22 March 2014: Clinical Research
When hepatic-side ductal margin is positive in N+ cases, additional resection of the bile duct is not necessary to render the negative hepatic-side ductal margin during surgery for extrahepatic distal bile duct carcinoma
Yukihiro Iso ABCDEFG , Junji Kita E , Masato Kato E , Mitsugi Shimoda E , Keiichi Kubota ACDEG
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.889714
Med Sci Monit 2014; 20:471-475
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current standard treatment for extrahepatic distal bile duct carcinoma (EDBDC) is surgical resection, as no effective alternative treatment exists. In this study, we investigated the treatment strategies and outcomes for 90 cases of EDBDC at our department.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between April 2000 and March 2013, 90 pancreatoduodenectomies (PDs) were performed for EDBDC. The mean patient age was 69.1±9.8 years, and there were 59 males and 31 females. Extended lymph adenectomy including lymph nodes around the common hepatic artery and celiac axis was performed in all patients. The mean operation time was 537.1±153.8 min and the mean operative blood loss was 814.0±494.0 ml. There were no operation-related deaths. The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 90.0%, 51.2%, and 45.0%, respectively.
RESULTS: Lymph node metastasis was present in 28 patients (N+; 31.1%), and it was absent in 62 (N–; 68.9%). The 5-year survival rate was 20.0% for N+ patients and 52.4% for N– patients, which is significantly higher (P=0.03). Nine cases (10.0%) showed hepatic-side ductal margin (HM) positivity for carcinoma. The 5-year survival rate was 18.7% for HM-positive patients and 48.3% for HM-negative patients, which is significantly higher (P=0.005). In multivariate analysis, N+ was the strongest adverse prognostic factor. Subclass analysis of 62 cases (excluding 28 N+ cases) revealed 7 patients with positive HMs (11.3%) and 55 patients with negative HMs (88.7%). The 5-year survival rate was 47.6% for HM-positive patients and 49.8% for HM-negative patients (P=0.73). Thirty-five cases (38.9%) recurred: there were 19 cases of local recurrence (21.1%), 11 cases of liver metastasis (12.2%), 4 cases of distant recurrence (4.4%), and 1 case of para-aortic lymph node metastasis (1.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, when HM is positive in N+ cases, additional resection of the bile duct is not necessary to render the HM negative for carcinoma.
Keywords: Bile Ducts, Extrahepatic - surgery, Bile Duct Neoplasms - surgery, Logistic Models, Lymphatic Metastasis - pathology, Multivariate Analysis, Survival Rate
Background
The current standard treatment for extrahepatic distal bile duct carcinoma (EDBDC) is surgical resection, as no effective alternative treatment exists [1]. Pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) has been established as a standard procedure, and PD with hepatectomy (HPD) is the extended procedure in cases of invasion to major blood vessels, nerves or lymphatics, or extensive progression along the long axis of the bile duct [2]. Given the surgical stress and radicality of these treatments, EDBDC is often characterized by difficulty in determining the rational extent of resection.
We reviewed our experiences of standard PD with extended lymph node dissection (D2) [3] for EDBDC and assessed the available treatment strategies.
Material and Methods
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:
Prognostic analysis was performed using the data from 90 patients. The clinicopathologic factors analyzed included age, sex, preoperative biliary drainage, the operative procedure, intraoperative blood loss, histopathologic grading (G category in the TNM classification of malignant neoplasms) [5], depth of neoplastic invasion into the bile duct wall (T category), status of lymph node involvement (N category), TNM staging, and HM status. Based on the results of univariate analysis, multivariate analysis was performed. Each parameter was evaluated using chi-squared test, Fisher’s exact test, or Student’s t-test for parametric analysis, and Mann-Whitney U-test for nonparametric analysis. Differences at P<0.05 were considered significant.
Results
Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. Mean age was 69.1±9.8 years. There were 59 males (65.6%) and 31 females (34.4%). Preoperative biliary drainage was performed in 78 cases (86.7%). Eleven patients underwent HPD because of hepatic hilar invasion and 5 underwent PDPVR due to portal vein invasion. The remaining 74 patients underwent only PD. The mean operation time was 537.1±153.8 min and the mean operative blood loss was 814.0±494.0 ml. There were no operation-related deaths. Pathological examination revealed that there were 5 cases of stage I, 30 cases of stage II, 36 cases of stage III, and 19 cases of stage IV. The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 90.0%, 51.2%, and 45.0%, respectively (Figure 1). The 5-year survival rates for patients at stages I, II, III, and IV were 75.0%, 67.2%, 39.7%, and 18.5%, respectively (
There were 28 patients with lymph node positivity (N+; 31.1%), including 18 who were N1+ only and 10 who were N2+; 62 patients were negative for lymph node metastasis (N−) [3]. The 5-year survival rate was 20.0% for N+ patients and, 52.4% for N− patients, which was significantly higher (
Nine cases (10.0%) showed hepatic-side ductal margin (HM) positivity for carcinoma. The 5-year survival rate was 18.7% for HM-positive patients and 48.3% for HM-negative patients, which was significantly higher (P=0.005
In multivariate analysis, N+ was the strongest adverse prognostic factor (Table 2).
