Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study

Survival rate of patients with combined... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212" }, "headline": "Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis...", "datePublished": "2022-10-25T15:59:50", "dateModified": "2025-10-03T15:13:23", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Narisara Phansila" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Paopong Pansila" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Adisorn Wongkongdech" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Niruwan Turnbull" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Mahalul Azam" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ranee Wongkongdech" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) incidence in Northeastern Thailand is very high and a major cause of mortality. CCA patients typically have a poor prognosis and short-term survival rate due to late-stage diagnosis. Thailand is the first Southeast Asian country to approve medicinal cannabis treatment, especially for palliative care with advanced cancer patients. Methods A retrospective cohort study compared survival among 491 newly diagnosed advanced CCA patients between September 2019 and June 2021. Of these, 404 received standard palliative pain management (ST), and 87 received medicinal cannabis treatment (CT). Patients were enrolled from four tertiary hospitals and two secondary hospitals in five provinces of Northeast Thailand. Cumulative survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and independent prognostic factors were analyzed using Cox regression. Results For ST patients, follow-up time was 790 person-months, with a mortality rate of 48.35/100 person-months. For CT patients, follow-up time was 476 person-months, with a mortality rate of 10.9/100 person-months. The median survival time after registration at a palliative clinic was 0.83 months (95% CI: 0.71–0.95) for ST and 5.66 months (95% CI: 1.94–9.38) for CT. Multivariate analysis showed CT was significantly associated with prolonged survival (HRadj = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.20–0.37; p < 0.001). Conclusions The medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients. In this retrospective cohort, Medicinal cannabis treatment was associated with more prolonged survival among advanced CCA patients in Northeastern Thailand. While this association remained significant after multivariable adjustment, unmeasured or residual confounding factors may have influenced the observed outcomes. Although the association remained significant after adjustment, unmeasured or residual confounders may have influenced outcomes. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings and explore potential mechanisms. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212", "name": "Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma..." } } ] } Home Browse Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Phansila N, Pansila P, Wongkongdech A et al. Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.123250.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] Narisara Phansila https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2333-2895 1 , Paopong Pansila 2 , Adisorn Wongkongdech https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2469-1523 3,4 , Niruwan Turnbull https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7698-3352 3,4 , Mahalul Azam https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2441-5433 5 , Ranee Wongkongdech https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4236-5326 2,4,6 Narisara Phansila https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2333-2895 1 , Paopong Pansila 2 , [...] Adisorn Wongkongdech https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2469-1523 3,4 , Niruwan Turnbull https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7698-3352 3,4 , Mahalul Azam https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2441-5433 5 , Ranee Wongkongdech https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4236-5326 2,4,6 PUBLISHED 03 Oct 2025 Author details Author details 1 Chiang Kwan Hospital, Roi-et Province, 45000, Thailand 2 Faculty of Medicine, Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham, 44000, Thailand 3 Faculty of Public Health, Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham, Mahasarakham Province, 44150, Thailand 4 Public Health and Environmental Policy in Southeast Asia Research Cluster (PHEP SEA Thailand), Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham, 44150, Thailand 5 Public Health Department, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang, 50229, Indonesia 6 International and National Collaborative Network and Innovation for Community Health Development Research Unit (INCNI-CHD), Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham, 44000, Thailand Narisara Phansila Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Paopong Pansila Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization Adisorn Wongkongdech Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization Niruwan Turnbull Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Mahalul Azam Roles: Investigation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Ranee Wongkongdech Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Oncology gateway. Abstract Background Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) incidence in Northeastern Thailand is very high and a major cause of mortality. CCA patients typically have a poor prognosis and short-term survival rate due to late-stage diagnosis. Thailand is the first Southeast Asian country to approve medicinal cannabis treatment, especially for palliative care with advanced cancer patients. Methods A retrospective cohort study compared survival among 491 newly diagnosed advanced CCA patients between September 2019 and June 2021. Of these, 404 received standard palliative pain management (ST), and 87 received medicinal cannabis treatment (CT). Patients were enrolled from four tertiary hospitals and two secondary hospitals in five provinces of Northeast Thailand. Cumulative survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and independent prognostic factors were analyzed using Cox regression. Results For ST patients, follow-up time was 790 person-months, with a mortality rate of 48.35/100 person-months. For CT patients, follow-up time was 476 person-months, with a mortality rate of 10.9/100 person-months. The median survival time after registration at a palliative clinic was 0.83 months (95% CI: 0.71–0.95) for ST and 5.66 months (95% CI: 1.94–9.38) for CT. Multivariate analysis showed CT was significantly associated with prolonged survival (HRadj = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.20–0.37; p < 0.001). Conclusions The medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients. In this retrospective cohort, Medicinal cannabis treatment was associated with more prolonged survival among advanced CCA patients in Northeastern Thailand. While this association remained significant after multivariable adjustment, unmeasured or residual confounding factors may have influenced the observed outcomes. Although the association remained significant after adjustment, unmeasured or residual confounders may have influenced outcomes. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings and explore potential mechanisms. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Survival rate, medicinal cannabis, combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma, cHCC-CC, palliative care, Northeastern Thailand Corresponding Author(s) Ranee Wongkongdech ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Ranee Wongkongdech Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This research was financially supported by Faculty of Medicine, Mahasarakham University with the reference no. 64/04/01. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 Phansila N et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Phansila N, Pansila P, Wongkongdech A et al. Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.123250.3 ) First published: 25 Oct 2022, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.123250.1 ) Latest published: 03 Oct 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.123250.3 ) Revised Amendments from Version 2 This version has been substantially revised in response to peer review. Key updates include expanded references (2019–2024) on medicinal cannabis, CCA/HCC epidemiology, and palliative care; standardized terminology; and detailed methodological descriptions to ensure reproducibility. The Conclusion has been refined to highlight the association between cannabis treatment and prolonged survival while noting the study’s observational limitations. The Limitations section has been expanded, and the study’s significance is now framed within the context of Northeastern Thailand. These changes enhance clarity, transparency, and the cautious interpretation of findings. This version has been substantially revised in response to peer review. Key updates include expanded references (2019–2024) on medicinal cannabis, CCA/HCC epidemiology, and palliative care; standardized terminology; and detailed methodological descriptions to ensure reproducibility. The Conclusion has been refined to highlight the association between cannabis treatment and prolonged survival while noting the study’s observational limitations. The Limitations section has been expanded, and the study’s significance is now framed within the context of Northeastern Thailand. These changes enhance clarity, transparency, and the cautious interpretation of findings. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Nuttapong Ngamphaiboon See the authors' detailed response to the review by Selamat Budijitno See the authors' detailed response to the review by Ueamporn Summart READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) is an uncommon and aggressive form of primary liver cancer that exhibits both hepatocytic and cholangiocytic differentiation within the same tumor. 1 The global incidence rate is approximately 0.59 per 1,000,000 people, 2 whereas Thailand reports significantly higher rates. 3 Notably, Northeastern Thailand—particularly Khon Kaen Province—has the highest reported incidence of CCA worldwide at 118.5 per 100,000 population, exceeding the global rate by over 100-fold. 3 Due to its asymptomatic nature in early stages, CCA is typically diagnosed at an advanced stage when metastasis has already occurred, resulting in limited therapeutic options, aggressive disease progression, 4 and poor prognosis. 5 Previous studies have shown the median post-diagnosis survival of CCA patients to be about 9 months (95% CI 7–11), with 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates at 43.4%, 21.5%, and 17.1%, respectively. 6 Mean overall survival rate at 1-, 3-, and 5-year was 66.6, 41.5, and 32.7% for patients with transitional HCC-CC, 7 with median survival time from diagnosis 4.3 months (95% CI: 3.3–5.1), 8 and after supportive treatment was 4 months. 9 Survival time was increased among CCA patients receiving surgery, an average of 29.38 months, best supportive treatment, 5.12 months, and 13.38 months for chemotherapy patients. 10 Cannabis-based medicinal products are now legally available in several countries 11 and are commonly used in palliative care to alleviate pain, reduce nausea, stimulate appetite, and improve quality of life in adults with cancer. 12 Observational evidence also suggests that supervised medical cannabis is generally well-tolerated and associated with quality-of-life improvements over about six months of use. 13 , 14 Thailand legalized medical cannabis in February 2019, the first country in Southeast Asia to do so 15 , 16 and has since integrated cannabis-based options into palliative care services as an adjunct or alternative to standard care. 17 In a recent retrospective cohort of advanced cholangiocarcinoma treated in northeastern Thailand, patients receiving cannabis-based treatment had a median overall survival of 5.66 months and an approximate one-year (12-month) survival of 29.98%, based on Kaplan–Meier estimates, 18 highlighting a potential role alongside symptom management. Survival data for cannabis-treated cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) remain limited, but some evidence suggests potential benefits. A U.S. inpatient study found that cannabis users with CCA had significantly lower in-hospital mortality than matched non-users (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.16–0.97; p < 0.04). 19 In Thailand, a prospective cohort reported improved functional status and quality of life at two and four months among CCA patients receiving cannabis-based treatment compared to standard care. 13 Preclinical studies also indicate anticancer effects: cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabigerol (CBG) inhibited CCA cell proliferation and migration, inducing apoptosis and autophagy, 20 while delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) suppressed proliferation and promoted apoptosis via MAPK/MEK and Akt pathway inhibition. 21 These findings, though preliminary, highlight the need for further clinical research in advanced CCA, where current survival outcomes remain poor. 22 This study aims to analyze survival outcomes (SA) and identify factors associated with survival rates among patients with combined hepatocellular–cholangiocarcinoma (CHCC/CCA) diagnosed by their physicians as requiring palliative care, who then choose either cannabis treatment (CT) or standard treatment (ST; conventional medical care according to national clinical practice guidelines) after receiving information on available options. Retrospective cohort data were obtained from hospital electronic medical records (EMR) and cancer clinic databases across four tertiary and two secondary hospitals in five Northeastern provinces of Thailand. The results could provide preliminary evidence to support policy discussions and the development of evidence-based palliative care strategies under the national medicinal cannabis framework. Methods Study design and setting A retrospective cohort study was conducted with 491 patients—404 who received standard palliative care treatment (ST) and 87 who received medicinal cannabis treatment (CT). All patients were diagnosed with advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by at least ultrasonography and managed with supportive care at a palliative care and/or cannabis care clinic between 1 September 2019 and 31 December 2020. Data were obtained from hospital electronic medical record (EMR) systems and cancer clinic databases from four tertiary hospitals and two secondary hospitals across five provinces of Northeastern Thailand: Roi Et Regional Hospital, Buriram Regional Hospital, Surin Provincial Hospital, Sawang Dandin Crown Prince Hospital, Panna Nikhom Hospital, and Pana Hospital. Eligibility criteria Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were: Newly diagnosed with CCA or HCC between September 2019 and December 2020; Aged 18 years or older; and registered at either a palliative care clinic or a cannabis clinic. Exclusion criteria included: Prior use of medicinal cannabis before study registration and incomplete medical records. Variables and outcomes Independent variables included age at registration, gender, type of cancer treatment, and the period from diagnosis to registration. The primary outcome was post-diagnosis survival time, measured from the date of registration to the date of death or the study endpoint (30th June 2021). Patients alive at the end of the study or lost to follow-up were classified as censored cases. Follow-up procedures Participants were followed from the date of registration until death or the study endpoint (30th June 2021). Follow-up was conducted through review of EMR entries, clinic visit records, and linkage to the national death registry. Cancer stage and other clinical variables Data on cancer stage, performance status, and pain score were not consistently available in the EMR and were therefore not included as covariates in the analysis. Ethical approval The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Maha Sarakham University Human Research Ethics Committee (Reference No. 204/2563, dated July 24, 2023), the Roi Et Regional Hospital Ethics Committee (Reference No. RE064/2563, dated 26 August 2023), and the Buriram Regional Hospital Ethics Committee (Reference No. GCP0066/2563, dated 4 Febuary 2023). Permission for data access and extraction was also obtained from hospital administrators and multidisciplinary teams at each participating hospital. Statistical methods Descriptive statistics summarized patient characteristics. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentages, and continuous variables as means with standard deviations (SD) or medians with interquartile ranges (IQR). Baseline differences between the standard treatment (ST) and cannabis treatment (CT) groups were assessed using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables and independent t-tests for continuous variables. Survival probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, with group comparisons made via the log-rank test. Independent prognostic factors were identified using Cox proportional hazards regression. The proportional hazards assumption was assessed using Schoenfeld residuals and log-minus-log plots. A two-step approach was applied: 1. Univariable analysis identified variables associated with survival (p < 0.20). 2. Multivariable analysis included these variables to adjust for confounders and estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR_adj) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Analyses were performed in Stata version 17 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA). Results Participant characteristics Table 1 shows the study participants’ characteristics. Overall, most baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between the Standard Treatment (ST) and Cannabis Treatment (CT) groups. