Yutaro Matsunaga1, Ryota Higuchi2, Takehisa Yazawa1, Shuichiro Uemura1, Wataru Izumo1, Takehiro Ota1, Toru Furukawa3, Masakazu Yamamoto1. 1. Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, 8-1 Kawada-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8666, Japan. 2. Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, 8-1 Kawada-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8666, Japan. higuchi.ryota@twmu.ac.jp. 3. Department of Investigative Pathology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1 Seiryomachi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8575, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of different types of preoperative biliary drainage for cholangiocarcinoma has been debated over the past two decades. Controversy concerning the use of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) versus endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) still exists. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes between PTBD and EBD in patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: Data of patients diagnosed with distal cholangiocarcinoma who underwent preoperative PTBD or EBD from January 1999 to December 2017 were analyzed retrospectively. Post-surgical outcomes, including the incidence of post-operative complications, peritoneal metastasis, disease-free survival, and overall survival, were analyzed. Survival analyses were also performed after propensity score matching in the PTBD and EBD groups. RESULTS: The incidence of post-operative complications was similar in both groups. The 5-year estimated cumulative incidences for peritoneal metastasis were 14.7% and 7.2% in the PTBD and EBD groups, respectively (p = 0.192). The 5-year disease-free survival rates were 23.7% and 47.3% in the PTBD and EBD groups, respectively (p = 0.015). In the multi-variate analysis for overall survival, PTBD was an independent poor prognostic factor. The 5-year overall survival rates were 35.9% and 56.3% in the PTBD and EBD groups, respectively (hazard ratio 1.85, confidence interval 1.05-3.26, p = 0.035). The results after propensity score matching indicated a poorer prognosis in the PTBD group, with a 5-year survival rate of 35.9% in the PTBD group vs 56.0% in the EBD group (p = 0.044). CONCLUSION: PTBD should be considered as a negative prognostic factor in distal cholangiocarcinoma patients.
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of different types of preoperative biliary drainage for cholangiocarcinoma has been debated over the past two decades. Controversy concerning the use of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) versus endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) still exists. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes between PTBD and EBD in patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: Data of patients diagnosed with distal cholangiocarcinoma who underwent preoperative PTBD or EBD from January 1999 to December 2017 were analyzed retrospectively. Post-surgical outcomes, including the incidence of post-operative complications, peritoneal metastasis, disease-free survival, and overall survival, were analyzed. Survival analyses were also performed after propensity score matching in the PTBD and EBD groups. RESULTS: The incidence of post-operative complications was similar in both groups. The 5-year estimated cumulative incidences for peritoneal metastasis were 14.7% and 7.2% in the PTBD and EBD groups, respectively (p = 0.192). The 5-year disease-free survival rates were 23.7% and 47.3% in the PTBD and EBD groups, respectively (p = 0.015). In the multi-variate analysis for overall survival, PTBD was an independent poor prognostic factor. The 5-year overall survival rates were 35.9% and 56.3% in the PTBD and EBD groups, respectively (hazard ratio 1.85, confidence interval 1.05-3.26, p = 0.035). The results after propensity score matching indicated a poorer prognosis in the PTBD group, with a 5-year survival rate of 35.9% in the PTBD group vs 56.0% in the EBD group (p = 0.044). CONCLUSION:PTBD should be considered as a negative prognostic factor in distal cholangiocarcinomapatients.
Authors: Andrew M Blakely; Paul Wong; Peiguo Chu; Susanne G Warner; Mustafa Raoof; Gagandeep Singh; Yuman Fong; Laleh G Melstrom Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 3.454