Combined Tumor Burden Score and Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9 Grading System to Predict Outcomes Among Patients with Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The interplay of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) and tumor burden score (TBS) within intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma remains ill-defined. We evaluated the roles of TBS and CA19-9 relative to overall survival (OS) and recurrence, as well as the predictive ability of the combined TBS and CA19-9 (CTC) grading system. STUDY DESIGN: Patients undergoing liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma between 2000 and 2020 were identified using a multi-institutional database. The impact of CA19-9 and TBS on 5-year OS and 3-year recurrence was assessed, along with the prognostic accuracy of the CTC grading system (ie the composite score of CA19-9 level and TBS). RESULTS: Among 831 patients, the median age was 58.2 years and 482 (58.0%) were male. The median [IQR] CA19-9 level was 49.7 [17.0, 221.0] U/mL and TBS was 6.1 [4.1, 8.3]. Median [IQR] and 5-year OS were 36.9 [32.3, 43.1] months and 38.9%, respectively; 3-year recurrence was 68.9%. Five-year survival varied relative to CA19-9 (low vs high, 49.0% vs 19.7%) and TBS (low vs high, 53.6% vs 26.9%) (p < 0.001 for both). On multivariable analysis, high CA19-9 (hazard ratio [HR] 2.02, 95% CI 1.64 to 2.49) and high TBS (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.06) remained independently associated with OS. In turn, the CTC grading score stratified 5-year OS (low vs intermediate vs high CTC, 57.7% vs 39.9% vs 12.6%; p < 0.001) and remained an independent prognostic factor (referent, low CTC; [intermediate CTC] HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.01; [high CTC] HR 3.28, 95% CI 2.47 to 4.36). CONCLUSIONS: The interplay between tumor morphology and biology dictates long-term prognosis after liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Prognostic models such as the CTC grading system may inform discussions around prognosis, as well as help identify which patients with ICC may benefit more from neoadjuvant chemotherapy rather than up-front surgery.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".