Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29256155›Full record

ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2018

Adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation therapy in patients with microscopic residual tumor after curative resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

J Lee, S H Kang, O K Noh, M Chun, Y-T Oh, B-W Kim, S-W Kim

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

J LeeDepartment of Surgery, Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
S H KangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University School of Medicine, 875 Haeundae-ro, Haeundae-gu, Busan, 48108, Republic of Korea. shkang6511@naver.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9256-6527
O K NohDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, 164 Worldcup-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, 16499, Republic of Korea. okyu.noh@gmail.com.
M ChunDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, 164 Worldcup-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, 16499, Republic of Korea.
Y-T OhDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, 164 Worldcup-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, 16499, Republic of Korea.
B-W KimDepartment of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, 164 Worldcup-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, Gyeong-gi do, 16499, Republic of Korea.
S-W KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University School of Medicine, 164 Worldcup-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, 16499, Republic of Korea.
Ajou University · KRInje University Haeundae Paik Hospital · KRKonyang University · KRKorea University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe investigated the role of adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) in patients with a microscopically positive resection margin (R1) after curative resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EHCC). METHODS/PATIENTS: A total of 84 patients treated with curative resection for EHCC were included. Fifty-two patients with negative resection margins did not receive any adjuvant treatments (R0 + S group). The remaining 32 patients with microscopically positive resection margins received either adjuvant CCRT (R1 + CCRT group, n = 19) or adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) alone (R1 + RT group, n = 13).

resultsDuring the median follow-up period of 26 months, the 2-year locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival rates (OS) were: 81.8, 62.6, and 61.5% for R0 + S group; 71.8, 57.8, and 57.9% for R1 + CCRT group; and 16.8, 9.6, and 15.4% for R1 + RT group, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that the R1 + CCRT group did not show any significant difference in survival rates compared with the R0 + S group. The R1 + RT group had lower LRRFS [hazard ratio (HR) 3.008; p = 0.044], DFS (HR 2.364; p = 0.022), and OS (HR 2.417; p = 0.011) when compared with the R0 + S and R1 + CCRT group.

conclusionsA lack of significant survival difference between R0 + S group and R1 + CCRT group suggests that adjuvant CCRT ameliorates the negative effect of microscopic positive resection margin. In contrast, adjuvant RT alone is appeared to be inadequate for controlling microscopically residual tumor.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBile Duct NeoplasmsChemoradiotherapyChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantCholangiocarcinomaCombined Modality TherapyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm, ResidualPrognosisConcurrent chemoradiation therapyExtrahepatic cholangiocarcinomaPositive surgical marginSurvival

Identifiers

PMID29256155
OpenAlexW2778939151

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.