Impact of major vascular resection on outcomes and survival in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A multi‐institutional analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Major vascular involvement (IVC or portal vein) for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) has traditionally been considered a contraindication to resection. We sought to define perioperative outcomes and survival of ICC patients undergoing hepatectomy with major vascular resection in a large international multi-institutional database. METHODS: A total of 1087 ICC patients who underwent curative-intent hepatectomy between 1990 and 2016 were identified from 13 institutions. Multivariable logistic and cox regressions were used to determine the impact of major vascular resection on perioperative and survival outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1087 patients who underwent resection, 128 (11.8%) also underwent major vascular resection (21 [16.4%] IVC resections, 98 [76.6%] PV resections, 9 [7.0%] combined resections). Despite more advanced disease, major vascular resection was not associated with the risk of any complication (OR = 0.68, 95%CI 0.32-1.45) or major complications (OR = 0.95, 95%CI 0.49-2.00). Post-operative mortality was also comparable between groups (OR = 1.05, 95%CI 0.32-3.47). In addition, median recurrence-free (14.0 vs 14.7 months, HR = 0.737, 95%CI 0.49-1.10) and overall (33.4 vs 40.2 months, HR = 0.71, 95%CI 0.359-1.40) survival were similar among patients who did and did not undergo major vascular resection (both P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Among patients with ICC, major vascular resection was not associated with worse perioperative or oncologic outcomes. Concurrent major vascular resection should be considered in appropriately selected patients with ICC undergoing hepatectomy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".