Residual biliary intraepithelial neoplasia without malignant transformation at resection margin for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma does not require expanded resection: a dual center retrospective study.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Zeliang Xu, Xiaoyi Fan, Chengcheng Zhang, Yuancheng Li, Di Jiang, Feng Hu, Bi Pan, Yixian Huang, Leida Zhang, Wan Yee Lau, Xingchao Liu, Zhiyu Chen
{"title":"Residual biliary intraepithelial neoplasia without malignant transformation at resection margin for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma does not require expanded resection: a dual center retrospective study.","authors":"Zeliang Xu, Xiaoyi Fan, Chengcheng Zhang, Yuancheng Li, Di Jiang, Feng Hu, Bi Pan, Yixian Huang, Leida Zhang, Wan Yee Lau, Xingchao Liu, Zhiyu Chen","doi":"10.1186/s12957-024-03395-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Additional resection for invasive cancer at perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) resection margins has become a consensus. However, controversy still exists regarding whether additional resection is necessary for residual biliary intraepithelial neoplasia (BilIN).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Consecutive patients with pCCA from two hospitals were enrolled. The incidence and pattern of resection margin BilIN were summarized. Prognosis between patients with negative margins (R0) and BilIN margins were analyzed. Cox regression with a forest plot was used to identify independent risk factors associated with overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Subgroup analysis was performed based on BilIN features and tumor characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>306 pCCA patients receiving curative resection were included. 255 had R0 margins and 51 had BilIN margins. There was no significant difference in OS (P = 0.264) or RFS (P = 0.149) between the two group. Specifically, 19 patients with BilIN at distal bile ducts and 32 at proximal bile ducts. 42 patients showed low-grade BilIN, and 9 showed high-grade. Further analysis revealed no significant difference in long-term survival between different locations (P = 0.354), or between different grades (P = 0.772). Portal vein invasion, poor differentiation and lymph node metastasis were considered independent risk factors for OS and RFS, while BilIN was not. Subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in long-term survival between the lymph node metastasis subgroup, or between the portal vein invasion subgroup.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For pCCA patients underwent curative resection, residual BilIN at resection margin is acceptable. Additional resection is not necessary for such patients to achieve absolute R0 margin.</p>","PeriodicalId":23856,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Surgical Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11191332/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-024-03395-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Additional resection for invasive cancer at perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) resection margins has become a consensus. However, controversy still exists regarding whether additional resection is necessary for residual biliary intraepithelial neoplasia (BilIN).

Method: Consecutive patients with pCCA from two hospitals were enrolled. The incidence and pattern of resection margin BilIN were summarized. Prognosis between patients with negative margins (R0) and BilIN margins were analyzed. Cox regression with a forest plot was used to identify independent risk factors associated with overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Subgroup analysis was performed based on BilIN features and tumor characteristics.

Results: 306 pCCA patients receiving curative resection were included. 255 had R0 margins and 51 had BilIN margins. There was no significant difference in OS (P = 0.264) or RFS (P = 0.149) between the two group. Specifically, 19 patients with BilIN at distal bile ducts and 32 at proximal bile ducts. 42 patients showed low-grade BilIN, and 9 showed high-grade. Further analysis revealed no significant difference in long-term survival between different locations (P = 0.354), or between different grades (P = 0.772). Portal vein invasion, poor differentiation and lymph node metastasis were considered independent risk factors for OS and RFS, while BilIN was not. Subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in long-term survival between the lymph node metastasis subgroup, or between the portal vein invasion subgroup.

Conclusion: For pCCA patients underwent curative resection, residual BilIN at resection margin is acceptable. Additional resection is not necessary for such patients to achieve absolute R0 margin.

肝周胆管癌切除边缘无恶变的胆道上皮内瘤变残留无需扩大切除范围:一项双中心回顾性研究。
背景:对肝周胆管癌(pCCA)切除边缘的浸润癌进行额外切除已成为共识。然而,对于残留胆道上皮内瘤变(BilIN)是否有必要进行额外切除仍存在争议:方法:选取两家医院的连续 pCCA 患者作为研究对象。总结了切除边缘BilIN的发生率和模式。分析了边缘阴性(R0)和边缘BilIN患者的预后。采用森林图的 Cox 回归确定与总生存期(OS)和无复发生存期(RFS)相关的独立风险因素。根据BilIN特征和肿瘤特征进行了亚组分析:结果:共纳入306例接受根治性切除术的pCCA患者。结果:共纳入306例接受根治性切除术的pCCA患者,其中255例边缘为R0,51例边缘为BilIN。两组患者的 OS(P = 0.264)和 RFS(P = 0.149)无明显差异。具体而言,19 名患者的胆管远端出现 BilIN,32 名患者的胆管近端出现 BilIN。42 例患者为低级别 BilIN,9 例为高级别 BilIN。进一步分析表明,不同部位(P = 0.354)或不同级别(P = 0.772)的长期生存率无明显差异。门静脉侵犯、分化不良和淋巴结转移被认为是影响OS和RFS的独立危险因素,而BilIN则不是。亚组分析显示,淋巴结转移亚组和门静脉侵犯亚组之间的长期生存率无明显差异:结论:对于接受根治性切除术的 pCCA 患者,切除边缘残留的 BilIN 是可以接受的。结论:对于接受根治性切除术的 pCCA 患者来说,切除边缘残留 BilIN 是可以接受的,此类患者不需要进行额外的切除以达到绝对 R0 边缘。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
15.60%
发文量
362
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: World Journal of Surgical Oncology publishes articles related to surgical oncology and its allied subjects, such as epidemiology, cancer research, biomarkers, prevention, pathology, radiology, cancer treatment, clinical trials, multimodality treatment and molecular biology. Emphasis is placed on original research articles. The journal also publishes significant clinical case reports, as well as balanced and timely reviews on selected topics. Oncology is a multidisciplinary super-speciality of which surgical oncology forms an integral component, especially with solid tumors. Surgical oncologists around the world are involved in research extending from detecting the mechanisms underlying the causation of cancer, to its treatment and prevention. The role of a surgical oncologist extends across the whole continuum of care. With continued developments in diagnosis and treatment, the role of a surgical oncologist is ever-changing. Hence, World Journal of Surgical Oncology aims to keep readers abreast with latest developments that will ultimately influence the work of surgical oncologists.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信