Subclass analysis of 62 cases (excluding 28 N+ cases) revealed 7 patients with positive HMs (11.3%) and 55 patients with negative HMs (88.7%). The 5-year survival rate was 47.6% for HM-positive patients and 49.8% for HM-negative patients (
Thirty-five cases (38.9%) recurred; there were 19 cases of local recurrence (21.1%), 11 cases of the liver metastasis (12.2%), 4 cases of distant recurrence (4.4%), and 1 case of the para-aortic lymph node metastasis (1.1%).
Discussion
The prognosis of EDBDC is poor, even when curative resection is performed [6]. The reported 5-year survival of patients with EDBDC ranges from 18% to 47% [7–10]. These low survival rates are due mainly to invasion of veins, lymph nodes, or nerve tissue at the time of resection [11]. According to the classification of biliary tract carcinoma [3], any case showing invasion at the excisional margin, HM, or distal ductal margin is defined as non-curative resection, and is thought to have a poor prognosis. However, previous reports have indicated no significant difference in prognosis between curative and non-curative resection [12], which is consistent with our present results. Here, we focused especially on carcinoma with HM positivity and N+, and investigated the significance of these factors.
In EDBDC, which is characterized by local progression rather than distant metastasis, curative resection is the most important prognostic factor. However, HM positivity is the most frequently observed non-curative factor after resection [13–15]. In cases in which rapid intraoperative histopathological diagnosis reveals HM positivity, we perform additional resection of the first branch of the intrahepatic bile duct. Some previous reports have concluded that HM positivity affects prognosis [16,17], while others have concluded otherwise [18–20], and the reasons for this difference is not well understood.
Several studies have reported that N+ is a strong adverse prognostic factor [21–24]. Our multivariate analysis also found that N+ was the strongest adverse prognostic factor, and our series included only 1 N+ patient who survived longer than 5 years. However, the 62 N− cases in the present study did not reveal HM positivity as a significant adverse prognostic factor. Given the strong influence of N+, HM positivity alone did not influence the outcome of any of the 90 resected cases.
In cases that are HM-positive, recent studies have reported significantly better prognoses for HM-m positivity than for HM-f positivity. In addition, the prognosis of HM-m-positive patients is similar to that for N− patients. Many reports have suggested that HM-m positivity should be differentiated from HM-f positivity [17,19,25–27].
If the intraoperative rapid histopathological diagnosis is HM-positive, additional resection is performed as soon as possible. However, in a number of cases, EDBDC shows more extensive horizontal invasion, especially to the side of the liver. As demonstrated by our present results, when N+ is clearly identified intraoperatively, any attempt to clear the HM of carcinoma is excessively risky and unnecessary. In contrast, when N+ status is unclear, additional resection to achieve at least HM-m positivity, if not HM-f positivity, can be useful [28].
Conclusions
In conclusion, when HM is positive in N+ cases, additional resection of the bile duct is not necessary to render the HM negative for carcinoma.
References
1. Kondo S, Hirano S, Ambo Y, Forty consecutive resections of hilar cholangiocarcinoma with no postoperative mortality and no positive ductal margins: result of a prospective study: Ann Surg, 2004; 240; 95-101, pmid: 15213624
2. Allen PJ, Reiner AS, Gonen M, Extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a comparison of patients with resected proximal and distal lesions: HPB, 2008; 10; 341-46, pmid: 18982150
3. : General rules for surgical and pathological studies on cancer of the biliary tract 9, 2003, Japanese Society of Biliary Surgery (JSBS)
4. Kubota K, Makuuchi M, Takayama T, Appraisal of two-staged pancreatoduodenectomy: its technical aspects and outcome: Heptogastroenterology, 2000; 47(31); 269-74
5. Sobin L, Gospodarowicz M, Wittekind CInternational Union Against Cancer (UICC): TNM Classification of malignant tumours, 2009, New York, Wiley-Liss
6. Yoshida T, Matsumoto T, Sasaki A, Prognostic factors after pancreatoduodenectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for distal bile duct cancer: Arch Surg, 2002; 137; 69-73, pmid: 11772220
7. Hong SM, Pawlik TM, Cho H, Depth of tumor invasion better predicts prognosis than the current American Joint Committee on Cancer T classification for distal bile duct carcinoma: Surgery, 2009; 146; 250-57, pmid: 19628081
8. Ebata T, Nagino M, Nishio H, Pancreatic and duodenal invasion in distal bile duct cancer: paradox in the tumor classification of the American Joint Committee on Cancer: World J Surg, 2007; 31; 2008-15, pmid: 17661132
9. DeOliveria ML, Cunningham SC, Cameron JL, Cholangiocarcinoma: thirty-one-year experience with 564 patients at a single institution: Ann Surg, 2007; 245; 755-62, pmid: 17457168
10. Park SW, Park YS, Chung JB, Patterns and relevant factors of tumor recurrence for extrahepatic bile duct carcinoma after radical resection: Hepatogastroenterology, 2004; 51; 1612-18, pmid: 15532789
