Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27469329›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2016

Intrapancreatic distal common bile duct carcinoma: Analysis, staging considerations, and comparison with pancreatic ductal and ampullary adenocarcinomas.

Raul S Gonzalez, Pelin Bagci, Olca Basturk, Michelle D Reid, Serdar Balci, Jessica H Knight, So Yeon Kong, Bahar Memis, Kee-Taek Jang, Nobuyuki Ohike and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Cytologic predictors of malignancy in bile duct brushings: a multi-reviewer analysis of 60 cases.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 10 institutions in 4 countries.

Raul S GonzalezDepartment of Pathology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Pelin BagciDepartment of Pathology, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Olca BasturkDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Michelle D ReidDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Serdar BalciDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Jessica H KnightDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
So Yeon KongDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Bahar MemisDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Kee-Taek JangDepartment of Pathology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Nobuyuki OhikeDepartment of Pathology, Showa University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Takuma TajiriDepartment of Pathology, Tokai University Hachiouji Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Sudeshna BandyopadhyayDepartment of Pathology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA.
Alyssa M KrasinskasDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Grace E KimDepartment of Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jeanette D ChengDepartment of Pathology, Piedmont Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA.
N Volkan AdsayDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Emory University · USMarmara University · TRMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USPiedmont Atlanta Hospital · USSamsung Medical Center · KRShowa University · JPTokai University Hachioji Hospital · JPUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Rochester Medical Center · USWayne State University · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Distal common bile duct carcinoma is a poorly characterized entity for reasons such as variable terminology and difficulty in determining site of origin of intrapancreatic lesions. We compared clinicopathologic features of pancreatobiliary-type adenocarcinomas within the pancreas, but arising from the distal common bile duct, with those of pancreatic and ampullary origin. Upon careful review of 1017 pancreatoduodenectomy specimens with primary adenocarcinoma, 52 (5%) qualified as intrapancreatic distal common bile duct carcinoma. Five associated with an intraductal papillary neoplasm were excluded; the remaining 47 were compared to 109 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas and 133 ampullary carcinomas. Distal common bile duct carcinoma patients had a younger median age (58 years) than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients (65 years) and ampullary carcinoma patients (68 years). Distal common bile duct carcinoma was intermediate between pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and ampullary carcinoma with regard to tumor size and rates of node metastases and margin positivity. Median survival was better than for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (P=0.0010) but worse than for ampullary carcinoma (P=0.0006). Distal common bile duct carcinoma often formed an even band around the common bile duct and commonly showed intraglandular neutrophil-rich debris and a small tubular pattern. Poor prognostic indicators included node metastasis (P=0.0010), lymphovascular invasion (P=0.0299), and margin positivity (P=0.0069). Categorizing the tumors based on size also had prognostic relevance (P=0.0096), unlike categorization based on anatomic structures invaded. Primary distal common bile duct carcinoma is seen in younger patients than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma or ampullary carcinoma. Its prognosis is significantly better than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and worse than ampullary carcinoma, at least partly because of differences in clinical presentation. Use of size-based criteria for staging appears to improve its prognostic relevance. Invasive pancreatobiliary-type distal common bile duct carcinomas are uncommon in the West and have substantial clinicopathologic differences from carcinomas arising from the pancreas and ampulla.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmpulla of VaterCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalCommon Bile Duct NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPancreatic Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID27469329
PMCPMC5598556
OpenAlexW2505063578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.