ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
The impact of positive resection margin in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, ductal margin vs radial margin.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic implications of morphological subtypes in a surgical cohort of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: the overriding impact of nodal status.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a machine learning-based nomogram for survival prediction of patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma after curative-intent resection.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionResection margin status is the important prognostic factor in resected perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). Although the impact of ductal margin (DM) was reported in many studies, the influence of radial margin (RM) is unclear. This study aims to investigate the effect of positive RM on survival.
methodsPatients with pCCA underwent curative resection between 2013 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Resection margin status was divided into negative resection margin (R0) and positive resection margin (R1); positive RM alone (RM+) and positive DM with or without positive RM (DM+).
resultsOf the 167 pCCA patients, 62 (37.1%) had R1 margin. Among 62 R1 patients; 17 (27.4%) had positive DM alone, 20 (32.3%) had positive RM alone and 25 (40.3%) had both positive DM and RM. The R1 patients had a significantly greater number of lymph node metastasis (LNM) and advanced tumor staging than R0 patients, however there was no difference between the RM + and DM + patients. The median survival time of patients with RM + was significantly poorer than R0 patients (13.8 vs. 24.5 months; p < 0.001, respectively) and similar to the DM + patients (9.1 months, p = 0.556). However, in patients with LNM, those who underwent R0 resection had no statistically significant difference in survival outcomes compared to those with R1 resection.
conclusionPositive resection margin remains the important prognostic factor, and positive RM is common in these patients. Positive RM also had a comparable effect on survival as positive DM. As a result, in pCCA, surgical resection should target both RM and DM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39589565What 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.