/rearrangements. Primary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse events (AEs). A pooled proportion meta-analysis was performed.
resultsThree hundred and twenty-seven patients in eight studies were included (three phase-II, one phase-I/II, two phase-I, and two retrospective). In the pooled analyses, the median age was 58.9 years (95% confidence interval (CI): 51.9-65.8); 33.4% (95% CI: 28.1-39.0) were male. Pemigatinib was the second-line treatment in 58.5% (95% CI: 52.7-64.1) and was beyond second-line in the remaining. ORR was 42.2% (95% CI: 35.9-48.7) (I
conclusionThis analysis emphasizes the FGFR alteration testing and pemigatinib use in the second-line and beyond treatment of aCCA. REGISTRATION ID (PROSPERO): CRD42024627459.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40223038What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.