MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414313058 · doi:10.1159/000548043

Surgery for Multifocal Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

2025· review· en· W4414313058 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigestive Surgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrahepatic CholangiocarcinomaSurgical resectionResectionCurative treatmentHepatectomyOverall survival

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Multifocal intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (m-iCCA) is a complex and aggressive form of primary liver cancer, often associated with poor outcomes. Although surgical resection is considered the only curative treatment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), multifocality is frequently regarded as a contraindication due to the high risk of recurrence and limited survival benefits. Advances in surgical techniques and evolving treatment strategies have reopened discussions about the feasibility of resection in these cases. METHODS: We conducted this systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A study protocol for the review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and ScienceDirect databases up to July 30, 2024, for studies analyzing surgical treatment outcomes for m-iCCA. We assessed the quality of the included studies according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: After our initial search, 2,482 articles were found related to this topic and 381 articles were left for screening. We checked each article against the eligibility criteria and selected for the full-text analysis. Ten articles with 2,392 patients who had m-iCCA were included in our review. The reviewed studies reported extensive surgical procedures, such as extended hemihepatectomy and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, with median survival ranging from 18.9 to 27 months. Recurrence rates were higher in m-iCCA patients (67.8-74.3%) compared to solitary iCCA cases (52.4-60.5%), with recurrence-free survival as short as 4.5 months. Adjuvant chemotherapy was frequently used, although its effectiveness in terms of survival was inconsistent. One study reported a 5-year survival rate of 12.9% for surgical patients compared to 0% for non-operated patients. Survival outcomes were influenced by adverse prognostic indicators such as lymph node metastases and perineural invasion. CONCLUSION: Surgical resection for m-iCCA, while associated with high recurrence rates (67.8-74.3%), provides a survival advantage over nonsurgical management (median overall survival: 18.9-27 months vs. 8 months; 5-year survival: 12.9% vs. 0%) for carefully selected patients. More studies are needed to improve patient selection and refine treatment approaches to enhance long-term 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it