Therapeutic Outcome of Multidisciplinary Treatment in Unresectable Biliary Tract Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is little established evidence regarding treatment strategies for unresectable biliary tract cancer (BTC). This study aimed to clarify the situation of multidisciplinary treatment for unresectable BTC in the 2000s when there was no international standard first-line therapy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 315 consecutive patients with unresectable BTC who had been treated at seven tertiary institutions in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan between 1999 and 2008. Results: The unresectable factors were as follows: locally advanced, 101 cases (32.1%); hematogenous metastases, 80 cases (25.4%); and peritoneal dissemination, 30 cases (9.5%). Chemotherapy or radiation therapy was administered to 218 patients (69.2%). The best supportive care was provided in 97 cases (30.8%). The most common regimen was gemcitabine monotherapy, followed by gemcitabine combination therapy and S-1 monotherapy. The 1- and 2-year survival rates of all patients were 34.6% and 12.2%, respectively. The median survival time (MST) was 8 months in all patients. The 1-year survival rate was 65%, and the MST was 12 months among the locally advanced patients, whereas patients with peritoneal dissemination had the worst outcome; the 1-year survival rate was 7%, and the MST was 5 months. Among treated 90 cases of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, patients who received chemoradiotherapy (n = 24) had a significantly better outcome than those who received chemotherapy alone (MST: 20 vs. 11 months, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Unresectable BTC has heterogeneous treatment outcomes depending on the mode of tumor extension and location. Multidisciplinary treatment seems useful for patients with locally advanced BTC, whereas patients with metastatic disease still have a poor prognosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".