11. Cheng Q, Luo X, Zhang B, Distal bile duct carcinoma: prognostic factors after curative surgery. A series of 112 cases: Ann Surg Oncol, 2007; 14; 1212-19, pmid: 17176983
12. Todoroki T, Kawamoto T, Koike N, Treatment strategy for patients with middle and lower third bile duct cancer: Br J Surg, 2001; 88; 364-70, pmid: 11260100
13. Miyazaki M, Kato A, Ito H, Combined vascular resection in operative resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: does it work or not?: Surgery, 2007; 141; 581-88, pmid: 17462457
14. Sano T, Shimada K, Sakamoto Y, Progression of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: hilar bile duct cancer versus intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma involving the hepatic hilus: Ann Surg Oncol, 2008; 15; 590-99, pmid: 18057991
15. Nakajima M, Otsuka M, Kimura H, Frozen section diagnosis of the bile duct margin in bile duct cancer: Tan to Sui, 2010; 31; 837-41 [in Japanese]
16. Murakami Y, Uemura K, Hayashidani Y, Prognostic significance of lymph node metastasis and surgical margin status for distal cholangiocarcinoma: J Surg Oncol, 2007; 95; 207-12, pmid: 17278119
17. Sasaki R, Takeda Y, Funato O, Significance of ductal margin status in patients undergoing surgical resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: World J Surg, 2007; 31; 1788-96, pmid: 17647056
18. Hernandez J, Cowgill SM, Al-Saadi S, An aggressive approach to extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas is warranted: margin status does not impact survival after resection: Ann Surg Oncol, 2008; 15; 807-14, pmid: 18181000
19. Wakai T, Shirai Y, Moroda T, Impact of ductal resection margin status on long-term survival in patients undergoing resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Cancer, 2005; 103; 1210-16, pmid: 15685618
20. Sakamoto Y, Kosuge T, Shimada K, Prognostic factors of surgical resection in middle and distal bile duct cancer. An analysis of 55 patients concerning the significance of ductal and radial margins: Surgery, 2005; 137; 396-402, pmid: 15800484
21. Otani K, Chijiiwa K, Kai M, Outcome of surgical treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: J Gastrointest Surg, 2008; 12; 1033-40, pmid: 18085342
22. Pichlmayr R, Weimann A, Klempnauer J, Surgical treatment in proximal bile duct cancer. A single-center experience: Ann Surg, 1996; 224; 628-38, pmid: 8916878
23. Nagakawa T, Kayahara M, Ikeda S, Biliary tract cancer treatment: results from the biliary tract cancer statistics registry in Japan: J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg, 2002; 9; 569-75, pmid: 12541042
24. Otani K, Chijiiwa K, Kai M, Significance of ductal margin status as a prognostic factor in patients undergoing surgical resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Journal of Japan Biliary Association, 2009; 23; 749-55 [in Japanese with English abstract]
25. Igami T, Nagino M, Oda K, Clinicopathologic study of cholangiocarcinoma with superficial spread: Ann Surg, 2009; 249; 296-302, pmid: 19212185
26. Nakanishi Y, Kondo S, Zen Y: J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci, 2010; 17; 166-73, pmid: 19521656
27. Higuchi R, Ota T, Araida T, Prognostic relevance of ductal margins in operative resection of bile duct cancer: Surgery, 2010; 148; 7-14, pmid: 20116818
28. Sakamoto E, Nimura Y, Hayakawa N, The pattern of infiltration at the proximal boarder of hilar bile duct carcinoma: a histologic analysis of 62 resected cases: Ann Surg, 1998; 227; 405-11, pmid: 9527064
In Press
Clinical Research
Institutional and Regional Variations in Access to Clinical Trials and Next-Generation Sequencing in Turkis...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.951027
Clinical Research
Low-Intensity Blood Flow-Restricted Multi-Joint Exercise Improves Muscle Function in Patients With Patellof...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.950516
Review article
Musculoskeletal Ultrasound and MRI in the Evaluation of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A ReviewMed Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.951283
Clinical Research
Sensory Processing, Dissociation, and Affective Symptoms in Misophonia: A Cross-Sectional Study of 35 AdultsMed Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.950938
Most Viewed Current Articles
17 Jan 2024 : Review article 10,187,196
Vaccination Guidelines for Pregnant Women: Addressing COVID-19 and the Omicron VariantDOI :10.12659/MSM.942799
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e942799
13 Nov 2021 : Clinical Research 3,708,487
Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination and Its Associated Factors Among Cancer Patients Attending the Oncology ...DOI :10.12659/MSM.932788
Med Sci Monit 2021; 27:e932788
14 Dec 2022 : Clinical Research 2,341,643
Prevalence and Variability of Allergen-Specific Immunoglobulin E in Patients with Elevated Tryptase LevelsDOI :10.12659/MSM.937990
Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e937990
16 May 2023 : Clinical Research 706,524
Electrophysiological Testing for an Auditory Processing Disorder and Reading Performance in 54 School Stude...DOI :10.12659/MSM.940387
Med Sci Monit 2023; 29:e940387