Impact of Resection Margins and Adjuvant Therapy on Survival Outcomes in Lymph Node-Negative Distal Cholangiocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prognostic value of the resection margin (RM) status and the efficacy of adjuvant therapy (AT) in distal cholangiocarcinoma (CCC) are unclear. RM status appears particularly impactful in lymph node-negative distal CCC, representing early-stage disease. The prognostic value of RM status was investigated, and subpopulations of patients with lymph node-negative distal CCC who might benefit from AT were identified. Overall, 139 patients with distal CCC who underwent surgical resection between March 2006 and December 2023 were analyzed. RM status was categorized as wide (>5 mm) in 65 patients (46.8%), close (≤5 mm) in 32 patients (23.0%), or positive in 42 patients (30.2%). AT was administered to 48 patients (34.5%). Patients with close or positive RMs achieved significantly lower locoregional control (LRC) than those with wide RMs. However, overall survival (OS) did not differ across the three RM groups. The impact of RM status was more evident in patients not receiving AT. Patients with wide RMs exhibited better 3-year LRC, progression-free survival (PFS), and OS rates (79.0%, 66.5%, and 69.1%, respectively) than those with close (21.7%, 15.7%, and 34.4%) or positive RMs (44.3%, 25.3%, and 50.2%, respectively). No significant differences were found between close and positive RM groups. AT appears to have improved LRC and PFS in patients with close or positive RMs but not in those with wide RMs. Close RMs were associated with poor outcomes comparable to those with positive RMs. These results indicate that achieving adequate RM width is crucial for improving survival. Moreover, AT may improve survival when adequate RMs cannot be achieved. Nonetheless, larger studies are needed to validate these findings.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".