4.5 Review

Is lymph node dissection necessary for resectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

HPB
Volume 21, Issue 7, Pages 784-792

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2018.12.011

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81572398, 81672419]
  2. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province [2015A050502023, 2016A020216010]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2014A030313061, 2013B021800101]
  4. Young Teacher Foundation of Sun Yat-sen University [14ykpy21]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of lymph node dissection (LND) in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). Methods: A literature search with a date range of January 2000 to January 2018 was performed to identify studies comparing lymph node dissection (LND+) with non-lymph node dissection (LND-) for patients with ICC. The LND + group was further divided into positive (LND + N+) and negative (LND + N-) lymph node status groups based on pathological analysis. Results: 13 studies including 1377 patients were eligible. There were no significant differences in overall survival (OS) (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.94-1.36; P = 0.20), disease-free survival (DFS) (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.94-1.60; P = 0.13), or recurrence (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.90-2.15; P = 0.14) between LND + group and LND-group. Postoperative morbidity was significantly higher in the LND + group (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.74-4.10; P < 0.001). A subset analysis showed that OS was similar between LND + N- and LND-groups (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82-1.56; P = 0.450). However when comparing, OS of the LND-group to the LND+ N+ group there was a significant increase in OS for the LND-group (HR 3.26, 95% CI 1.85-5.76; P < 0.001). Conclusions: LND does not seem to positively affect overall survival and is associated with increased post-operative morbidity.

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