ArticleScientific reports2025
Updated Japanese multicenter registry study evaluates the efficacy and safety of proton beam therapy for treating extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Proton beam therapy for patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter prospective registry study (Influence of age factor).Journal of radiation research · 2026Article
- Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: Exploration of Third-Line and Other Therapeutic Areas After Failure of Chemotherapy Alone.Cancers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of a prospective, multicenter registry study of proton beam therapy (PBT) for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EHC) in Japan. Patients who underwent PBT for EHC between May 2016 and June 2021 were registered in the Particle Beam Therapy Committee and Subcommittee of the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology. We updated the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), local control rate (LC), and toxicity. Among 201 registered cases, 124 cases including elder population (median age 76 years old, range; 44-91) with initial definitive PBT were evaluated. The follow-up period for survivors was 18.3 months, the median OS time was 20.0 months (95% CI: 17.3-22.8 months), and the 2-year OS rate was 36.9% (27.3-46.4%). The 2-year LC and PFS were 65.2% and 23.0%. The OS was significantly higher for tumor size < 3 cm vs. ≥ 3 cm (p = 0.015); liver function Child-Pugh score normal/A vs. B/C (p < 0.001); and distance of the tumor from the gastrointestinal tract > 2 cm vs. ≤ 2 cm (p = 0.008) in multivariate analysis. Elderly patients age > 75 years underwent less chemotherapy and showed a 2-year OS of 41.3%, whereas young patients with age ≤ 75 years showed a 2-year OS of 32.0%. A higher prescribed dose (biologically effective dose: BED) > 89 Gy
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.