The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cholangiocarcinoma: Thirty-one-Year Experience With 564 Patients at a Single Institution
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess long-term survival and prognostic factors in a large series of patients with bile duct cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The incidence of bile duct cancer is low but increasing. Determinants of survival vary in the literature, due to a lack of sufficient numbers of patients in most series. METHODS: We studied 564 consecutive patients with bile duct cancer operated upon between 1973 and 2004. Patients were divided into intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal groups. Principle outcome measures were complications, 30-day mortality, and survival. RESULTS: Of the 564 patients, 44 (8%) had intrahepatic, 281 (50%) had perihilar, and 239 (42%) had distal tumors. Approximately half (294, 52%) were treated before 1995, while 270 (48%) were treated thereafter. The perioperative mortality rate was 4%. In log-rank analyses, survival was higher in the later time period (P = 0.002), in patients with intrahepatic disease (P = 0.001), with negative resection margins (P < 0.001), with well/moderately differentiated tumors (P < 0.001), and those with negative lymph nodal status (P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, negative margins (P < 0.001), tumor differentiation (P < 0.001), and negative nodal status (P < 0.001), but not tumor diameter, were significant independent prognostic factors. In R0-resected patients, lymph node status (P < 0.001), but not tumor diameter, histology, or differentiation, further predicted survival. The median survivals for R0-resected intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal tumors were 80, 30, and 25 months, respectively, and the 5-year survivals were 63%, 30%, and 27%, respectively. CONCLUSION: R0 resection remains the best chance for long-term survival, and lymph node status is the most important prognostic factor following R0 resection.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Cholangiocarcinoma 2020: the next horizon in mechanisms and management
Banales, J. M., Marin, J. J. G., Lamarca, A., Rodrigues, P. M., Khan, S. A., Roberts, L. R., Cardinale, V., Carpino, G., Andersen, J. B., Braconi, C., et al. (2020) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/s41575-020-0310-z · Cited by 2,411
Cholangiocarcinoma — evolving concepts and therapeutic strategies
Ilyas, S. I., Khan, S. A., Hallemeier, C. L., Kelley, R. K., & Gores, G. J. (2018) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.157 · Cited by 1,626
Darwish Murad, S., Kim, W. R., Harnois, D. M., Douglas, D. D., Burton, J., Kulik, L. M., Botha, J. F., Mezrich, J. D., Chapman, W. C., Schwartz, J. J., et al. (2012) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2012.04.008 · Cited by 597
Advances in diagnosis, treatment and palliation of cholangiocarcinoma: 1990-2009
Aljiffry, M., Walsh, M. J., & Molinari, M. (2009) · World Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.3748/wjg.15.4240 · Cited by 286
Aabakken, L., Karlsen, T., Albert, J., Arvanitakis, M., Chazouilleres, O., Dumonceau, J.-M., Färkkilä, M., Fickert, P., Hirschfield, G., Laghi, A., et al. (2017) · Endoscopy · doi:10.1055/s-0043-107029 · Cited by 255
Metadata
- Authors
- DeOliveira, M. L., Cunningham, S. C., Cameron, J. L., Kamangar, F., Winter, J. M., Lillemoe, K. D., Choti, M. A., Yeo, C. J., & Schulick, R. D.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2007-05
- Volume
- 245
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 755-762
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2034770797
- Cited by
- 1,300
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 33.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Thirty-one-Year Experience With 564 Patients at a Single Institution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.sla.0000251366.62632.d3
- The paper
- DeOliveira, M. L., Cunningham, S. C., Cameron, J. L., Kamangar, F., Winter, J. M., Lillemoe, K. D., Choti, M. A., Yeo, C. J., & Schulick, R. D. (2007). Cholangiocarcinoma: Thirty-one-Year Experience With 564 Patients at a Single Institution. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000251366.62632.d3
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.