Outcome of Adjuvant Therapy in Biliary Tract Cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There are high rates of recurrence after definitive surgery in biliary tract cancer patients. We reviewed the use and effectiveness of adjuvant therapy (AT; chemotherapy±radiotherapy) in a single institution series. METHODS: Characteristics, treatment details, and follow-up data of all patients with biliary tract cancer who had definitive surgery from January 1987 to September 2011 were reviewed. The association between baseline variables and disease-free survival/overall survival (OS) were tested using Cox proportional hazard analysis in the univariable and multivariable settings. RESULTS: Analysis included 296 patients (58% male; median age, 63 y). Negative or microscopically positive resections were reported in 42% and 14%, respectively, with 44% not reported. Node positivity was reported in 35% patients. AT was given in 28% of patients with 59% receiving chemotherapy and 35% concurrent chemotherapy/radiotherapy. Disease recurred in 60% patients. AT was associated with significantly improved OS (hazard ratio, 0.41; P=0.02). Compared with R0 resection, patients with R1 resection derived significantly increased benefit from AT (P for difference 0.02). In the node positive population (n=103), AT was associated with significantly improved OS (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.95; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with R1 resection and node positive disease receiving AT after definitive surgery seem to derive OS advantage. Large prospective trials are needed to confirm these data.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".