Early Onset Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Clinical Characteristics, Oncological Outcomes, and Genomic/Transcriptomic Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Data on clinical characteristics and disease-specific prognosis among patients with early onset intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) are currently limited. METHODS: Patients undergoing hepatectomy for ICC between 2000 and 2020 were identified by using a multi-institutional database. The association of early (≤50 years) versus typical onset (>50 years) ICC with recurrence-free (RFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) was assessed in the multi-institutional database and validated in an external cohort. The genomic and transcriptomic profiles of early versus late onset ICC were analyzed by using the Total Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center databases. RESULTS: Among 971 patients undergoing resection for ICC, 22.7% (n = 220) had early-onset ICC. Patients with early-onset ICC had worse 5-year RFS (24.1% vs. 29.7%, p < 0.05) and DSS (36.5% vs. 48.9%, p = 0.03) compared with patients with typical onset ICC despite having earlier T-stage tumors and lower rates of microvascular invasion. In the validation cohort, patients with early-onset ICC had worse 5-year RFS (7.4% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.002) compared with individuals with typical onset ICC. Using the TCGA cohort, 652 and 266 genes were found to be upregulated (including ATP8A2) and downregulated (including UTY and KDM5D) in early versus typical onset ICC, respectively. Genes frequently implicated as oncogenic drivers, including CDKN2A, IDH1, BRAF, and FGFR2 were infrequently mutated in the early-onset ICC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Early-onset ICC has distinct clinical and genomic/transcriptomic features. Morphologic and clinicopathologic characteristics were unable to fully explain differences in outcomes among early versus typical onset ICC patients. The current study offers a preliminary landscape of the molecular features of early-onset ICC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".