FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4313561311> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4313561311 endingPage "e170" @default.
• W4313561311 startingPage "e169" @default.
• W4313561311 abstract "Survival benefit of adequate lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing liver resection for clinically node-negative intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomaJournal of HepatologyVol. 78Issue 2PreviewLymph-nodal status is an important predictor of survival in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), but the need to perform lymphadenectomy in patients with clinically node-negative (cN0) iCCA is still under debate. The aim of this study was to determine whether adequate lymphadenectomy improves long-term outcomes in patients undergoing liver resection for cN0 iCCA. Full-Text PDF Reply to: “Letter regarding ‘Survival benefit of adequate lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing liver resection for clinically node negative intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma’ ”Journal of HepatologyVol. 78Issue 5PreviewRegional lymphadenectomy (LND) is an essential part of the surgical procedure for many cancers. According to the different histotypes, retrieval of an adequate number of regional lymph-nodes (LNs) determines the correct staging of the disease. A correct nodal staging allows for prognostic prediction and often dictates whether adjuvant treatment will be offered. In terms of long-term oncologic outcomes, the beneficial effect of regional LND is more controversial and strongly depends on the primary disease. Full-Text PDF To the Editor: It was with great interest that we read the Italian multicenter retrospective cohort study by Sposito et al. on adequate lymphadenectomy in patients with clinically node negative intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.[1]Sposito C. Ratti F. Cucchetti A. Ardito F. Ruzzenente A. Di Sandro S. et al.Survival benefit of adequate lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing liver resection for clinically node negative intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.J Hepatol. 2023; 78: P356-P363https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2022.10.021Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar The study was able to demonstrate that in 45% of the patients with radiologically negative lymph nodes, cancer cells were found in histological workup in the lymph nodes. Several questions arise with regard to the current multicenter study and we would like to emphasize the following points: We would like to challenge that the study is potentially flawed for several reasons. The occurrence of the major oncological outcome manifests itself after the median follow-up (FU) period (overall survival median 39 months; follow-up duration median 33 months) and therefore the study is not sufficiently powered. Neither type nor duration of (adjuvant) chemotherapy was described. As the cohort encompasses a 20-year study period, systemic treatment options are likely to have evolved over time. Details on the frequency at which radiological screening tools (computed tomography [CT] vs. magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] vs. positron emission tomography [PET]) were used are not provided for the preoperative diagnostics phase nor the FU period. This might have contributed to an ascertainment bias. Additionally, a relevant Hawthorne-effect might be possible due to a (most likely) increase of use of PET and/or (liver-specific) MRI over time. Relevant surgical details (laparoscopic vs. open resection) and postoperative treatment and complication rates were not mentioned/considered in this study. Surgical technique has developed and changed during the past 20 years, and the superiority of a laparoscopic approach has previously been shown.[2]Sahakyan M.A. Aghayan D.L. Edwin B. Alikhanov R. Britskaia N. Brudvik K.W. et al.Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter propensity score-matched study.Scand J Gastroenterol. 2022; : 1-8https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2022.2143724Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar,[3]Brustia R. Laurent A. Goumard C. Langella S. Cherqui D. Kawai T. et al.Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: report of an international multicenter cohort study with propensity score matching.Surgery. 2022; 171: 1290-1302https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SURG.2021.08.015Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar Brustia et al. were able to show that severe postoperative complications are predictors of overall survival (hazard ratio 10.5; 95% CI 1.01–109; p = 0.049) and tumor recurrence alike (hazard ratio 4.07; 95% CI 1.15–14.4; p = 0.030).[3]Brustia R. Laurent A. Goumard C. Langella S. Cherqui D. Kawai T. et al.Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: report of an international multicenter cohort study with propensity score matching.Surgery. 