Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39300928›Full record

ArticleCancer research and treatment2025

Stage Evaluation of Cystic Duct Cancer.

Yeseul Kim, You-Na Sung, Haesung Jung, Kyung Jin Lee, Daegwang Yoo, Sun-Young Jun, HyungJun Cho, Shin Hwang, Woohyung Lee, Seung-Mo Hong

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Yeseul KimDepartment of Pathology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
You-Na SungDepartment of Pathology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Haesung JungDepartment of Statistics, Korea University, Seoul, Korea.
Kyung Jin LeeDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Daegwang YooDepartment of Surgery, Seoul Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Sun-Young JunDepartment of Pathology, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Incheon, Korea.
HyungJun ChoDepartment of Statistics, Korea University, Seoul, Korea.
Shin HwangDivision of Liver Transplantation and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Woohyung LeeDivision of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seung-Mo HongDepartment of Pathology, Brain Korea 21 Project, Asan Medical Center, Ulsan University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCystic duct cancers (CDCs) have been classified as extrahepatic bile duct cancers or gallbladder cancers (GBCs); however, it is unclear whether their clinical behavior is similar to that of distal extrahepatic bile duct cancers (DBDCs) or GBCs. MATERIALS AND

methodsT category of the CDCs was classified using current T category scheme of the GBCs and DBDCs, and clinicopathological factors were compared among 38 CDCs, 345 GBCs, and 349 DBDCs. We modified Nakata's classifications (type 1, confined within cystic duct [CD]; combined types 2-4, extension beyond CD) and compared them.

resultsNo significant overall survival (OS) difference was observed between the patients with CDC, GBC, and DBDC. The T category of GBC staging was more accurate at distinguishing OS in patients with CDC than the DBDC staging. Patients with T3 CDC and GBC showed a significant OS difference when using the T category for GBC staging, while those with T1-T2 CDC and GBC showed no significant difference. In contrast, the T category of DBDC staging did not show any significant OS difference between patients with T1-T2 CDC and DBDC or T3 CDC and DBDC. Patients with type 1 CDC had significantly better OS than those with combined types.

conclusionUnlike GBCs and DBDCs, CDCs exhibit distinct clinicopathological characteristics. The OS is better when the CDC confines within the CD, compared to when it extends beyond it. Therefore, we propose a new T category scheme (T1, confined to CD; T2, invaded beyond CD) for better classifying CDCs.

Indexed as

Bile Duct NeoplasmsCystic DuctGallbladder NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisCystic ductDistal extrahepatic bile ductGallbladderNeoplasmsT category

Identifiers

PMID39300928
PMCPMC12016841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.