Chang Moo Kang1, Kyung-Suk Suh2, Nam-Joon Yi2, Tae Ho Hong3, Sang Jae Park4, Keun Soo Ahn5, Hiroki Hayashi6, Sae Byeol Choi7, Chi-Young Jeong8, Takeshi Takahara9, Shigehiro Shiozaki10, Young Hoon Roh11, Hee Chul Yu12, Takumi Fukumoto13, Ryusei Matsuyama14, Uyama Naoki15, Kazuki Hashida16, Hyung Il Seo17, Takehiro Okabayashi18, Tomoo Kitajima19, Sohei Satoi20, Hiroaki Nagano21, Hongbeom Kim2,22, Kaoru Taira23, Shoji Kubo24, Dong Wook Choi25. 1. Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Korea. 2. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, Korea. 3. Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 06591, Korea. 4. Center for Liver Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang 10408, Korea. 5. Department of Surgery, Keimyung University Dongsan Hospital, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu 42601, Korea. 6. Department of Surgery, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai 980-8575, Japan. 7. Department of Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul 02841, Korea. 8. Department of Surgery, College of Medicine Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52727, Korea. 9. Department of Surgery, Iwate Medical University School of Medicine, Iwate 028-3694, Japan. 10. Department of Surgery, Hiroshima City Hiroshima Citizens Hospital, Hiroshima 730-8518, Japan. 11. Department of Surgery, Dong-A University College of Medicine, Busan 49201, Korea. 12. Department of Surgery, Jeonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju 54907, Korea. 13. Department of Surgery, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 657-850, Japan. 14. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama 326-0027, Japan. 15. Department of Surgery, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya 663-8501, Japan. 16. Department of General Surgery, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki 710-8602, Japan. 17. Department of Surgery, Pusan National University College of Medicine, Busan 49241, Korea. 18. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Kochi Health Sciences Center, Kochi 781-8555, Japan. 19. Department of Surgery, Nagasaki Medical Center, Nagasaki 856-0835, Japan. 20. Department of Surgery, Kansai Medical University, Osaka 573-1191, Japan. 21. Department of Gastroenterological, Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Yamaguchi University Graduate School of Medicine, Yamaguchi 753-8511, Japan. 22. Department of Surgery, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Goyang 10326, Korea. 23. Department of Surgery, Otsu Red Cross Hospital, Otsu 520-0046, Japan. 24. Department of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka City University, Osaka 558-0022, Japan. 25. Department of Surgery, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 16419, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was performed to investigate the oncologic role of lymph node (LN) management and to propose a surgical strategy for treating intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC). METHODS: The medical records of patients with resected IHCC were retrospectively reviewed from multiple institutions in Korea and Japan. Short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes were analyzed according to lymph node metastasis (LNM). A nomogram to predict LNM in treating IHCC was established to propose a surgical strategy for managing IHCC. RESULTS: A total of 1138 patients were enrolled. Of these, 413 patients underwent LN management and 725 did not. A total of 293 patients were found to have LNM. The No. 12 lymph node (36%) was the most frequent metastatic node, and the No. 8 lymph node (21%) was the second most common. LNM showed adverse long-term oncologic impact in patients with resected IHCC (14 months, 95% CI (11.4-16.6) vs. 74 months, 95% CI (57.2-90.8), p < 0.001), and the number of LNM (0, 1-3, 4≤) was also significantly related to negative oncologic impacts in patients with resected IHCC (74 months, 95% CI (57.2-90.8) vs. 19 months, 95% CI (14.4-23.6) vs. 11 months, 95% CI (8.1-13.8)), p < 0.001). Surgical retrieval of more than four (≥4) LNs could improve the survival outcome in resected IHCC with LNM (13 months, 95% CI (10.4-15.6)) vs. 30 months, 95% CI (13.1-46.9), p = 0.045). Based on preoperatively detectable parameters, a nomogram was established to predict LNM according to the tumor location. The AUC was 0.748 (95% CI: 0.706-0.788), and the Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fit test showed p = 0.4904. CONCLUSION: Case-specific surgical retrieval of more than four LNs is required in patients highly suspected to have LNM, based on a preoperative detectable parameter-based nomogram. Further prospective research is needed to validate the present surgical strategy in resected IHCC.
BACKGROUND: This study was performed to investigate the oncologic role of lymph node (LN) management and to propose a surgical strategy for treating intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC). METHODS: The medical records of patients with resected IHCC were retrospectively reviewed from multiple institutions in Korea and Japan. Short-term and long-term oncologic outcomes were analyzed according to lymph node metastasis (LNM). A nomogram to predict LNM in treating IHCC was established to propose a surgical strategy for managing IHCC. RESULTS: A total of 1138 patients were enrolled. Of these, 413 patients underwent LN management and 725 did not. A total of 293 patients were found to have LNM. The No. 12 lymph node (36%) was the most frequent metastatic node, and the No. 8 lymph node (21%) was the second most common. LNM showed adverse long-term oncologic impact in patients with resected IHCC (14 months, 95% CI (11.4-16.6) vs. 74 months, 95% CI (57.2-90.8), p < 0.001), and the number of LNM (0, 1-3, 4≤) was also significantly related to negative oncologic impacts in patients with resected IHCC (74 months, 95% CI (57.2-90.8) vs. 19 months, 95% CI (14.4-23.6) vs. 11 months, 95% CI (8.1-13.8)), p < 0.001). Surgical retrieval of more than four (≥4) LNs could improve the survival outcome in resected IHCC with LNM (13 months, 95% CI (10.4-15.6)) vs. 30 months, 95% CI (13.1-46.9), p = 0.045). Based on preoperatively detectable parameters, a nomogram was established to predict LNM according to the tumor location. The AUC was 0.748 (95% CI: 0.706-0.788), and the Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness of fit test showed p = 0.4904. CONCLUSION: Case-specific surgical retrieval of more than four LNs is required in patients highly suspected to have LNM, based on a preoperative detectable parameter-based nomogram. Further prospective research is needed to validate the present surgical strategy in resected IHCC.
Authors: X-F Zhang; J Chakedis; F Bagante; Q Chen; E W Beal; Y Lv; M Weiss; I Popescu; H P Marques; L Aldrighetti; S K Maithel; C Pulitano; T W Bauer; F Shen; G A Poultsides; O Soubrane; G Martel; B Groot Koerkamp; A Guglielmi; E Itaru; T M Pawlik Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2018-04-14 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Lola Rahib; Benjamin D Smith; Rhonda Aizenberg; Allison B Rosenzweig; Julie M Fleshman; Lynn M Matrisian Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: John Bridgewater; Peter R Galle; Shahid A Khan; Josep M Llovet; Joong-Won Park; Tushar Patel; Timothy M Pawlik; Gregory J Gores Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Vincent J Picozzi; Stephen Y Oh; Alicia Edwards; Margaret T Mandelson; Russell Dorer; Flavio G Rocha; Adnan Alseidi; Thomas Biehl; L William Traverso; William S Helton; Richard A Kozarek Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 5.344