4.5 Article

Chemoradiotherapy for Initially Unresectable Locally Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 42, 期 9, 页码 2910-2918

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-018-4558-1

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surgical resection is the only available treatment for achieving long-term survival in cholangiocarcinoma. The purpose of this study is to elucidate the utility of chemoradiotherapy for initially unresectable locally advanced cholangiocarcinoma. Unresectable locally advanced cholangiocarcinoma was defined as those in which radical surgery could not be achieved even with aggressive surgical procedure. Fifteen candidates (7 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas and 8 hilar cholangiocarcinomas) underwent chemoradiotherapy. Fourteen of the 15 patients received oral S-1 chemotherapy. Radiotherapy was administered with 50 Gy for each patient. After chemoradiotherapy, the resectability of each cholangiocarcinoma was reexamined. Of the 15 patients with initially unresectable locally advanced cholangiocarcinoma, 11 (73.3%) were judged to have resectable cholangiocarcinoma after chemoradiotherapy, and received radical hepatectomy (R0 resection in 9 patients). Among the 11 patients who underwent surgical resection, 4 had recurrence-free survival and the median survival time (MST) was 37 months. The overall 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival rates were 80.8, 70.7 and 23.6%, respectively. Among the 4 patients who were unable to receive surgery, 3 died of the primary disease and the MST was 10 months. The overall 1- and 2-year survival rates were 37.5 and 0%, respectively. Patients who received radical surgery had significantly longer survival time than those who were unable to receive surgery (p = 0.027). Chemoradiotherapy allowed patients with initially unresectable locally advanced cholangiocarcinomas to be reclassified as surgical candidates in a substantial proportion. Chemoradiotherapy might be one of the treatment options for similarly advanced cholangiocarcinomas.

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