Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38699072›Full record

ArticleJHEP reports : innovation in hepatology2024

Recommendations on maximising the clinical value of tissue in the management of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Timothy Kendall, Diletta Overi, Maria Guido, Chiara Braconi, Jesus Banales, Vincenzo Cardinale, Eugenio Gaudio, Bas Groot Koerkamp, Guido Carpino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Timothy KendallUniversity of Edinburgh Centre for Inflammation Research and Edinburgh Pathology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Diletta OveriDepartment of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Maria GuidoDepartment of Medicine, DIMED, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Chiara BraconiSchool of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, CRUK Scotland Cancer Centre, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK.
Jesus BanalesDepartment of Liver and Gastrointestinal Diseases, Biodonostia Health Research Institute, Donostia University Hospital, CIBERehd and University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), San Sebastian, Spain.
Vincenzo CardinaleDepartment of Translational and Precision Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Eugenio GaudioDepartment of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Bas Groot KoerkampDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Guido CarpinoDepartment of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background & Aims: Patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma can now be managed with targeted therapies directed against specific molecular alterations. Consequently, tissue samples submitted to the pathology department must produce molecular information in addition to a diagnosis or, for resection specimens, staging information. The pathologist's role when evaluating these specimens has therefore changed to accommodate such personalised approaches. Methods: We developed recommendations and guidance for pathologists by conducting a systematic review of existing guidance to generate candidate statements followed by an international Delphi process. Fifty-nine pathologists from 28 countries in six continents rated statements mapped to all elements of the specimen pathway from receipt in the pathology department to authorisation of the final written report. A separate survey of 'end-users' of the report including surgeons, oncologists, and gastroenterologists was undertaken to evaluate what information should be included in the written report to enable appropriate patient management. Results: Forty-eight statements reached consensus for inclusion in the guidance including 10 statements about the content of the written report that also reached consensus by end-user participants. A reporting proforma to allow easy inclusion of the recommended data points was developed. Conclusions: These guiding principles and recommendations provide a framework to allow pathologists reporting on patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma to maximise the informational yield of specimens required for personalised patient management. Impact and Implications: Biopsy or resection lesional tissue from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma must yield information about the molecular abnormalities within the tumour that define suitability for personalised therapies in addition to a diagnosis and staging information. Here, we have developed international consensus guidance for pathologists that report such cases using a Delphi process that sought the views of both pathologists and 'end-users of pathology reports. The guide highlights the need to report cases in a way that preserves tissue for molecular testing and emphasises that reporting requires interpretation of histological characteristics within the broader clinical and radiological context. The guide will allow pathologists to report cases of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in a uniform manner that maximises the value of the tissue received to facilitate optimal multidisciplinary patient management.

Indexed as

CholangiocarcinomaGuidelinesHistopathologyManagementMolecular testingMultidisciplinary

Identifiers

PMID38699072
PMCPMC11060959

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.