CONCLUSION

Despite significant advances in the treatment of patients with cholangiocarcinoma, radical surgical excision remains the only treatment with curative intent. Unfortunately, the rates of resection are very low, and adjuvant therapies only provide a limited benefit in survival.

The current practice recommends adjuvant therapies in patients with node or margins positive. We await results of several clinical trials to help draw the adjuvant management. Although for patients at high risk of recurrence, the benefits seem to be clear, further clinical trials are needed to assess the benefit in low-risk patients. It will be also necessary to know what would be the best regimen to settle as standard, and further research with biological agents seems to be relevant.


Continue Reading

For node-positive disease, the evidence supports chemotherapy as an adjuvant approach.

What it is not clear is whether the addition of radiotherapy will provide further advantage.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the Medical Oncology, Clinical Oncology, and Haematology teams with which I have the honor to work, for all their support in the last years.

Footnotes

ACADEMIC EDITOR: William Chi-shing Cho, Editor in Chief

PEER REVIEW: Four peer reviewers contributed to the peer review report. Reviewers’ reports totaled 2032 words, excluding any confidential comments to the academic editor.

FUNDING: Author discloses no external funding sources.

COMPETING INTERESTS: Author discloses no potential conflicts of interest.

Paper subject to independent expert blind peer review. All editorial decisions made by independent academic editor. Upon submission manuscript was subject to anti-plagiarism scanning. Prior to publication all authors have given signed confirmation of agreement to article publication and compliance with all applicable ethical and legal requirements, including the accuracy of author and contributor information, disclosure of competing interests and funding sources, compliance with ethical requirements relating to human and animal study participants, and compliance with any copyright requirements of third parties. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Provenance: the author was invited to submit this paper.

Author Contributions

Conceived the concepts: EUC. Analyzed the data: EUC. Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: EUC. Developed the structure and arguments for the paper: EUC. Made critical revisions: EUC. The author reviewed and approved of the final manuscript.

Article information

Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2016; 10: 43–48.

Published online 2016 May 12. doi:  10.4137/CMO.S32821

PMCID: PMC4869598

E. Una Cidon

Oncology Department, Royal Bournemouth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bournemouth, UK.

CORRESPONDENCE: Email: [email protected]

Received 2016 Feb 9; Revised 2016 Apr 13; Accepted 2016 Apr 17.

Copyright © 2016 the author(s), publisher and licensee Libertas Academica Ltd.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY-NC 3.0 License.

Articles from Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology are provided here courtesy of Libertas Academica.