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed for chemotherapy, combined treatment, palliative care, time from diagnosis to registration (< 3 months), and survival status. Table 1. Baseline characteristics of included patients (n=491). ST, standard palliative care pain management treatment group; CT, medicinal cannabis treatment group. Variable Patient treatment group Median time, month (95% CI) Person-time, month Incidence rate/ 100 person/month HR adj. 95% CI P-value ST (n=404, %) CT (n=87, %) ST (n=404, %) CT (n=87, %) P-value ST CT ST CT Overall survival rate 0.83 (0.71–0.95) 5.66 (1.94–9.38) <0.001 Age, years, mean (SD) 66.60 (11.67) 65.64 (9.82) <0.001 <60 105 (25.99) 24 (27.59) 0.83 (0.60–1.00) 5.67 (2.87–15.00) 170 147 0.59 0.08 1 0.212 60–69 121 (29.95) 28 (32.18) 0.93 (0.73–1.04) 3.27 (2.0–12.00) 244 128 0.47 0.13 0.85 (0.66–1.09) ≥70 178 (44.06) 35 (40.23) 0.83 (0.67–1.27) 6.00 (2.33–10.03) 375 200 0.44 0.11 0.87 (0.68–1.09) Sex Male 242 (81.8) 54 (18.2) 0.73 (0.67–0.93) 6.00 (3.07–10.03) <0.001 427 300 0.53 0.10 1 0.236 Female 162 (83.1) 33 (16.9) 0.97 (0.83–1.20) 3.50 (1.77–9.50) 362 175 0.42 0.11 0.89 (0.73–1.08) Cancer treatment Surgery 28 (6.93) 4 (4.59) 1.33 (0.30–2.50) 2.00 (1.83–10.00) <0.001 106 14 0.20 0.21 1 0.106 Chemotherapy 140 (34.65) 18 (20.70) 0.93 (0.73–1.0) 9.50 (5.17–15.00) 209 139 0.65 0.06 1.43 (0.93–2.2) Combine 149 (36.88) 22 (25.29) 0.83 (0.67–1.27) 7.00 (1.67–15.00) 311 121 0.45 0.09 1.27 (0.82–1.93) Palliative care 87 (21.54) 43 (49.42) 0.73 (0.5–0.93) 3.07 (2.17–.8.33) 162 201 0.51 0.14 1.23 (0.79–1.92) Treatment protocol ST 404 87 0.83 (0.71–0.95) <0.001 1 <0.001 CT (82.3) (17.7) 5.66 (1.94–9.38) 0.28 (0.20–0.37) Period advanced diagnosis to register Mean (SD) 6.12 (2.55) 5.46 (2.94) <0.001 < 3 months 60 (85.14) 40 (45.98) 0.93 (0.67–2.00) 3.17 (2.17–9.00) 115 115 0.54 0.14 1 0.844 3–6 months 204 (49.50) 22 (25.28) 0.83 (0.67–0.97) 8.17 (2.87–15.00) 406 406 0.46 0.08 1.31 (1.01–1.71) 6–9 months 94 (27.23) 8 (9.20) 1.07 (0.67–1.67) 5.00 (0.73–8.00) 210 210 0.41 0.09 1.21 (0.89–1.65) >9 months 46 (39.11) 17 (19.54) 0.67 (0.44–1.77) 5.17 (200–9.00) 59 59 0.72 0.09 1.16 (0.82–1.63) Status Alive 22 (5.45%) 35 (40.23%) 0.000 Dead 382 (94.55%) 52 (59.77%) 0.000 There were 491 patients (296 males and 195 females) with CCA and HCC; there were 404 in the ST group (242 males and 162 females) and 87 in the CT group (54 males and 33 females). The mean ages of the ST group were 66.60, and the CT group was 65.64 years. Most patients (43.38%) were 70 years of age. More than 71.53% in the ST group received cancer chemotherapy and combinations, and 49.42% of the CT group also received palliative care. The mean point of diagnosis with advanced CCA, HCC to registration was 8.65 months for ST, and 5.32 months for CT. Most patients (38.49%) were registered at the palliative and/or cannabis care clinic, and 94.60% (ST), 59.80% (CT) had died by the end of the study. The total follow-up time for ST patients was 790 person-months, with a mortality rate of 48.35/100 person-years. For the CT group, follow-up was 476 person-months, a mortality rate of 10.9./100 person-years for CT ( Table 2 ). Table 2. Baseline characteristics and survival outcomes of advanced cholangiocarcinoma patients by treatment group (Standard treatment [ST] vs. Cannabis treatment [CT]) (n=491). Variable Patient treatment group Median survival time (months, 95% CI) Person-time (months) IR/100 person-month HR_adj (95% CI) P-value ST (n=404, %) CT (n=87, %) ST (n=404, %) CT (n=87, %) Overall Survival 0.83 (0.71–0.95) 5.66 (1.94–9.38) 0.28 (0.20–0.37) <0.001 Age <60 105 (26.0) 24 (27.6) 0.83 (0.60–1.00) 5.67 (2.87–15.00) 170/147 0.59/0.08 1.00 0.212 Age 60–69 121 (30.0) 28 (32.2) 0.93 (0.73–1.04) 3.27 (2.00–12.00 244/128 0.47/0.13 0.85 (0.66–1.09) Age ≥70 178 (44.1) 35 (40.2) 0.83 (0.67–1.27) 6.00 (2.33–10.03) 375/200 0.44/0.11 0.87 (0.68–1.09) Sex: Male 242 (60.0) 54 (62.1) 0.73 (0.67–0.93) 6.00 (3.07–10.03) 427/300 0.53/0.10 1.00 0.236 Sex: Female 162 (40.0) 33 (37.9) 0.97 (0.83–1.20) 3.50 (1.77–9.50) 362/175 0.42/0.11 0.89 (0.73–1.08) Cancer Treatment: Surgery 28 (6.9) 4 (4.6) 1.33 (0.30–2.50) 2.00 (1.83–10.00) 106/14 0.20/0.21 1.00 0.106 Chemotherapy 140 (34.7) 18 (20.7) 0.93 (0.73–1.00) 9.50 (5.17–15.00) 209/139 0.65/0.06 1.43 (0.93–2.20) Combined 149 (36.9) 22 (25.3) 0.83 (0.67–1.27) 7.00 (1.67–15.00) 311/121 0.45/0.09 1.27 (0.82–1.93) Palliative Care 87 (21.5) 43 (49.4) 0.73 (0.50–0.93) 3.07 (2.17–8.33) 162/201 0.51/0.14 1.23 (0.79–1.92) Time from Diagnosis to Registration <3 months 60 (14.9) 40 (46.0) 0.93 (0.67–2.00) 3.17 (2.17–9.00) 115/115 0.54/0.14 1.00 0.844 3–6 months 204 (49.5) 22 (25.3) 0.83 (0.67–0.97) 8.17 (2.87–5.00) 406/406 0.46/0.08 1.31 (1.01–1.71) 6–9 months 94 (23.3) 8 (9.2) 1.07 (0.67–1.67) 5.00 (0.73–8.00) 210/210 0.41/0.09 1.21 (0.89–1.65) >9 months 46 (11.4) 17 (19.5) 0.67 (0.44–1.77) 5.17 (2.00–9.00) 59/59 0.72/0.09 1.16 (0.82–1.63) Status at Study End: Dead 382 (94.6) 52 (59.8) Abbreviations: ST, Standard treatment; CT, Cannabis treatment; HR, Hazard ratio; CI, Confidence interval; IR, Incidence rate. Notes: • All data were obtained from secondary sources (hospital electronic medical records. • Median survival time is presented in months with 95% confidence intervals. Incidence rate is expressed per 100 person-months. Censored cases include patients alive at the study endpoint or lost to follow-up. Hazard ratios are adjusted for age, sex, type of cancer treatment, and period from diagnosis to registration using Cox proportional hazards regression. • HR<1 indicates a reduced hazard of death, and specifically interpret the HR for medical cannabis as indicating prolonged survival. Survival outcomes Survival outcomes are presented in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 1 . For ST patients, the total follow-up time was 790 person-months, with a mortality rate of 48.35 per 100 person-months. For CT patients, the total follow-up time was 476 person-months, with a mortality rate of 10.9 per 100 person-months. Table 3. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis for overall survival among patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma (n = 491). Variable Adjusted HR 95% CI p-value Treatment group Standard treatment (ST) Reference — — Cannabis treatment (CT) 0.28 0.20–0.37 <0.001 Age group <60 years Reference — — 60–69 years 0.85 0.66–1.09 0.212 ≥70 years 0.87 0.68–1.09 0.236 Sex Male Reference — — Female 0.89 0.73–1.08 0.236 Type of prior cancer treatment Surgery 1.00 — 0.106 Chemotherapy 1.43 0.93–2.20 0.093 Combined treatment 1.27 0.82–1.93 0.272 Palliative care only 1.23 0.79–1.92 0.355 Time from diagnosis to registration 9 months 1.16 0.82–1.63 0.398 Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier survival curves for advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients receiving standard palliative care treatment (ST) and medicinal cannabis treatment (CT). The median survival time was calculated from the date of registration at the palliative care or cannabis clinic to the date of death or the study endpoint (30 June 2021). The median survival time was 0.83 months (95% CI: 0.71–0.95) for the ST group and 5.66 months (95% CI: 1.94–9.38) for the CT group. Kaplan–Meier survival curves ( Figure 1 ) demonstrated significantly longer survival for the CT group compared with the ST group (log-rank test, p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis In the Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusted for age, sex, and time from diagnosis to registration, receiving medicinal cannabis treatment was significantly associated with prolonged survival compared to standard treatment (adjusted HR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.20–0.37; p < 0.001). Age, sex, and most types of prior cancer treatment were not significantly associated with overall survival. However, a time from diagnosis to registration of 3–6 months was associated with a higher risk of death compared to less than 3 months (adjusted HR = 1.31; 95% CI: 1.01–1.71; p = 0.044) ( Table 3 ). Discussion and Conclusion In the present study, we examined the survival outcomes of patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receiving either standard palliative care treatment (ST) or medicinal cannabis treatment (CT) across tertiary and secondary hospitals in five provinces. Survival time was calculated from the date of registration at the palliative or cannabis clinic until death or censoring. The CT group demonstrated a markedly longer median survival time (5.66 months) compared with the ST group (0.83 months). These findings are generally consistent with previous research in Northeastern Thailand, where patients receiving only supportive treatment had a median survival of 4.3 months after diagnosis. 18 Moreover, patients diagnosed at an advanced stage were almost twice as likely to die (HR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.1–2.9). 23 – 25 However, our results contrast with Bar-Sela et al., 14 who reported shorter overall survival among advanced cancer patients using cannabis compared with non-users. This discrepancy may reflect differences in baseline characteristics, timing of cannabis initiation, disease stage, and access to other systemic treatments. In the adjusted Cox regression model ( Table 2 ), receiving medicinal cannabis treatment was significantly associated with prolonged survival (adjusted HR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.20–0.37; p < 0.001). However, the set of adjustment variables was limited to age, sex, type of cancer treatment, and time from diagnosis to registration due to the constraints of using secondary data. 26 Important clinical parameters such as performance status, tumor burden, comorbidities, and detailed treatment history could not be included, and residual confounding is therefore possible. 27 Baseline differences in care pathways may partly explain the observed survival advantage in the CT group. Many ST patients were referred to palliative clinics late in their disease trajectory, often after exhausting surgery, chemotherapy, or combination regimens. 28 In contrast, CT patients—often older and treatment-naïve—were frequently registered directly at cannabis clinics in community hospitals following imaging or biopsy confirmation of advanced metastases. 29 Some of these patients also received chemotherapy concurrently with cannabis, which may have contributed to extended survival. 30 From a biological perspective, cannabinoids may improve survival indirectly by alleviating symptoms (e.g., pain, anorexia, nausea), enhancing nutritional intake, improving sleep, and enabling greater tolerance to systemic therapy. 11 , 13 , 31 Preclinical studies also suggest potential anti-tumor effects via apoptosis induction, inhibition of angiogenesis, and suppression of tumor proliferation, 28 although these effects remain to be validated in large-scale clinical trials. Taken together, the observed survival benefit in the CT group may be partly attributable to both patient- and treatment-related covariates, as well as the potential symptom-modulating and anti-tumor mechanisms of cannabinoids demonstrated in preclinical studies. 11 , 13 , 15 , 18 This integrated interpretation underscores the multifactorial nature of survival outcomes in advanced CCA/HCC. To our knowledge, this is the first multicenter Thai study to compare survival outcomes between ST and CT in advanced CCA/HCC patients treated with standardized, FDA-approved medicinal cannabis products under physician supervision. 17 – 33 Our findings support the integration of medicinal cannabis into palliative care, 33 especially in community settings with limited oncology resources. Strengths of this study include the relatively large sample size, multi-level hospital participation, and the use of survival analysis adjusted for available covariates. Limitations include the retrospective design, reliance on secondary data, 25 incomplete information on cannabis dosage/formulation/adherence, and the inability to adjust for important prognostic factors. Consequently, while the association between cannabis treatment and improved survival is compelling, causality cannot be established without prospective randomized controlled trials. 26 Author contributions N.P. contributed to the research design, data collection, and manuscript writing. P.P., A.W., contributed to data collection and revised the manuscript, and R. W contributed to research administrator, research design, data collection, review and revised the manuscript. Statements Statement of ethics This study adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) Good Clinical Practice Guidelines. It was a retrospective cohort study using secondary data from hospital medical record systems and reporting databases from oncology and cannabis clinics. All ethics committees waived the requirement for individual informed consent, as all patient data were anonymized before analysis. No direct patient contact, treatment modification, or additional intervention was performed. No animal experiments were conducted. Consent to participate statement Given the retrospective nature of the study, the requirement for written informed consent was waived by the Maha Sarakham University Human Research Ethics Committee, the Roi Et Regional Hospital Ethics Committee, and the Buriram Regional Hospital Ethics Committee. All decisions regarding consent waivers were made in accordance with applicable regulations and ethical guidelines. Consent for publication Not applicable, as no identifiable individual data are included in this publication. Compliance with guidelines All methods were carried out according to relevant guidelines and regulations. Data availability statement Patient data were available in the medical records room of the Roi-Et Regional Hospital, Burirum Regional Hospital, Surin Provincial Hospital, Sawang Dandin Crown Prince Hospital, Panna Nikhom Hospital, and Pana Hospital. The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available because they are files in the medical records room in our hospital, but they are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Underlying data Figshare: Data_survival_cannabis. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20101193.v1 . 34 Figshare: F1000_survival_table1_narisara_ranee. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20486913.v1 . 35 Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). Acknowledgment The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to all patients and their families for their participation in this study. We are especially grateful to our colleagues at the Faculty of Medicine, Mahasarakham University, including the Hospital Center of Excellence Team, the palliative care clinic, and the cannabis clinic, for their invaluable assistance and encouragement throughout the course of this research. This study was financially supported by Mahasarakham University. We also thank Professor John F. Smith for his review and English language editing of the manuscript. References 1. Azizi AA, Hadjinicolaou AV, Goncalves C, et al. : Update on the Genetics of and Systemic Therapy Options for Combined Hepatocellular Cholangio carcinoma. Front Oncolog. 2020; 10 : 570958. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 2. Wang J, Li E, Yang H, et al. : Combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma: a population level analysis of incidence and mortality trends. World J Surg Onc. 2019 Dec; 17 (1): 43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 3. Kamsa-Ard S, Luvira V, Suwanrungruang K, et al. : Cholangiocarcinoma incidence and survival in Khon Kaen, Thailand: A population-based study. BMC Cancer. 2019; 19 : 291. 4. Banales JM, Cardinale V, Carpino G, et al. : Expert consensus document: Cholangiocarcinoma: current knowledge and future perspectives consensus statement from the European Network for the Study of Cholangiocarcinoma (ENS-CCA). Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020; 17 (9): 557–588. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 5. Valle JW, Kelley RK, Nervi B, et al. : Biliary tract cancer. Lancet. 2016; 388 (10061): 1469–1484. 6. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. : Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov; 68 (6): 394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492. Epub 2018 Sep 12. Erratum in: CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Jul;70(4):313. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Kawasaki S, Imamura H, Kobayashi A, et al. : Results of 100 liver resections for combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2015; 10 (1): 31–39. 8. Kim KH, Lee SG, Park EH, et al. : Surgical treatments and prognoses of combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma of the liver. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012; 16 (3): 487–496. 9. Luvira V, et al. : Outcomes of surgical resection for cholangiocarcinoma in Northeastern Thailand. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2017; 18 (2): 565–572. 10. Rizvi S, Khan SA, Hallemeier CL, et al. : Cholangiocarcinoma — evolving concepts and therapeutic strategies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018; 15 (2): 95–111. Publisher Full Text 11. Whiting PF, Wolff RF, Deshpande S, et al. : Cannabinoids for medical use: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2015; 313 (24): 2456–2473. Publisher Full Text 12. Johnson JR, Burnell-Nugent M, Lossignol D, et al. : Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of THC: CBD extract and THC extract in patients with intractable cancer-related pain. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013; 46 (2): 207–218. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 13. Phansila N, Sittiwet C, Wongkongdech R: Comparison of effects of medicinal cannabis or standard palliative care on quality of life of patients with cholangiocarcinoma in Northeast Thailand [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research. 2025; 11 : 20. Publisher Full Text 14. Bar-Sela G, Vorobeichik M, Drawsheh S, et al. : The medical necessity for medicinal cannabis in cancer patients: Lessons from clinical experience. Support Care Cancer. 2013; 21 (7): 1905–1910. 15. Ministry of Public Health, Thailand: Cannabis-based medicine in palliative care: National policy and guidelines. Nonthaburi: MOPH; 2019. 16. Chokevivat V, Pongpirul K, Buranapraditkun S, et al. : Medical cannabis in Thailand: Legal framework and policy implementation. J Med Assoc Thai. 2021; 104 (7): 1065–1072. 17. World Law Group. 2020 Global Cannabis Guide – Thailand [Internet]. 2020 Oct 16 [cited 2021 Apr 18]. Reference Source 18. Khuntikeo N, Loilome W, Thinkhamrop B, et al. : A comprehensive public health conceptual framework and strategy to effectively combat cholangiocarcinoma in Thailand. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016; 10 (1): e0004293. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 19. Dasu N, Soloway M, Thuluvath AJ, et al. : Patients with cannabis use and cholangiocarcinoma have lower in-hospital mortality: analysis of the National Inpatient Sample. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022; 117 (Suppl): S99. Publisher Full Text 20. Jeong S, et al. : Cannabidiol and cannabigerol inhibit cholangiocarcinoma cell growth via apoptosis, autophagy, and cell cycle arrest. Front Pharmacol. 2022; 13 : 924221. Publisher Full Text 21. Notarnicola M, et al. : Inhibitory effects of cannabinoids on cholangiocarcinoma cell proliferation and migration. Cancer Invest. 2009; 27 (6): 549–555. Publisher Full Text 22. Khan SA, et al. : Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma: an update. Gut. 2022; 71 (1): 1–29. Publisher Full Text 23. Sripa B, Pairojkul C, Thinkhamrop B, et al. : The tumor registry of cholangiocarcinoma in Northeastern Thailand: A report of 198 cases. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2020; 21 (3): 703–709. 24. Thunyaharn N, Promthet S, Wiangnon S, et al. : Survival of Cholangiocarcinoma Patients in Northeastern Thailand after Supportive Treatment. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2013 Nov 30; 14 : 7029–7032. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 25. Woradet S, Songserm N, Promthet S, et al. : Health-Related Quality of Life and Survival of Cholangiocarcinoma Patients in Northeastern Region of Thailand. PLoS One. 2016; 11 (9): e0163448. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 26. World Health Organization: Planning and implementing palliative care services: A guide for programme managers. Geneva: WHO; 2016. 27. Hernán MA, Robins JM: Causal Inference: What If. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2020. 28. Palliative Care Society of Thailand: National palliative care guidelines. Bangkok: Palliative Care Society of Thailand; 2021. 29. National Cancer Institute Thailand: Cancer registry annual report. Bangkok: NCI Thailand; 2022. 30. Schroeder A, McPartland JM: Cannabis science and policy: Examining the science behind the policy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2018. 31. Maida V, Daeninck PJ: A user’s guide to cannabinoid therapies in oncology. Curr Oncol. 2016; 23 (6): 398–406. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 32. Velasco G, Sánchez C, Guzmán M: Anticancer mechanisms of cannabinoids. Curr Oncol. 2016; 23 (S2): S23–S32. 33. Thai Food and Drug Administration: Guidelines for medicinal cannabis use in palliative care. Nonthaburi: Thai FDA; 2023. 34. Phansila N, Pansila P, Wongkongdech A, et al. : Data_survival_cannabis. figshare. [Dataset]. 2022. Publisher Full Text 35. Phansila N: F1000_survival_table1_narisara_ranee. figshare. [Dataset]. 2022. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 25 Oct 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Chiang Kwan Hospital, Roi-et Province, 45000, Thailand 2 Faculty of Medicine, Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham, 44000, Thailand 3 Faculty of Public Health, Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham, Mahasarakham Province, 44150, Thailand 4 Public Health and Environmental Policy in Southeast Asia Research Cluster (PHEP SEA Thailand), Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham, 44150, Thailand 5 Public Health Department, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang, 50229, Indonesia 6 International and National Collaborative Network and Innovation for Community Health Development Research Unit (INCNI-CHD), Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham, 44000, Thailand Narisara Phansila Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Paopong Pansila Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization Adisorn Wongkongdech Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization Niruwan Turnbull Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Mahalul Azam Roles: Investigation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Ranee Wongkongdech Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This research was financially supported by Faculty of Medicine, Mahasarakham University with the reference no. 64/04/01. