4.6 Article

Fifteen-year, single-center experience with the surgical management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Operative results and long-term outcome

Journal

SURGERY
Volume 143, Issue 3, Pages 366-374

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2007.10.010

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Limited data exist regarding the role of extended liver resection for the management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) most of which derive from small single-center or larger multicenter series. In the current report, we present our experience with the surgical management of ICC, analyze operative results, and investigate prognostic factors in resected patients. Methods. A total of 7 patients underwent operative exploration for ICC between 1991 and 2005; 54 patients were resected, and 18 patients were deemed unresectable based on intraoperative findings. Demographics, pathology, anatomic characteristics, operative results, and survival were analyzed. Results. The resectability rate was 71%, with negative margins achieved in 78% of the resected patients. Extended liver resections were performed in 24 (44%) of the 72 patients. Perioperative mortality after resection was 7%, with 11% morbidity. The 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates after resection were 80%, 49% and 25%, respectively, and were significantly greater than for patients with unresectable disease (P <. 001). R1 liver resections conferred increased 5-year survival compared with patients deemed unresectable (P =.03). None of the factors evaluated proved to be independent prognostic factors on multivariate analysis. Conclusions. R0 resection of ICC provides the best chance for prolonged survival, whereas R1 resection appears to be superior to nonoperative treatment. Declining operative mortality as a result of improved intraoperative and perioperative care justifies the performance of extended liver resections in these patients, although benefit has to be evaluated with respect to nodal involvement.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available