4.5 Article

Outcome after resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis: an international multicentre study

期刊

HPB
卷 23, 期 11, 页码 1751-1758

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.04.011

关键词

-

资金

  1. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
  2. Region Stockholm
  3. Bengt Ihre Foundation
  4. Center for Innovative Medicine at Karolinska Institutet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that the overall survival rate after resection was similar between patients with PSC-associated pCCA and non-PSC patients, but postoperative complications were more frequent in PSC patients.
Background: Resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) in primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) has been reported to lead to worse outcomes than resection for non-PSC pCCA. The aim of this study was to compare prognostic factors and outcomes after resection in patients with PSC-associated pCCA and non-PSC pCCA. Methods: The international retrospective cohort comprised patients resected for pCCA from 21 centres (2000-2020). Patients operated with hepatobiliary resection, with pCCA verified by histology and with data on PSC status, were included. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival and postoperative complications. Results: Of 1128 pCCA patients, 34 (3.0%) had underlying PSC. Median overall survival after resection was 33 months for PSC patients and 29 months for non-PSC patients (p = .630). Complications (ClavienDindo grade > 3) were more frequent in PSC pCCA (71% versus 44%, p = .003). The rate of posthepatectomy liver failure (21% versus 17%, p = .530) and 90-day mortality (12% versus 13%, p = 1.000) was similar for PSC and non-PSC patients. Conclusion: Median overall survival after resection for pCCA was similar in patients with underlying PSC and non-PSC patients. Complications were more frequent after resection for PSC-associated pCCA, with no difference in postoperative mortality.

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

4.5
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