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 03 Oct 2025, 11:1212 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.123250.3 version 2 Revised Published: 09 Apr 2025, 11:1212 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.123250.2 version 1 Published: 25 Oct 2022, 11:1212 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.123250.1 Copyright © 2025 Phansila N et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Phansila N, Pansila P, Wongkongdech A et al. Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.123250.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 03 Oct 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Ngamphaiboon N. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.186703.r420117 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v3#referee-response-420117 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 14 Oct 2025 Nuttapong Ngamphaiboon , Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.186703.r420117 Many major concerns are not addressed properly, led to difficulty ... Continue reading READ ALL Many major concerns are not addressed properly, led to difficulty to make conclusions from the data due to multiple confounders. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Oncology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Ngamphaiboon N. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.186703.r420117 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v3#referee-response-420117 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Na-Ek N. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.186703.r420115 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v3#referee-response-420115 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 13 Oct 2025 Nat Na-Ek , Division of Social and Administration Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Care, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Phayao, Mueang Phayao District, Phayao, Thailand Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.186703.r420115 This manuscript addresses an important clinical question, but several major methodological flaws remain unresolved as outlined below: It is unclear whether the study population consists of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), combined hepatocellular–cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA), or either CCA or HCC. In ... Continue reading READ ALL This manuscript addresses an important clinical question, but several major methodological flaws remain unresolved as outlined below: It is unclear whether the study population consists of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), combined hepatocellular–cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA), or either CCA or HCC. In the abstract, CCA is mentioned, whereas in the introduction cHCC-CCA is discussed. Later, in the methods section, patients with advanced CCA or HCC are included. This inconsistency confuses readers and substantially undermines the trustworthiness of the work. Although my E-value analysis suggests that unmeasured confounding is unlikely to fully explain away the observed association (adjusted HR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.20, 0.37; E-value 6.602 for the point estimate and 4.848 for the confidence interval), the magnitude of the effect warrants careful scrutiny. In clinical epidemiology, it is rare for a single unmeasured factor to be associated with both exposure and outcome by risk ratios exceeding five- to seven-fold each, especially after adjustment for age and sex. This indicates that residual confounding alone is an improbable explanation for the observed results. However, several other alternative explanations could plausibly account for such a pronounced effect size. Firstly, survival (immortal) time bias may have arisen because the cannabis group was registered earlier, whereas controls experienced longer lag periods before registration, effectively guaranteeing a survival advantage for cannabis users. This may not be adequately controlled by simply adjusting for the lag period as a categorical variable. Secondly, selective inclusion is a concern: if healthier or more engaged patients were more likely to receive or report cannabis use, the apparent benefit could reflect reverse causation rather than treatment efficacy. Thirdly, the removal of the patient flow diagram and the unclear handling of missing data reduce transparency, raising the possibility that exclusions disproportionately affected sicker controls. Collectively, these biases offer more credible explanations for the striking hazard ratio reported than unmeasured confounding alone. The authors should therefore conduct sensitivity analyses, such as landmark analyses, time-dependent modelling, and transparent reporting of exclusions and missingness, before drawing strong conclusions about treatment effects. In addition, please verify the correctness of the percentages reported in Table 1. The rationale for adopting a two-step approach is unclear. Univariable selection should be avoided (TRIPOD) as it can lead to omission of important covariates and model misspecification. Best practice in covariate selection involves the use of DAGs or prior knowledge, rather than relying solely on statistical significance. In Figure 1, the dashed vertical lines do not appear to represent the median survival time of each group. By definition, the median survival should correspond to the time point at which 50% of the population remains alive. Please check the correctness of the Kaplan–Meier curve. In the abstract: Please include a specific objective or research gap in the final sentence of the background subsection. Please explicitly state the adjustment factors in the methods subsection. In the results subsection, follow-up time should generally be reported as the median with corresponding interquartile range rather than as incidence density (person-time). Please revise accordingly. In the conclusion subsection, please avoid implying causality. For example, the sentence “Medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients” should be rephrased as “Medical cannabis was associated with increased overall survival rates among CCA patients” Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Na-Ek N. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.186703.r420115 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v3#referee-response-420115 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 09 Apr 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Budijitno S. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r377014 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v2#referee-response-377014 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 10 Sep 2025 Selamat Budijitno , Department of Surgery, Dr. Kariadi Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r377014 I approve for this ... Continue reading READ ALL I approve for this "version 2" of the article. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Surgical Oncology, biomolecular, Immunology, epidemiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Budijitno S. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r377014 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v2#referee-response-377014 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Malkawi D. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r400722 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v2#referee-response-400722 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 12 Aug 2025 Dima Malkawi , University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, USA Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r400722 Introduction : - The second paragraph of the introduction focuses only on CC but this study focuses on cHCC-CC so the introduction needs to be expanded to include both. - The third paragraph mentions a standard and a new treatment; ... Continue reading READ ALL Introduction : - The second paragraph of the introduction focuses only on CC but this study focuses on cHCC-CC so the introduction needs to be expanded to include both. - The third paragraph mentions a standard and a new treatment; it would be good to expand on both here to know what the difference is between the two and why that may be relevant - Would use the intro to discuss the logic behind this study and why it is impactful or necessary. Are there big differences between the two methods? Methods: - The flow diagram is not adding much to this manuscript - Would recommend CONSORT diagram instead - No information is provided on treatment protocols including dosing, frequency etc - Patients in CT vs. ST may differ in unmeasured ways (e.g., baseline performance status, comorbidities, tumor burden, liver function). For example, the CT group had much lower mortality rates and higher follow-up times, but it’s unclear whether this is due to the treatment or differences in baseline prognosis. - There is no mention of propensity score matching or multivariable adjustment for critical prognostic variables beyond age, sex, and treatment. Without controlling for these confounders, the observed survival difference may be overestimated - Consider adjusting for additional baseline variables in the Cox model (e.g., ECOG performance status, Child-Pugh score, metastasis status, comorbidities, prior treatments). If unavailable, acknowledge this as a serious limitation - Your inclusion criteria state “newly diagnosed with CCA or HCC,” yet the title and aim focus on combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) - unclear whether all patients indeed had cHCC-CC , or whether you included either HCC or CCA - Clarify whether patients were pathologically confirmed as cHCC-CC or diagnosed clinically as HCC/CCA. If both were included, justify combining them. - The survival times reported (ST: 0.83 months) seem extremely short , raising the possibility that these were highly selected end-stage patients. Results : - The authors state that they tested the proportional hazards assumption but do not report the findings. They also state they did kaplan meier survival curves which are also not reported - The data is reported as a causal relationship which is extremely misleading - No data presented on differences in treatment populations - Chemotherapy is initially defined as CT but then later Cannabis Therapy is also defined as CT causing some confusion - Data on treatment types and staging is not discussed and thus comparisons between the groups may not be accurate or reflective of true outcomes, and possibly considered invalid Overall: - The extremely high CC incidence in your region is discussed, but the CT effect may not translate to other settings. - Cannabis preparations (THC:CBD ratios, dosing) are specific to Thai FDA-approved products — this needs more detail for reproducibility. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: surgical oncology, outcomes I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Malkawi D. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r400722 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v2#referee-response-400722 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Ngamphaiboon N. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r396266 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v2#referee-response-396266 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 11 Aug 2025 Nuttapong Ngamphaiboon , Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r396266 The study contains major flaws in both design and methodology. The conclusions presented in the current version of the manuscript may be significantly biased due to the lack of detailed patient characteristics and treatment-related information. Major Comments: ... Continue reading READ ALL The study contains major flaws in both design and methodology. The conclusions presented in the current version of the manuscript may be significantly biased due to the lack of detailed patient characteristics and treatment-related information. Major Comments: Given that cannabinoids are primarily used in palliative care to alleviate pain, reduce nausea, and stimulate appetite, the manuscript should clearly state the primary outcomes of palliative use such as symptom improvement of cannabinoid use in this study. Detailed information regarding cannabinoid use should be provided, including dosage, duration, mode of administration, and patient compliance. If survival outcomes are to be reported, critical clinical data must be included—such as ECOG performance status, cancer staging at the time of treatment, chemotherapy regimens, number of cycles, dosing details, relative dose intensity, and radiation therapy use. Without these essential details, the conclusion that "medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients" cannot be considered reliable. Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) should be presented to support the survival analysis. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Oncology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Ngamphaiboon N. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r396266 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v2#referee-response-396266 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Narisara Phansila , Chiang Kwan Hospital, Roi-et Province, 45000, Thailand 10 Sep 2025 Author Response Reviewer’s Comment – Overall assessment of major flaws in design and methodology The study contains major flaws in both design and methodology. The conclusions presented in the current version of ... Continue reading Reviewer’s Comment – Overall assessment of major flaws in design and methodology The study contains major flaws in both design and methodology. The conclusions presented in the current version of the manuscript may be significantly biased due to the lack of detailed patient characteristics and treatment-related information. Response: We acknowledge the inherent limitations of our retrospective design and the use of secondary data. Our dataset was obtained from hospital records and contained survival status, selected patient characteristics, and treatment timing variables (e.g., date of diagnosis, date of registration for treatment). Detailed clinical information such as ECOG performance status, cancer staging, chemotherapy regimen details, dosing, and radiation therapy use was not captured in the database. We have explicitly stated these limitations in the revised manuscript, reframed our conclusions to avoid causal inference, and presented our findings as preliminary evidence requiring further validation through prospective studies. Reviewer’s Comment 1: Given that cannabinoids are primarily used in palliative care to alleviate pain, reduce nausea, and stimulate appetite, the manuscript should clearly state the primary outcomes of palliative use such as symptom improvement of cannabinoid use in this study. Response: We agree that palliative outcomes such as symptom improvement are important; however, these were not available in the secondary data used for this analysis. We have clearly acknowledged this limitation in the revised manuscript and clarified that our study focuses exclusively on survival outcomes derived from available records. Reviewer’s Comment 2: Detailed information regarding cannabinoid use should be provided, including dosage, duration, mode of administration, and patient compliance. Response: We have added all available treatment details to the Methods section, including the product type (Thai FDA-approved oral cannabis oil extract), THC:CBD ratios, and initial prescribed dosage. Information on treatment duration, dose adjustments, and patient compliance was not recorded in the database and is acknowledged as a limitation. Reviewer’s Comment 3: If survival outcomes are to be reported, critical clinical data must be included—such as ECOG performance status, cancer staging at the time of treatment, chemotherapy regimens, number of cycles, dosing details, relative dose intensity, and radiation therapy use. Without these essential details, the conclusion that "medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients" cannot be considered reliable. Response: We agree that these clinical variables are important prognostic factors; however, they were not captured in the secondary database used for this study. Available data were limited to demographic characteristics, timing variables (diagnosis date, registration date), treatment type (cannabis vs. standard care), and survival status. We have emphasized these limitations in the revised manuscript and reframed our conclusions to state that medicinal cannabis treatment was associated with prolonged survival, while noting that causality cannot be inferred. Reviewer’s Comment 4: Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) should be presented to support the survival analysis. Response: We have added Kaplan–Meier curves for OS (Figure 1). PFS could not be analyzed because progression dates were not consistently recorded in the dataset. This limitation is stated in both the Methods and Limitations sections. Competing Interests: We confirm that the authors have no competing interests to declare. Reviewer’s Comment – Overall assessment of major flaws in design and methodology The study contains major flaws in both design and methodology. The conclusions presented in the current version of the manuscript may be significantly biased due to the lack of detailed patient characteristics and treatment-related information. Response: We acknowledge the inherent limitations of our retrospective design and the use of secondary data. Our dataset was obtained from hospital records and contained survival status, selected patient characteristics, and treatment timing variables (e.g., date of diagnosis, date of registration for treatment). Detailed clinical information such as ECOG performance status, cancer staging, chemotherapy regimen details, dosing, and radiation therapy use was not captured in the database. We have explicitly stated these limitations in the revised manuscript, reframed our conclusions to avoid causal inference, and presented our findings as preliminary evidence requiring further validation through prospective studies. Reviewer’s Comment 1: Given that cannabinoids are primarily used in palliative care to alleviate pain, reduce nausea, and stimulate appetite, the manuscript should clearly state the primary outcomes of palliative use such as symptom improvement of cannabinoid use in this study. Response: We agree that palliative outcomes such as symptom improvement are important; however, these were not available in the secondary data used for this analysis. We have clearly acknowledged this limitation in the revised manuscript and clarified that our study focuses exclusively on survival outcomes derived from available records. Reviewer’s Comment 2: Detailed information regarding cannabinoid use should be provided, including dosage, duration, mode of administration, and patient compliance. Response: We have added all available treatment details to the Methods section, including the product type (Thai FDA-approved oral cannabis oil extract), THC:CBD ratios, and initial prescribed dosage. Information on treatment duration, dose adjustments, and patient compliance was not recorded in the database and is acknowledged as a limitation. Reviewer’s Comment 3: If survival outcomes are to be reported, critical clinical data must be included—such as ECOG performance status, cancer staging at the time of treatment, chemotherapy regimens, number of cycles, dosing details, relative dose intensity, and radiation therapy use. Without these essential details, the conclusion that "medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients" cannot be considered reliable. Response: We agree that these clinical variables are important prognostic factors; however, they were not captured in the secondary database used for this study. Available data were limited to demographic characteristics, timing variables (diagnosis date, registration date), treatment type (cannabis vs. standard care), and survival status. We have emphasized these limitations in the revised manuscript and reframed our conclusions to state that medicinal cannabis treatment was associated with prolonged survival, while noting that causality cannot be inferred. Reviewer’s Comment 4: Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) should be presented to support the survival analysis. Response: We have added Kaplan–Meier curves for OS (Figure 1). PFS could not be analyzed because progression dates were not consistently recorded in the dataset. This limitation is stated in both the Methods and Limitations sections. Competing Interests: We confirm that the authors have no competing interests to declare. Competing Interests: No competing interests declared. