Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28338651›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2017

Dichotomy in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas based on histologic similarities to hilar cholangiocarcinomas.

Masayuki Akita, Kohei Fujikura, Tetsuo Ajiki, Takumi Fukumoto, Kyoko Otani, Takeshi Azuma, Tomoo Itoh, Yonson Ku, Yoh Zen

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 130 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Classification of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Masayuki AkitaDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Kohei FujikuraDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Tetsuo AjikiDepartment of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Takumi FukumotoDepartment of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Kyoko OtaniDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Takeshi AzumaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Tomoo ItohDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Yonson KuDepartment of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Yoh ZenDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Kobe University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas were classified into two types based on their microscopic appearance. Tumors with histologic similarities to hilar cholangiocarcinomas (predominantly ductal adenocarcinomas with minor tubular components, if present, restricted to the invasive front) were defined as the perihilar type, whereas the others were classified as peripheral cholangiocarcinomas. Among the 47 cases examined in the present study, 26 (55%) were classified as the perihilar type, whereas 21 (45%) were the peripheral type. The perihilar type had higher pT stages and more frequently showed a periductal-infiltrating gross appearance and microscopic perineural infiltration than peripheral cholangiocarcinomas. The presence of low-grade biliary intraepithelial neoplasia in the adjacent bile ducts was only found in perihilar cholangiocarcinomas (6/21, 29%). The immunophenotype also differed between the two types with MUC5AC and MUC6 being more commonly expressed in the perihilar type. One-third of perihilar cholangiocarcinomas lacked the expression of SMAD4, suggesting SMAD4 mutations, whereas the loss of BAP1 expression and IDH1 mutations were almost restricted to the peripheral type (35 and 15%, respectively). Patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma had worse overall survival than those with peripheral cancer (P=0.027). A multivariate analysis identified the histologic classification as an independent prognostic factor (P=0.005, HR=3.638). Comparisons between intrahepatic and hilar cholangiocarcinomas also revealed that the molecular features and prognosis of perihilar cholangiocarcinomas were very similar to those of hilar cholangiocarcinomas. In conclusion, this histology-based classification scheme of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas will be useful and clinically relevant because it represents different underlying molecular features and has an independent prognostic value.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBile Duct NeoplasmsBile Ducts, IntrahepaticBiomarkers, TumorCholangiocarcinomaFemaleHumansKlatskin TumorMaleMiddle AgedMucin 5ACPrognosisSurvival RateBiomarkers, TumorMUC5AC protein, humanMucin 5AC

Identifiers

PMID28338651
OpenAlexW2598282877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.