ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Long-Term Outcomes According to Surgical Margin in Mass-Forming Cholangiocarcinoma: The Role of R1vasc.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Oncological Adequacy of R1 Vascular Margin in Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Meta-analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Reply to: "Futility in the Era of R1 Vascular Resection: Friend or Foe When the Endpoint is Overall Survival?"Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Intraoperative irreversible electroporation for margin accentuation in locally advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a case series.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Anatomical versus Parenchymal-Sparing Hepatectomy for Early-Stage Perihilar Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2026Article
- Multiple bilobar liver metastases from uveal melanoma: What is the limit for surgical resection?Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundR0 resection is the standard for mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma (MFCCC). R1vasc resection (tumor-vessel detachment) yielded results comparable to R0 and superior to parenchymal-tumor exposure (R1par) for hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastases. This study aims to clarify R1vasc outcomes for MFCCC. PATIENTS AND
methodsMargin status of patients with MFCCC undergoing resection between 2008 and 2022 was assessed to determine the oncological efficacy of R1vasc regarding survival and hepatic recurrence.
resultsThe study analyzed 125 patients: 68 (54.4%) R0, 18 (14.4%) R1vasc, 24 (19.2%) R1par, and 15 (12.0%) R1vasc + par. Tumor size was similar between R0 (4.4 cm, range 1.5-19.0) and R1vasc (4.3 cm, range 2.3-14.5, p = 0.754) but larger for R1par (8.2 cm, range 2.5-15.0, p = 0.005) and R1vasc + par (9.0 cm, range 5.0-17.0, p < 0.001). The median overall survival (OS) was comparable for R0 [64.8 months; 95% confidence interval (CI): 50.0-79.6], R1vasc (54.4 months; 95% CI 19.6-89.2; p = 0.932), and R1vasc + par (62.0 months; 95% CI 35.6-88.5; p = 0.989). R1par showed lower OS (26.8 months; 95% CI 16.1-37.6; p = 0.134). Local recurrence was higher for R1par (45.8%, p < 0.0001) compared with R0 (10.3%) and similar for R1vasc (16.6%) and R1vasc + par (20.0%). Survival after hepatic recurrence was higher for R1vasc compared with R1par (p = 0.041).
conclusionsR1vasc is a valid option for increasing resectability in patients with MFCCC, with OS being comparable to R0. R1vasc + par may be necessary for larger tumors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40019600What 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.