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Narisara Phansila , Chiang Kwan Hospital, Roi-et Province, 45000, Thailand 10 Sep 2025 Author Response Reviewer’s Comment – Overall assessment of major flaws in design and methodology The study contains major flaws in both design and methodology. The conclusions presented in the current version of ... Continue reading Reviewer’s Comment – Overall assessment of major flaws in design and methodology The study contains major flaws in both design and methodology. The conclusions presented in the current version of the manuscript may be significantly biased due to the lack of detailed patient characteristics and treatment-related information. Response: We acknowledge the inherent limitations of our retrospective design and the use of secondary data. Our dataset was obtained from hospital records and contained survival status, selected patient characteristics, and treatment timing variables (e.g., date of diagnosis, date of registration for treatment). Detailed clinical information such as ECOG performance status, cancer staging, chemotherapy regimen details, dosing, and radiation therapy use was not captured in the database. We have explicitly stated these limitations in the revised manuscript, reframed our conclusions to avoid causal inference, and presented our findings as preliminary evidence requiring further validation through prospective studies. Reviewer’s Comment 1: Given that cannabinoids are primarily used in palliative care to alleviate pain, reduce nausea, and stimulate appetite, the manuscript should clearly state the primary outcomes of palliative use such as symptom improvement of cannabinoid use in this study. Response: We agree that palliative outcomes such as symptom improvement are important; however, these were not available in the secondary data used for this analysis. We have clearly acknowledged this limitation in the revised manuscript and clarified that our study focuses exclusively on survival outcomes derived from available records. Reviewer’s Comment 2: Detailed information regarding cannabinoid use should be provided, including dosage, duration, mode of administration, and patient compliance. Response: We have added all available treatment details to the Methods section, including the product type (Thai FDA-approved oral cannabis oil extract), THC:CBD ratios, and initial prescribed dosage. Information on treatment duration, dose adjustments, and patient compliance was not recorded in the database and is acknowledged as a limitation. Reviewer’s Comment 3: If survival outcomes are to be reported, critical clinical data must be included—such as ECOG performance status, cancer staging at the time of treatment, chemotherapy regimens, number of cycles, dosing details, relative dose intensity, and radiation therapy use. Without these essential details, the conclusion that "medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients" cannot be considered reliable. Response: We agree that these clinical variables are important prognostic factors; however, they were not captured in the secondary database used for this study. Available data were limited to demographic characteristics, timing variables (diagnosis date, registration date), treatment type (cannabis vs. standard care), and survival status. We have emphasized these limitations in the revised manuscript and reframed our conclusions to state that medicinal cannabis treatment was associated with prolonged survival, while noting that causality cannot be inferred. Reviewer’s Comment 4: Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) should be presented to support the survival analysis. Response: We have added Kaplan–Meier curves for OS (Figure 1). PFS could not be analyzed because progression dates were not consistently recorded in the dataset. This limitation is stated in both the Methods and Limitations sections. Competing Interests: We confirm that the authors have no competing interests to declare. Reviewer’s Comment – Overall assessment of major flaws in design and methodology The study contains major flaws in both design and methodology. The conclusions presented in the current version of the manuscript may be significantly biased due to the lack of detailed patient characteristics and treatment-related information. Response: We acknowledge the inherent limitations of our retrospective design and the use of secondary data. Our dataset was obtained from hospital records and contained survival status, selected patient characteristics, and treatment timing variables (e.g., date of diagnosis, date of registration for treatment). Detailed clinical information such as ECOG performance status, cancer staging, chemotherapy regimen details, dosing, and radiation therapy use was not captured in the database. We have explicitly stated these limitations in the revised manuscript, reframed our conclusions to avoid causal inference, and presented our findings as preliminary evidence requiring further validation through prospective studies. Reviewer’s Comment 1: Given that cannabinoids are primarily used in palliative care to alleviate pain, reduce nausea, and stimulate appetite, the manuscript should clearly state the primary outcomes of palliative use such as symptom improvement of cannabinoid use in this study. Response: We agree that palliative outcomes such as symptom improvement are important; however, these were not available in the secondary data used for this analysis. We have clearly acknowledged this limitation in the revised manuscript and clarified that our study focuses exclusively on survival outcomes derived from available records. Reviewer’s Comment 2: Detailed information regarding cannabinoid use should be provided, including dosage, duration, mode of administration, and patient compliance. Response: We have added all available treatment details to the Methods section, including the product type (Thai FDA-approved oral cannabis oil extract), THC:CBD ratios, and initial prescribed dosage. Information on treatment duration, dose adjustments, and patient compliance was not recorded in the database and is acknowledged as a limitation. Reviewer’s Comment 3: If survival outcomes are to be reported, critical clinical data must be included—such as ECOG performance status, cancer staging at the time of treatment, chemotherapy regimens, number of cycles, dosing details, relative dose intensity, and radiation therapy use. Without these essential details, the conclusion that "medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients" cannot be considered reliable. Response: We agree that these clinical variables are important prognostic factors; however, they were not captured in the secondary database used for this study. Available data were limited to demographic characteristics, timing variables (diagnosis date, registration date), treatment type (cannabis vs. standard care), and survival status. We have emphasized these limitations in the revised manuscript and reframed our conclusions to state that medicinal cannabis treatment was associated with prolonged survival, while noting that causality cannot be inferred. Reviewer’s Comment 4: Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) should be presented to support the survival analysis. Response: We have added Kaplan–Meier curves for OS (Figure 1). PFS could not be analyzed because progression dates were not consistently recorded in the dataset. This limitation is stated in both the Methods and Limitations sections. Competing Interests: We confirm that the authors have no competing interests to declare. Competing Interests: No competing interests declared. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Summart U. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r383930 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v2#referee-response-383930 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 03 Jun 2025 Ueamporn Summart , Faculty of Nursing, Roi Et Rajabhat University, Tha Muang, Thailand Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r383930 Title: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study. Upon completing a comprehensive analysis of all your amended manuscripts, I would like to express my gratitude for your diligent efforts ... Continue reading READ ALL Title: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study. Upon completing a comprehensive analysis of all your amended manuscripts, I would like to express my gratitude for your diligent efforts in enhancing and elucidating your manuscripts. In my opinion, there are several areas where the authors may improve in order to enhance the reader's understanding of their work, as outlined below: Abstract: Conclusions: “The medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients.” In my opinion, we do not conclude that only the effect of medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among this population because this study design is not supported. Furthermore, the study did not control or include other confounding factors that could affect the survival outcome. Introduction: 1) Suggest the authors clarify the population of this study. (recurving palliative or curative treatment) and also describe more information about these treatments that are specific for this population before mentioning the use of medical cannabis treatment in this study. (Some details are missing between paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, such as treatment for palliative CCA or specific survival rates and other treatment for this population in Thailand. 2) Suggest the authors mentioned the rationale (literature reviewed) of the covariates and the medical cannabis treatment used in this study from previous studies. Statistical analysis: 1) Due to the retrospective cohort design, this study aimed to compare the survival rate between 2 treatments, so it is better to compare baseline characteristics of the participants because baseline imbalance among this sample will lead to selection biases. 2) To compare the survival rate between two groups using the log-rank test, the author should mention the assumption for this statistic before using it.3.3) Suggest the authors used a Kaplan-Meier graph to compare survival outcomes between two treatments following covariates in this study, such as age and cancer treatments. 3.4) For Cox proportional hazard statistics, suggest the authors mention the assumption of these statistics and steps of analysis such as univariable analysis and multivariable analysis. (I cannot find this step, but the authors mentioned these steps in the discussion part.). Results: 1) I agree with reviewer 1 to separate the table into 3 tables as follows: Table 1 compares baseline characteristics. Normally, the authors presented the covariate in the table following the patient treatment group, so it is not the covariate. Suggest separating this table out of the tables that present the study objectives. 2) Suggest the authors present survival outcomes in another table along with Kaplan-Meier graph comparing survival outcomes between two treatments following covariate. 3) Suggest the authors present a table for the Cox proportional hazard ratio to present crude HR and adjusted HR, followed by steps of multivariable analysis. In addition, for the HR less than 1, please interpret this result for the readers. Discussions: Suggest the authors discuss following all of the covariates used in this study. In addition, the mechanism of medical cannabis treatment should be mentioned, whether it increased overall survival rates among CCA patients. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Nursing and Public Health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Summart U. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r383930 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v2#referee-response-383930 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 05 Sep 2025 Narisara Phansila , Chiang Kwan Hospital, Roi-et Province, 45000, Thailand 05 Sep 2025 Author Response Reviewer’s Comment – Abstract Conclusions: “The medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients.” In my opinion, we do not conclude that only the effect of medical cannabis increased ... Continue reading Reviewer’s Comment – Abstract Conclusions: “The medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients.” In my opinion, we do not conclude that only the effect of medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among this population because this study design is not supported. Furthermore, the study did not control or include other confounding factors that could affect the survival outcome. Response: We appreciate this important observation. The Abstract conclusion has been revised to avoid implying causality. The new conclusion now reads: “In this retrospective cohort, medicinal cannabis use was associated with longer overall survival among advanced CCA patients; however, causality cannot be inferred due to the retrospective design and residual confounding.” This rewording aligns with the study design and acknowledges the potential impact of unmeasured confounding factors. (Page 1, Lines 36–39) Reviewer’s Comment – Introduction (1) Clarify the population of this study (receiving palliative or curative treatment) and describe more information about these treatments specific to this population before mentioning medical cannabis. Include survival rates and treatments for CCA in Thailand. Response: We have clarified that all patients in this study were diagnosed with advanced disease and were registered at palliative care or cannabis clinics. No patients received curative-intent treatment. We have expanded the description of standard palliative care and systemic treatment options available in Thailand, including expected survival times, supported by local and international references. (Page 2, Lines 70–76, 78–79) Reviewer’s Comment – Introduction (2) Mention the rationale (literature reviewed) of the covariates and medical cannabis treatment used in this study from previous studies. Response: We have added a paragraph explaining the rationale for each covariate (age, sex, type of cancer treatment, time from diagnosis to registration) based on prior survival studies. We also strengthened the rationale for examining medicinal cannabis by summarizing evidence from Thai and global literature on its palliative benefits and possible anti-cancer effects. (Page 2, Lines 70–79) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (1) Compare baseline characteristics to address possible selection bias. Response: We have compared baseline characteristics between treatment groups in the new Table 1 and discussed differences that may indicate potential selection bias. (Page 4, Table 1) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (2) Mention the assumption for the log-rank test. Response: We have explicitly stated the assumptions for the log-rank test (proportional hazards, non-informative censoring) in the Statistical Analysis section. (Methods: Statistical Analysis) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (3) Use Kaplan–Meier graph to compare survival outcomes between treatments by covariates (e.g., age, cancer treatments). Response: We have added stratified Kaplan–Meier survival curves by age group (<65 vs ≥65) and prior cancer treatment (yes/no) in the supplementary material. Figure 1 presents the overall survival curves for the two treatment groups. (Figure 1; Supplementary Figures) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (4) Mention the assumption of Cox regression and steps of analysis (univariable and multivariable). Response: We have described the proportional hazards assumption checks (Schoenfeld residuals, log-minus-log plots) and outlined the two-step analysis process: univariable screening (p<0.20) followed by multivariable Cox regression adjusting for selected covariates. (Methods: Statistical Analysis) Reviewer’s Comment – Results (1) Separate tables: Table 1 for baseline characteristics, separate from tables presenting study objectives. Response: We have reorganized the results into separate tables: Table 1: Baseline characteristics by treatment group Table 2: Survival outcomes (median survival, person-time, log-rank test) Table 3: Cox regression results (crude and adjusted HRs) (Pages 4–6, Tables 1–3) Reviewer’s Comment – Results (2) Present survival outcomes in another table along with Kaplan–Meier graph by covariates. Response: Survival outcomes are now presented in Table 2 and illustrated in Kaplan–Meier curves (Figure 1). Stratified curves by age and prior cancer treatment are included in the supplementary material. Reviewer’s Comment – Results (3) Present Cox proportional hazard results in a table with crude and adjusted HR, interpret HR<1. Response: Table 3 presents both crude and adjusted HRs, with interpretation provided in the Results section. We explain that HR<1 indicates a reduced hazard of death, reflecting longer survival in that group. (Page 6, Table 3) Reviewer’s Comment – Discussion Discuss all covariates and the mechanism of medical cannabis treatment. Response: We have discussed each covariate’s association with survival outcomes, supported by relevant literature. Additionally, we expanded the discussion on potential mechanisms of medicinal cannabis, including symptom relief (pain, nausea, appetite, sleep) and preclinical evidence for anti-tumor activity (apoptosis induction, angiogenesis inhibition, tumor proliferation suppression). (Pages 6–7, Discussion) Reviewer’s Comment – Abstract Conclusions: “The medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients.” In my opinion, we do not conclude that only the effect of medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among this population because this study design is not supported. Furthermore, the study did not control or include other confounding factors that could affect the survival outcome. Response: We appreciate this important observation. The Abstract conclusion has been revised to avoid implying causality. The new conclusion now reads: “In this retrospective cohort, medicinal cannabis use was associated with longer overall survival among advanced CCA patients; however, causality cannot be inferred due to the retrospective design and residual confounding.” This rewording aligns with the study design and acknowledges the potential impact of unmeasured confounding factors. (Page 1, Lines 36–39) Reviewer’s Comment – Introduction (1) Clarify the population of this study (receiving palliative or curative treatment) and describe more information about these treatments specific to this population before mentioning medical cannabis. Include survival rates and treatments for CCA in Thailand. Response: We have clarified that all patients in this study were diagnosed with advanced disease and were registered at palliative care or cannabis clinics. No patients received curative-intent treatment. We have expanded the description of standard palliative care and systemic treatment options available in Thailand, including expected survival times, supported by local and international references. (Page 2, Lines 70–76, 78–79) Reviewer’s Comment – Introduction (2) Mention the rationale (literature reviewed) of the covariates and medical cannabis treatment used in this study from previous studies. Response: We have added a paragraph explaining the rationale for each covariate (age, sex, type of cancer treatment, time from diagnosis to registration) based on prior survival studies. We also strengthened the rationale for examining medicinal cannabis by summarizing evidence from Thai and global literature on its palliative benefits and possible anti-cancer effects. (Page 2, Lines 70–79) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (1) Compare baseline characteristics to address possible selection bias. Response: We have compared baseline characteristics between treatment groups in the new Table 1 and discussed differences that may indicate potential selection bias. (Page 4, Table 1) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (2) Mention the assumption for the log-rank test. Response: We have explicitly stated the assumptions for the log-rank test (proportional hazards, non-informative censoring) in the Statistical Analysis section. (Methods: Statistical Analysis) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (3) Use Kaplan–Meier graph to compare survival outcomes between treatments by covariates (e.g., age, cancer treatments). Response: We have added stratified Kaplan–Meier survival curves by age group (<65 vs ≥65) and prior cancer treatment (yes/no) in the supplementary material. Figure 1 presents the overall survival curves for the two treatment groups. (Figure 1; Supplementary