Trends in incidence, treatments, and clinical outcomes of cholangiocarcinoma diagnosed in British Columbia, Canada, from 2005 through 2019.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
522 Background: While only accounting for 3% of gastrointestinal malignancies, cholangiocarcinoma (CC) has poor prognosis. New targeted therapies are on the horizon and understanding the potential size of the population eligible for such therapies is of importance. Contemporary incidence and outcomes in Canada have not been studied. Methods: Patients diagnosed with CC between 2005-2019 in British Columbia were identified using the BC Cancer Registry. Patient characteristics, treatments received and outcomes were collected and analyzed. Results: A total of 1520 patients were identified. Median age at diagnosis was 69 (interquartile 61-76) and 52% were female, 594 patients presented with localized disease (39%) of whom 416 had disease recurrence. The proportion of intrahepatic CC (ICC) rose from 17% in 2005-2009 to 44% in 2015-2019 while the incidence of extrahepatic (ECC) and gallbladder (GB) cancers followed populational trends. More patients with ICC had stage IV cancer at the time of diagnosis (64% vs 43% for ECC and 45% for GB, p<0.01). Treatments received are shown in the table. Among 1086 patients with recurrent or metastatic disease, 54% and 14% respectively received first- and second-line chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) was 13.7 months [HR 0.43 (95% CI 0.37-0.49)] with 1 line of treatment and 21.3 months with 2 lines [HR 0.30 (95% CI 0.24-0.37)], compared to 4.8 months with best supportive care. On multivariate analysis, ECOG, first and second-line treatment and liver-directed therapy remained associated with improved outcomes while tumor site or time period did not. Conclusions: The incidence of CC is rising and most patients present with advanced disease. Treatment attrition is high and few patients receive second line therapies. The outcomes of patients receiving first line, second line and liver-directed therapies are significantly better than those receiving supportive care only. Understanding contemporary trends in presentation and treatment patterns is essential as we consider strategies to improve implementation and access of emerging novel therapies in this setting. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".