Liver Transplantation for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Ready for Prime Time?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) represents the second-most common primary liver malignancy after HCC and has risen in incidence globally in the past decades. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) comprises 20% of all CCAs, with the rest being extrahepatic (including perihilar [pCCA] and distal CCA). Though long representing an absolute contraindication for liver transplantation (LT), recent analyses of outcomes of LT for iCCA have suggested that iCCA may be a potentially feasible option for highly selected patients. This has been motivated both by successes noted in outcomes of LT for other malignancies, such as HCC and pCCA, and by several retrospective reviews demonstrating favorable results with LT for a selected group of iCCA patients with small lesions. LT for iCCA is primarily relevant within two clinical scenarios. The first includes patients with very early disease (single tumor, ≤2 cm) with cirrhosis and are not candidates for liver resection (LR). The second scenario is patients with locally advanced iCCA, but where the extent of LR would be too extensive to be feasible. Preliminary single-center reports have described LT in a selected group of patients with locally advanced tumors who have responded to neoadjuvant therapy and have a period of disease stability. Currently, there are three prospective trials underway that will help clarify the role of LT in iCCA. This review seeks to explore the available studies involving LT for iCCA, the challenges of ongoing trials, and opportunities for the future.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".