2022; 171: 1290-1302https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SURG.2021.08.015Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar Moreover, 54.1% of recurrences in the adequate lymphadenectomy (AD-LND) group occurred in the liver only. No explanation on how additional extrahepatic surgical resection impacts intrahepatic oncology was given. This might be partially due to the R1 resection status, but further discussion and possible explanations need to be sought. The necessity of using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights is questionable, as only a few cases (0.96% [n = 4] in AD-LND and 1.73% [n = 5] in NAD-LND) were excluded from further analysis and these few patients may be fundamentally surgically or biologically different from the rest of the cohort. This corresponds to the possible limitation of a retrospective cohort study as discussed by Sposito and colleagues. Moreover, some discrepancies exist in numbers between text, tables and figures (e.g. Table S1 adequate group n = 191 vs. text n = 195; Table S1 103/191 = 53.9% and not 54.1%). In conclusion, we would like to commend the authors on addressing a clinically relevant issue. At the same time the readers need to consider the still limited scientific evidence that would be required to routinely perform D2 lymph node dissection for clinically node negative intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Future studies are warranted in which the aforementioned (possible) co-factors and biases are considered and adjusted for accordingly. The authors received no financial support to produce this manuscript. The authors declare no conflicts of interest that pertain to this work. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details. CTJM: data interpretation, wrote the manuscript; GB: data interpretation, critical revision; VB: data interpretation, critical revision. The following are the supplementary data to this article: Download .pdf (.17 MB) Help with pdf files Multimedia component 1" @default.
• W4313561311 created "2023-01-06" @default.
• W4313561311 creator A5016632541 @default.
• W4313561311 creator A5050362578 @default.
• W4313561311 creator A5060499253 @default.
• W4313561311 date "2023-05-01" @default.
• W4313561311 modified "2023-10-10" @default.
• W4313561311 title "Letter regarding ‘Survival benefit of adequate lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing liver resection for clinically node negative intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma’" @default.
• W4313561311 cites W3201034195 @default.
• W4313561311 cites W4307899911 @default.
• W4313561311 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2022.12.022" @default.
• W4313561311 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36621574" @default.
• W4313561311 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4313561311 type Work @default.
• W4313561311 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W4313561311 countsByYear W43135613112023 @default.
• W4313561311 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4313561311 hasAuthorship W4313561311A5016632541 @default.
• W4313561311 hasAuthorship W4313561311A5050362578 @default.
• W4313561311 hasAuthorship W4313561311A5060499253 @default.
• W4313561311 hasBestOaLocation W43135613111 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConcept C143998085 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConcept C159110652 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConcept C2776909242 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConcept C2780824555 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConcept C2780849966 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConcept C2909135397 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConceptScore W4313561311C126322002 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConceptScore W4313561311C126838900 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConceptScore W4313561311C141071460 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConceptScore W4313561311C143998085 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConceptScore W4313561311C159110652 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConceptScore W4313561311C2776909242 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConceptScore W4313561311C2780824555 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConceptScore W4313561311C2780849966 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConceptScore W4313561311C2909135397 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConceptScore W4313561311C61434518 @default.
• W4313561311 hasConceptScore W4313561311C71924100 @default.
• W4313561311 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W4313561311 hasLocation W43135613111 @default.
• W4313561311 hasLocation W43135613112 @default.
• W4313561311 hasOpenAccess W4313561311 @default.
• W4313561311 hasPrimaryLocation W43135613111 @default.
• W4313561311 hasRelatedWork W141057319 @default.
• W4313561311 hasRelatedWork W1994041029 @default.
• W4313561311 hasRelatedWork W2013556997 @default.
• W4313561311 hasRelatedWork W2045376922 @default.
• W4313561311 hasRelatedWork W2327591748 @default.
• W4313561311 hasRelatedWork W2409923600 @default.
• W4313561311 hasRelatedWork W2414629667 @default.
• W4313561311 hasRelatedWork W2967466569 @default.
• W4313561311 hasRelatedWork W3025310373 @default.
• W4313561311 hasRelatedWork W4313561311 @default.
• W4313561311 hasVolume "78" @default.
• W4313561311 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4313561311 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4313561311 workType "article" @default.