For people facing a serious bile duct cancer near the liver, the choice between surgery and transplant can feel overwhelming. This review of past studies compared two paths: a protocol to select patients for liver transplant versus standard liver resection. It found that the transplant approach was linked to higher 5-year survival and better disease-free survival. The analysis looked at 768 patients with this cancer, and it found no significant difference in short-term death rates after surgery. But the story comes with important caveats. The studies were retrospective, meaning they looked back in time, and they had significant selection bias. Also, transplant reports often focus on people who got the transplant, not everyone who was considered, which can make the benefits look bigger than they are. Safety data were not reported in these studies, so we do not know about side effects or complications.
Systematic review and meta-analysis on neoadjuvant selection and liver transplantation for perihilar cholangiocarcinomaTransplant selection may boost survival in bile duct cancer
AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of 768 patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, comparing protocol-based neoadjuvant selection and liver transplantation versus liver resection. The authors synthesized findings on 5-year overall survival, 5-year disease-free survival, 3-year disease-free survival, 3- or 30-day postoperative mortality, and R0 resection rate.
The meta-analysis found that 5-year overall survival was significantly higher with transplantation, as was 5-year disease-free survival. Three-year disease-free survival and the R0 resection rate were also higher with transplantation. There were no significant differences in 3- or 30-day postoperative mortality between the groups.
The authors noted significant selection bias and a retrospective study design as key limitations. They also highlighted that transplant series frequently report post-transplant rather than intention-to-treat outcomes, which may affect the apparent long-term benefit.
Practice relevance was not reported. The findings suggest a potential survival advantage with transplantation but must be interpreted cautiously due to the noted biases and outcome reporting practices.