ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2025
Impact of Resection Margins and Adjuvant Therapy on Survival Outcomes in Lymph Node-Negative Distal Cholangiocarcinoma.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The role of resection margin status on recurrence and selection of patients for adjuvant radiotherapy in distal cholangiocarcinoma.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The prognostic value of the resection margin (RM) status and the efficacy of adjuvant therapy (AT) in distal cholangiocarcinoma (CCC) are unclear. RM status appears particularly impactful in lymph node-negative distal CCC, representing early-stage disease. The prognostic value of RM status was investigated, and subpopulations of patients with lymph node-negative distal CCC who might benefit from AT were identified. Overall, 139 patients with distal CCC who underwent surgical resection between March 2006 and December 2023 were analyzed. RM status was categorized as wide (>5 mm) in 65 patients (46.8%), close (≤5 mm) in 32 patients (23.0%), or positive in 42 patients (30.2%). AT was administered to 48 patients (34.5%). Patients with close or positive RMs achieved significantly lower locoregional control (LRC) than those with wide RMs. However, overall survival (OS) did not differ across the three RM groups. The impact of RM status was more evident in patients not receiving AT. Patients with wide RMs exhibited better 3-year LRC, progression-free survival (PFS), and OS rates (79.0%, 66.5%, and 69.1%, respectively) than those with close (21.7%, 15.7%, and 34.4%) or positive RMs (44.3%, 25.3%, and 50.2%, respectively). No significant differences were found between close and positive RM groups. AT appears to have improved LRC and PFS in patients with close or positive RMs but not in those with wide RMs. Close RMs were associated with poor outcomes comparable to those with positive RMs. These results indicate that achieving adequate RM width is crucial for improving survival. Moreover, AT may improve survival when adequate RMs cannot be achieved. Nonetheless, larger studies are needed to validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.