Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30615206›Full record

ArticleHepatology (Baltimore, Md.)2019

Integrative Analysis Defines Distinct Prognostic Subgroups of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

Benjamin Goeppert, Reka Toth, Stephan Singer, Thomas Albrecht, Daniel B Lipka, Pavlo Lutsik, David Brocks, Marion Baehr, Oliver Muecke, Yassen Assenov and 8 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Using cell-free DNA tumor methylation score to detect and monitor cholangiocarcinoma.HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Preclinical mouse models for studying cholangiocarcinoma.Liver research (Beijing, China) · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

18 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Benjamin GoeppertInstitute of Pathology, University Clinic of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Reka TothDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Stephan SingerInstitute of Pathology, University Clinic of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Thomas AlbrechtInstitute of Pathology, University Clinic of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Daniel B LipkaDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Pavlo LutsikDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
David BrocksDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Marion BaehrDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Oliver MueckeDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Yassen AssenovDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Lei GuDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Volker EndrisInstitute of Pathology, University Clinic of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Albrecht StenzingerInstitute of Pathology, University Clinic of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Arianeb MehrabiLiver Cancer Center Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Peter SchirmacherInstitute of Pathology, University Clinic of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Christoph PlassDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Dieter WeichenhanDivision of Cancer Epigenomics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Stephanie RoesslerInstitute of Pathology, University Clinic of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heidelberg University · DEGerman Cancer Research Center · DEHopp Children's Cancer Center Heidelberg · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEBoston Children's Hospital · USEpigenomics (Germany) · DE

Funding

European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program 667273German Research Foundation CRC SFB/TR 209Helmholtz Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is the second most common primary liver cancer. It is defined by cholangiocytic differentiation and has poor prognosis. Recently, epigenetic processes have been shown to play an important role in cholangiocarcinogenesis. We performed an integrative analysis on 52 iCCAs using both genetic and epigenetic data with a specific focus on DNA methylation components. We found recurrent isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) and IDH2 (28%) gene mutations, recurrent arm-length copy number alterations (CNAs), and focal alterations such as deletion of 3p21 or amplification of 12q15, which affect BRCA1 Associated Protein 1, polybromo 1, and mouse double minute 2 homolog. DNA methylome analysis revealed excessive hypermethylation of iCCA, affecting primarily the bivalent genomic regions marked with both active and repressive histone modifications. Integrative clustering of genetic and epigenetic data identified four iCCA subgroups with prognostic relevance further designated as IDH, high (H), medium (M), and low (L) alteration groups. The IDH group consisted of all samples with IDH1 or IDH2 mutations and showed, together with the H group, a highly disrupted genome, characterized by frequent deletions of chromosome arms 3p and 6q. Both groups showed excessive hypermethylation with distinct patterns. The M group showed intermediate characteristics regarding both genetic and epigenetic marks, whereas the L group exhibited few methylation changes and mutations and a lack of CNAs. Methylation-based latent component analysis of cell-type composition identified differences among these four groups. Prognosis of the H and M groups was significantly worse than that of the L group. Conclusion: Using an integrative genomic and epigenomic analysis approach, we identified four major iCCA subgroups with widespread genomic and epigenomic differences and prognostic implications. Furthermore, our data suggest differences in the cell-of-origin of the iCCA subtypes.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBile Duct NeoplasmsCholangiocarcinomaFemaleGenes, p53HumansIsocitrate DehydrogenaseMaleMiddle AgedMutationPrognosisIDH1 protein, humanIDH2 protein, humanIsocitrate Dehydrogenase

Identifiers

PMID30615206
PMCPMC6594081
OpenAlexW2910714864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.