Real-world experience supporting the role of oncologic resection and adjuvant chemotherapy in biliary tract cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Complete resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is the gold standard for patients with localized cholangiocarcinoma (CC) or gallbladder cancer (GBC). However, this is not always feasible, and recurrence rates remain high. Objectives: To understand the real-world proportions and reason for treatment failure in resected biliary tract cancers. Design and methods: We performed a retrospective population-based review of patients with GBC or CC [intrahepatic (IHCC) or extrahepatic (EHCC)] resected between 2005 and 2019 using the BC Cancer provincial database. A chart review was conducted to characterize demographics, treatments received and outcomes. Results: In total, 594 patients were identified of whom 416 (70%) had disease recurrence. Most GBCs (96%) were diagnosed incidentally, and repeat oncologic resection was performed in 45%. Adjuvant chemotherapy was received in 51% of patients diagnosed after 2017 (mostly capecitabine). Patient co-morbidities, disease progression and patient preference were the commonest reasons for not proceeding with adjuvant chemotherapy. One-third of patients did not complete all planned cycles. Median overall survival was significantly higher in those with complete (R0) versus incomplete (R1) resection [31.6 versus 18 months, hazard ratio (HR): 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.35–0.53] and in those with versus without re-resection for GBC [29.4 versus 19 months, HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.41–0.73]. There was a trend towards improved survival with versus without adjuvant therapy (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.61–1.02). Only 25% in the more contemporary cohort (2017–2019) had an R0 resection and completed adjuvant chemotherapy. Conclusion: Complete resection, including reresection for incidentally diagnosed GBCs, and adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with improved outcomes in this retrospective cohort, yet many patients were not able to complete these treatments. Neoadjuvant strategies may improve treatment delivery and ultimately, outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".