Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35719974›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin Versus Non-Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Regimens as Neoadjuvant Treatment for Cholangiocarcinoma Patients Prior to Liver Transplantation: An Institution Experience.

Maen Abdelrahim, Abdullah Esmail, Jiaqiong Xu, Godsfavour Umoru, Hadeel Al-Rawi, Ashish Saharia, Ala Abudayyeh, David Victor, Robert McMillan, Sudha Kodali and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. New Insights in the Setting of Transplant Oncology.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Maen AbdelrahimSection of GI Oncology Department of Medical Oncology Houston Methodist Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Abdullah EsmailSection of GI Oncology Department of Medical Oncology Houston Methodist Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Jiaqiong XuCenter for Outcomes Research, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX, United States.
Godsfavour UmoruDepartment of Pharmacy, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, United States.
Hadeel Al-RawiSection of GI Oncology Department of Medical Oncology Houston Methodist Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Ashish SahariaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States.
Ala AbudayyehSection of Nephrology, Division of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
David VictorHouston Methodist Hospital, JC Walter Jr Center for Transplantation and Sherrie and Alan Conover Center for Liver Disease and Transplantation, Houston, TX, United States.
Robert McMillanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States.
Sudha KodaliDepartment of Internal Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States.
Rafik M GhobrialDepartment of Internal Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States.
Houston Methodist · USMethodist Hospital · USCornell University · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cholangiocarcinoma management is constantly being updated in view of existing evidence in order to establish practice guidelines and consensus statements. However, the available treatment guidelines to optimize outcomes for cholangiocarcinoma patients who require liver transplantation are still controversial. This study contributing to the cholangiocarcinoma care field by investigating a new promising neoadjuvant therapy that might be help to grant the liver transplant option to the patients with cholangiocarcinoma. Here, we evaluate and compare the potential efficacy of chemotherapy combination of Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin versus non- Gemcitabine and Cisplatin regimens as a neo-adjuvant treatment for cholangiocarcinoma patients prior to liver transplantation. Methods: In this retrospective study, patients with locally advanced, unresectable, hilar, or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with no evidence of extrahepatic disease or vascular involvement were treated with either the combination of neo-adjuvant Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin with no radiation or other standard options of neo-adjuvant treatment. All patients included received chemotherapy prior to being listed for liver transplantation at a single cancer center in collaboration with the same institution's transplant center according to an open-labeled, and centers-approved clinical management protocol. Patients were listed for liver transplantation if they had a minimum of six months of scans showing response or confirmation of disease stability. The primary endpoints were the overall survival and recurrence-free survival after liver transplantation. This report, which was censored on March 18, 2022. Results: Out of a total of 707 liver transplant recipients were screened, 37 patients were confirmed with a diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma and only 18 patients (11 males and 7 females) with a median age of 61.83 [interquartile range: 58.27-68.74] met inclusion criteria. Of the 18 patients enrolled, 10 received Gemcitabine/Cisplatin, while 8 patients received either Gemcitabine monotherapy or Capecitabine or FOLFIRI. Months for recurrence after transplantation was 20.1 (IRQ: 20.1-20.1) in the Gemcitabine/Cisplatin group and 9.5 (8.9-12.47) months in the non-Gemcitabine/Cisplatin group (p-value=0.18). Median months of follow-up in the Gemcitabine/Cisplatin group was 28.35 (27.1-32.23) months versus 40.12 (20.6-56.22) months in the non-Gemcitabine/Cisplatin group (p-value=0.33). In non-Gemcitabine/Cisplatin patients, overall survival was 75% (95% CI 31-93%) at both years 1 and 2; 63% (95% CI 23-86%) at years 3 to 5. In Gemcitabine/Cisplatin patients, overall survival was 100% (95% CI 100-100%) at both years 1 and 2; 75% (95% CI 13-96%) at years 3 to 5. Three non-Gemcitabine/Cisplatin patients died at 328 days, 340 days, and 896 days, respectively. One Gemcitabine/Cisplatin patient died at 885 days. Conclusion: Our findings suggest improved overall survival outcomes with Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin as neo-adjuvant treatment with no concomitant radiation compared to non-Gemcitabine/Cisplatin regimens in patients with cholangiocarcinoma prior to liver transplantation.

Indexed as

and FOLFIRIcholangiocarcinomacisplatingemcitabinehepatocellular carcinomaimmunotherapyliver transplantationtransplant oncology

Identifiers

PMID35719974
PMCPMC9201492
OpenAlexW4281641225

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.