Junjie Kong1,2, Yukun Cao1,2, Jiawei Chai3, Xihan Liu4, Cunhu Lin5, Jianping Wang1,2, Jun Liu1,2. 1. Department of Liver Transplantation and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China. 2. Department of Liver Transplantation and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China. 3. Department of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, Shandong Maternity and Child Care Hospital, Jinan, China. 4. Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China. 5. Department of Pathology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between tumor size and survival in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is still controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic ability of tumor size for solitary ICC after resection and explore optimal cut-off values in different subgroups. METHODS: Patients with solitary ICC who underwent liver resection from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program and Shandong Provincial Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis were used to assess the prognostic ability of tumor size. The log-rank test was used to determine the optimal cut-off values, and a minimum P was regarded as the optimal one in different subgroups. RESULTS: Large tumor size groups had worse overall survival (OS) than small tumor size groups. Cox regression analysis suggested that tumor size was an independent prognostic factor for OS for solitary ICC after resection. Subgroup analysis showed tumor size was associated with OS for both solitary ICC with and without vascular invasion (VI). Furthermore, the optimal cut-off values for solitary ICC with and without VI were found to be 8 and 3 cm, respectively, which could divide the patients into two groups with significant differences in OS. CONCLUSION: Tumor size was an independent prognostic factor for solitary ICC after resection. The existing American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system could be improved if the cut-off value of the T1 stage was changed to 8 cm and if the T2 stage incorporated a tumor size with a cut-off value of 3 cm. Further studies with more cases are needed to validate these findings.
BACKGROUND: The relationship between tumor size and survival in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is still controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic ability of tumor size for solitary ICC after resection and explore optimal cut-off values in different subgroups. METHODS: Patients with solitary ICC who underwent liver resection from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program and Shandong Provincial Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis were used to assess the prognostic ability of tumor size. The log-rank test was used to determine the optimal cut-off values, and a minimum P was regarded as the optimal one in different subgroups. RESULTS: Large tumor size groups had worse overall survival (OS) than small tumor size groups. Cox regression analysis suggested that tumor size was an independent prognostic factor for OS for solitary ICC after resection. Subgroup analysis showed tumor size was associated with OS for both solitary ICC with and without vascular invasion (VI). Furthermore, the optimal cut-off values for solitary ICC with and without VI were found to be 8 and 3 cm, respectively, which could divide the patients into two groups with significant differences in OS. CONCLUSION: Tumor size was an independent prognostic factor for solitary ICC after resection. The existing American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system could be improved if the cut-off value of the T1 stage was changed to 8 cm and if the T2 stage incorporated a tumor size with a cut-off value of 3 cm. Further studies with more cases are needed to validate these findings.
Authors: Brian C Gulack; Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang; Paul J Speicher; James M Meza; Lin Gu; Xiaofei Wang; Thomas A D'Amico; Matthew G Hartwig; Mark F Berry Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Hari Nathan; Thomas A Aloia; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Eddie K Abdalla; Andrew X Zhu; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-11-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Bimal Bhindi; R Houston Thompson; Christine M Lohse; Ross J Mason; Igor Frank; Brian A Costello; Aaron M Potretzke; Robert P Hartman; Theodora A Potretzke; Stephen A Boorjian; John C Cheville; Bradley C Leibovich Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 20.096