ACTICCA-1
gemcitabine plus cisplatin in biliary tract cancer after curative intent resection
ACTICCA-1 asks whether adjuvant gemcitabine–cisplatin improves disease-free survival over standard care after curative-intent resection of cholangiocarcinoma or muscle-invasive gallbladder cancer; debate concerns selective GemCis use rather than routine replacement. The report cites 13 physicians, including five medical oncologists, six surgical oncologists and one radiation oncologist; another question is whether nodal staging changes treatment or informs prognosis. Which patients, if any, justify optional GemCis given reported toxicity and concerns about preserving later treatment? The sources reviewed for this edition place ACTICCA-1 results at ESMO 2026.
- NCT02170090 ↗
- v1.0.0 · edition 1
- updated Nov 1, 2026
- Focused
7 findings, and what sits behind each
01. No routine switch, but selective GemCis remains a contested option
11 statements · 14 passages · 14 sources · 8 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Secondary endpoints, Safety and tolerability.
02. Early and numerical efficacy signals are not being read as an unequivocally positive primary comparison
9 statements · 8 passages · 7 sources · 5 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Disease free survival (DFS), Secondary endpoints, The comparison, Population and setting, Safety and tolerability, Design and conduct.
03. Individualization reflects recovery and tolerability, not a validated escalation rule
12 statements · 7 passages · 5 sources · 6 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, The comparison, Safety and tolerability, Secondary endpoints, Primary endpoint: Disease free survival (DFS).
04. Nodal staging divides treatment-selection arguments from prognostic value
15 statements · 15 passages · 1 sources · 10 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, The comparison.
05. Locoregional control and chemoradiation have rationales distinct from a survival claim
6 statements · 7 passages · 3 sources · 4 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Secondary endpoints, Population and setting, The comparison.
06. Persistent recurrence prompts alternative-strategy questions, not proven replacements
9 statements · 9 passages · 7 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Secondary endpoints, Safety and tolerability.
07. Evolving comparators and long evidence timelines frame both anticipation and disappointment
18 statements · 11 passages · 10 sources · 11 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Design and conduct, Population and setting.
Counts overlap, since one statement can back several findings. They show what the report kept, not how many clinicians agree. The full report includes the interpretations and source links.
Select a finding to see what the full report holds for it: how many verified HCP statements and of what kind, the passages behind them, the sources and voices, and the counterview and limits it records. Select a part of the trial to see which findings draw on it.
- Finding 1 of 7
No routine switch, but selective GemCis remains a contested option
- statements
- 11
- passages
- 14
- sources
- 14
- named voices
- 8
What the statements areViews 11Questions and uncertainty 0Clinical experience 0Comparisons 0Restated results and context 0How passages are usedSupporting a statement 14Giving context 0Recorded with the finding- Counterview: recorded
- Limitations: 3
- Feeds the Medical Affairs question
- 14 posts and articles
Draws on: The comparison, Secondary endpoints, Safety and tolerability.
In the full report: the interpretation in full, all 11 statements cited to source and date, and the 14 sources linked where public.
Thicker lines mean more shared statements. A finding without a line goes beyond the registered design. Counts overlap, since one statement can back several findings, and they show what the report kept, not how many clinicians agree.
The full ACTICCA-1 report gives each finding its interpretation, the attributed views behind it, counterviews, limits and the verified HCP statements, each linked to the original. Get a complete report free to see what you get.
What patient profile, if any, justifies optional GemCis when speakers report additional toxicity and worry about preserving later treatment?
Raised by the leading finding. The report shows what clinicians said and the sources behind it; it does not settle the question.
By the numbers
free- 65HCP commentary sources screened
- 31sources cited by verified HCP statements
- 27named in screened sources
- 27voices cited in the report
- 24cited voices matched to verified clinician profiles
Also in the sources: 1 organizational or shared account, not counted as people.
- 79verified statements, each linked to its source
- 42of them from speakers with a confirmed clinical role
- 7findings
Screened sources were retrieved for this trial. Cited sources back at least one verified statement and include primary sources used for context. No count estimates how many clinicians hold a view. Size (Focused) is set by the 79 verified statements. Statements from sponsors, hosts and organisations are labelled and count apart from identified clinicians. A confirmed clinical role is one verified by the NPI registry or by the person's own institution's staff page; a role a source only states is not counted.
What's inside
free| Section | Items | Access |
|---|---|---|
| Findings with interpretation, counterviews and limits | 7 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 8 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 79 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 12 | Free |
| Sources with links | 31 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 27 | Paid |
Trial aspects
12 discussed · 0 no commentary · 0 incomplete| Aspect | Statements | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint: Disease free survival (DFS) | 7 | 6 |
| Secondary endpoints | 15 | 14 |
| Population and setting | 14 | 8 |
| The comparison | 32 | 26 |
| Safety and tolerability | 5 | 4 |
| Design and conduct | 12 | 5 |
| Preserving GemCis for treatment after recurrence | 2 | 2 |
| Individualized adjuvant goals and selective escalation | 15 | 9 |
| Nodal work-up, treatment consequences and patient counseling | 16 | 2 |
| Local versus systemic control and chemoradiation alternatives | 6 | 3 |
| Alternative strategies: selection, added agents and perioperative sequencing | 11 | 7 |
| Confidence in existing adjuvant evidence and expectations for ACTICCA-1 | 13 | 10 |
An aspect marked incomplete is a question the public commentary did not let us answer. We show it rather than hide it.
