Corrigendum to “Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with biliary tract cancer”

Abstract

[[abstract]]The authors report that in the original publication the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 scores for durvalumab-cisplatin-gemcitabine and pembrolizumab-cisplatin-gemcitabine are 4 and 1, respectively. The higher ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score for cisplatin-gemcitabine-durvalumab is due to the high 2-year OS gain observed with this regimen (14.2%). This was, however, based on only 9 patients (2.6% of the durvalumab-treated patients) who were still alive at that time. Thus, it should be noted that it does not currently provide evidence that durvalumab is vastly superior to pembrolizumab in combination with cisplatin-gemcitabine as both drugs incur similar clinical benefit with a HR OS of 0.75 and 0.83 and absolute median OS benefit of 1.6 and 1.8 months, respectively. Future updates to the ESMO-MCBS methodology will account for the proportion of study patients included in tail of the curve survival analyses, resulting in a lower MCBS score for durvalumab-cisplatin-gemcitabine. Recommendation 4a should read as follows: “Recommendation 4a. The combination of cisplatin-gemcitabine with durvalumab or pembrolizumab should be considered as standard of care in first-line BTC [I, A; ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit (MCBS) v1.1 score for durvalumab: 4; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score for pembrolizumab: 1]. Cisplatin-gemcitabine-S1 is an alternative therapeutic option for fit patients [II, B].”[Figure presented] The revised Figure 1 Algorithm for the treatment of biliary tract cancer is given below. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.