| Literature DB >> 28438130 |
Wei Cui1, Wenzhe Fan1, Mingjian Lu1, Yingqiang Zhang1, Wang Yao1, Jiaping Li2, Yu Wang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with unresectable malignant biliary obstruction have limited life expectancy because of limited stent patency and tumor progression. The aim of our study was to retrospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining intraductal RFA with biliary metal stent placement for patients with malignant biliary obstruction.Entities:
Keywords: Bile duct obstruction; Radiofrequency catheter ablation; Radiology, interventional; Self expandable metal stent
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28438130 PMCID: PMC5404294 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-017-3278-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Patient Characteristics
| Category | Subcategory | Number (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 50 | |
| Median age(range), yr. | 61.8(41–85) | |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 36(72) | |
| Female | 14(28) | |
| Type of tumor | ||
| Pancreatic carcinoma | 10(20) | |
| Gallbladder carcinoma | 4(8) | |
| Cholangiocarcinoma | 25(50) | |
| Hepatocelluar carcinoma | 6(12) | |
| Lymph node metastases | 5(10) | |
| Level of biliary obstruction* | ||
| Common bile or hepatic duct (type I) | 11(22) | |
| Type II | 8(16) | |
| Type III A | 10(20) | |
| Type III B | 4(8) | |
| Intrahepatic (type IV) | 17(34) | |
| Performance status score | ||
| 0 | 10(20) | |
| 1 | 20(40) | |
| 2 | 18(36) | |
| Previously cholangitis | 22(44) | |
| Distant Metastasis | 29(58) | |
| No. of interventions, mean (range) | 1.2(1–3) | |
| Subsequent chemotherapy | 7(14) | |
Note. — Unless otherwise indicated, data are number of patients and data in parentheses are percentages
*According to the Bismuth classification of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma
Outcome of procedures in two groups
| Outcome | Number (%) |
|---|---|
| Mild bleeding | 23(46) |
| Moderate bleeding | 4(8) |
| Mild pain | 18(36) |
| Moderate or severe pain | 4(8) |
| Bile infection | 16(32) |
| Acute pancreatitis | 0 |
| Recurrent obstruction | |
| Tumor ingrowth | 6(12) |
| Tumor overgrowth | 8(16) |
| Stent migration | 1(2) |
| New stricture | 3(6) |
| Unkown | 1(2) |
Fig. 1Liver function before and after RFA and stent placement. Bar chart shows the results of liver function tests before and after RFA and stent placement. Total bilirubin (TB), direct bilirubin (DB), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were obtained before, immediately after, and 1 month after RFA and stent placement. Data are means ± standard errors of the mean
Fig. 2Kaplan-Meier curve of stent patency. The calculation started on the day of the first RFA procedure and extended to the time of proven stent occlusion, stent migration, or patient death
Fig. 3Kaplan-Meier survival curve of overall survival. The calculation started on the date of the first procedure until the date of death or last follow-up
Risk of Recurrence of Biliary Obstruction in Patients with Unresectable Malignant Biliary Obstruction after Therapy
| Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable* | No. of cases | HR(95%CI) | P† | HR(95%CI) | P† |
| Age(≥62 y vs < 62 y) | 25/25 | 2.348(0.840,6.566) | 0.104 | ||
| Sex(male vs female) | 36/14 | 1.243(0.404,3.827) | 0.705 | ||
| Tumor diagnosis (Cholangiocarcinoma vs other neoplasms) | 25/25 | 1.770(0.679,4.612) | 0.243 | ||
| Type of obstruction(proximal vs distal) | 19/31 | 0.899(0.324,2.494) | 0.838 | ||
| Performance status score (2 vs ≤1) | 32/18 | 1.706(0.890,3.270) | 0.108 | ||
| Previously cholangeitis (no vs yes) | 28/22 | 3.347(1.176,9.525) | 0.024 | 3.347(1.176,9.525) | 0.024 |
| Distant Metastasis(yes vs no) | 29/21 | 1.292(0.490,3.403) | 0.605 | ||
| Chemotherapy (no vs yes) | 43/7 | 0.840(0.277,2.547) | 0.759 | ||
| TB(≥168.0 μmol/L vs <168.0 μmol/L) | 25/25 | 0.488(0.184,1.294) | 0.149 | ||
| DB(≥95.1 μmol/L vs < 95.1 μmol/L) | 25/25 | 0.485(0.183,1.287) | 0.146 | ||
| ALT (≥71 U/L vs <71 U/L) | 25/25 | 1.352(0.491,3.728) | 0.560 | ||
| AST (≥72.5 U/L vs < 72.5 U/L) | 25/25 | 0.887(0.348,2.261) | 0.801 | ||
| GGT(≥311 U/L vs < 311 U/L) | 25/25 | 0.613(0.228,1.652) | 0.334 | ||
Note—TB = total bilirubin, DB = direct bilirubin, ALT = alanine aminotransferase, AST = aspartate aminotransferase, G-GT = gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase
*For continuous variables, cutoff level chosen for continuous variables was their median value
† P values were determined with Cox proportional hazards regression models. P < 0 .05 indicated a significant difference
Risk of Death in Patients with Unresectable Malignant Biliary Obstruction after Therapy
| Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable* | No. of cases | HR(95%CI) | P† | HR(95%CI) | P† |
| Age(≥62 y vs < 62 y) | 25/25 | 0.776(0.379,1.589) | 0.488 | ||
| Sex(male vs female) | 36/14 | 0.803(0.475,1.359) | 0.414 | ||
| Tumor diagnosis (Cholangiocarcinoma vs other neoplasms) | 25/25 | 0.825(0.439,1.552) | 0.552 | ||
| Type of obstruction(proximal vs distal) | 19/31 | 0.932(0.490,1.775) | 0.825 | ||
| Performance status score (2 vs ≤1) | 32/18 | 1.706(0.890,3.270) | 0.108 | ||
| No. of interventions (1 vs ≥2) | 42/8 | 0.187(0.055,0.630) | 0.007 | 0.295(0.106,0.818) | 0.019 |
| Previously cholangeitis (no vs yes) | 28/22 | 0.794(0.405,1.555) | 0.500 | ||
| Distant Metastasis(yes vs no) | 29/21 | 0.897(0.474,1.698) | 0.739 | ||
| Chemotherapy (no vs yes) | 43/7 | 0.273(0.094,0.792) | 0.017 | 2.0.465 (0.159,1.365) | 0.164 |
| TB(≥168.0 μmol/L vs <168.0 μmol/L) | 25/25 | 1.038(0.544,1.978) | 0.911 | ||
| DB(≥95.1 μmol/L vs < 95.1 μmol/L) | 25/25 | 0.901(0.475,1.706) | 0.748 | ||
| ALT (≥71 U/L vs <71 U/L) | 25/25 | 1.495(0.791,2.825) | 0.216 | ||
| AST (≥72.5 U/L vs < 72.5 U/L) | 25/25 | 1.087(0.575,2.056) | 0.798 | ||
| GGT(≥311 U/L vs < 311 U/L) | 25/25 | 1.100(0.584,2.072) | 0.767 | ||
Note—TB = total bilirubin, DB = direct bilirubin, ALT = alanine aminotransferase, AST = aspartate aminotransferase, G-GT = gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase
*For continuous variables, cutoff level chosen for continuous variables was their median value
† P values were determined with Cox proportional hazards regression models. P < 0 .05 indicated a significant difference