The Influence of Tumor Burden Score and Lymph Node Metastasis on the Survival Benefit of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is generally recommended for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), its benefit remains debated. This study aimed to identify patients that may benefit from AC following liver resection of ICC. METHODS: Patients who underwent liver resection for ICC between 2000 and 2023 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. Individual multivariable Cox models were used to evaluate the interaction between each prognostic factor and the effect of AC on survival. RESULTS: Among 1412 patients, 431 (30.5%) received AC. Both higher tumor burden score (TBS; hazard ratio [HR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.00; p = 0.033) and metastatic lymph node status (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.89; p = 0.014) demonstrated interactions with the survival benefit from receipt of AC. Interaction plots highlighted how AC was associated with improved survival beyond a TBS of approximately 6. Notably, among 555 (39.3%) patients with TBS <6 and N0 or Nx status, 5-year overall survival (OS) was no different between patients who received AC versus individuals who did not (55.1% [95% CI 48.9-62.1] vs. 58.7% [95% CI 49.8-69.2]; p = 0.900). In contrast, among 857 (60.7%) patients with TBS ≥6 or N1 status, AC was associated with improved 5-year OS (30.7% [95% CI 26.2-36.0] vs. 33.0% [95% CI 26.9-40.5]; p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: TBS and lymph node status may be useful in a multidisciplinary setting to inform decisions about AC planning for ICC patients following curative-intent resection.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".