The impact of peri-operative chemotherapy on the outcomes of patients with non-metastatic cholangiocarcinoma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
563 Background: Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare malignancy with poor prognosis and outcome despite therapy. It accounts for 2.2% of all new cancer cases and 5% of all cancer deaths. Surgical resection is still the main therapeutic approach, whereas the role of peri-operative chemotherapy is debatable. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients diagnosed with non-metastatic biliary adenocarcinoma at age 18 or older between 2004 and 2019. After excluding patients with unknown timing of surgery and chemotherapy, patients who died within 90 days of the most definitive primary site surgery and patients lost to follow-up, we split the cohort into three groups according to the clinical stage (stage I-III). Then, we evaluated the overall survival (OS) between the different treatment modalities (surgery only, adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy) in each group. We studied the OS using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate cox regression analyses to evaluate factors associated with OS. Results: A total of 35,260 patients with non-metastatic cholangiocarcinoma were included in the analysis, of which 50.4% were females, 83% Caucasians, 9.5% African Americans. The median age at diagnosis was 70 (range 18-90). 14,757 (41.9%) were stage I, 12,472 (35.4%) stage II and 8,031 (22.8%) stage III. 7,286 (20.7%) had surgical resection only, 8,144 (23.1%) had chemotherapy only, 6,964 (19.7%) had surgical resection with perioperative chemotherapy and 12,866 (36.5%) did not receive any treatment. We compared survival between different treatment modalities based on clinical stage. In stage I, we found patient who were treated with surgery only had better median OS (mOS) compared to adjuvant chemotherapy (65.7 vs 50.4 months, P<0.001) and no statistically significant difference between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery only (mOS 79.8 vs 65.7 months, P=0.63). Whereas in stage II, patients who were treated with adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy had better mOS compared to those treated with surgery only (33.9 and 40.3 vs 29.9 months with P<0.001 and P=0.005, respectively). Same trend was seen in stage III, patients who were treated with adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy had better mOS compared to surgery only (22.6 and 41.5 vs 19.5 months, respectively with P<0.001 for all). In multivariate analysis, adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not affect the OS in all stages, except in stage III where neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better OS (HR 0.646 95% CI 0.530-0.786; P<0.001). Conclusions: Adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy do not seem to have survival benefit in early stage (stage I and II) cholangiocarcinoma. Whereas neoadjuvant chemotherapy tends to improve OS in stage III.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".