ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
Evaluation of the validity of pancreatoduodenectomy in older patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma in terms of recurrence.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis retrospective study investigated the validity of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) with regard to recurrence in older patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma (DC).
methodsWe compared 28 patients aged ≥ 75 years and 65 patients aged < 75 years who underwent PD for DC, and evaluated the relationship between age, clinicopathological factors, and outcomes.
resultsPostoperative mortality and morbidity rates did not differ between the groups. Although there were no significant differences in 5-year recurrence, disease-specific survival, and overall survival rates between the groups (45.4, 58.1, and 51.7% in patients ≥ 75 years and 50.3%, 62.7%, and 58.1% in patients < 75 years; P = 0.73, 0.44, and 0.24, respectively), the median time from recurrence to death (RTD) in older patients was significantly shorter than that in younger patients (0.5 years vs. 1.3 years, P = 0.013). In multivariate analysis, age ≥ 75 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.0), controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score ≥ 4 (HR: 2.5), poorly-differentiated adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma (HR: 3.2), and failure to implement treatment after recurrence (HR: 5.3) were independent risk factors for a short time from RTD. Furthermore, at the time of recurrence, older patients had significantly poorer serum albumin levels, prognostic nutrition index, Glasgow prognostic score, and CONUT score. Age ≥ 75 years (odds ratio: 0.19) was an independent risk factor for implementation of treatment after recurrence.
conclusionsPD in older patients may be acceptable; however, the median time from RTD was shorter owing to lower nutritional status and rates of treatment implementation after recurrence.
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.