Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32084210›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

The effect of adjuvant therapy for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after surgical resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Qiao Ke, Nanping Lin, Manjun Deng, Lei Wang, Yongyi Zeng, Jingfeng Liu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.2field-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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Stereotactic radiotherapy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qiao KeDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, PR, China.
Nanping LinDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, PR, China.
Manjun DengDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, PR, China.
Lei WangDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, PR, China.
Yongyi ZengDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, PR, China.
Jingfeng LiuDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, PR, China.
Fujian Medical University · CNMengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroudResection is still the only potentially curative treatment for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), but the prognosis remains far from satisfactory. However, the benefit of adjuvant therapy (AT) remains controversial, although it has been conducted prevalently. Hence, a meta-analysis was warranted to evaluate the effect of AT for patients with ICC after resection. PATIENTS AND

methodsPubMed, MedLine, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science were used to identify potentially eligible studies from Jan.1st 1990 to Aug. 31st 2019, investigating the effect of AT for patients with ICC after resection. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to determine the effect size.

results22 studies with 10181 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis, including 832 patients in the chemotherapy group, 309 patients in the transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) group, 1192 patients in the radiotherapy group, 235 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group, and 6424 patients in the non-AT group. The pooled HR for the OS rate and RFS rate in the AT group were 0.63 (95%CI 0.52~0.74), 0.74 (95%CI 0.58~0.90), compared with the non-AT group. Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled HR for the OS rate in the AT group compared with non-AT group were as follows: chemotherapy group was 0.57 (95%CI = 0.44~0.70), TACE group was 0.56 (95%CI = 0.31~0.82), radiotherapy group was 0.71 (95%CI = 0.39~1.03), chemoradiotherapy group was 0.73 (95%CI = 0.57~0.89), positive resection margin group was 0.60 (95%CI = 0.51~0.69), and lymph node metastasis (LNM) group was 0.67 (95%CI = 0.57~0.76).

conclusionWith the current data, we concluded that AT such as chemotherapy, TACE and chemoradiotherapy could benefit patients with ICC after resection, especially those with positive resection margin and LNM, but the conclusion needed to be furtherly confirmed.

Indexed as

Bile Duct NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantCholangiocarcinomaHumansSurvival AnalysisTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID32084210
PMCPMC7034847
OpenAlexW3006687048

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.