ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Long-term outcomes of anatomic vs. non-anatomic resection in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with hepatolithiasis: A multicenter retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anatomic Versus Non-anatomic Liver Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Pooled it
- The prognostic impact of preoperative CA19-9 on resectable cholangiocarcinoma: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.Discover oncology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The benefits of anatomic resection (AR) vs. non-anatomic resection (NAR) in patients with primary intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) with hepatolithiasis (HICC) are unclear. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of AR vs. NAR in patients with HICC. Methods: A total of 147 consecutive patients with HICC who underwent R0 hepatectomy were included. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) following AR vs. NARs were compared using a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. A subgroup analysis was also conducted according to whether there are lymph node metastases (LNM). Results: In a multivariate analysis, CA 19-9 (>39 U/L), microvascular invasion, LNM, and NAR were independent risk factors for poor RFS and OS rates, whereas multiple tumors were independent risk factors for OS. AR had better 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS and OS rates than NAR (OS: 78.7, 58.9, and 28.5%, respectively, vs. 61.2, 25.4, and 8.8%, respectively; RFS: 59.5, 36.5, and 20.5%, respectively, vs. 38.2, 12.1, and 6.9%, respectively). After PSM, 100 patients were enrolled. The NAR group also had significantly poorer OS and RFS (OS: 0.016; RFS: Conclusion: Anatomic resection was associated with better long-term survival outcomes than NAR in patients with HICC, except for patients with LNM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.