Xu-Feng Zhang1,2, Yi Lv1, Matthew Weiss3, Irinel Popescu4, Hugo P Marques5, Luca Aldrighetti6, Shishir K Maithel7, Carlo Pulitano8, Todd W Bauer9, Feng Shen10, George A Poultsides11, Oliver Soubrane12, Guillaume Martel13, B Groot Koerkamp14, Endo Itaru15, Timothy M Pawlik16,17. 1. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Institute of Advanced Surgical Technology and Engineering, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China. 2. Department of Surgery, The Urban Meyer III and Shelley Meyer Chair for Cancer Research, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania. 5. Department of Surgery, Curry Cabral Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal. 6. Department of Surgery, Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 7. Department of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 8. Department of Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 9. Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. 10. Department of Surgery, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Shanghai, China. 11. Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 12. Department of Hepatobiliopancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplantation, AP-HP, Beaujon Hospital, Clichy, France. 13. Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 14. Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 15. Gastroenterological Surgery Division, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan. 16. Department of Surgery, The Urban Meyer III and Shelley Meyer Chair for Cancer Research, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. tim.pawlik@osumc.edu. 17. Department of Surgery, Oncology, Health Services Management and Policy, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. tim.pawlik@osumc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the utilization of lymphadenectomy (LND) and the incidence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) among different morphologic types of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). METHODS: Clinical data of patients undergoing curative-intent resection for ICC between 1990 and 2017 were collected and analyzed. The preoperative nodal status was evaluated by imaging studies, and the morphologic and lymph node (LN) status was collected on final pathology report. RESULTS: Overall, 1032 patients had a mass-forming (MF) or intraductal growth (IG) ICC subtype, whereas 150 patients had a periductal infiltrating (PI) or MF + PI subtype. Among the 924 patients with MF/IG ICC subtype who had nodal assessment on preoperative imaging, 747 (80.8%) were node-negative, whereas 177 (19.2%) patients were suspicious for metastatic nodal disease. On final pathological analysis, 71 of 282 (25.2%) patients who had preoperative node-negative disease ultimately had LNM. In contrast, 79 of 135 (58.5%) patients with preoperative suspicious/metastatic LNs had pathologically confirmed LNM (odds ratio [OR] 4.2, p < 0.001). Among the 129 patients with PI/MF + PI ICC subtype and preoperative nodal information, 72 (55.8%) were node-negative on preoperative imaging. In contrast, 57 (44.2%) patients had suspicious/metastatic LNs. On final pathologic examination, 45.3% (n = 24) of patients believed to be node-negative on preoperative imaging had LNM; 68.0% (n = 34) of patients who had suspicious/positive nodal disease on imaging ultimately had LNM (OR 2.6, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Given the low accuracy of preoperative imaging evaluation of nodal status, routine LND should be performed at the time of resection for both MF/IG and PI/MF + PI ICC subtypes.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the utilization of lymphadenectomy (LND) and the incidence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) among different morphologic types of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). METHODS: Clinical data of patients undergoing curative-intent resection for ICC between 1990 and 2017 were collected and analyzed. The preoperative nodal status was evaluated by imaging studies, and the morphologic and lymph node (LN) status was collected on final pathology report. RESULTS: Overall, 1032 patients had a mass-forming (MF) or intraductal growth (IG) ICC subtype, whereas 150 patients had a periductal infiltrating (PI) or MF + PI subtype. Among the 924 patients with MF/IG ICC subtype who had nodal assessment on preoperative imaging, 747 (80.8%) were node-negative, whereas 177 (19.2%) patients were suspicious for metastatic nodal disease. On final pathological analysis, 71 of 282 (25.2%) patients who had preoperative node-negative disease ultimately had LNM. In contrast, 79 of 135 (58.5%) patients with preoperative suspicious/metastatic LNs had pathologically confirmed LNM (odds ratio [OR] 4.2, p < 0.001). Among the 129 patients with PI/MF + PI ICC subtype and preoperative nodal information, 72 (55.8%) were node-negative on preoperative imaging. In contrast, 57 (44.2%) patients had suspicious/metastatic LNs. On final pathologic examination, 45.3% (n = 24) of patients believed to be node-negative on preoperative imaging had LNM; 68.0% (n = 34) of patients who had suspicious/positive nodal disease on imaging ultimately had LNM (OR 2.6, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Given the low accuracy of preoperative imaging evaluation of nodal status, routine LND should be performed at the time of resection for both MF/IG and PI/MF + PI ICC subtypes.