Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32633109›Full record

SynthesisJournal of Zhejiang University. Science. B2020

Role of adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy for resected extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a meta-analysis.

Xin-Qi Shi, Jing-Yu Zhang, Hua Tian, Ling-Na Tang, Ai-Lin Li

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Practice guidelines for managing extrahepatic biliary tract cancers.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Approach to Resectable Biliary Cancers.Current treatment options in oncology · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xin-Qi ShiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, the First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110001, China.
Jing-Yu ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, the First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110001, China.
Hua TianDepartment of Radiation Oncology, the First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110001, China.
Ling-Na TangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, the First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110001, China.
Ai-Lin LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, the First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110001, China.
First Hospital of China Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy (A(C)RT) may be an important supplement to surgery for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EHCC). However, whether all patients would achieve benefits from A(C)RT and which adjuvant regimen, adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) or adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (ACRT), would be preferred, are still undetermined. The low incidence of EHCC makes it difficult to carry out randomized controlled trials (RCTs); therefore, almost all clinical studies on radiotherapy are retrospective. We have conducted a meta-analysis of these retrospective studies.

methodsWe conducted a meta-analysis of current retrospective studies using PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials databases. All studies published in English that were related to A(C)RT and which analyzed overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), or locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were included. Estimated hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for OS, DFS, and LRFS.

resultsData from eight studies including 685 patients were included. Our analysis showed that A(C)RT significantly improved OS (HR 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.97, P=0.03), DFS (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.47-0.76, P<0.0001), and LRFS (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17-0.41, P<0.00001) of EHCC overall. In subgroups, patients with microscopically positive resection margin (R1) could achieve a benefit from A(C)RT (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27-0.72, P=0.001). No statistically OS difference was observed in negative resection margin (R0) subgroup (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30-3.19, P=0.98).Significant OS benefit was found in patients who received concurrent ACRT (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26-0.62, P<0.0001), while the result of ART without chemotherapy showed no significant benefit (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.29-4.50, P=0.85). In the distal cholangiocarcinoma subgroup, no significant difference was seen when ACRT and ART were included (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.14-2.72, P=0.52), but a significant difference was seen when analyzing the concurrent ACRT only (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.13-0.64, P=0.002).

conclusionsA(C)RT may improve OS, DFS, and LRFS in EHCC patients, especially in those with R1 resection margins. ACRT may be superior to ART especially in distal patients.

Indexed as

Chemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantBile Duct NeoplasmsCholangiocarcinomaHumansPublication BiasRetrospective StudiesAdjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy; Extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; Meta-analysis; Disease-free survival; Overall survival

Identifiers

PMID32633109
PMCPMC7383326
OpenAlexW3040854861

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.