3.8 Article

Survival benefits of surgical resection in recurrent cholangiocarcinoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN SURGICAL SOCIETY
Volume 81, Issue 3, Pages 187-194

Publisher

KOREAN SURGICAL SOCIETY
DOI: 10.4174/jkss.2011.81.3.187

Keywords

Recurrence; Range of survival; Cholangiocarcinoma; Radiofrequency ablation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Attempt to identify the beneficial effects associated with surgical procedures on survival outcome of patients with recurrent cholangiocarcinoma. Methods: 921 patients diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma underwent surgical resection with curative intent in a single institute during the last 15 years. Patients with recurrent disease were divided into two groups according to whether surgical procedures were performed for the treatment of recurrence. Clinicopathologic variables, ranges of survival based on sites of recurrence, and types of treatment were analyzed retrospectively. Results: The median follow-up period was 21.8 months and 316 (34.3%) patients had recurrence. 27 (group A) patients with recurrent disease were treated surgically and 289 patients (group B) were not treated. Liver resection, metastasectomy, pancreaticoduodenectomy, partial pancreatectomy, and regional lymph node dissection were performed on the patients in group A. The overall survival rate was statistically higher in group A (P = 0.001). Among the surgical procedures, resection of locoregional recurrences (except liver) in abdominal cavity (4.0 to 101.8 months vs. 0.6 to 71.6 months) and metastasectomy of abdominal or chest wall (3.5 to 18.9 months vs. 1.9 to 2.2 months) showed remarkable differences with respect to the range of survival. Conclusion: Better survival outcomes can be expected by performing surgical resection of locoregional recurrences (except liver) in abdominal cavity and abdominal or chest wall metastatic lesions in recurrent cholangiocarcinoma.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available