Figures) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (4) Mention the assumption of Cox regression and steps of analysis (univariable and multivariable). Response: We have described the proportional hazards assumption checks (Schoenfeld residuals, log-minus-log plots) and outlined the two-step analysis process: univariable screening (p<0.20) followed by multivariable Cox regression adjusting for selected covariates. (Methods: Statistical Analysis) Reviewer’s Comment – Results (1) Separate tables: Table 1 for baseline characteristics, separate from tables presenting study objectives. Response: We have reorganized the results into separate tables: Table 1: Baseline characteristics by treatment group Table 2: Survival outcomes (median survival, person-time, log-rank test) Table 3: Cox regression results (crude and adjusted HRs) (Pages 4–6, Tables 1–3) Reviewer’s Comment – Results (2) Present survival outcomes in another table along with Kaplan–Meier graph by covariates. Response: Survival outcomes are now presented in Table 2 and illustrated in Kaplan–Meier curves (Figure 1). Stratified curves by age and prior cancer treatment are included in the supplementary material. Reviewer’s Comment – Results (3) Present Cox proportional hazard results in a table with crude and adjusted HR, interpret HR<1. Response: Table 3 presents both crude and adjusted HRs, with interpretation provided in the Results section. We explain that HR<1 indicates a reduced hazard of death, reflecting longer survival in that group. (Page 6, Table 3) Reviewer’s Comment – Discussion Discuss all covariates and the mechanism of medical cannabis treatment. Response: We have discussed each covariate’s association with survival outcomes, supported by relevant literature. Additionally, we expanded the discussion on potential mechanisms of medicinal cannabis, including symptom relief (pain, nausea, appetite, sleep) and preclinical evidence for anti-tumor activity (apoptosis induction, angiogenesis inhibition, tumor proliferation suppression). (Pages 6–7, Discussion) Competing Interests: no competing interest Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 05 Sep 2025 Narisara Phansila , Chiang Kwan Hospital, Roi-et Province, 45000, Thailand 05 Sep 2025 Author Response Reviewer’s Comment – Abstract Conclusions: “The medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients.” In my opinion, we do not conclude that only the effect of medical cannabis increased ... Continue reading Reviewer’s Comment – Abstract Conclusions: “The medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients.” In my opinion, we do not conclude that only the effect of medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among this population because this study design is not supported. Furthermore, the study did not control or include other confounding factors that could affect the survival outcome. Response: We appreciate this important observation. The Abstract conclusion has been revised to avoid implying causality. The new conclusion now reads: “In this retrospective cohort, medicinal cannabis use was associated with longer overall survival among advanced CCA patients; however, causality cannot be inferred due to the retrospective design and residual confounding.” This rewording aligns with the study design and acknowledges the potential impact of unmeasured confounding factors. (Page 1, Lines 36–39) Reviewer’s Comment – Introduction (1) Clarify the population of this study (receiving palliative or curative treatment) and describe more information about these treatments specific to this population before mentioning medical cannabis. Include survival rates and treatments for CCA in Thailand. Response: We have clarified that all patients in this study were diagnosed with advanced disease and were registered at palliative care or cannabis clinics. No patients received curative-intent treatment. We have expanded the description of standard palliative care and systemic treatment options available in Thailand, including expected survival times, supported by local and international references. (Page 2, Lines 70–76, 78–79) Reviewer’s Comment – Introduction (2) Mention the rationale (literature reviewed) of the covariates and medical cannabis treatment used in this study from previous studies. Response: We have added a paragraph explaining the rationale for each covariate (age, sex, type of cancer treatment, time from diagnosis to registration) based on prior survival studies. We also strengthened the rationale for examining medicinal cannabis by summarizing evidence from Thai and global literature on its palliative benefits and possible anti-cancer effects. (Page 2, Lines 70–79) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (1) Compare baseline characteristics to address possible selection bias. Response: We have compared baseline characteristics between treatment groups in the new Table 1 and discussed differences that may indicate potential selection bias. (Page 4, Table 1) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (2) Mention the assumption for the log-rank test. Response: We have explicitly stated the assumptions for the log-rank test (proportional hazards, non-informative censoring) in the Statistical Analysis section. (Methods: Statistical Analysis) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (3) Use Kaplan–Meier graph to compare survival outcomes between treatments by covariates (e.g., age, cancer treatments). Response: We have added stratified Kaplan–Meier survival curves by age group (<65 vs ≥65) and prior cancer treatment (yes/no) in the supplementary material. Figure 1 presents the overall survival curves for the two treatment groups. (Figure 1; Supplementary Figures) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (4) Mention the assumption of Cox regression and steps of analysis (univariable and multivariable). Response: We have described the proportional hazards assumption checks (Schoenfeld residuals, log-minus-log plots) and outlined the two-step analysis process: univariable screening (p<0.20) followed by multivariable Cox regression adjusting for selected covariates. (Methods: Statistical Analysis) Reviewer’s Comment – Results (1) Separate tables: Table 1 for baseline characteristics, separate from tables presenting study objectives. Response: We have reorganized the results into separate tables: Table 1: Baseline characteristics by treatment group Table 2: Survival outcomes (median survival, person-time, log-rank test) Table 3: Cox regression results (crude and adjusted HRs) (Pages 4–6, Tables 1–3) Reviewer’s Comment – Results (2) Present survival outcomes in another table along with Kaplan–Meier graph by covariates. Response: Survival outcomes are now presented in Table 2 and illustrated in Kaplan–Meier curves (Figure 1). Stratified curves by age and prior cancer treatment are included in the supplementary material. Reviewer’s Comment – Results (3) Present Cox proportional hazard results in a table with crude and adjusted HR, interpret HR<1. Response: Table 3 presents both crude and adjusted HRs, with interpretation provided in the Results section. We explain that HR<1 indicates a reduced hazard of death, reflecting longer survival in that group. (Page 6, Table 3) Reviewer’s Comment – Discussion Discuss all covariates and the mechanism of medical cannabis treatment. Response: We have discussed each covariate’s association with survival outcomes, supported by relevant literature. Additionally, we expanded the discussion on potential mechanisms of medicinal cannabis, including symptom relief (pain, nausea, appetite, sleep) and preclinical evidence for anti-tumor activity (apoptosis induction, angiogenesis inhibition, tumor proliferation suppression). (Pages 6–7, Discussion) Reviewer’s Comment – Abstract Conclusions: “The medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients.” In my opinion, we do not conclude that only the effect of medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among this population because this study design is not supported. Furthermore, the study did not control or include other confounding factors that could affect the survival outcome. Response: We appreciate this important observation. The Abstract conclusion has been revised to avoid implying causality. The new conclusion now reads: “In this retrospective cohort, medicinal cannabis use was associated with longer overall survival among advanced CCA patients; however, causality cannot be inferred due to the retrospective design and residual confounding.” This rewording aligns with the study design and acknowledges the potential impact of unmeasured confounding factors. (Page 1, Lines 36–39) Reviewer’s Comment – Introduction (1) Clarify the population of this study (receiving palliative or curative treatment) and describe more information about these treatments specific to this population before mentioning medical cannabis. Include survival rates and treatments for CCA in Thailand. Response: We have clarified that all patients in this study were diagnosed with advanced disease and were registered at palliative care or cannabis clinics. No patients received curative-intent treatment. We have expanded the description of standard palliative care and systemic treatment options available in Thailand, including expected survival times, supported by local and international references. (Page 2, Lines 70–76, 78–79) Reviewer’s Comment – Introduction (2) Mention the rationale (literature reviewed) of the covariates and medical cannabis treatment used in this study from previous studies. Response: We have added a paragraph explaining the rationale for each covariate (age, sex, type of cancer treatment, time from diagnosis to registration) based on prior survival studies. We also strengthened the rationale for examining medicinal cannabis by summarizing evidence from Thai and global literature on its palliative benefits and possible anti-cancer effects. (Page 2, Lines 70–79) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (1) Compare baseline characteristics to address possible selection bias. Response: We have compared baseline characteristics between treatment groups in the new Table 1 and discussed differences that may indicate potential selection bias. (Page 4, Table 1) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (2) Mention the assumption for the log-rank test. Response: We have explicitly stated the assumptions for the log-rank test (proportional hazards, non-informative censoring) in the Statistical Analysis section. (Methods: Statistical Analysis) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (3) Use Kaplan–Meier graph to compare survival outcomes between treatments by covariates (e.g., age, cancer treatments). Response: We have added stratified Kaplan–Meier survival curves by age group (<65 vs ≥65) and prior cancer treatment (yes/no) in the supplementary material. Figure 1 presents the overall survival curves for the two treatment groups. (Figure 1; Supplementary Figures) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (4) Mention the assumption of Cox regression and steps of analysis (univariable and multivariable). Response: We have described the proportional hazards assumption checks (Schoenfeld residuals, log-minus-log plots) and outlined the two-step analysis process: univariable screening (p<0.20) followed by multivariable Cox regression adjusting for selected covariates. (Methods: Statistical Analysis) Reviewer’s Comment – Results (1) Separate tables: Table 1 for baseline characteristics, separate from tables presenting study objectives. Response: We have reorganized the results into separate tables: Table 1: Baseline characteristics by treatment group Table 2: Survival outcomes (median survival, person-time, log-rank test) Table 3: Cox regression results (crude and adjusted HRs) (Pages 4–6, Tables 1–3) Reviewer’s Comment – Results (2) Present survival outcomes in another table along with Kaplan–Meier graph by covariates. Response: Survival outcomes are now presented in Table 2 and illustrated in Kaplan–Meier curves (Figure 1). Stratified curves by age and prior cancer treatment are included in the supplementary material. Reviewer’s Comment – Results (3) Present Cox proportional hazard results in a table with crude and adjusted HR, interpret HR<1. Response: Table 3 presents both crude and adjusted HRs, with interpretation provided in the Results section. We explain that HR<1 indicates a reduced hazard of death, reflecting longer survival in that group. (Page 6, Table 3) Reviewer’s Comment – Discussion Discuss all covariates and the mechanism of medical cannabis treatment. Response: We have discussed each covariate’s association with survival outcomes, supported by relevant literature. Additionally, we expanded the discussion on potential mechanisms of medicinal cannabis, including symptom relief (pain, nausea, appetite, sleep) and preclinical evidence for anti-tumor activity (apoptosis induction, angiogenesis inhibition, tumor proliferation suppression). (Pages 6–7, Discussion) Competing Interests: no competing interest Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Na-Ek N. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r377013 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v2#referee-response-377013 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 10 May 2025 Nat Na-Ek , Division of Social and Administration Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Care, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Phayao, Mueang Phayao District, Phayao, Thailand Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r377013 Thank you for the revised version of the manuscript. However, it remains difficult to determine where amendments have been made in response to my previous comments. I would greatly appreciate it if the authors could provide a point-by-point response to ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for the revised version of the manuscript. However, it remains difficult to determine where amendments have been made in response to my previous comments. I would greatly appreciate it if the authors could provide a point-by-point response to each of my earlier comments, as a general summary is insufficient for a thorough review. Upon reviewing the revised manuscript, I noted several issues that appear to remain unaddressed, with no accompanying explanation. For example: - In the abstract, the authors continue to use the term “multivariate analysis” rather than the more appropriate “multivariable analysis”. While this is a relatively minor issue, it reflects a lack of attention to detail. - More importantly, in the final sentence of the results section and in the conclusion of the abstract, the authors continue to imply a causal relationship between medical cannabis and survival rates. For instance, statements such as “Therefore, CT had a reduced probability of dying from the disease” and “The medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients” suggest causality. How can the authors be certain that the observed association is attributable solely to medical cannabis, rather than to other potential explanations? - Regarding the patient flow diagram, the figure presented appears to be a theoretical illustration more suited to teaching the principles of survival analysis, rather than a CONSORT-style flow diagram. A CONSORT-style flow diagram would be more informative, showing how many participants were initially assessed for eligibility, how exclusions were applied, and how the final analytical sample was derived. - In the Methods section, the authors mention the use of the Cox proportional hazards model but do not report testing the proportional hazards assumption. Furthermore, I could not locate any figures of Kaplan–Meier curves in the Results section, which raises concerns about the validity and transparency of the analysis. Given the extensive revision timeline—almost three years since the initial submission—and the apparent failure to sufficiently address or justify the lack of amendments in response to my previous feedback, I regret that I must recommend rejection of this manuscript. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Clinical epidemiology, pharmacoepidemiology, and social epidemiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Na-Ek N. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r377013 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v2#referee-response-377013 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 25 Oct 2022 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Na-Ek N. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.135337.r178384 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v1#referee-response-178384 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 26 Jun 2023 Nat Na-Ek , Division of Social and Administration Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Care, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Phayao, Mueang Phayao District, Phayao, Thailand Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.135337.r178384 Overall, this piece of work on the benefits of medical cannabis in improving the survival rate of combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) patients is interesting. However, several issues need further clarification and improvements. Major points: ... Continue reading READ ALL Overall, this piece of work on the benefits of medical cannabis in improving the survival rate of combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) patients is interesting. However, several issues need further clarification and improvements. Major points: It is important to recheck the accuracy of the provided data ( https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.2010119 ). I noticed inconsistencies in the reported figures, such as the percentages of male and female patients and the number of patients receiving each treatment modality. Additionally, there was a coding issue with one patient receiving medical cannabis coded as 12 in the current treatment variable without an explanation. Addressing these inconsistencies is crucial for the reproducibility of the results. The authors did not mention whether they performed a proportional hazards assumption test in the statistical analysis. Upon re-analysis, I found that the treatment variable violated this assumption, indicating that the hazard ratio was not constant at 0.28 across the entire follow-up time as reported. More importantly, the significant association between medical cannabis and survival rate was observed only in the early follow-up (3 months), not the whole study period. Therefore, it is important for the authors to conduct a re-analysis and introduce an interaction term between the treatment variable and time using the time-varying covariate (TVC) option in STATA. When reporting the hazard ratio, the authors should present it across the range of follow-up (e.g., within 10 months) to ensure validity and reliability. More details and examples can be found at Bellera et al. (2010) 1 . Please avoid making causal claims in an observational study. For example, the sentence "the medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among cHCC-CC patients" (conclusion of the abstract) should be revised to "the medical cannabis was associated with improved overall survival rates among cHCC-CC patients." This distinction is vital because several alternative explanations (e.g., bias, errors, confounding, effect modification, reverse causality) could account for the significant findings. For instance, patients who received medical cannabis might have been more closely monitored by physicians, or they might have had unobserved or unmeasured characteristics (residual confounders) that affected their prognosis positively. Additionally, there may have been discrepancies in the quality of care across different settings. Therefore, the authors should refrain from assuming causality to avoid exaggerating the significance of their results. It would be appropriate to include a cautionary statement in the discussion section, such as "as this is an observational study, we cannot infer causality, and a randomised controlled trial is needed to establish the efficacy of medical cannabis in cancer patients." Please provide justification and references for each covariate selected as adjusting factors in the analysis. Furthermore, clarify why certain continuous variables (e.g., age, disease duration after registration) were categorised instead of using them as continuous scales. Additionally, I recommend running the analysis with age as a quadratic term (age + age 2 ), as it was found to be significantly associated with death, suggesting a non-linear relationship between age and mortality. Therefore, using a quadratic term for each continuous variable would be more appropriate as it preserves important information 2 . Provide more details about the medical cannabis used in the study, such as product details, dosage form, dose, and administration. This information is crucial for generalising the findings to a clinical setting and enabling reproducibility. Additionally, clarify what the standard treatment was in the study and whether it was consistent across different settings. In the discussion section, provide more information about the individuals who were lost to follow-up and discuss how their exclusion might have influenced the findings. Is it possible to determine whether these patients were still alive at the end of the study or if they died soon after dropping out? Discuss the potential impact of differences in the quality of care across settings on the survival rate of patients in the study. It would be helpful to perform a subgroup analysis according to settings and utilise the strata option in the Cox model. Furthermore, consider conducting subgroup analyses based on other variables such as sex, age group, and current treatment to assess whether effect modification plays a role in the findings. