4.3 Article

Major hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES
Volume 17, Issue 4, Pages 463-469

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1007/s00534-009-0206-3

Keywords

Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma; Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; Surgical resection; Major hepatectomy

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22390253] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hilar cholangiocarcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma involving the hepatic hilus are defined as perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. The principle of surgical treatment is hemi-hepatectomy or trisectionectomy of the liver, caudate lobectomy, and resection of the extrahepatic bile duct for complete resection of the tumor. The aim of this study was to review the outcomes of major hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Using the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazards model, we analyzed the results in 125 patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma who had undergone major hepatectomy. Right hepatectomy, right trisectionectomy, left hepatectomy, and left trisectionectomy were performed in 66, 8, 49, and 2 patients, respectively. Curative resection was achieved in 79 patients (63.2%). Mortality and morbidity rates were 8.0 and 48.7%, respectively. The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of all patients were 73.2, 36.7, and 34.7%, respectively. The median survival was 26.8 months. Multivariate analysis showed that the independent prognostic factors for overall survival were gender, histopathological grading, curative resection, and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/International Union Against Cancer (UICC) pT. Major hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma was acceptable and showed satisfactory outcomes. For long-term survival in these patients, the surgeon should aim for complete resection of the tumor with negative margins.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available