ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Blurring the Anatomical Lines in Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: An Integrated Clinic-Oncological and Exploratory Proteomic Comparison of Perihilar and Distal Tumors.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA) includes perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) and distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), classified on the basis of tumor location. However, the oncological and molecular characteristics of these subtypes remain uncertain. We compared their oncological outcomes and investigated potential proteomic differences based on tumor location. PATIENTS AND
methodsA single-center retrospective study was conducted on 204 patients who underwent surgical resection for eCCA between 2007 and 2023. Clinicopathological data were collected, and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared. Prognostic factors were identified using multivariate analyses with a stepwise Cox proportional hazards model. For molecular analysis, 60 proteomic assays were performed in triplicate using 20 resected eCCA samples.
resultsNo significant differences were observed between pCCA (n = 113) and dCCA (n = 91) in terms of severe morbidity or postoperative mortality. Patients with dCCA had a higher R0 resection rate compared with those with pCCA (79.1% versus 48.7%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, lymph node positivity was more frequent in dCCA (61.5% versus 29.2%, p < 0.001), whereas microvascular and perineural invasion were more prevalent in pCCA. Despite these clinicopathological differences, no significant differences were observed in 5-year OS (43.1% versus 48.3%, p = 0.57) or 5-year DFS (37.6% versus 32.8%, p = 0.46). Tumor location was not identified as an independent prognostic factor. Proteomic analysis identified 686 proteins with significantly differential expression between the two subtypes. However, principal component analysis failed to clearly separate pCCA and dCCA samples.
conclusionsOur study reinforces the view that pCCA and dCCA, despite clinicopathological variations, exhibit comparable long-term oncological outcomes. Tumor location was not identified as an independent prognostic factor, emphasizing the need for an integrated approach in future studies of targeted therapies for eCCA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40670839What 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.