ArticleDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2020
[Introduction of an interdisciplinary tumor board leads to improvement of treatment outcome of cholangiocarcinoma (bile duct cancer)].
Article in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Standards, Multidisciplinary Approaches, and Future Directions in the Management of Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.Current treatment options in oncology · 2024Review
- Surgical Treatment of Distal Cholangiocarcinoma.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCholangiocarcinoma (CCA, bile duct cancer) is a rare malignant disease with a poor prognosis. For several years interdisciplinary tumor boards (TuB) with the participation of experts from various disciplines have been organized to optimize medical treatment for patients suffering from oncological diseases.
objectiveThis study addressed the question whether the introduction of TuB leads to a better life expectancy and quality of life for patients with CCA. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this retrospective study 161 patients treated for CCA were investigated. The patient collective was divided in two groups (TuB+ vs. TuB-) and a propensity score matching was carried out.
resultsThe patient group TuB+ included 109 patients (67.7%) and the control group (TuB-) included 52 patients (32.3%). Using propensity score matching 84 patients in the TuB+ and 50 in the TuB group were identified and matched. The survival rates of the matched patients demonstrated an advantage for patients in the TuB+ group (1-year survival rate 61.9%, 5‑year survival rate 23.6%, 10-year survival rate 18.0%) over patients in the TuB-group (1-year survival rate 32.0%, 5‑year survival rate 8.0%, 10-year survival rate 0%) with p < 0.001. The results of the univariate (hazard ratio, HR 0.513, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.350-0.751, p = 0.001) and the multivariate Cox proportional hazard models (HR 0.459, 95% CI 0.303-0.694, p < 0.001) showed a significant benefit in survival for patients in the TuB+ group.
conclusionThis article shows that the introduction of a TuB meeting can provide a measurable benefit for patients with CCA. Hence it is recommended that all cases of patients with CCA should be discussed in a TuB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31932971What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.