4.7 Article

Stratification of Postoperative Prognosis by Invasive Tumor Thickness in Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 2001-2009

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-09135-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found a significant correlation between invasive tumor thickness (ITT) and postoperative prognosis in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Measurement of ITT could help predict patient survival time postoperatively.
Background The pathological tumor classification of distal cholangiocarcinoma in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual 8th edition is based on invasive depth, whereas that of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHCC) continues to be layer-based. We aimed to clarify whether invasive depth measurement based on invasive tumor thickness (ITT) could help determine postoperative prognosis in patients with PHCC. Methods We enrolled 184 patients with PHCC who underwent hepatectomy plus extrahepatic bile duct resection or hepatopancreatoduodenectomy with curative intent. ITT was measured using simple definitions according to the sectioning direction or gross tumor pattern. Results The median ITT was 5.8 mm (range 0.7-15.5). Using the recursive partitioning technique, ITT was classified into grades A (ITT < 2 mm,n = 9), B (2 mm <= ITT < 5 mm,n = 68), C (5 mm <= ITT < 11 mm,n = 81), and D (11 mm < ITT,n = 26). The median survival times (MSTs) in patients with grade B, C, or D were 90.8, 44.6, and 21.1 months, respectively (patients with grade A did not reach the MST). There were significant differences in postoperative prognosis between ITT grades (A vs. B,p = 0.027; B vs. C,p < 0.001; C vs. D,p = 0.004). Through multivariate analysis, regional node metastasis, invasive carcinoma at the resected margin, and ITT grade were determined as independent prognostic factors. Conclusion ITT could be measured using simple methods and may be used to stratify postoperative prognosis in patients with PHCC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据