4.7 Article

AJCC 7th Edition of TNM Staging Accurately Discriminates Outcomes of Patients With Resectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

期刊

CANCER
卷 117, 期 10, 页码 2170-2177

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25712

关键词

primary liver tumor; biliary tumor; cholangiocarcinoma; staging; surgery

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: This year, the 7th edition of the AJCC staging manual has for the first time attributed a unique pTNM staging to intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) that is intended to replace the 2 Western and ideally also the 2 Eastern systems currently in use. This proposal, which has not yet been validated, was tested in the current study. METHODS: Among 522 patients operated on with curative intent for an IHCC between 1994 and 2008 in tertiary hepatobiliary centers, those with mass-forming-type IHCCs, an RO resection, and accurate pathological node staging were retained for evaluation. The distribution of these patients and their actuarial survival in the new TNM stages (as well as in the 4 previous ones) were compared. RESULTS: Only 163 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, mainly because of the lack of routine lymphadenectomy, but patients and tumors characteristics of this population were representative. These patients were evenly distributed between AJCC 7th edition stages (stage I, 28%; stage II, 32%; stage III, 35%), which was not the case for the other systems. With an average follow-up of 34 months in survivors, the AJCC 7th edition was more discriminating than the others in predicting survival (median for stage I not reached; for stage II, 53 months, P = .01; for stage III, 16 months, P <.0001). Survival of these patients according to the 2 Japanese classifications was identical to that anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: The 7th edition is clinically relevant and may be applicable worldwide, provided routine lymphadenectomy at the time of surgery for IHCC becomes the standard of care. Cancer 2011; 117: 2170-7. (C) 2010 American Cancer Society.

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