Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,376

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cholangiocarcinoma: current knowledge and future perspectives consensus statement from the European Network for the Study of Cholangiocarcinoma (ENS-CCA)

Open access
Banales, Jesus M., Cardinale, Vincenzo, Carpino, Guido, Marzioni, Marco, Andersen, Jesper B., Invernizzi, Pietro, Lind, Guro E., Folseraas, Trine, Forbes, Stuart J., Fouassier, Laura, Geier, Andreas, Calvisi, Diego F., Mertens, Joachim C., Trauner, Michael, Benedetti, Antonio, Maroni, Luca, Vaquero, Javier, Macias, Rocio I. R., Raggi, Chiara, Perugorria, Maria J., Gaudio, Eugenio, Boberg, Kirsten M., Marin, Jose J. G., Alvaro, Domenico·2016·Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology

Abstract

Cholangiocarcinomas are a heterogeneous group of bile duct cancers and the second most common primary liver tumour worldwide. In this Consensus statement, the newly formed European Network for the Study of Cholangiocarcinoma (ENS-CCA) detail the classification, pathophysiology and underlying mechanisms, and current therapies for cholangiocarcinoma, as well as future perspectives. Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a heterogeneous group of malignancies with features of biliary tract differentiation. CCA is the second most common primary liver tumour and the incidence is increasing worldwide. CCA has high mortality owing to its aggressiveness, late diagnosis and refractory nature. In May 2015, the “European Network for the Study of Cholangiocarcinoma” (ENS-CCA: www.enscca.org or www.cholangiocarcinoma.eu ) was created to promote and boost international research collaboration on the study of CCA at basic, translational and clinical level. In this Consensus Statement, we aim to provide valuable information on classifications, pathological features, risk factors, cells of origin, genetic and epigenetic modifications and current therapies available for this cancer. Moreover, future directions on basic and clinical investigations and plans for the ENS-CCA are highlighted.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrgastro.2016.51

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 1,376

Metadata

Authors
Banales, J. M., Cardinale, V., Carpino, G., Marzioni, M., Andersen, J. B., Invernizzi, P., Lind, G. E., Folseraas, T., Forbes, S. J., Fouassier, L., Geier, A., Calvisi, D. F., Mertens, J. C., Trauner, M., Benedetti, A., Maroni, L., Vaquero, J., Macias, R. I. R., Raggi, C., Perugorria, M. J., Gaudio, E., Boberg, K. M., Marin, J. J. G., & Alvaro, D.
Venue
Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Published
2016-04-20
Volume
13
Issue
5
Pages
261-280
ISSN
  • 1759-5045 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-5053
OpenAlex
W2337387091
Cited by
1,376
References
10
FWCI
21.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cholangiocarcinoma: current knowledge and future perspectives consensus statement from the European Network for the Study of Cholangiocarcinoma (ENS-CCA). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/nrgastro.2016.51
The paper
Banales, J. M., Cardinale, V., Carpino, G., Marzioni, M., Andersen, J. B., Invernizzi, P., Lind, G. E., Folseraas, T., Forbes, S. J., Fouassier, L., Geier, A., Calvisi, D. F., Mertens, J. C., Trauner, M., Benedetti, A., Maroni, L., Vaquero, J., Macias, R. I. R., Raggi, C., . . . Alvaro, D. (2016). Cholangiocarcinoma: current knowledge and future perspectives consensus statement from the European Network for the Study of Cholangiocarcinoma (ENS-CCA). Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2016.51

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.