Impact of Lymph Node Dissection for Patients With Clinically Node-Negative Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

IF 2.1 Q3 ONCOLOGY
World Journal of Oncology Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-05 DOI:10.14740/wjon1895
Meng Sha, Jie Cao, Cheng Lin Qin, Jian Zhang, Chao Fan, Zhe Li, Ying Tong, Lei Xia, Jian Jun Zhang, Qiang Xia
{"title":"Impact of Lymph Node Dissection for Patients With Clinically Node-Negative Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Multicenter Cohort Study.","authors":"Meng Sha, Jie Cao, Cheng Lin Qin, Jian Zhang, Chao Fan, Zhe Li, Ying Tong, Lei Xia, Jian Jun Zhang, Qiang Xia","doi":"10.14740/wjon1895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lymph node status is a prominent prognostic factor for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). However, the prognostic value of performing lymph node dissection (LND) in patients with clinical node-negative ICC remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical value of LND on long-term outcomes in this subgroup of patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent radical liver resection for clinically node-negative ICC from three tertiary hepatobiliary centers. The propensity score matching analysis at 1:1 ratio based on clinicopathological data was conducted between patients with and without LND. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared in the matched cohort.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 303 patients who underwent radical liver resection for ICC, 48 patients with clinically positive nodes were excluded, and a total of 159 clinically node-negative ICC patients were finally eligible for the study, with 102 in the LND group and 57 in the non-LND group. After propensity score matching, two well-balanced groups of 51 patients each were analyzed. No significant difference of median RFS (12.0 vs. 10.0 months, P = 0.37) and median OS (22.0 vs. 26.0 months, P = 0.47) was observed between the LND and non-LND group. Also, LND was not identified as one of the independent risks for survival. Among 51 patients who received LND, 11 patients were with positive lymph nodes (lymph node metastasis (LNM) (+)) and presented significantly worse outcomes than those with LND (-). On the other hand, postoperative adjuvant therapy was the independent risk factor for both RFS (hazard ratio (HR): 0.623, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.393 - 0.987, P = 0.044) and OS (HR: 0.585, 95% CI: 0.359 - 0.952, P = 0.031). Furthermore, postoperative adjuvant therapy was associated with prolonged survivals of non-LND patients (P = 0.02 for RFS and P = 0.03 for OS).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on the data, we found that LND did not significantly improve the prognosis of patients with clinically node-negative ICC. Postoperative adjuvant therapy was associated with prolonged survival of ICC patients, especially in non-LND individuals.</p>","PeriodicalId":46797,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11236379/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1895","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lymph node status is a prominent prognostic factor for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). However, the prognostic value of performing lymph node dissection (LND) in patients with clinical node-negative ICC remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical value of LND on long-term outcomes in this subgroup of patients.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent radical liver resection for clinically node-negative ICC from three tertiary hepatobiliary centers. The propensity score matching analysis at 1:1 ratio based on clinicopathological data was conducted between patients with and without LND. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared in the matched cohort.

Results: Among 303 patients who underwent radical liver resection for ICC, 48 patients with clinically positive nodes were excluded, and a total of 159 clinically node-negative ICC patients were finally eligible for the study, with 102 in the LND group and 57 in the non-LND group. After propensity score matching, two well-balanced groups of 51 patients each were analyzed. No significant difference of median RFS (12.0 vs. 10.0 months, P = 0.37) and median OS (22.0 vs. 26.0 months, P = 0.47) was observed between the LND and non-LND group. Also, LND was not identified as one of the independent risks for survival. Among 51 patients who received LND, 11 patients were with positive lymph nodes (lymph node metastasis (LNM) (+)) and presented significantly worse outcomes than those with LND (-). On the other hand, postoperative adjuvant therapy was the independent risk factor for both RFS (hazard ratio (HR): 0.623, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.393 - 0.987, P = 0.044) and OS (HR: 0.585, 95% CI: 0.359 - 0.952, P = 0.031). Furthermore, postoperative adjuvant therapy was associated with prolonged survivals of non-LND patients (P = 0.02 for RFS and P = 0.03 for OS).

Conclusions: Based on the data, we found that LND did not significantly improve the prognosis of patients with clinically node-negative ICC. Postoperative adjuvant therapy was associated with prolonged survival of ICC patients, especially in non-LND individuals.

淋巴结切除对临床结节阴性肝内胆管癌患者的影响:一项多中心队列研究。
背景:淋巴结状态是肝内胆管癌(ICC)的一个重要预后因素。然而,对临床淋巴结阴性的 ICC 患者进行淋巴结清扫(LND)的预后价值仍存在争议。本研究旨在评估 LND 对这一亚组患者长期预后的临床价值:我们对三个三级肝胆中心因临床结节阴性 ICC 而接受根治性肝切除术的患者进行了回顾性分析。根据临床病理数据按1:1的比例对有LND和无LND的患者进行倾向评分匹配分析。比较了匹配队列中的无复发生存期(RFS)和总生存期(OS):在303例因ICC接受根治性肝切除术的患者中,48例临床结节阳性患者被排除在外,最终共有159例临床结节阴性的ICC患者符合研究条件,其中LND组102例,非LND组57例。经过倾向评分匹配后,对两组各51名患者进行了分析。LND 组和非 LND 组的中位 RFS(12.0 个月 vs. 10.0 个月,P = 0.37)和中位 OS(22.0 个月 vs. 26.0 个月,P = 0.47)无明显差异。此外,LND未被确定为影响生存的独立风险之一。在接受LND的51名患者中,11名患者淋巴结阳性(淋巴结转移(LNM)(+)),其预后明显差于接受LND(-)的患者。另一方面,术后辅助治疗是RFS(危险比(HR):0.623,95% 置信区间(CI):0.393 - 0.987,P = 0.044)和OS(HR:0.585,95% CI:0.359 - 0.952,P = 0.031)的独立危险因素。此外,术后辅助治疗与非LND患者生存期的延长有关(RFS的P = 0.02,OS的P = 0.03):根据这些数据,我们发现LND并不能明显改善临床结节阴性ICC患者的预后。术后辅助治疗与延长ICC患者的生存期有关,尤其是非LND患者。
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
6.10
自引率
15.40%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: World Journal of Oncology, bimonthly, publishes original contributions describing basic research and clinical investigation of cancer, on the cellular, molecular, prevention, diagnosis, therapy and prognosis aspects. The submissions can be basic research or clinical investigation oriented. This journal welcomes those submissions focused on the clinical trials of new treatment modalities for cancer, and those submissions focused on molecular or cellular research of the oncology pathogenesis. Case reports submitted for consideration of publication should explore either a novel genomic event/description or a new safety signal from an oncolytic agent. The areas of interested manuscripts are these disciplines: tumor immunology and immunotherapy; cancer molecular pharmacology and chemotherapy; drug sensitivity and resistance; cancer epidemiology; clinical trials; cancer pathology; radiobiology and radiation oncology; solid tumor oncology; hematological malignancies; surgical oncology; pediatric oncology; molecular oncology and cancer genes; gene therapy; cancer endocrinology; cancer metastasis; prevention and diagnosis of cancer; other cancer related subjects. The types of manuscripts accepted are original article, review, editorial, short communication, case report, letter to the editor, book review.
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