Liver transplantation for incidental cholangiocarcinoma: Analysis of the Canadian experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cholangiocarcinoma is a biliary tumor, which not infrequently complicates primary sclerosing cholangitis. It carries a poor prognosis and, with the exception of carefully selected individuals in research protocols, contraindicates orthotopic liver transplantation. There has been some suggestion that cholangiocarcinomas incidentally discovered at the time of transplantation carry a better prognosis. The goal of this retrospective study was to perform a national review of outcomes after liver transplantation in Canadian recipients found to have incidental cholangiocarcinoma in their explanted native liver. Six of the seven liver transplant centers in Canada provided clinical and follow-up information on all liver transplant recipients found to have incidental cholangiocarcinoma in their explants. The diagnosis or suspicion of cholangiocarcinoma prior to transplantation were exclusion criteria for this study. Ten individuals with cholangiocarcinoma were transplanted between 1996 and 2003. The median duration of follow-up was 28 months. Eight of the 10 had PSC. All of the tumors were stage I or II. The 3-year survival for these patients was 30%. The median time to recurrence was 26 months (95% confidence interval 13-37), and the median time to death was 30 months (95% confidence interval 28-53). In conclusion, although early survival of patients transplanted for incidental cholangiocarcinoma appears good, intermediate- and long-term survival rates are not better than for individuals historically transplanted with known cholangiocarcinoma. Aggressive investigation for cholangiocarcinoma is mandated. Incidentally found tumours remain a difficult treatment problem, and prospective adjuvant chemo-, radio-, and immunotherapies should be investigated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".