Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31407490›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2019

Patients' prognosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma after resection.

Peipei Song, Yutaka Midorikawa, Hisashi Nakayama, Tokio Higaki, Masamichi Moriguchi, Osamu Aramaki, Shintaro Yamazaki, Masaru Aoki, Kenichi Teramoto, Tadatoshi Takayama

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Update on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Combined Hepatocellular Cholangiocarcinoma.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A New Scoring Method for Personalized Prognostic Prediction in Patients with Combined Hepatocellular and Cholangiocarcinoma After Surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Therapy of Primary Liver Cancer.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2020
    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

10 authors.

Peipei SongDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-8075-4379
Yutaka MidorikawaDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Hisashi NakayamaDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Tokio HigakiDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Masamichi MoriguchiDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Osamu AramakiDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Shintaro YamazakiDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Masaru AokiDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Kenichi TeramotoDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Tadatoshi TakayamaDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development JP19hk0102049s0302JSS Memorial Surgical Research Fund
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) are classified into one category, but comparison of prognosis of the two carcinomas remains controversial. The aim of the current study was to investigate surgical outcomes for patients with ICC or cHCC-CC who underwent resection in order to elucidate whether the classification of ICC and cHCC-CC is justified. Subjects were 61 patients with ICC and 29 patients with cHCC-CC who underwent liver resection from 2001 to 2017. Clinic-pathological data from the two groups were compared. Tumor number and vascular invasion were independent risk factors for recurrence-free survival (RFS) in both groups (P < .001 for both). Of note, for patients with ICC, tumor cut-off size of 5 cm showed statistical significance in median RFS (>5 cm vs ≤5 cm, 0.5 years vs 4.0 years, P = .003). For patients with cHCC-CC, tumor cut-off size of 2 cm showed statistical significance in median RFS (>2 cm vs ≤2 cm, 0.6 years vs 2.6 years, P = .038). The median RFS of patients with cHCC-CC was 0.9 years (95% confidence interval: 0.3-1.6), which was poorer than that of patients with ICC (1.3 years, 0.5-2.1) (P = .028); the rate of RFS at 5 years was 0% and 37.7% respectively. Our study supports the concept of classifying ICC and cHCC-CC into different categories because of a significant difference in RFS between the two.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBile Duct NeoplasmsBile Ducts, IntrahepaticCarcinoma, HepatocellularCholangiocarcinomaFemaleHumansLiverLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisSurvival AnalysisYoung AdultcHCC-CCICCprognosistumor numbertumor sizevascular invasion

Identifiers

PMID31407490
PMCPMC6792494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.