In patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), the oncologic benefit of surgery and perioperative outcomes for large multifocal tumors or tumors with contiguous organ involvement remain to be defined.
To develop and externally validate a simplified prognostic score for ICC and to determine perioperative outcomes for large multifocal ICCs or tumors with contiguous organ involvement.
This study of a contemporary cohort merged data from the California Cancer Registry (January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2011) and the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development inpatient database. Clinicopathologic variables were compared between tumors that were intrahepatic, small (<7 cm), and solitary (ISS) and those that had extrahepatic extension and were large (≥7 cm) and multifocal (ELM). External validation of the prognostic model was performed using an independent data set from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2013.
Patient overall survival after hepatectomy.
A total of 275 patients (123 men [44.7%] and 152 women [55.3%]; median [interquartile range] age, 65 [55-72] years) met the inclusion criteria. No significant differences in overall complication rate (ISS, 48 [34.5%]; ELM, 37 [27.2%]; P = .19) and mortality rate (ISS, 10 [7.2%]; ELM, 6 [4.4%]; P = .32) were found. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model demonstrated that multifocality, extrahepatic extension, grade, node positivity, and age greater than 60 years are independently associated with worse overall survival. These variables were used to develop the MEGNA prognostic score. The prognostic separation/discrimination index was improved with the MEGNA prognostic score (0.21; 95% CI, 0.11-0.33) compared with the staging systems of the American Joint Committee on Cancer sixth (0.17; 95% CI, 0.09-0.29) and seventh (0.18; 95% CI, 0.08-0.30) editions.
The MEGNA prognostic score allows more accurate and superior estimation of patient survival after hepatectomy compared with current staging systems.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 04 September 2020.
All research outputs
#2,741,447
of 32,617,973 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Surgery
#2,120
of 4,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,736
of 351,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Surgery
#62
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,617,973 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 50.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 351,316 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
