The Potential Role of Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Patients with Microscopically Positive (R1) Surgical Margins after Resection of Cholangiocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are a heterogeneous group of neoplasms with dismal prognosis and the role of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in high-risk resected patients is unclear. (2) Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of BTC patients who received curative intent surgery with microscopically positive resection margins (R1) and adjuvant chemoradioradiotherapy (CCRT) or chemotherapy (CHT) from January 2001 to December 201. (3) Results: Out of 65 patients who underwent R1 resection, 26 received adjuvant CHT and 39 adjuvant CCRT. The median recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the CHT and CHRT groups was 13.2 and 26.8 months, respectively (p = 0.41). Median overall survival (OS) was higher in the CHRT group (41.9 months) as compared to the CHT group (32.2 months), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR 0.88; p = 0.7). A promising trend in favor of CHRT was observed in N0 patients. Finally, no statistically significant differences were observed between patients undergoing adjuvant CHRT after R1 resection and patients treated with chemotherapy alone after R0 surgery. (4) Conclusions: Our study did not show a significant survival benefit with adjuvant CHRT over CHT alone in BTC patients with positive resection margins, while a promising trend was observed.
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".