ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2024
Prognostic models for mucinous and non-specific adeno cholangiocarcinoma: a population-based retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinically, the diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma are generally different according to the location of occurrence, and the studies rarely consider the differences between different pathological types. Cholangiocarcinomas in large- and middle-sized intrahepatic bile ducts are mostly mucinous, while in small sized bile duct are not; mucinous extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas are also more common than mucinous intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. However, it is unclear whether these pathological type differences are related to the prognosis. Methods: Data of total 22509 patients was analyzed from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database out of which 22299 patients were diagnosed with common adeno cholangiocarcinoma while 210 were diagnosed with mucinous cholangiocarcinoma. Based on the propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, between these two groups' clinical, demographic, and therapeutic features were contrasted. The data were analyzed using Cox and LASSO regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Ultimately, overall survival (OS) and cancer specific survival (CSS) related prognostic models were established and validated in test and external datasets and nomograms were created to forecast these patients' prognosis. Results: There was no difference in prognosis between mucinous cholangiocarcinoma and adeno cholangiocarcinoma. Therefore, we constructed prognostic model and nomogram that can be used for mucinous and adeno cholangiocarcinoma at the same time. By comparing the 9 independent key characteristics i.e. Age, tumor size, the number of primary tumors, AJCC stage, Grade, lymph node status, metastasis, surgery and chemotherapy, risk scores were calculated for each individual. By integrating these two pathological types in OS and CSS prognostic models, effective prognosis prediction results could be achieved in multiple datasets (OS: AUC 0.70-0.87; CSS: AUC 0.74-0.89). Conclusion: Age, tumor size, the number of primary tumors, AJCC stage, Grade, lymph node status, metastasis, surgery and chemotherapy are the independent prognostic factors in OS or CSS of the patients with mucinous and ordinary cholangiocarcinoma. Nomogram that can be used for mucinous and adeno cholangiocarcinoma at the same time is of significance in clinical practice and management of cholangiocarcinoma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.