Endobiliary Radiofrequency Ablation Combined with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Patients with Unresectable Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Endobiliary radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a promising treatment modality for patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA). However, no study has investigated the combined use of endobiliary RFA and gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) chemotherapy. This study aimed to examine the feasibility and efficacy of endobiliary RFA with GC therapy for patients with unresectable eCCA. Methods: The study outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), and adverse events associated with the treatment. These parameters were retrospectively compared between 25 patients who underwent RFA with self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement followed by GC therapy (with-RFA group) and a control cohort of 25 patients who underwent SEMS placement alone and GC therapy (without-RFA group). Results: The median time to RBO was significantly longer in the with-RFA group (10.7 versus 5.2 months, p = 0.048). The median OS was significantly higher in patients with locally advanced tumors in the with-RFA group (23.1 versus 16.6 months, p = 0.032), but did not differ significantly in patients with metastasis (11.4 versus 8.5 months, p = 0.180). Similarly, the median PFS was significantly higher in the with-RFA group in patients with locally advanced disease (10.1 versus 7.3 months, p = 0.015), while there was no significant difference in patients with metastasis (5.4 versus 4.4 months, p = 0.529). The rates of various toxicities did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusions: Endobiliary RFA prolonged the patency period of uncovered SEMS combined with GC therapy in patients with eCCA. Although RFA also yielded survival benefits, its effect was restricted to locally advanced tumors.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".