| Title |
Adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation therapy in patients with microscopic residual tumor after curative resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Oncology, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12094-017-1815-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. Lee, S. H. Kang, O. K. Noh, M. Chun, Y.-T. Oh, B.-W. Kim, S.-W. Kim |
| Abstract |
We investigated the role of adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) in patients with a microscopically positive resection margin (R1) after curative resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EHCC). A total of 84 patients treated with curative resection for EHCC were included. Fifty-two patients with negative resection margins did not receive any adjuvant treatments (R0 + S group). The remaining 32 patients with microscopically positive resection margins received either adjuvant CCRT (R1 + CCRT group, n = 19) or adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) alone (R1 + RT group, n = 13). During the median follow-up period of 26 months, the 2-year locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival rates (OS) were: 81.8, 62.6, and 61.5% for R0 + S group; 71.8, 57.8, and 57.9% for R1 + CCRT group; and 16.8, 9.6, and 15.4% for R1 + RT group, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that the R1 + CCRT group did not show any significant difference in survival rates compared with the R0 + S group. The R1 + RT group had lower LRRFS [hazard ratio (HR) 3.008; p = 0.044], DFS (HR 2.364; p = 0.022), and OS (HR 2.417; p = 0.011) when compared with the R0 + S and R1 + CCRT group. A lack of significant survival difference between R0 + S group and R1 + CCRT group suggests that adjuvant CCRT ameliorates the negative effect of microscopic positive resection margin. In contrast, adjuvant RT alone is appeared to be inadequate for controlling microscopically residual tumor. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 36% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 18% |
| Professor | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 1 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 45% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 9% |
| Psychology | 1 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,579,736
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#862
of 1,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#328,261
of 439,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#27
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,320 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,953 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.