Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40232341›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025

Impact of Tumor Size on the Survival Benefit of Anatomic Versus Non-Anatomic Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

Jun Kawashima, Miho Akabane, Mujtaba Khalil, Selamawit Woldesenbet, Yutaka Endo, Kota Sahara, François Cauchy, Federico Aucejo, Hugo P Marques, Rita Lopes and 18 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

28 authors.

Jun KawashimaDepartment of Surgery, The Urban Meyer III and Shelley Meyer Chair for Cancer Research, Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Miho AkabaneDepartment of Surgery, The Urban Meyer III and Shelley Meyer Chair for Cancer Research, Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Mujtaba KhalilDepartment of Surgery, The Urban Meyer III and Shelley Meyer Chair for Cancer Research, Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Selamawit WoldesenbetDepartment of Surgery, The Urban Meyer III and Shelley Meyer Chair for Cancer Research, Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Yutaka EndoDepartment of Transplant Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Kota SaharaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan.
François CauchyDepartment of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Beaujon Hospital, Clichy, France.
Federico AucejoDepartment of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Liver Transplant Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Digestive Diseases and Surgery Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Hugo P MarquesDepartment of Surgery, Curry Cabral Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.
Rita LopesDepartment of Surgery, Curry Cabral Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.
Andreia RodrigueaDepartment of Surgery, Curry Cabral Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.
Tom HughDepartment of Surgery, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Feng ShenDepartment of Surgery, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Shishir K MaithelDivision of Surgical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institution, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Bas Groot KoerkampDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Irinel PopescuDepartment of Surgery, Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania.
Minoru KitagoDepartment of Surgery, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan.
Matthew J WeissDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Institute, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, NY, USA.
Guillaume MartelDepartment of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Carlo PulitanoDepartment of Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Luca AldrighettiDepartment of Surgery, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
George PoultsidesDepartment of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Andrea RuzzenteDivision of General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Todd W BauerDepartment of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Ana GleisnerDepartment of Surgery, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA.
Itaru EndoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan.
Roberto I TroisiDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.
Timothy M PawlikDepartment of Surgery, The Urban Meyer III and Shelley Meyer Chair for Cancer Research, Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. Tim.Pawlik@osumc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7994-9870

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of anatomic resection (AR) versus non-anatomic resection (NAR) for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) has not been thoroughly investigated. This study sought to define the impact of tumor size on the relative therapeutic benefit of AR versus NAR for ICC. Specifically, the study aimed to identify a threshold tumor size to define when AR rather than NAR may be warranted to achieve better survival outcomes for patients undergoing resection of ICC.

methodsPatients who underwent liver resection for ICC were identified from an international multi-institutional database. A multivariable Cox model with an interaction term was used to assess the relationship between tumor size and the survival impact of AR.

resultsAmong 969 patients, 506 (72.9 %) underwent AR, whereas 263 (27.1 %) had an NAR. Multivariable analysis demonstrated an interaction between tumor size and AR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.00; p = 0.045). A plot of the interaction demonstrated that AR was associated with improved outcomes for tumors size ≥4 cm. Among 257 (26.5 %) patients with tumors smaller than 4 cm, recurrence-free survival (RFS) did not differ between NAR and AR (3-year RFS: 65.2 % [95 % CI, 55.7-76.2] vs 58.1 % [95 % CI, 49.2-68.5]; p = 0.720). In contrast, among 712 (73.4 %) patients with tumors size ≥4 cm, AR was associated with improved RFS (3-year RFS: 34.7 % [95 % CI, 27.5-43.8] vs 44.9 % [95 % CI, 40.4-50.0]; p = 0.018).

conclusionsAnatomic resection was associated with improved RFS for ICC patients with tumors size ≥4 cm, indicating that tumor size may be a valuable criterion to determine the extent of liver resection for resectable ICC patients.

Indexed as

Bile Duct NeoplasmsCholangiocarcinomaHepatectomyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateTumor Burden

Identifiers

PMID40232341
PMCPMC12222373

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.