4.5 Article

Lymphadenectomy in the staging and treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a population-based study using the National Cancer Institute SEER database

Journal

HPB
Volume 13, Issue 9, Pages 612-620

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2011.00340.x

Keywords

cholangiocarcinoma; resection < cholangiocarcinoma; outcomes < cholangiocarcinoma

Funding

  1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
  2. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) [1 UL1 RR024150]
  3. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  4. NIH Roadmap for Medical Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Although lymphatic spread is common in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), lymphadenectomy is not widely performed as part of operative resection in this disease. The objectives of this study were to assess national trends for lymphadenectomy and its impact on survival in patients with ICC. Methods: The National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry was queried to identify patients with ICC (n = 4893) reported during 1988-2007. Kaplan-Maier and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to analyse survival. Results: Five-year overall survival (OS) was 5.2%. Lymph node (LN) status was available for 48.9% (n = 2391) of patients. Histologic LN evaluation was performed in 13.5% (n = 658) of patients for a median of two (interquartile range: 1-3) LNs. During the study period, the frequency of histologic LN assessment (P = 0.78) did not change in liver resection patients. In the 733 resected patients, positive vs. negative LN status was associated with worse 5-year OS of 8.4% vs. 25.9%, respectively (hazard ratio = 1.8; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Nodal status is an important prognostic factor for survival in patients diagnosed with ICC. In the USA, few patients undergo hepatic resection with lymphadenectomy; therefore, the clinical benefit of formal lymphadenectomy in ICC remains unknown.

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