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses are necessary to ensure the robustness of the findings, particularly in an observational study. In the discussion section, compare the survival rates of the study, particularly in the standard treatment group, with previous works. If applicable, discuss the reasons for any differences observed. This will help strengthen the external validity of the study. Minor issues: Use "multivariable" instead of "multivariate" when discussing regression models. The term "multivariable" refers to adding explanatory variables (X) in the regression model, while "multivariate" implies examining various outcomes (Y) simultaneously 3 . Spell "proportional hazards regression" with an "s" in "hazards" since the term "proportional" implies the existence of at least two hazards. Be aware of the term person-months as it is not a person per month, but it is rather the product of patients and their corresponding follow-up time. So, the unit of the incidence rate in your work should be written as “100 person-months” not “100 person/month”. To improve clarity, consider splitting Table 1 into three separate tables. Table 1 should focus solely on the characteristics of included participants, allowing for inferential statistics (e.g., independent t-test, chi-squared test) to test the association between each characteristic and exposure status. Then, create Table 2 to present details of the outcome variable according to exposure status. Finally, present Table 3 as the main findings regarding the association between treatment and all-cause mortality, including both crude (unadjusted) and adjusted hazard ratios. Additionally, including a Kaplan-Meier plot with a risk table would aid in visualising the survival rates between patients receiving medical cannabis and those receiving standard treatment. If possible, please discuss the potential biological mechanisms or underlying explanations of how medical cannabis can improve the survival rate of cHCC-CC patients. Overall, addressing these major and minor points will greatly enhance the clarity, validity, and reproducibility of your study. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Bellera CA, MacGrogan G, Debled M, de Lara CT, et al.: Variables with time-varying effects and the Cox model: some statistical concepts illustrated with a prognostic factor study in breast cancer. BMC Med Res Methodol . 2010; 10 : 20 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Collins GS, Ogundimu EO, Cook JA, Manach YL, et al.: Quantifying the impact of different approaches for handling continuous predictors on the performance of a prognostic model. Stat Med . 2016; 35 (23): 4124-35 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. Hidalgo B, Goodman M: Multivariate or multivariable regression?. Am J Public Health . 2013; 103 (1): 39-40 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Clinical epidemiology, pharmacoepidemiology, and social epidemiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Na-Ek N. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.135337.r178384 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v1#referee-response-178384 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Budijitno S. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.135337.r170664 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v1#referee-response-170664 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 01 Jun 2023 Selamat Budijitno , Department of Surgery, Dr. Kariadi Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.135337.r170664 Based on the STROBE criteria, most of this research has fulfilled the criteria. In my opinion, there are several things that need to be improved so that this research is better: There is no sufficient detail ... Continue reading READ ALL Based on the STROBE criteria, most of this research has fulfilled the criteria. In my opinion, there are several things that need to be improved so that this research is better: There is no sufficient detail of the methods, especially on the eligibility criteria of participants, and the method of follow up that provided to allow replication by others. ​​​​​​There are no very important data as a confounder, namely the pain scale/level of pain on the criteria when matching participants. It ​​​​​​would be clearer if the authors can explain the relationship between pain levels, quality of life, and survival rates in biomolecular terms. Such as, for example, mutations in the NMDA receptor in chronic pain, which will produce P protein which can increase the risk of advanced metastasis, NMDA receptors stimulates the MAPK and CaMK pathways, leading to CREB activation in tumor cells. NMDAR-interacting proteins and the downstream signaling effectors display features in common between the neuronal and metastatic cancer processes, such as cell adhesion, migration, and survival. In the results of the cohort study, it would be better if the authors can explain in the report the numbers of individuals at each stage of study – e.g., numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and the reason of dropped out participant. Give reasons for nonparticipation/dropped out participant in each stage. Consider use of a flow diagram. Thank you. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Surgical Oncology, biomolecular, Immunology, epidemiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Budijitno S. Reviewer Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.135337.r170664 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v1#referee-response-170664 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 09 Apr 2025 Narisara Phansila , Chiang Kwan Hospital, Roi-et Province, 45000, Thailand 09 Apr 2025 Author Response There is no sufficient detail of the methods, especially on the eligibility criteria of participants, and the method of follow up that provided to allow replication by others. ... Continue reading There is no sufficient detail of the methods, especially on the eligibility criteria of participants, and the method of follow up that provided to allow replication by others. Ans: The survival rate matches the history of the first day of treatment in the clinic. Copy the symptoms and physical examination of the patient. Diagnosis, treatment, address, and telephone number from the medical records recorded by the treating physician from September 2, 2019, to October 31, 2020; follow up on the patient's last status until April 30, 2021. Check the status and date of the patient's death from the Cancer Unit's patient tracking database or from the death certificate of the patient Check the correctness of the information. and import data for analysis. There are no very important data as a confounder, namely the pain scale/level of pain on the criteria when matching participants. Ans: The evaluation was not assessed because secondary data were used to track only the six-month outcome, censor, or event to assess survival. Starting from admission to treat both types, the inclusion criteria were likely to be met for all patients aged 18 years and over. It would be clearer if the authors can explain the relationship between pain levels, quality of life, and survival rates in biomolecular terms. Such as, for example, mutations in the NMDA receptor in chronic pain, which will produce P protein which can increase the risk of advanced metastasis, NMDA receptors stimulates the MAPK and CaMK pathways, leading to CREB activation in tumor cells. NMDAR-interacting proteins and the downstream signaling effectors display features in common between the neuronal and metastatic cancer processes, such as cell adhesion, migration, and survival. Ans: This study has not investigated a relationship; we only track the survival rate over time. and find factors that are general information, but we will be publishing again about the quality of life and survival. In the results of the cohort study, it would be better if the authors can explain in the report the numbers of individuals at each stage of study – e.g., numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and the reason of dropped out participant. Ans: This study used secondary data based on the results of the diagnosis and the treatment system. Give reasons for nonparticipation/dropped out participant in each stage. Consider use of a flow diagram. Ans: Due to the use of medical records, use the available information If death is specified in the system, there will be a death certificate. The lack of follow-up data will be used as a censor, but it can be used to calculate the survival rate by using survival statistics. There is no sufficient detail of the methods, especially on the eligibility criteria of participants, and the method of follow up that provided to allow replication by others. Ans: The survival rate matches the history of the first day of treatment in the clinic. Copy the symptoms and physical examination of the patient. Diagnosis, treatment, address, and telephone number from the medical records recorded by the treating physician from September 2, 2019, to October 31, 2020; follow up on the patient's last status until April 30, 2021. Check the status and date of the patient's death from the Cancer Unit's patient tracking database or from the death certificate of the patient Check the correctness of the information. and import data for analysis. There are no very important data as a confounder, namely the pain scale/level of pain on the criteria when matching participants. Ans: The evaluation was not assessed because secondary data were used to track only the six-month outcome, censor, or event to assess survival. Starting from admission to treat both types, the inclusion criteria were likely to be met for all patients aged 18 years and over. It would be clearer if the authors can explain the relationship between pain levels, quality of life, and survival rates in biomolecular terms. Such as, for example, mutations in the NMDA receptor in chronic pain, which will produce P protein which can increase the risk of advanced metastasis, NMDA receptors stimulates the MAPK and CaMK pathways, leading to CREB activation in tumor cells. NMDAR-interacting proteins and the downstream signaling effectors display features in common between the neuronal and metastatic cancer processes, such as cell adhesion, migration, and survival. Ans: This study has not investigated a relationship; we only track the survival rate over time. and find factors that are general information, but we will be publishing again about the quality of life and survival. In the results of the cohort study, it would be better if the authors can explain in the report the numbers of individuals at each stage of study – e.g., numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and the reason of dropped out participant. Ans: This study used secondary data based on the results of the diagnosis and the treatment system. Give reasons for nonparticipation/dropped out participant in each stage. Consider use of a flow diagram. Ans: Due to the use of medical records, use the available information If death is specified in the system, there will be a death certificate. The lack of follow-up data will be used as a censor, but it can be used to calculate the survival rate by using survival statistics. Competing Interests: No Competing of interests Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 09 Apr 2025 Narisara Phansila , Chiang Kwan Hospital, Roi-et Province, 45000, Thailand 09 Apr 2025 Author Response There is no sufficient detail of the methods, especially on the eligibility criteria of participants, and the method of follow up that provided to allow replication by others. ... Continue reading There is no sufficient detail of the methods, especially on the eligibility criteria of participants, and the method of follow up that provided to allow replication by others. Ans: The survival rate matches the history of the first day of treatment in the clinic. Copy the symptoms and physical examination of the patient. Diagnosis, treatment, address, and telephone number from the medical records recorded by the treating physician from September 2, 2019, to October 31, 2020; follow up on the patient's last status until April 30, 2021. Check the status and date of the patient's death from the Cancer Unit's patient tracking database or from the death certificate of the patient Check the correctness of the information. and import data for analysis. There are no very important data as a confounder, namely the pain scale/level of pain on the criteria when matching participants. Ans: The evaluation was not assessed because secondary data were used to track only the six-month outcome, censor, or event to assess survival. Starting from admission to treat both types, the inclusion criteria were likely to be met for all patients aged 18 years and over. It would be clearer if the authors can explain the relationship between pain levels, quality of life, and survival rates in biomolecular terms. Such as, for example, mutations in the NMDA receptor in chronic pain, which will produce P protein which can increase the risk of advanced metastasis, NMDA receptors stimulates the MAPK and CaMK pathways, leading to CREB activation in tumor cells. NMDAR-interacting proteins and the downstream signaling effectors display features in common between the neuronal and metastatic cancer processes, such as cell adhesion, migration, and survival. Ans: This study has not investigated a relationship; we only track the survival rate over time. and find factors that are general information, but we will be publishing again about the quality of life and survival. In the results of the cohort study, it would be better if the authors can explain in the report the numbers of individuals at each stage of study – e.g., numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and the reason of dropped out participant. Ans: This study used secondary data based on the results of the diagnosis and the treatment system. Give reasons for nonparticipation/dropped out participant in each stage. Consider use of a flow diagram. Ans: Due to the use of medical records, use the available information If death is specified in the system, there will be a death certificate. The lack of follow-up data will be used as a censor, but it can be used to calculate the survival rate by using survival statistics. There is no sufficient detail of the methods, especially on the eligibility criteria of participants, and the method of follow up that provided to allow replication by others. Ans: The survival rate matches the history of the first day of treatment in the clinic. Copy the symptoms and physical examination of the patient. Diagnosis, treatment, address, and telephone number from the medical records recorded by the treating physician from September 2, 2019, to October 31, 2020; follow up on the patient's last status until April 30, 2021. Check the status and date of the patient's death from the Cancer Unit's patient tracking database or from the death certificate of the patient Check the correctness of the information. and import data for analysis. There are no very important data as a confounder, namely the pain scale/level of pain on the criteria when matching participants. Ans: The evaluation was not assessed because secondary data were used to track only the six-month outcome, censor, or event to assess survival. Starting from admission to treat both types, the inclusion criteria were likely to be met for all patients aged 18 years and over. It would be clearer if the authors can explain the relationship between pain levels, quality of life, and survival rates in biomolecular terms. Such as, for example, mutations in the NMDA receptor in chronic pain, which will produce P protein which can increase the risk of advanced metastasis, NMDA receptors stimulates the MAPK and CaMK pathways, leading to CREB activation in tumor cells. NMDAR-interacting proteins and the downstream signaling effectors display features in common between the neuronal and metastatic cancer processes, such as cell adhesion, migration, and survival. Ans: This study has not investigated a relationship; we only track the survival rate over time. and find factors that are general information, but we will be publishing again about the quality of life and survival. In the results of the cohort study, it would be better if the authors can explain in the report the numbers of individuals at each stage of study – e.g., numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and the reason of dropped out participant. Ans: This study used secondary data based on the results of the diagnosis and the treatment system. Give reasons for nonparticipation/dropped out participant in each stage. Consider use of a flow diagram. Ans: Due to the use of medical records, use the available information If death is specified in the system, there will be a death certificate. The lack of follow-up data will be used as a censor, but it can be used to calculate the survival rate by using survival statistics. Competing Interests: No Competing of interests Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 25 Oct 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 5 Version 3 (revision) 03 Oct 25 read read Version 2 (revision) 09 Apr 25 read read read read read Version 1 25 Oct 22 read read Selamat Budijitno , Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Indonesia Nat Na-Ek , University of Phayao, Mueang Phayao District, Thailand Ueamporn Summart , Roi Et Rajabhat University, Tha Muang, Thailand Nuttapong Ngamphaiboon , Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand Dima Malkawi , University of Colorado, Denver, USA Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Ngamphaiboon N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 14 Oct 2025 | for Version 3 Nuttapong Ngamphaiboon , Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand 0 Views copyright © 2025 Ngamphaiboon N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Many major concerns are not addressed properly, led to difficulty to make conclusions from the data due to multiple confounders. