Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 451

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 110 of the 110 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Advances in the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: An overview of the current and future therapeutic landscape for clinicians

Open access
Moris, Dimitrios, Palta, Manisha, Kim, Charles, Allen, Peter J., Morse, Michael A., Lidsky, Michael E.·2023·CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

Abstract

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is the second most common primary liver tumor and remains a fatal malignancy in the majority of patients. Approximately 20%–30% of patients are eligible for resection, which is considered the only potentially curative treatment; and, after resection, a median survival of 53 months has been reported when sequenced with adjuvant capecitabine. For the 70%–80% of patients who present with locally unresectable or distant metastatic disease, systemic therapy may delay progression, but survival remains limited to approximately 1 year. For the past decade, doublet chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin has been considered the most effective first‐line regimen, but results from the recent use of triplet regimens and even immunotherapy may shift the paradigm. More effective treatment strategies, including those that combine systemic therapy with locoregional therapies like radioembolization or hepatic artery infusion, have also been developed. Molecular therapies, including those that target fibroblast growth factor receptor and isocitrate dehydrogenase, have recently received US Food and Drug Administration approval for a defined role as second‐line treatment for up to 40% of patients harboring these actionable genomic alterations, and whether they should be considered in the first‐line setting is under investigation. Furthermore, as the oncology field seeks to expand indications for immunotherapy, recent data demonstrated that combining durvalumab with standard cytotoxic therapy improved survival in patients with ICC. This review focuses on the current and future strategies for ICC treatment, including a summary of the primary literature for each treatment modality and an algorithm that can be used to drive a personalized and multidisciplinary approach for patients with this challenging malignancy.

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 · 10.3322/caac.21759

Cites

110 of 110 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 110 references

Cited by

See all 451

Metadata

Authors
Moris, D., Palta, M., Kim, C., Allen, P. J., Morse, M. A., & Lidsky, M. E.
Venue
CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-10-19
Volume
73
Issue
2
Pages
198-222
ISSN
  • 0007-9235 (ISSN-L)
  • 1542-4863
OpenAlex
W4306803151
Cited by
451
References
110
FWCI
86.26
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: Advances in the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: An overview of the current and future therapeutic landscape for clinicians. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3322/caac.21759
The paper
Moris, D., Palta, M., Kim, C., Allen, P. J., Morse, M. A., & Lidsky, M. E. (2023). Advances in the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: An overview of the current and future therapeutic landscape for clinicians. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21759

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.