| Literature DB >> 23921971 |
Geng Zhimin1, Hidayatullah Noor, Zheng Jian-Bo, Wang Lin, Rajiv Kumar Jha.
Abstract
Hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HC) is a rare tumor that causes devastating disease. In the late stages, this carcinoma primarily invades the portal vein and metastasizes to the hepatic lobes; it is associated with a poor prognosis. HC is diagnosed by its clinical manifestation and results of imaging techniques such as ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography. Preoperative hepatic bile drainage can improve symptoms associated with insufficient liver and kidney function, coagulopathy, and jaundice. Surgical margin-negative (R0) resection, including major liver resection, is the most effective and potentially curative treatment for HC. If the tumor is not resected, then liver transplantation with adjuvant management can improve survival. We conducted a systematic review of developments in imaging studies and major surgical hepatectomy for HC with positive outcomes regarding quality of life.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23921971 PMCID: PMC3739601 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.889379
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Bismuth-Corlette Classification System [26].
| Bismuth-Corlette Classification for hilar cholangiocarcinoma | |
|---|---|
| Type I | Below the confluence |
| Type II | Confined to the confluence |
| Type IIIa | Extension into the right hepatic duct |
| Type IIIb | Extension into the left hepatic duct |
| Type IV | Extension into the right and left hepatic duct and multifocal bile duct tumor |
TNM Classification of extrahepatic bile duct tumors according to the AJCC/UICC 7th edition.
| Primary tumor (T) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| TX | The primary tumor cannot be assessed | ||
| T0 | No evidence of a primary tumor | ||
| Tis | Carcinoma | ||
| T1 | The tumor is confined to the bile duct histologically | ||
| T2a | The tumor invades the surrounding adipose tissue beyond the wall of the bile duct | ||
| T2b | The tumor invades the adjacent hepatic parenchyma | ||
| T3 | The tumor invades unilateral branches of the portal vein or hepatic artery | ||
| T4 | The tumor invades the main portal vein or its branches bilaterally, the common hepatic artery, the second-order biliary radicals bilaterally, or the unilateral second-order biliary radicals with contralateral portal vein or hepatic vein involvement | ||
| NX | Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed | ||
| N0 | No regional lymph node metastasis | ||
| N1 | Regional lymph node metastasis (cystic duct, common bile duct, hepatic artery, and portal vein) | ||
| N2 | Metastasis to periaortic, pericaval, superior mesentery artery, and/or celiac artery nodes | ||
| M0 | No distant metastasis | ||
| M1 | Distant metastasis | ||
| Stage 0 | Tis | N0 | M0 |
| Stage I | T1 | N0 | M0 |
| Stage II | T2a–T2b | N0 | M0 |
| Stage IIIA | T3 | N0 | M0 |
| Stage IIIB | T1–T3 | N1 | M0 |
| Stage IVB | Any T | N2 | M0 |
| Any T | Any N | M1 | |
Tumor staging according to the MSKCC Classification [28].
| Tumor stage (T) | Description |
|---|---|
| T1 | The tumor involves the biliary confluence with unilateral involvement up to secondary biliary radicles. There is no portal vein involvement or liver atrophy |
| T2 | The tumor involves the biliary confluence with unilateral involvement up to secondary biliary radicles. There is ipsilateral portal vein involvement or ipsilateral hepatic lobar atrophy |
| T3 | The tumor involves the biliary confluence with bilateral involvement up to secondary biliary radicles, unilateral extension to secondary biliary radicles with contralateral portal vein involvement, unilateral involvement up to secondary radicles with contralateral hepatic lobar atrophy, or main / bilateral portal vein involvement |
Selected summary of patients who underwent curative resection and major liver resection.
| Authors’ names | Published year | Resections | Resectability (%) | Negative margin (%) | Liver resection (%) | Morbidity (%) | Mortality (%) | 5 years survival rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nimura et al. | 1990 | 55 | 83 | 84 | 98 | 41 | 6 | 41 |
| Nakeeb et al. | 1996 | 109 | 56 | 26 | 14 | 47 | 4 | 11 |
| Miyazaki et al. | 1998 | 76 | Not available | 71 | 86 | 33 | 13 | 26 |
| Neuhaus et al. | 1999 | 80 | Not available | 61 | 85 | 55 | 8 | 22 |
| Kosuge et al. | 1999 | 65 | 72 | 52 | 80 | 37 | 9 | 33 |
| Nimura | 2000 | 142 | 80 | 61 | 90 | 49 | 9 | 26 |
| Jarnagin et al. | 2001 | 80 | 50 | 78 | 78 | 64 | 10 | 26 |
| Kawarada et al. | 2002 | 65 | 89 | 64 | 75 | 28 | 2.3 | 26 |
| Capussotti et al. | 2002 | 36 | Not available | 89 | 89 | 47.2 | 2.8 | 27.2 |
| Kawasaki et al. | 2003 | 79 | 75 | 68 | 87 | 14 | 1.3 | 22 |
| Ijitsma et al. | 2004 | 42 | Not available | 65 | 100 | 76 | 12 | 19 |
| Hemming et al. | 2005 | 53 | 50 | 80 | 98 | 40 | 9 | 35 |
| Dinant et al. | 2006 | 99 | Not available | 31 | 38 | 66 | 15 | 27 |
| Baton et al. | 2007 | 59 | 72 | 46 | 100 | 42 | 5 | 20 |
| Konstadoulakis et al. | 2008 | 59 | 81 | 68.6 | 86.4 | 25.5 | 6.8 | 34.9 |
| Ito et al. | 2008 | 38 | 55 | 63 | 53 | 32 | 0 | 33 |
| Igami et al. | 2010 | 298 | 70 | 74 | 98 | 43 | 2 | 42 |
| Nagino et al. | 2012 | 574 | 76.1 | 76.5 | 96.7 | 57.3 | 4.7 | 32.5 |