Roongruedee Chaiteerakij1, William S Harmsen2, Carlos Romero Marrero3, Mohammed M Aboelsoud3, Albert Ndzengue3, Joseph Kaiya3, Terry M Therneau2, William Sanchez3, Gregory J Gores3, Lewis R Roberts3. 1. 1] Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, Minnesota, USA [2] Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand. 2. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Current staging systems for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) are inadequate, as they are based on surgical pathology and therefore not relevant to unresectable patients. Clinical trials for potential targeted therapies for pCCA are hampered by the lack of an accurate, nonoperative staging system for predicting survival. We aimed at developing a clinical staging system for pCCA, which would be of prognostic relevance for all pCCA patients and help stratify patients for clinical trials. METHODS: Clinical information at the time of pCCA diagnosis of 413 patients seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN between 2002 and 2010 was retrospectively analyzed. A survival predictive model was developed using Cox proportional hazards analysis. The performance of the staging system was compared with the current AJCC/UICC (the American Joint Committee on Cancer/the Union for International Cancer Control) 7th tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system. RESULTS: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, tumor size and number, vascular encasement, lymph node and peritoneal metastasis and CA 19-9 level were grouped into a four-tier staging system. The median survivals of stages I, II, III, and IV patients were 48.6, 21.8, 8.6, and 2.8 months, with hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of 1.0 (reference), 1.7 (1.1-2.6), 3.1 (2.0-4.7), and 8.7 (5.2-14.5), respectively (P<0.0001). This staging system had greater concordance statistics (standard error) than the TNM staging system (0.725 (0.018) vs. 0.614 (0.017)), indicating better performance in predicting survival. CONCLUSIONS: This staging system, based on nonoperative information at the time of pCCA diagnosis, has excellent discriminatory power to classify patients into four prognostic stages. It could be useful to clinicians and for the design of clinical trials.
OBJECTIVES: Current staging systems for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) are inadequate, as they are based on surgical pathology and therefore not relevant to unresectable patients. Clinical trials for potential targeted therapies for pCCA are hampered by the lack of an accurate, nonoperative staging system for predicting survival. We aimed at developing a clinical staging system for pCCA, which would be of prognostic relevance for all pCCA patients and help stratify patients for clinical trials. METHODS: Clinical information at the time of pCCA diagnosis of 413 patients seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN between 2002 and 2010 was retrospectively analyzed. A survival predictive model was developed using Cox proportional hazards analysis. The performance of the staging system was compared with the current AJCC/UICC (the American Joint Committee on Cancer/the Union for International Cancer Control) 7th tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system. RESULTS: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, tumor size and number, vascular encasement, lymph node and peritoneal metastasis and CA 19-9 level were grouped into a four-tier staging system. The median survivals of stages I, II, III, and IV patients were 48.6, 21.8, 8.6, and 2.8 months, with hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of 1.0 (reference), 1.7 (1.1-2.6), 3.1 (2.0-4.7), and 8.7 (5.2-14.5), respectively (P<0.0001). This staging system had greater concordance statistics (standard error) than the TNM staging system (0.725 (0.018) vs. 0.614 (0.017)), indicating better performance in predicting survival. CONCLUSIONS: This staging system, based on nonoperative information at the time of pCCA diagnosis, has excellent discriminatory power to classify patients into four prognostic stages. It could be useful to clinicians and for the design of clinical trials.
Authors: W R Jarnagin; Y Fong; R P DeMatteo; M Gonen; E C Burke; J Bodniewicz BS; M Youssef BA; D Klimstra; L H Blumgart Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Julie K Heimbach; Michael G Haddock; Steven R Alberts; Scott L Nyberg; Michael B Ishitani; Charles B Rosen; Gregory J Gores Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Benjamin R Kipp; Linda M Stadheim; Shari A Halling; Nicole L Pochron; Scott Harmsen; David M Nagorney; Thomas J Sebo; Terry M Therneau; Gregory J Gores; Piet C de Groen; Todd H Baron; Michael J Levy; Kevin C Halling; Lewis R Roberts Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Laura E Moreno Luna; Benjamin Kipp; Kevin C Halling; Thomas J Sebo; Walter K Kremers; Lewis R Roberts; Emily G Barr Fritcher; Michael J Levy; Gregory J Gores Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-08-16 Impact factor: 22.682
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: Julie K Heimbach; Gregory J Gores; Michael G Haddock; Steven R Alberts; Rachel Pedersen; Walter Kremers; Scott L Nyberg; Michael B Ishitani; Charles B Rosen Journal: Transplantation Date: 2006-12-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Emmanuel E Zervos; Dana Osborne; Steven B Goldin; Desiree V Villadolid; Donald P Thometz; Alan Durkin; Larry C Carey; Alexander S Rosemurgy Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: John R Bergquist; Tommy Ivanics; Curtis B Storlie; Ryan T Groeschl; May C Tee; Elizabeth B Habermann; Rory L Smoot; Michael L Kendrick; Michael B Farnell; Lewis R Roberts; Gregory J Gores; David M Nagorney; Mark J Truty Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-07-20 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Jesus M Banales; Jose J G Marin; Angela Lamarca; Pedro M Rodrigues; Shahid A Khan; Lewis R Roberts; Vincenzo Cardinale; Guido Carpino; Jesper B Andersen; Chiara Braconi; Diego F Calvisi; Maria J Perugorria; Luca Fabris; Luke Boulter; Rocio I R Macias; Eugenio Gaudio; Domenico Alvaro; Sergio A Gradilone; Mario Strazzabosco; Marco Marzioni; Cédric Coulouarn; Laura Fouassier; Chiara Raggi; Pietro Invernizzi; Joachim C Mertens; Anja Moncsek; Sumera Rizvi; Julie Heimbach; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Jordi Bruix; Alejandro Forner; John Bridgewater; Juan W Valle; Gregory J Gores Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Jimme K Wiggers; Bas Groot Koerkamp; David van Klaveren; Robert J Coelen; C Yung Nio; Peter J Allen; Marc G Besselink; Olivier R Busch; Michael I D'Angelica; Ronald P DeMatteo; T Peter Kingham; Thomas M van Gulik; William R Jarnagin Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Ju Dong Yang; Michael B Campion; Minetta C Liu; Roongruedee Chaiteerakij; Nasra H Giama; Hager Ahmed Mohammed; Xiaodan Zhang; Chunling Hu; Victoria L Campion; Jin Jen; Sudhakar K Venkatesh; Kevin C Halling; Benjamin R Kipp; Lewis R Roberts Journal: Hepatology Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Stefan Buettner; Jeroen L A van Vugt; Marcia P Gaspersz; Robert J S Coelen; Eva Roos; Tim A Labeur; Georgios A Margonis; Cecilia G Ethun; Shishir K Maithel; George Poultsides; Thuy Tran; Kamran Idrees; Chelsea A Isom; Ryan C Fields; Bradley A Krasnick; Sharon M Weber; Ahmed Salem; Robert C G Martin; Charles R Scoggins; Perry Shen; Harveshp D Mogal; Carl Schmidt; Eliza Beal; Ioannis Hatzaras; Rivfka Shenoy; Jan N M IJzermans; Thomas M van Gulik; Timothy M Pawlik; Bas Groot Koerkamp Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2017-05-23 Impact factor: 3.647