4.7 Article

Prognostic Factors After Surgical Resection for Intrahepatic, Hilar, and Distal Cholangiocarcinoma

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages 651-658

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-010-1325-4

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The prognosis of patients with cholangiocarcinoma is unsatisfactory. Therefore, evaluation of prognostic factors and establishment of new therapeutic strategies are needed to improve their long-term survival. The aim of this study was to identify useful prognostic factors for patients with intrahepatic, hilar, and distal cholangiocarcinoma. Records of 127 patients with cholangiocarcinoma (21 with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, 50 with hilar cholangiocarcinoma, and 56 with distal cholangiocarcinoma) who underwent surgical resection were reviewed retrospectively. Relationships between survival and clinicopathological factors including patient demographics and tumor characteristics were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analysis. For all 127 patients, overall 1-, 3-, 5-year survival rates were 80, 51, and 40%, respectively. Univariate analysis revealed that adjuvant chemotherapy (P = .049), tumor differentiation (P = .014), lymph node metastasis (P < .001), surgical margin status (P < .001), UICC pT factor (P < .001), and UICC stage (P < .001) were associated significantly with survival. UICC pT factor (P = .007), adjuvant chemotherapy (P = .009), surgical margin status (P = .012), and lymph node metastasis (P = .014) remained independently associated with long-term survival by multivariate analysis. The 5-year survival rates of patients with or without positive surgical margins were 13 and 49%, respectively. The 5-year survival rates of patients treated with or without adjuvant chemotherapy were 47 and 36%, respectively. R0 resection and adjuvant chemotherapy may be mandatory to achieve long-term survival for patients with 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available