The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evolution of Surgical Treatment for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Single-Center 34-Year Review of 574 Consecutive Resections
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review our 34-year experience with 574 consecutive resections for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and to evaluate the progress made in surgical treatment of this disease. BACKGROUND: Few studies have reported improved surgical outcomes for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma; therefore, it is still unclear whether surgical treatment of this intractable disease has progressed. METHODS: Between April 1977 and December 2010, a total of 754 consecutive patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma were treated, of whom 574 (76.1%) underwent resection. The medical records of these resected patients were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: The incidence of major hepatectomies has increased, and limited resections, including central hepatectomies and bile duct resections, were rarely performed. Combined vascular resection was being used more often. Operative time has become shorter, and intraoperative blood loss has also decreased significantly. Because of refinements in surgical techniques and perioperative management, morbidity decreased significantly but was still high, with a rate of 43.1% in the last 5 years. Mortality rate has also decreased significantly (P < 0.001) from 11.1% (8/72) before 1990 to 1.4% (3/218) in the last 5 years. The ratio of advanced disease defined as pStage IVA and IVB has increased significantly from 49.4% before 2000 to 61.4% after 2001. The disease-specific survival for the 574 study patients (including all deaths) was 44.3% at year 3, 32.5% at year 5, and 19.9% at year 10. The survival was significantly better in the later period of 2001 to 2010 than in the earlier period of 1977 to 2000 (38.1% vs 23.1% at year 5, P < 0.001). For pM0, R0, and pN0 patients (n = 243), the survival in the later period was good with 67.1% at year 5, which was significantly better than that of the earlier period (P < 0.001). For pM0, R0, and pN1 patients (n = 142), however, the survival in the later period was similar to that of the earlier period (22.1% vs 14.6% at year 5, P = 0.647). Multivariate analysis revealed that lymph node metastasis was the strongest prognostic indicator. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma has been evolving steadily, with expanded surgical indication, decreased mortality, and increased survival. Survival for R0 and pN0 patients was satisfactory, whereas survival for pN1 patients was still poor, suggesting that establishment of effective adjuvant chemotherapy is needed.
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
Cites
Cisplatin plus Gemcitabine versus Gemcitabine for Biliary Tract Cancer
Valle, J., Wasan, H., Palmer, D. H., Cunningham, D., Anthoney, A., Maraveyas, A., Madhusudan, S., Iveson, T., Hughes, S., Pereira, S. P., et al. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0908721 · Cited by 4,406
Postoperative pancreatic fistula: An international study group (ISGPF) definition
Bassi, C., Dervenis, C., Butturini, G., Fingerhut, A., Yeo, C., Izbicki, J., Neoptolemos, J., Sarr, M., Traverso, W., & Buchler, M. (2005) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2005.05.001 · Cited by 4,277
Oettle, H., Post, S., Neuhaus, P., Gellert, K., Langrehr, J., Ridwelski, K., Schramm, H., Fahlke, J., Zuelke, C., Burkart, C., et al. (2007) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.297.3.267 · Cited by 2,419
Rahbari, N. N., Garden, O. J., Padbury, R., Brooke-Smith, M., Crawford, M., Adam, R., Koch, M., Makuuchi, M., Dematteo, R. P., Christophi, C., et al. (2011) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2010.10.001 · Cited by 2,319
Self-citationStaging, Resectability, and Outcome in 225 Patients With Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma
Jarnagin, W. R., Fong, Y., DeMatteo, R. P., Gonen, M., Burke, E. C., Bodniewicz, J., Youssef, M., Klimstra, D., & Blumgart, L. H. (2001) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-200110000-00010 · Cited by 1,347
Cholangiocarcinoma: Thirty-one-Year Experience With 564 Patients at a Single Institution
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) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000251366.62632.d3 · Cited by 1,300
Cholangiocarcinoma: A Spectrum of Intrahepatic, Perihilar, and Distal Tumors
Nakeeb, A., Pitt, H. A., Sohn, T. A., Coleman, J., Abrams, R. A., Piantadosi, S., Hruban, R. H., Lillemoe, K. D., Yeo, C. J., & Cameron, J. L. (1996) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-199610000-00005 · Cited by 1,187
D2 Lymphadenectomy Alone or with Para-aortic Nodal Dissection for Gastric Cancer
Sasako, M., Sano, T., Yamamoto, S., Kurokawa, Y., Nashimoto, A., Kurita, A., Hiratsuka, M., Tsujinaka, T., Kinoshita, T., Arai, K., et al. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0707035 · Cited by 1,021
Yeo, C. J., Cameron, J. L., Lillemoe, K. D., Sohn, T. A., Campbell, K. A., Sauter, P. K., Coleman, J., Abrams, R. A., & Hruban, R. H. (2002) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-200209000-00012 · Cited by 807
Management Strategies in Resection for Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma
BISMUTH, H., NAKACHE, R., & DIAMOND, T. (1992) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-199201000-00005 · Cited by 807
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
Banales, J. M., Cardinale, V., Carpino, G., Marzioni, M., Andersen, J. B., Invernizzi, P., Lind, G. E., Folseraas, T., Forbes, S. J., Fouassier, L., et al. (2016) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2016.51 · Cited by 1,376
Cholangiocarcinoma: Current Knowledge and New Developments
Blechacz, B. (2017) · Gut and Liver · doi:10.5009/gnl15568 · Cited by 485
Hilar cholangiocarcinoma: expert consensus statement
Mansour, J. C., Aloia, T. A., Crane, C. H., Heimbach, J. K., Nagino, M., & Vauthey, J.-N. (2015) · HPB · doi:10.1111/hpb.12450 · Cited by 414
Self-citationEthun, C. G., Lopez-Aguiar, A. G., Anderson, D. J., Adams, A. B., Fields, R. C., Doyle, M. B., Chapman, W. C., Krasnick, B. A., Weber, S. M., Mezrich, J. D., et al. (2018) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000002574 · Cited by 191
Metadata
- Authors
- Nagino, M., Ebata, T., Yokoyama, Y., Igami, T., Sugawara, G., Takahashi, Y., & Nimura, Y.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 258
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 129-140
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2333767446
- Cited by
- 656
- References
- 43
- FWCI
- 23.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Evolution of Surgical Treatment for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Single-Center 34-Year Review of 574 Consecutive Resections. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e3182708b57
- The paper
- Nagino, M., Ebata, T., Yokoyama, Y., Igami, T., Sugawara, G., Takahashi, Y., & Nimura, Y. (2013). Evolution of Surgical Treatment for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Single-Center 34-Year Review of 574 Consecutive Resections. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3182708b57
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.
