PURPOSE: Disease-specific survival (DSS) for proximal bile duct cancer has been reported to be worse than for carcinoma of the distal duct. METHODS: Review of two prospectively maintained databases identified 204 patients who underwent resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (proximal: n=106, 52%; distal: n=98, 48%) between December 1987 and December 2005. Patient, tumor, and treatment-related variables were reviewed. Analyses were performed to compare tumor presentation, treatment, and DSS between patients with resected proximal and distal lesions. RESULTS: Median follow-up for the 204 resected patients was 24 months (range 1-165 months) and 56 months for those alive at last follow-up. Combined liver/bile duct resection was performed in 82% of patients with proximal lesions, and pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed in 92% of patients with distal lesions. Patients experienced similar postoperative length of stay (median: proximal, 13 days vs. distal, 13 days; p=0.64) and operative mortality (30-day: proximal, 4% vs. distal, 3%; p=1.0, Fishers). Margin positive rates were similar (proximal, 23% vs. distal, 15%; p=0.20). Estimated five-year DSS for all patients was 35%. Tumor location (proximal vs. distal) was not associated with five-year estimated DSS (proximal, 29% vs. distal, 43%; p=0.44). Factors associated with five-year DSS included stage at presentation (node negative, 42% vs. node positive, 22%; p=<0.001), differentiation (papillary, 53% vs. non-papillary, 27%; p=0.01), and margin status (margin negative 42% vs. margin positive 27%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that patients with resected proximal and distal cholangiocarcinoma will experience similar operative outcomes and DSS.
PURPOSE: Disease-specific survival (DSS) for proximal bile duct cancer has been reported to be worse than for carcinoma of the distal duct. METHODS: Review of two prospectively maintained databases identified 204 patients who underwent resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (proximal: n=106, 52%; distal: n=98, 48%) between December 1987 and December 2005. Patient, tumor, and treatment-related variables were reviewed. Analyses were performed to compare tumor presentation, treatment, and DSS between patients with resected proximal and distal lesions. RESULTS: Median follow-up for the 204 resected patients was 24 months (range 1-165 months) and 56 months for those alive at last follow-up. Combined liver/bile duct resection was performed in 82% of patients with proximal lesions, and pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed in 92% of patients with distal lesions. Patients experienced similar postoperative length of stay (median: proximal, 13 days vs. distal, 13 days; p=0.64) and operative mortality (30-day: proximal, 4% vs. distal, 3%; p=1.0, Fishers). Margin positive rates were similar (proximal, 23% vs. distal, 15%; p=0.20). Estimated five-year DSS for all patients was 35%. Tumor location (proximal vs. distal) was not associated with five-year estimated DSS (proximal, 29% vs. distal, 43%; p=0.44). Factors associated with five-year DSS included stage at presentation (node negative, 42% vs. node positive, 22%; p=<0.001), differentiation (papillary, 53% vs. non-papillary, 27%; p=0.01), and margin status (margin negative 42% vs. margin positive 27%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that patients with resected proximal and distal cholangiocarcinoma will experience similar operative outcomes and DSS.
Entities:
Keywords:
bile ducts; cholangiocarcinoma; survival
Authors: William R Jarnagin; David S Klimstra; Michael Hezel; Mithat Gonen; Yuman Fong; Kevin Roggin; Karina Cymes; Ronald P DeMatteo; Michael D'Angelica; Leslie H Blumgart; Bhuvanesh Singh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: William R Jarnagin; Wilbur Bowne; David S Klimstra; Leah Ben-Porat; Kevin Roggin; Karina Cymes; Yuman Fong; Ronald P DeMatteo; Michael D'Angelica; Jonathan Koea; Leslie H Blumgart Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: A Nakeeb; H A Pitt; T A Sohn; J Coleman; R A Abrams; S Piantadosi; R H Hruban; K D Lillemoe; C J Yeo; J L Cameron Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jonathan Hernandez; Sarah M Cowgill; Sam Al-Saadi; Desiree Villadolid; Sharona Ross; Emily Kraemer; Mark Shapiro; John Mullinax; Jennifer Cooper; Steven Goldin; Emmanuel Zervos; Alexander Rosemurgy Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-01-08 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Dwight E Heron; David E Stein; David J Eschelman; Allan K Topham; Frank M Waterman; Ernest L Rosato; Mark Alden; Pramila Rani Anne Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Sameer H Patel; David A Kooby; Charles A Staley; Juan M Sarmiento; Shishir K Maithel Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Vikram Deshpande; Ioannis T Konstantinidis; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; Aram F Hezel; Kevin M Haigis; David T Ting; Nabeel Bardeesy; Lipika Goyal; Andrew X Zhu; Andrew L Warshaw; Keith D Lillemoe; Cristina R Ferrone Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: T Peter Kingham; Victoria G Aveson; Alice C Wei; Jason A Castellanos; Peter J Allen; Daniel P Nussbaum; Yinin Hu; Michael I D'Angelica Journal: Curr Probl Surg Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 1.909