ArticleCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2026
Local-regional therapy plus ICIs, chemotherapy, and lenvatinib versus ICIs plus chemotherapy in advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter study.
Article in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2026. 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) plus chemotherapy serve as the primary treatment for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), but they present limited effectiveness. This multicenter study intended to evaluate the feasibility of LRT plus ICIs, chemotherapy, and lenvatinib in patients with advanced ICC.
methodsPatients receiving LRT-ICIs-Chemotherapy-Lenvatinib (LRT-ICI-Chemo-Len group, N = 66) or ICIs-Chemotherapy (ICI-Chemo group, N = 81) between April 2020 and May 2025 were enrolled. The study's outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and adverse events (AEs).
resultsThe LRT-ICI-Chemo-Len group showed notable enhancement in median PFS (9.9 months vs. 7.6 months, P = 0.004), median OS (20.9 months vs. 13.7 months, P = 0.004), objective response rate (ORR: 59.1% vs. 27.2%), and disease control rate (DCR: 93.9% vs. 84.0%). Conversion resection was performed in 8/66 (12.1%) in the LRT-ICI-Chemo-Len group, statistically higher than the 2.5% in the ICI-Chemo group. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of grade 3-4 AE between the LRT-ICI-Chemo-Len group (65.2%) and the ICI-Chemo group (56.8%) (P = 0.389). The most common grade 3-4 AE in the LRT-ICI-Chemo-Len group was myelosuppression. In the ICI-Chemo group, the most frequent grade 3-4 AE was myelosuppression. All AEs were manageable, with no grade 5 AE observed.
conclusionsCompared with the ICI-Chemo regimen, the LRT-ICI-Chemo-Len regimen significantly improved the prognosis of patients with advanced ICC. There was no significant difference in the incidence of grade 3-4 AEs between the two treatment regimens, and all AEs were manageable. This indicates that the LRT-ICI-Chemo-Len combination regimen is a feasible approach for the first-line treatment of advanced ICC.
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.