ArticleBJS open2025
Prognostic impact of individual resection and dissection margins in resected perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: retrospective study.
Article in BJS open, 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.
- 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious studies have reported on the prognostic impact of ductal margin and radial margin status in resected perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA). No study has considered differences in the prognostic impact of individual resection margins. This study investigated the prognostic impact of individual planes on survival.
methodsAll patients undergoing surgery for PCCA at Amsterdam UMC and Karolinska University Hospital between January 2010 and May 2023 were included. Clinicopathological data were retrospectively retrieved. The primary outcomes were the prognostic significance of residual disease (< 1 mm to the nearest tumour growth) in individual dissection planes and resection margins for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), expressed as adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs).
resultsOf 199 patients, 81 (41%) underwent radical resection and 118 (59%) were reported to have microscopic residual disease. Only a positive proximal bile duct resection margin was significantly associated with shorter OS (adjusted median OS 24 versus 36 months; aHR 1.64; 95% confidence interval (c.i.) 1.05 to 2.56; P = 0.031) and DFS (aHR 2.01; 95% c.i. 1.30 to 3.10; P = 0.002). Other positive resection margins and dissection planes did not carry any prognostic information for OS (Pinteraction = 0.95) or DFS (Pinteraction = 0.56). Similar results were obtained in a 90-day landmark sensitivity analysis.
conclusionThis study found that only tumour infiltration of the proximal bile duct resection margin was associated with worse prognosis, most likely reflecting the malignant behaviour of the disease rather than surgical failure. Larger prospective studies are needed to clarify the true prognostic impact of residual disease in individual resection planes to allocate patients to specific chemotherapeutic (neo)adjuvant treatments.
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.