Sources
free| Channel | Screened | Cited | |
|---|---|---|---|
| X threads | 59 | 26 | |
| Bluesky threads | 3 | 0 | |
| LinkedIn posts | 1 | 1 | |
| Podcasts | 1 | 1 | |
| X videos | 1 | 1 | |
| Primary sources, cited for context, not screened | |||
| Publications | not screened | 1 | |
| Registry | not screened | 1 | |
max 45 / quarter
- Screened window
- Jan 20, 2017 → Oct 30, 2026
- Cited window
- Jan 20, 2017 → Oct 26, 2026
- Retrieved
- Nov 1, 2026
The trial
from ClinicalTrials.gov- Title
- Adjuvant Chemotherapy With Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Compared to Standard of Care After Curative Intent Resection of Cholangiocarcinoma and Muscle Invasive Gall Bladder Carcinoma (ACTICCA-1 Trial)
- Registry
- NCT02170090
- Study IDs
- ACTICCA-1 · 2024-517340-61-00 · ACTRN12615001283561 (ANZCTR (clinical trial registry))
- Sponsor
- Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf
- Collaborators
- Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V., Bonn (Germany), Cancer Research UK, Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group, Dutch Cancer Society
- Design
- Phase 3 · Interventional, randomized, parallel
- Status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrollment
- 789 actual
- Registered
- 2014-06-23
- Start
- 2014-04
- Primary completion
- 2025-12 estimated
- Primary endpoint
- Disease free survival (DFS)
- Interventions
- 3 registered
Scope and limits
freeThis report does not judge efficacy, estimate HCP prevalence or consensus or give treatment advice.
- Discussion that does not name the trial may be missing from this edition.
- Some passages in the sources used in this report were not fully assessed for clinician views, so a view there may be missing from this edition.
- 81 statements in the sources reviewed for this edition are about other patients or topics, or only mention the trial, and are not counted.
- Further source limits: discussion that describes the trial without naming it may be incomplete; some discussion that describes the trial without naming it may be missing; sources about other trials are not included.
- The sources reviewed for this edition do not represent all HCP discussion or establish the prevalence of any treatment preference.
- Some passages were not fully assessed for clinician views. Discussion using unnamed references or other trial-name variants may be missing, including within sources considered for this edition.
- Repeated posts and reposts must not be interpreted as additional independent HCP opinions or as evidence of agreement.
- Some speakers' identities or clinical roles are not established in the sources used in this report; each statement is attributed only as far as its source shows.
- The primary publications provided here describe methods rather than observed results. Efficacy and toxicity figures in the report are attributed commentary, not an independently reconciled trial-results dataset.
- Different median DFS values and OS p-values appear in the summaries, without enough information to explain whether they concern different analyses or populations.
- Historical statements about standards, trial status and expected reporting retain their original timing. They do not establish actual reporting dates or changes in a speaker's position.
- No assessed commentary addresses quality of life, biliary anastomotic function or biliary infection outcomes.
How reports are built and checked: Methods.
Editions and corrections
freeLast checked for new commentary Nov 1, 2026. A new or changed finding gets a new version number; added evidence alone is a smaller update. No corrections.
Cite this report
Erudio Health. ACTICCA-1 (NCT02170090): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Nov 1, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/acticca-1-nct02170090
For your AI agent
Paste this into ChatGPT, Claude, Microsoft Copilot or your own agent. It previews this report through the free Erudio MCP server, tells you whether it answers your question, and orders it if you ask. Some agents ask you to confirm pasted instructions before acting; that is expected.
Help me decide whether to buy the Erudio report "ACTICCA-1" (NCT02170090), and buy it for me if I ask. Erudio reports cover what clinicians say in public about one clinical trial, with every verified statement linked to its source.
1. Use the free Erudio MCP server at https://mcp.erudio.com/free; it needs no sign-in. Nothing needs installing: if it is not connected in this app and you can make HTTP requests, call it directly with JSON-RPC POSTs to that URL (initialize, then tools/call), sending "Accept: application/json, text/event-stream". Call get_report_card with slug "acticca-1-02170090". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/acticca-1-nct02170090.md instead.
2. In a few lines, tell me what the report covers: its findings, its verified statements and sources, its evidence window, what it leaves out, and the price of each product (offer). Then ask what I need it for, and say plainly whether this report answers it.
3. If I want it, ask for my work email and the product: the current edition, or 3, 6 or 12 months of weekly updates. Call create_order with report "NCT02170090", that product and email, then show me the quote and the checkout_url to pay by card. If you have a payment client for HTTP 402 payments and I agree, you can pay the pay_url instead. Nothing is charged until one is paid.
4. Once it is paid, call get_order with the status_url: it returns my license key. Then use the Erudio MCP server at https://mcp.erudio.com/mcp with the header "Authorization: Bearer <key>". Call read_report with report_id erudio-nct02170090 and sections ["all"], and summarize the findings for me with their sources. The full report is large (about 500 KB): save the response to a file and work from it rather than printing it. If you cannot, read sections ["narratives"] first, the executive summary and analysis.
When you tell me what clinicians said, give each view as theirs, with its source. Counts are the sources the report kept, not the share of clinicians who agree. Reports are not medical advice.
Keep the key private to my organization.Or read the record directly: JSON, Markdown or MCP
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/acticca-1-nct02170090.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/acticca-1-nct02170090.md
# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "acticca-1-02170090" })release 29599d8c0cea4b5a63a668ef2c7aab3f9bd8fcff29c199522a7653a12feab0a0