Gerardo Rodríguez-GrijalvaCarolina RequeijoMarilina SanteroJosefina SalazarKarla Salas-GamaAdriana-Gabriela MeadeAlba AntequeraAriadna Auladell-RispauMaría Jesús QuintanaIvan SolàGerard UrrútiaRoberto Acosta-DigheroXavier Bonfill CospPérez, JavierJavierPérez2025-04-132025-04-132023-01-2610.3390/cancers150307662-s2.0-85147818795https://cris-uv-2.scimago.es/handle/123456789/2128WOS:000933088300001Background: The trade-off between systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) and UPSC in patients with primary advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) is not clear in terms of patient-centred outcomes beyond survival. This overview aims to assess the effectiveness of SOTs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted/biological therapies) versus UPSC in advanced HBCs. Methods: We searched for systematic reviews (SRs) in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and PROSPERO. Two authors assessed eligibility independently and performed data extraction. We estimated the quality of SRs and the overlap of primary studies, performed de novo meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Results: We included 18 SRs, most of which were of low quality and highly overlapped. For advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, SOTs showed better overall survival (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.55–0.77, high certainty for first-line therapy; HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.79–0.92, moderate certainty for second-line therapy) with higher toxicity (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.87–1.60, very low certainty for first-line therapy; RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.28–1.96, low certainty for second-line therapy). Survival was also better for SOTs in advanced gallbladder cancer. No outcomes beyond survival and toxicity could be meta-analysed. Conclusion: SOTs in advanced HBCs tend to improve survival at the expense of greater toxicity. Future research should inform other patient-important outcomes to guide clinical decision making.enacceso abiertoCancer ResearchOncologyreview