4.3 Article

Differentiating Immunoglobulin G4-Related Sclerosing Cholangitis from Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma

Journal

GUT AND LIVER
Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 234-238

Publisher

EDITORIAL OFFICE GUT & LIVER
DOI: 10.5009/gnl.2013.7.2.234

Keywords

Immunoglobulin G; IgG4-ralated sclerosing cholangitis; Hilar cholangiocarcinoma; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: Few studies have differentiated immunoglobulin G (IgG) 4-related sclerosing cholangitis (IgG4-SC) from hilar cholangiocarcinoma (CC). Thus, we sought to investigate useful features for differentiating IgG4-SC from hilar CC. Methods: We retrospectively compared clinical, serological, imaging, and histological features of six patients with IgG4-SC and 42 patients with hilar CC. Results: In patients with hilar CC, obstructive jaundice was more frequent (p<0.01), serum total bilirubin levels were significantly higher (p<0.05), serum CA19-9 levels were significantly higher (p<0.01), and serum duke pancreatic monoclonal antigen type 2 levels were frequently elevated (p<0.05). However, in patients with IgG4-SC, the serum IgG (p<0.05) and IgG4 (p<0.01) levels were significantly higher and frequently elevated. The pancreas was enlarged in all IgG4-SC patients but only in 17% of hilar CC patients (p<0.01). Salivary and/or lacrimal gland swelling was detected in only 50% of IgG4-SC patients (p<0.01). Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography revealed that the hilar or hepatic duct was completely obstructed in 83% of hilar CC patients (p<0.01). Lower bile duct stenosis, apart from hilar bile duct stenosis, was more frequent in IgG4-SC patients (p<0.01). Bile duct wall thickening in areas without stenosis was more frequent in IgG4-SC patients (p<0.01). Conclusions: An integrated diagnostic approach based on clinical, serological, imaging, and histological findings is necessary to differentiate IgG4-SC from hilar CC. (Gut Liver 2013;7:234-238)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available