Copyright
©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Hepatol. Oct 27, 2020; 12(10): 693-708
Published online Oct 27, 2020. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v12.i10.693
Published online Oct 27, 2020. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v12.i10.693
Ref. | Study type | Intervention | Sample size | Conversion to resection | Tumor response |
Kato et al[46], 2013 | Retrospective | Gemcitabine | 22 | 8 (37%) | 3 PR, 11 SD, 8 PD |
Kato et al[47], 2015 | Retrospective | Gemcitabine plus cisplatin | 39 | 10 (26%) | 9PR, 21 SD, 9 PD |
Rayar et al[71], 2017 | Retrospective | Gemcitabine and/or platinums; Y-90 TARE | 45 | 10 (22%) | NR |
Konstantinidis et al[79], 2017 | Retrospective | Bevacizumab + FUDR HAI | 104 | 8 (8%) | NR |
Omichi et al[110], 2017 | Retrospective | Gemcitabine based therapy | 43 | 43 (100%) | NR |
Le Roy et al[48], 2018 | Retrospective | Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin | 74 | 39 (53%) | 18 PR, 33 SD, 23 PD |
Sumiyoshi et al[112], 2018 | Retrospective | S-1 + IMRT | 7 | 5 (71%) | 4 PR, 1 SD, 2 PD |
- Citation: Akateh C, Ejaz AM, Pawlik TM, Cloyd JM. Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. World J Hepatol 2020; 12(10): 693-708
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5182/full/v12/i10/693.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v12.i10.693