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Oncology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Ngamphaiboon N. Peer Review Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.186703.r420117) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v3#referee-response-420117 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Na-Ek N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 13 Oct 2025 | for Version 3 Nat Na-Ek , Division of Social and Administration Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Care, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Phayao, Mueang Phayao District, Phayao, Thailand 0 Views copyright © 2025 Na-Ek N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This manuscript addresses an important clinical question, but several major methodological flaws remain unresolved as outlined below: It is unclear whether the study population consists of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), combined hepatocellular–cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA), or either CCA or HCC. In the abstract, CCA is mentioned, whereas in the introduction cHCC-CCA is discussed. Later, in the methods section, patients with advanced CCA or HCC are included. This inconsistency confuses readers and substantially undermines the trustworthiness of the work. Although my E-value analysis suggests that unmeasured confounding is unlikely to fully explain away the observed association (adjusted HR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.20, 0.37; E-value 6.602 for the point estimate and 4.848 for the confidence interval), the magnitude of the effect warrants careful scrutiny. In clinical epidemiology, it is rare for a single unmeasured factor to be associated with both exposure and outcome by risk ratios exceeding five- to seven-fold each, especially after adjustment for age and sex. This indicates that residual confounding alone is an improbable explanation for the observed results. However, several other alternative explanations could plausibly account for such a pronounced effect size. Firstly, survival (immortal) time bias may have arisen because the cannabis group was registered earlier, whereas controls experienced longer lag periods before registration, effectively guaranteeing a survival advantage for cannabis users. This may not be adequately controlled by simply adjusting for the lag period as a categorical variable. Secondly, selective inclusion is a concern: if healthier or more engaged patients were more likely to receive or report cannabis use, the apparent benefit could reflect reverse causation rather than treatment efficacy. Thirdly, the removal of the patient flow diagram and the unclear handling of missing data reduce transparency, raising the possibility that exclusions disproportionately affected sicker controls. Collectively, these biases offer more credible explanations for the striking hazard ratio reported than unmeasured confounding alone. The authors should therefore conduct sensitivity analyses, such as landmark analyses, time-dependent modelling, and transparent reporting of exclusions and missingness, before drawing strong conclusions about treatment effects. In addition, please verify the correctness of the percentages reported in Table 1. The rationale for adopting a two-step approach is unclear. Univariable selection should be avoided (TRIPOD) as it can lead to omission of important covariates and model misspecification. Best practice in covariate selection involves the use of DAGs or prior knowledge, rather than relying solely on statistical significance. In Figure 1, the dashed vertical lines do not appear to represent the median survival time of each group. By definition, the median survival should correspond to the time point at which 50% of the population remains alive. Please check the correctness of the Kaplan–Meier curve. In the abstract: Please include a specific objective or research gap in the final sentence of the background subsection. Please explicitly state the adjustment factors in the methods subsection. In the results subsection, follow-up time should generally be reported as the median with corresponding interquartile range rather than as incidence density (person-time). Please revise accordingly. In the conclusion subsection, please avoid implying causality. For example, the sentence “Medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients” should be rephrased as “Medical cannabis was associated with increased overall survival rates among CCA patients” Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Na-Ek N. Peer Review Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.186703.r420115) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v3#referee-response-420115 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Budijitno S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 10 Sep 2025 | for Version 2 Selamat Budijitno , Department of Surgery, Dr. Kariadi Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Budijitno S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I approve for this "version 2" of the article. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Surgical Oncology, biomolecular, Immunology, epidemiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Budijitno S. Peer Review Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r377014) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v2#referee-response-377014 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Malkawi D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 12 Aug 2025 | for Version 2 Dima Malkawi , University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Malkawi D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Introduction : - The second paragraph of the introduction focuses only on CC but this study focuses on cHCC-CC so the introduction needs to be expanded to include both. - The third paragraph mentions a standard and a new treatment; it would be good to expand on both here to know what the difference is between the two and why that may be relevant - Would use the intro to discuss the logic behind this study and why it is impactful or necessary. Are there big differences between the two methods? Methods: - The flow diagram is not adding much to this manuscript - Would recommend CONSORT diagram instead - No information is provided on treatment protocols including dosing, frequency etc - Patients in CT vs. ST may differ in unmeasured ways (e.g., baseline performance status, comorbidities, tumor burden, liver function). For example, the CT group had much lower mortality rates and higher follow-up times, but it’s unclear whether this is due to the treatment or differences in baseline prognosis. - There is no mention of propensity score matching or multivariable adjustment for critical prognostic variables beyond age, sex, and treatment. Without controlling for these confounders, the observed survival difference may be overestimated - Consider adjusting for additional baseline variables in the Cox model (e.g., ECOG performance status, Child-Pugh score, metastasis status, comorbidities, prior treatments). If unavailable, acknowledge this as a serious limitation - Your inclusion criteria state “newly diagnosed with CCA or HCC,” yet the title and aim focus on combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) - unclear whether all patients indeed had cHCC-CC , or whether you included either HCC or CCA - Clarify whether patients were pathologically confirmed as cHCC-CC or diagnosed clinically as HCC/CCA. If both were included, justify combining them. - The survival times reported (ST: 0.83 months) seem extremely short , raising the possibility that these were highly selected end-stage patients. Results : - The authors state that they tested the proportional hazards assumption but do not report the findings. They also state they did kaplan meier survival curves which are also not reported - The data is reported as a causal relationship which is extremely misleading - No data presented on differences in treatment populations - Chemotherapy is initially defined as CT but then later Cannabis Therapy is also defined as CT causing some confusion - Data on treatment types and staging is not discussed and thus comparisons between the groups may not be accurate or reflective of true outcomes, and possibly considered invalid Overall: - The extremely high CC incidence in your region is discussed, but the CT effect may not translate to other settings. - Cannabis preparations (THC:CBD ratios, dosing) are specific to Thai FDA-approved products — this needs more detail for reproducibility. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise surgical oncology, outcomes I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Malkawi D. Peer Review Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r400722) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v2#referee-response-400722 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Ngamphaiboon N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 11 Aug 2025 | for Version 2 Nuttapong Ngamphaiboon , Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand 0 Views copyright © 2025 Ngamphaiboon N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The study contains major flaws in both design and methodology. The conclusions presented in the current version of the manuscript may be significantly biased due to the lack of detailed patient characteristics and treatment-related information. Major Comments: Given that cannabinoids are primarily used in palliative care to alleviate pain, reduce nausea, and stimulate appetite, the manuscript should clearly state the primary outcomes of palliative use such as symptom improvement of cannabinoid use in this study. Detailed information regarding cannabinoid use should be provided, including dosage, duration, mode of administration, and patient compliance. If survival outcomes are to be reported, critical clinical data must be included—such as ECOG performance status, cancer staging at the time of treatment, chemotherapy regimens, number of cycles, dosing details, relative dose intensity, and radiation therapy use. Without these essential details, the conclusion that "medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients" cannot be considered reliable. Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) should be presented to support the survival analysis. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Oncology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Narisara Phansila, Chiang Kwan Hospital, Roi-et Province, 45000, Thailand Reviewer’s Comment – Overall assessment of major flaws in design and methodology The study contains major flaws in both design and methodology. The conclusions presented in the current version of the manuscript may be significantly biased due to the lack of detailed patient characteristics and treatment-related information. Response: We acknowledge the inherent limitations of our retrospective design and the use of secondary data. Our dataset was obtained from hospital records and contained survival status, selected patient characteristics, and treatment timing variables (e.g., date of diagnosis, date of registration for treatment). Detailed clinical information such as ECOG performance status, cancer staging, chemotherapy regimen details, dosing, and radiation therapy use was not captured in the database. We have explicitly stated these limitations in the revised manuscript, reframed our conclusions to avoid causal inference, and presented our findings as preliminary evidence requiring further validation through prospective studies. Reviewer’s Comment 1: Given that cannabinoids are primarily used in palliative care to alleviate pain, reduce nausea, and stimulate appetite, the manuscript should clearly state the primary outcomes of palliative use such as symptom improvement of cannabinoid use in this study. Response: We agree that palliative outcomes such as symptom improvement are important; however, these were not available in the secondary data used for this analysis. We have clearly acknowledged this limitation in the revised manuscript and clarified that our study focuses exclusively on survival outcomes derived from available records. Reviewer’s Comment 2: Detailed information regarding cannabinoid use should be provided, including dosage, duration, mode of administration, and patient compliance. Response: We have added all available treatment details to the Methods section, including the product type (Thai FDA-approved oral cannabis oil extract), THC:CBD ratios, and initial prescribed dosage. Information on treatment duration, dose adjustments, and patient compliance was not recorded in the database and is acknowledged as a limitation. Reviewer’s Comment 3: If survival outcomes are to be reported, critical clinical data must be included—such as ECOG performance status, cancer staging at the time of treatment, chemotherapy regimens, number of cycles, dosing details, relative dose intensity, and radiation therapy use. Without these essential details, the conclusion that "medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients" cannot be considered reliable. Response: We agree that these clinical variables are important prognostic factors; however, they were not captured in the secondary database used for this study. Available data were limited to demographic characteristics, timing variables (diagnosis date, registration date), treatment type (cannabis vs. standard care), and survival status. We have emphasized these limitations in the revised manuscript and reframed our conclusions to state that medicinal cannabis treatment was associated with prolonged survival, while noting that causality cannot be inferred. Reviewer’s Comment 4: Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) should be presented to support the survival analysis. Response: We have added Kaplan–Meier curves for OS (Figure 1). PFS could not be analyzed because progression dates were not consistently recorded in the dataset. This limitation is stated in both the Methods and Limitations sections. Competing Interests: We confirm that the authors have no competing interests to declare. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests declared. reply Respond Report a concern Ngamphaiboon N. Peer Review Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r396266) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v2#referee-response-396266 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Summart U. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 03 Jun 2025 | for Version 2 Ueamporn Summart , Faculty of Nursing, Roi Et Rajabhat University, Tha Muang, Thailand 0 Views copyright © 2025 Summart U. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Title: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study. Upon completing a comprehensive analysis of all your amended manuscripts, I would like to express my gratitude for your diligent efforts in enhancing and elucidating your manuscripts. In my opinion, there are several areas where the authors may improve in order to enhance the reader's understanding of their work, as outlined below: Abstract: Conclusions: “The medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients.” In my opinion, we do not conclude that only the effect of medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among this population because this study design is not supported. Furthermore, the study did not control or include other confounding factors that could affect the survival outcome. Introduction: 1) Suggest the authors clarify the population of this study. (recurving palliative or curative treatment) and also describe more information about these treatments that are specific for this population before mentioning the use of medical cannabis treatment in this study. (Some details are missing between paragraph 2 and paragraph 3, such as treatment for palliative CCA or specific survival rates and other treatment for this population in Thailand. 2) Suggest the authors mentioned the rationale (literature reviewed) of the covariates and the medical cannabis treatment used in this study from previous studies. Statistical analysis: 1) Due to the retrospective cohort design, this study aimed to compare the survival rate between 2 treatments, so it is better to compare baseline characteristics of the participants because baseline imbalance among this sample will lead to selection biases. 2) To compare the survival rate between two groups using the log-rank test, the author should mention the assumption for this statistic before using it.3.3) Suggest the authors used a Kaplan-Meier graph to compare survival outcomes between two treatments following covariates in this study, such as age and cancer treatments. 3.4) For Cox proportional hazard statistics, suggest the authors mention the assumption of these statistics and steps of analysis such as univariable analysis and multivariable analysis. (I cannot find this step, but the authors mentioned these steps in the discussion part.). Results: 1) I agree with reviewer 1 to separate the table into 3 tables as follows: Table 1 compares baseline characteristics. Normally, the authors presented the covariate in the table following the patient treatment group, so it is not the covariate. Suggest separating this table out of the tables that present the study objectives. 2) Suggest the authors present survival outcomes in another table along with Kaplan-Meier graph comparing survival outcomes between two treatments following covariate. 3) Suggest the authors present a table for the Cox proportional hazard ratio to present crude HR and adjusted HR, followed by steps of multivariable analysis. In addition, for the HR less than 1, please interpret this result for the readers. Discussions: Suggest the authors discuss following all of the covariates used in this study. In addition, the mechanism of medical cannabis treatment should be mentioned, whether it increased overall survival rates among CCA patients. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Nursing and Public Health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 05 Sep 2025 Narisara Phansila, Chiang Kwan Hospital, Roi-et Province, 45000, Thailand Reviewer’s Comment – Abstract Conclusions: “The medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients.” In my opinion, we do not conclude that only the effect of medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among this population because this study design is not supported. Furthermore, the study did not control or include other confounding factors that could affect the survival outcome. Response: We appreciate this important observation. The Abstract conclusion has been revised to avoid implying causality. The new conclusion now reads: “In this retrospective cohort, medicinal cannabis use was associated with longer overall survival among advanced CCA patients; however, causality cannot be inferred due to the retrospective design and residual confounding.” This rewording aligns with the study design and acknowledges the potential impact of unmeasured confounding factors. (Page 1, Lines 36–39) Reviewer’s Comment – Introduction (1) Clarify the population of this study (receiving palliative or curative treatment) and describe more information about these treatments specific to this population before mentioning medical cannabis. Include survival rates and treatments for CCA in Thailand. Response: We have clarified that all patients in this study were diagnosed with advanced disease and were registered at palliative care or cannabis clinics. No patients received curative-intent treatment. We have expanded the description of standard palliative care and systemic treatment options available in Thailand, including expected survival times, supported by local and international references. (Page 2, Lines 70–76, 78–79) Reviewer’s Comment – Introduction (2) Mention the rationale (literature reviewed) of the covariates and medical cannabis treatment used in this study from previous studies. Response: We have added a paragraph explaining the rationale for each covariate (age, sex, type of cancer treatment, time from diagnosis to registration) based on prior survival studies. We also strengthened the rationale for examining medicinal cannabis by summarizing evidence from Thai and global literature on its palliative benefits and possible anti-cancer effects. (Page 2, Lines 70–79) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (1) Compare baseline characteristics to address possible selection bias. Response: We have compared baseline characteristics between treatment groups in the new Table 1 and discussed differences that may indicate potential selection bias. (Page 4, Table 1) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (2) Mention the assumption for the log-rank test. Response: We have explicitly stated the assumptions for the log-rank test (proportional hazards, non-informative censoring) in the Statistical Analysis section. (Methods: Statistical Analysis) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (3) Use Kaplan–Meier graph to compare survival outcomes between treatments by covariates (e.g., age, cancer treatments). Response: We have added stratified Kaplan–Meier survival curves by age group (<65 vs ≥65) and prior cancer treatment (yes/no) in the supplementary material. Figure 1 presents the overall survival curves for the two treatment groups. (Figure 1; Supplementary Figures) Reviewer’s Comment – Statistical Analysis (4) Mention the assumption of Cox regression and steps of analysis (univariable and multivariable). Response: We have described the proportional hazards assumption checks (Schoenfeld residuals, log-minus-log plots) and outlined the two-step analysis process: univariable screening (p<0.20) followed by multivariable Cox regression adjusting for selected covariates. (Methods: Statistical Analysis) Reviewer’s Comment – Results (1) Separate tables: Table 1 for baseline characteristics, separate from tables presenting study