SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2024
Anatomic Versus Non-anatomic Liver Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Robotic versus open hepatectomy for IWATE expert-level liver resection: a risk-adjusted comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Tumor Size as a Determinant of Anatomic Resection Benefit in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Impact of Tumor Size on the Survival Benefit of Anatomic Versus Non-Anatomic Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current standard treatment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) involves complete liver resection with negative surgical margins and lymphadenectomy, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Debate is ongoing regarding the necessity of systematic anatomic resection (AR). This study aimed to summarize existing literature to determine whether AR leads to better oncologic outcomes than non-AR for patients with resectable ICC.
methodsA systematic literature review (PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar) was performed until December 2023. Only studies comparing the oncologic outcomes of AR and non-AR for ICC using propensity score matching or inverse probability of treatment weighting were considered. A meta-analysis of aggregated data for perioperative variables and a reconstructed patient-level meta-analysis for survival data were performed.
resultsFive articles were gathered (n = 930 patients after matching: 465 AR/465 non-AR patients). The overall survival (OS) rates were higher in the AR group than in the non-AR group at 1, 3, and 5 years (71.5%, 46.1% and 34.3% vs. 63.6%, 32.9%, and 24.8%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95% CI 0.63-0.87; P < 0.001). The same results were observed for the disease-free survival (DFS) rates (58.3%, 33.4%, and 24.5% for AR vs. 45.6%, 23.1%, and 17.4% for non-AR; HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63-0.86; P < 0.001). The results were confirmed in the two-stage meta-analysis for OS (HR 0.73; P < 0.001) and DFS (HR 0.73; P < 0.001). No differences were observed between the two approaches in terms of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, overall and major morbidity, and hospital length of stay.
conclusionsBy pooling the available evidence, the current study demonstrated that AR for ICC patients is associated with better OS and DFS without any negative impact on postoperative outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39251512What 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.