SynthesisBMC cancer2025
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus upfront surgery for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- ASO Editorial Comment: Beyond the Margin: Why Biology, More Than Technique, Defines Surgical Resectability for Locally Advanced Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Review
- Recent advances in molecular classification and multimodal treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhether neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT) is beneficial for resectable and locally advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of NAT followed by surgery and upfront surgery for ICC treatment.
methodEmbase, Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane library databases were searched to obtain comparative studies. The non-randomized interventions (ROBINS-I) was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. The primary outcomes included 1-year, 3-year and 5-year overall survival (OS). The secondary outcomes were R0 resection, 1-year and 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS).
resultsNine retrospective studies were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 8211 patients were included in the study, of whom 1836 patients received NAT followed by surgery and 6375 patients received upfront surgery. Compared with upfront surgery, NAT group had a significantly better 1-year OS (relative risk (RR) 1.09; 95%CI 1.06, 1.12. p = 0.449) and 3-year OS (RR 1.15; 95%CI 1.06, 1.24. p = 0.386). NAT group had similar results compared with upfront surgery group in 5-year OS (RR 1.16; 95%CI 0.94, 1.44. p < 0.05), 1-year RFS (RR 1.05; 95%CI 0.90, 1.23. p = 0.481), 3-year RFS (RR 1.03; 95%CI 0.82, 1.30. p = 0.969) and R0 resection rate (RR 0.94; 95%CI 0.82, 1.08. p < 0.05).
conclusionCompared with upfront surgery, NAT followed by surgery had better results for resectable and locally advanced ICC. Considering the patients in NAT followed by surgery group had more advanced ICC cases, NAT followed by surgery might be a rationale choice for ICC treatment. Further studies about effective downstage treatments for locally advantage ICC are needed in future.
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.