The role of neo-adjuvant therapy in cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is the most common malignancy affecting the biliary tree. The only curative treatment is surgical resection, aiming for negative margins (R0). For those who have locally advanced disease, which is borderline resectable, neoadjuvant chemoradiation presents an opportunity to reduce tumour size and allow for surgical resection. The aim of this review is to establish the role of neoadjuvant therapy in each subtype of CCA and establish its impact on survival. Methods: Search terms such as 'neoadjuvant therapy' and 'cholangiocarcinoma' were searched on multiple databases, including Pubmed, Ovid and Embase. They were then reviewed separately by two reviewers for inclusion criteria. 978 studies were initially identified from the search strategy, with 21 being included in this review. Results: 5,009 patients were included across 21 studies. 1,173 underwent neoadjuvant therapy, 3,818 had surgical resection alone. 359 patients received Gemcitabine based regimes, making it the most commonly utilised regimen for patients CCA and Biliary Tract Cancer (BTC). Data on tolerability of regimes was limited. All included papers were found to have low risk of bias when assessed using The Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy had a similar median overall survival compared to those who underwent upfront surgery (38.4 versus 35.1 months respectively). Pre-operative CA19-9, microvascular invasion, perineurial invasion and positive lymph nodes were of prognostic significance across BTC and CCA subtypes. Conclusion: Neoadjuvant therapy and surgical resection is associated with improved patient outcomes and longer median overall survival compared to therapy and upfront surgery, however heterogeneity between research papers limited the ability to further analyse the significance of these results. Although initial studies are promising, further research is required in order to define suitable treatment protocols and tolerability of neoadjuvant regimes. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42020164781.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".