Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 450

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mutation Profiling in Cholangiocarcinoma: Prognostic and Therapeutic Implications

Open access
Churi, Chaitanya R., Shroff, Rachna, Wang, Ying, Rashid, Asif, Kang, HyunSeon C., Weatherly, Jacqueline, Zuo, Mingxin, Zinner, Ralph, Hong, David, Meric-Bernstam, Funda, Janku, Filip, Crane, Christopher H., Mishra, Lopa, Vauthey, Jean-Nicholas, Wolff, Robert A., Mills, Gordon, Javle, Milind·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is clinically heterogeneous; intra and extrahepatic CCA have diverse clinical presentations. Next generation sequencing (NGS) technology may identify the genetic differences between these entities and identify molecular subgroups for targeted therapeutics. METHODS: We describe successful NGS-based testing of 75 CCA patients along with the prognostic and therapeutic implications of findings. Mutation profiling was performed using either a) NGS panel of hotspot regions in 46 cancer-related genes using a 318-chip on Ion PGM Sequencer or b) Illumina HiSeq 2000 sequencing platform for 3,769 exons of 236 cancer-related genes plus 47 introns from 19 genes to an average depth of 1000X. Clinical data was abstracted and correlated with clinical outcome. Patients with targetable mutations were referred to appropriate clinical trials. RESULTS: There were significant differences between intrahepatic (n = 55) and extrahepatic CCA (n = 20) in regard to the nature and frequency of the genetic aberrations (GAs). IDH1 and DNA repair gene alterations occurred more frequently in intrahepatic CCA, while ERBB2 GAs occurred in the extrahepatic group. Commonly occurring GAs in intrahepatic CCA were TP53 (35%), KRAS (24%), ARID1A (20%), IDH1 (18%), MCL1 (16%) and PBRM1 (11%). Most frequent GAs in extrahepatic CCA (n = 20) were TP53 (45%), KRAS (40%), ERBB2 (25%), SMAD4 (25%), FBXW7 (15%) and CDKN2A (15%). In intrahepatic CCA, KRAS, TP53 or MAPK/mTOR GAs were significantly associated with a worse prognosis while FGFR GAs correlated with a relatively indolent disease course. IDH1 GAs did not have any prognostic significance. GAs in the chromatin modulating genes, BAP1 and PBRM1 were associated with bone metastases and worse survival in extrahepatic CCA. Radiologic responses and clinical benefit was noted with EGFR, FGFR, C-met, B-RAF and MEK inhibitors. CONCLUSION: There are significant genetic differences between intra and extrahepatic CCA. NGS can potentially identify disease subsets with distinct prognostic and therapeutic implications.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0115383

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 450

Metadata

Authors
Churi, C. R., Shroff, R., Wang, Y., Rashid, A., Kang, H. C., Weatherly, J., Zuo, M., Zinner, R., Hong, D., Meric-Bernstam, F., Janku, F., Crane, C. H., Mishra, L., Vauthey, J.-N., Wolff, R. A., Mills, G., & Javle, M.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-12-23
Volume
9
Issue
12
Pages
e115383
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1974564771
Cited by
450
References
3
FWCI
26.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Mutation Profiling in Cholangiocarcinoma: Prognostic and Therapeutic Implications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0115383
The paper
Churi, C. R., Shroff, R., Wang, Y., Rashid, A., Kang, H. C., Weatherly, J., Zuo, M., Zinner, R., Hong, D., Meric-Bernstam, F., Janku, F., Crane, C. H., Mishra, L., Vauthey, J.-N., Wolff, R. A., Mills, G., & Javle, M. (2014). Mutation Profiling in Cholangiocarcinoma: Prognostic and Therapeutic Implications. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115383

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.