4.5 Article

Role of Caudate Lobectomy in Type IIIA and IIIB Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A 15-year Experience in a Tertiary Institution

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 36, Issue 5, Pages 1112-1121

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-012-1497-0

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Concomitant liver resection for type III hilar cholangiocarcinoma could improve the R0 resection rate and long-term outcome. In the present study, we examine the specific role of caudate lobectomy in liver resection for type IIIA and IIIB hilar cholangiocarcinoma and the prognostic factors for survival in this group of patients. Methods We reviewed all patients with type IIIA and IIIB hilar cholangiocarcinoma who underwent liver resection in Samsung Medical Center from January 1995 to July 2010. Patients were divided into those with and without caudate lobectomy (CL). The log rank test and Cox regression analysis were employed to investigate for prognostic factors of survival. Results There were 127 patients in this cohort, 57 without CL (44.9%) and 70 with CL (55.1%). The demographics and symptoms of presentation were comparable. The median preoperative bilirubin level was significantly higher in the group undergoing CL (p = 0.017). Patients with CL had a significantly better overall survival (OS) (CL: 64.0 months vs without CL: 34.6 months) (p = 0.010) and disease-free survival (DFS) (CL: 40.5 months vs without CL: 27.0 months) (p = 0.031). Multivariate analysis showed that presence of symptoms (p = 0.025) and positive lymph node (LN) metastasis (p < 0.001) were negative prognostic factors for OS. Furthermore, multivariate analysis for DFS found that caudate lobectomy (p = 0.016) and positive LN metastasis (p = 0.001) were positive and negative prognostic factors, respectively. Conclusions Caudate lobectomy contributed to improvement of DFS and OS in type III hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Other prognostic factors include positive LN metastasis and presence of symptoms.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available