objectives. Response: We have reorganized the results into separate tables: Table 1: Baseline characteristics by treatment group Table 2: Survival outcomes (median survival, person-time, log-rank test) Table 3: Cox regression results (crude and adjusted HRs) (Pages 4–6, Tables 1–3) Reviewer’s Comment – Results (2) Present survival outcomes in another table along with Kaplan–Meier graph by covariates. Response: Survival outcomes are now presented in Table 2 and illustrated in Kaplan–Meier curves (Figure 1). Stratified curves by age and prior cancer treatment are included in the supplementary material. Reviewer’s Comment – Results (3) Present Cox proportional hazard results in a table with crude and adjusted HR, interpret HR<1. Response: Table 3 presents both crude and adjusted HRs, with interpretation provided in the Results section. We explain that HR<1 indicates a reduced hazard of death, reflecting longer survival in that group. (Page 6, Table 3) Reviewer’s Comment – Discussion Discuss all covariates and the mechanism of medical cannabis treatment. Response: We have discussed each covariate’s association with survival outcomes, supported by relevant literature. Additionally, we expanded the discussion on potential mechanisms of medicinal cannabis, including symptom relief (pain, nausea, appetite, sleep) and preclinical evidence for anti-tumor activity (apoptosis induction, angiogenesis inhibition, tumor proliferation suppression). (Pages 6–7, Discussion) View more View less Competing Interests no competing interest reply Respond Report a concern Summart U. Peer Review Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r383930) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v2#referee-response-383930 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Na-Ek N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 10 May 2025 | for Version 2 Nat Na-Ek , Division of Social and Administration Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Care, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Phayao, Mueang Phayao District, Phayao, Thailand 0 Views copyright © 2025 Na-Ek N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for the revised version of the manuscript. However, it remains difficult to determine where amendments have been made in response to my previous comments. I would greatly appreciate it if the authors could provide a point-by-point response to each of my earlier comments, as a general summary is insufficient for a thorough review. Upon reviewing the revised manuscript, I noted several issues that appear to remain unaddressed, with no accompanying explanation. For example: - In the abstract, the authors continue to use the term “multivariate analysis” rather than the more appropriate “multivariable analysis”. While this is a relatively minor issue, it reflects a lack of attention to detail. - More importantly, in the final sentence of the results section and in the conclusion of the abstract, the authors continue to imply a causal relationship between medical cannabis and survival rates. For instance, statements such as “Therefore, CT had a reduced probability of dying from the disease” and “The medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among CCA patients” suggest causality. How can the authors be certain that the observed association is attributable solely to medical cannabis, rather than to other potential explanations? - Regarding the patient flow diagram, the figure presented appears to be a theoretical illustration more suited to teaching the principles of survival analysis, rather than a CONSORT-style flow diagram. A CONSORT-style flow diagram would be more informative, showing how many participants were initially assessed for eligibility, how exclusions were applied, and how the final analytical sample was derived. - In the Methods section, the authors mention the use of the Cox proportional hazards model but do not report testing the proportional hazards assumption. Furthermore, I could not locate any figures of Kaplan–Meier curves in the Results section, which raises concerns about the validity and transparency of the analysis. Given the extensive revision timeline—almost three years since the initial submission—and the apparent failure to sufficiently address or justify the lack of amendments in response to my previous feedback, I regret that I must recommend rejection of this manuscript. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Clinical epidemiology, pharmacoepidemiology, and social epidemiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Na-Ek N. Peer Review Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.180104.r377013) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v2#referee-response-377013 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Na-Ek N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 26 Jun 2023 | for Version 1 Nat Na-Ek , Division of Social and Administration Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Care, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Phayao, Mueang Phayao District, Phayao, Thailand 0 Views copyright © 2023 Na-Ek N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Overall, this piece of work on the benefits of medical cannabis in improving the survival rate of combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) patients is interesting. However, several issues need further clarification and improvements. Major points: It is important to recheck the accuracy of the provided data ( https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.2010119 ). I noticed inconsistencies in the reported figures, such as the percentages of male and female patients and the number of patients receiving each treatment modality. Additionally, there was a coding issue with one patient receiving medical cannabis coded as 12 in the current treatment variable without an explanation. Addressing these inconsistencies is crucial for the reproducibility of the results. The authors did not mention whether they performed a proportional hazards assumption test in the statistical analysis. Upon re-analysis, I found that the treatment variable violated this assumption, indicating that the hazard ratio was not constant at 0.28 across the entire follow-up time as reported. More importantly, the significant association between medical cannabis and survival rate was observed only in the early follow-up (3 months), not the whole study period. Therefore, it is important for the authors to conduct a re-analysis and introduce an interaction term between the treatment variable and time using the time-varying covariate (TVC) option in STATA. When reporting the hazard ratio, the authors should present it across the range of follow-up (e.g., within 10 months) to ensure validity and reliability. More details and examples can be found at Bellera et al. (2010) 1 . Please avoid making causal claims in an observational study. For example, the sentence "the medical cannabis increased overall survival rates among cHCC-CC patients" (conclusion of the abstract) should be revised to "the medical cannabis was associated with improved overall survival rates among cHCC-CC patients." This distinction is vital because several alternative explanations (e.g., bias, errors, confounding, effect modification, reverse causality) could account for the significant findings. For instance, patients who received medical cannabis might have been more closely monitored by physicians, or they might have had unobserved or unmeasured characteristics (residual confounders) that affected their prognosis positively. Additionally, there may have been discrepancies in the quality of care across different settings. Therefore, the authors should refrain from assuming causality to avoid exaggerating the significance of their results. It would be appropriate to include a cautionary statement in the discussion section, such as "as this is an observational study, we cannot infer causality, and a randomised controlled trial is needed to establish the efficacy of medical cannabis in cancer patients." Please provide justification and references for each covariate selected as adjusting factors in the analysis. Furthermore, clarify why certain continuous variables (e.g., age, disease duration after registration) were categorised instead of using them as continuous scales. Additionally, I recommend running the analysis with age as a quadratic term (age + age 2 ), as it was found to be significantly associated with death, suggesting a non-linear relationship between age and mortality. Therefore, using a quadratic term for each continuous variable would be more appropriate as it preserves important information 2 . Provide more details about the medical cannabis used in the study, such as product details, dosage form, dose, and administration. This information is crucial for generalising the findings to a clinical setting and enabling reproducibility. Additionally, clarify what the standard treatment was in the study and whether it was consistent across different settings. In the discussion section, provide more information about the individuals who were lost to follow-up and discuss how their exclusion might have influenced the findings. Is it possible to determine whether these patients were still alive at the end of the study or if they died soon after dropping out? Discuss the potential impact of differences in the quality of care across settings on the survival rate of patients in the study. It would be helpful to perform a subgroup analysis according to settings and utilise the strata option in the Cox model. Furthermore, consider conducting subgroup analyses based on other variables such as sex, age group, and current treatment to assess whether effect modification plays a role in the findings. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses are necessary to ensure the robustness of the findings, particularly in an observational study. In the discussion section, compare the survival rates of the study, particularly in the standard treatment group, with previous works. If applicable, discuss the reasons for any differences observed. This will help strengthen the external validity of the study. Minor issues: Use "multivariable" instead of "multivariate" when discussing regression models. The term "multivariable" refers to adding explanatory variables (X) in the regression model, while "multivariate" implies examining various outcomes (Y) simultaneously 3 . Spell "proportional hazards regression" with an "s" in "hazards" since the term "proportional" implies the existence of at least two hazards. Be aware of the term person-months as it is not a person per month, but it is rather the product of patients and their corresponding follow-up time. So, the unit of the incidence rate in your work should be written as “100 person-months” not “100 person/month”. To improve clarity, consider splitting Table 1 into three separate tables. Table 1 should focus solely on the characteristics of included participants, allowing for inferential statistics (e.g., independent t-test, chi-squared test) to test the association between each characteristic and exposure status. Then, create Table 2 to present details of the outcome variable according to exposure status. Finally, present Table 3 as the main findings regarding the association between treatment and all-cause mortality, including both crude (unadjusted) and adjusted hazard ratios. Additionally, including a Kaplan-Meier plot with a risk table would aid in visualising the survival rates between patients receiving medical cannabis and those receiving standard treatment. If possible, please discuss the potential biological mechanisms or underlying explanations of how medical cannabis can improve the survival rate of cHCC-CC patients. Overall, addressing these major and minor points will greatly enhance the clarity, validity, and reproducibility of your study. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Bellera CA, MacGrogan G, Debled M, de Lara CT, et al.: Variables with time-varying effects and the Cox model: some statistical concepts illustrated with a prognostic factor study in breast cancer. BMC Med Res Methodol . 2010; 10 : 20 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Collins GS, Ogundimu EO, Cook JA, Manach YL, et al.: Quantifying the impact of different approaches for handling continuous predictors on the performance of a prognostic model. Stat Med . 2016; 35 (23): 4124-35 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. Hidalgo B, Goodman M: Multivariate or multivariable regression?. Am J Public Health . 2013; 103 (1): 39-40 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Clinical epidemiology, pharmacoepidemiology, and social epidemiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Na-Ek N. Peer Review Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.135337.r178384) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v1#referee-response-178384 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Budijitno S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 01 Jun 2023 | for Version 1 Selamat Budijitno , Department of Surgery, Dr. Kariadi Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2023 Budijitno S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Based on the STROBE criteria, most of this research has fulfilled the criteria. In my opinion, there are several things that need to be improved so that this research is better: There is no sufficient detail of the methods, especially on the eligibility criteria of participants, and the method of follow up that provided to allow replication by others. ​​​​​​There are no very important data as a confounder, namely the pain scale/level of pain on the criteria when matching participants. It ​​​​​​would be clearer if the authors can explain the relationship between pain levels, quality of life, and survival rates in biomolecular terms. Such as, for example, mutations in the NMDA receptor in chronic pain, which will produce P protein which can increase the risk of advanced metastasis, NMDA receptors stimulates the MAPK and CaMK pathways, leading to CREB activation in tumor cells. NMDAR-interacting proteins and the downstream signaling effectors display features in common between the neuronal and metastatic cancer processes, such as cell adhesion, migration, and survival. In the results of the cohort study, it would be better if the authors can explain in the report the numbers of individuals at each stage of study – e.g., numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and the reason of dropped out participant. Give reasons for nonparticipation/dropped out participant in each stage. Consider use of a flow diagram. Thank you. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Surgical Oncology, biomolecular, Immunology, epidemiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 09 Apr 2025 Narisara Phansila, Chiang Kwan Hospital, Roi-et Province, 45000, Thailand There is no sufficient detail of the methods, especially on the eligibility criteria of participants, and the method of follow up that provided to allow replication by others. Ans: The survival rate matches the history of the first day of treatment in the clinic. Copy the symptoms and physical examination of the patient. Diagnosis, treatment, address, and telephone number from the medical records recorded by the treating physician from September 2, 2019, to October 31, 2020; follow up on the patient's last status until April 30, 2021. Check the status and date of the patient's death from the Cancer Unit's patient tracking database or from the death certificate of the patient Check the correctness of the information. and import data for analysis. There are no very important data as a confounder, namely the pain scale/level of pain on the criteria when matching participants. Ans: The evaluation was not assessed because secondary data were used to track only the six-month outcome, censor, or event to assess survival. Starting from admission to treat both types, the inclusion criteria were likely to be met for all patients aged 18 years and over. It would be clearer if the authors can explain the relationship between pain levels, quality of life, and survival rates in biomolecular terms. Such as, for example, mutations in the NMDA receptor in chronic pain, which will produce P protein which can increase the risk of advanced metastasis, NMDA receptors stimulates the MAPK and CaMK pathways, leading to CREB activation in tumor cells. NMDAR-interacting proteins and the downstream signaling effectors display features in common between the neuronal and metastatic cancer processes, such as cell adhesion, migration, and survival. Ans: This study has not investigated a relationship; we only track the survival rate over time. and find factors that are general information, but we will be publishing again about the quality of life and survival. In the results of the cohort study, it would be better if the authors can explain in the report the numbers of individuals at each stage of study – e.g., numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and the reason of dropped out participant. Ans: This study used secondary data based on the results of the diagnosis and the treatment system. Give reasons for nonparticipation/dropped out participant in each stage. Consider use of a flow diagram. Ans: Due to the use of medical records, use the available information If death is specified in the system, there will be a death certificate. The lack of follow-up data will be used as a censor, but it can be used to calculate the survival rate by using survival statistics. View more View less Competing Interests No Competing of interests reply Respond Report a concern Budijitno S. Peer Review Report For: Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma receiving medical cannabis treatment: A retrospective, cohort comparative study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1212 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.135337.r170664) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v1#referee-response-170664 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v3&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Phansila N et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v3/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212", templates : { twitter : "Survival rate of patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma.... Phansila N et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1212/v3" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/123250/186703") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "186703"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "421126": 0, "377605": 0, "377604": 0, "421124": 0, "377607": 0, "421125": 0, "377606": 0, "421122": 0, "377601": 0, "421123": 0, "377603": 0, "421121": 0, "377602": 0, "394254": 0, "394255": 0, "394252": 0, "394253": 0, "421130": 0, "421131": 0, "377608": 0, "421128": 0, "421129": 0, "420116": 0, "394260": 0, "420117": 6, "394261": 0, "420114": 0, "394258": 0, "420115": 5, "394259": 0, "394256": 0, "420113": 0, "394257": 0, "425254": 0, "425255": 0, "425252": 0, "425253": 0, "425251": 0, "425260": 0, "425258": 0, "154158": 0, "425259": 0, "154159": 0, "425256": 0, "425257": 0, "154162": 0, "400695": 0, "154163": 0, "154160": 0, "154161": 0, "154164": 0, "162874": 0, "400699": 0, "400696": 0, "400707": 0, "400704": 0, "380245": 0, "380247": 0, "380246": 0, "400722": 7, "400723": 0, "400720": 0, "400721": 0, "380252": 0, "380249": 0, "380248": 0, "380251": 0, "380250": 0, "390021": 0, "390023": 0, "390022": 0, "390029": 0, "398990": 0, "390028": 0, "398991": 0, "390030": 0, "398989": 0, "390025": 0, "390024": 0, "390027": 0, "390026": 0, "156301": 0, "398998": 0, "398996": 0, "398997": 0, "398994": 0, "398995": 0, "398992": 0, "398993": 0, "170664": 47, "163502": 0, "163503": 0, "163501": 0, "383925": 0, "377013": 20, "383924": 0, "383927": 0, "383926": 0, "377014": 8, "383933": 0, "402623": 0, "383932": 0, "383929": 0, "383928": 0, "383931": 0, "383930": 19, "402630": 0, "402631": 0, "402628": 0, "402629": 0, "402626": 0, "157894": 0, "402627": 0, "157895": 0, "402624": 0, "402625": 0, "157896": 0, "157897": 0, "178383": 0, "402632": 0, "178384": 36, "169690": 0, "169691": 0, "169694": 0, "169692": 0, "169693": 0, "396270": 0, "396271": 0, "396268": 0, "396269": 0, "396266": 18, "396267": 0, "392439": 0, "392438": 0, "396274": 0, "396275": 0, "396272": 0, "396273": 0, "392445": 0, "392444": 0, "392447": 0, "392446": 0, "392441": 0, "392440": 0, "392443": 0, "392442": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "f05be2a9-f8e5-406d-a76c-c661f3be4a72"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });