Influence of cirrhosis on outcomes of patients with advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma receiving chemotherapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
475 Background: Cirrhosis is a risk factor for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC). However, its impact on the management of advanced disease is not established. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients (pts) treated with systemic chemotherapy for advanced iCC in the first-line setting at 2 tertiary cancer referral centers, the second center used to validate findings from the first. Cirrhosis was diagnosed based on at least one element among pathological diagnosis, baseline platelet < 150 G/L, portal hypertension and/or dysmorphic liver at imaging. Results: In the first center (n=185), 55 pts (29.7%) had cirrhosis (74.5 % based on pathological diagnosis). Main aetiology of cirrhosis was alcohol for 17 pts (31%), non-alcoolic steato-hepatitis (NASH) for 10 pts (18.2%), and mixed alcohol and NASH for 9 pts (16.4%). 102 (57.0%) pts received gemcitabine-cisplatin, 55 (30.7%) pts received gemcitabine-oxaliplatin, and 11 (6%) pts received gemcitabine, with no difference between cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic pts (p=0.38). Second-line treatment was less frequent in cirrhotic pts (21.8% vs. 50.0%, p=0.001). Cirrhotic pts experienced more grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity than non-cirrhotic pts (38% vs. 20%, respectively, p=0,014), and more grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicity (28% vs. 15%, respectively, p=0.048). The overall survival (OS) was significantly shorter in cirrhotic pts; median: 9.0 vs. 13.8 months for non-cirrhotic pts (HR = 1.54 [95%CI: 1.09-2.16]; p = 0.014); confirmed on multivariable analysis, adjusted on ALBI-score, ECOG PS, extension of the disease (liver only disease and bilobar) (HR = 1.53 [95% CI: 1.01-2.33]; p=0.046). However, PFS was not significantly shorter in cirrhotic pts: median 9,9 months vs. 11.7 for non-cirrhotics (p = 0.35). In the second center (n=102), similar results were seen: 27 (26.5%) pts had cirrhosis. The cirrhotic pts experienced more grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities than non-cirrhotic pts (55.6% vs. 25.4%, respectively, p=0.005), and more grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicity (44.4% vs. 12.7%, respectively, p = 0.001). OS was shorter in cirrhotic pts; median 9.1 months vs. 11.7 months for non-cirrhotic pts (HR = 1.81 [95%CI: 1.14-2.87]; p = 0.011). PFS was not significantly shorter in cirrhotic pts: 7.5 months for patients without cirrhosis, and 4.2 months for pts with cirrhosis (p=0.221). Conclusions: Cirrhosis was frequent in pts with advanced iCC, and had a negative impact on patients’ outcomes, with increased chemotherapy-induced toxicity and shorter OS. Formal assessment and consideration of cirrhosis in the therapeutic management should be recommended and could lead to a dose adjustment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".