Yeseul Kim, You-Na Sung, Haesung Jung, Kyung Jin Lee, Daegwang Yoo, Sun-Young Jun, HyungJun Cho, Shin Hwang, Woohyung Lee, Seung-Mo Hong
{"title":"囊性导管癌的分期评估","authors":"Yeseul Kim, You-Na Sung, Haesung Jung, Kyung Jin Lee, Daegwang Yoo, Sun-Young Jun, HyungJun Cho, Shin Hwang, Woohyung Lee, Seung-Mo Hong","doi":"10.4143/crt.2024.660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Cystic duct cancers (CDCs) have been classified as extrahepatic bile duct cancers or gallbladder cancers (GBCs); however, it is unclear whether their clinical behavior is similar to that of distal extrahepatic bile duct cancers (DBDCs) or GBCs.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>T category of the CDCs was classified using current T category scheme of the GBCs and DBDCs, and clinicopathological factors were compared among 38 CDCs, 345 GBCs, and 349 DBDCs. We modified Nakata's classifications (type 1, confined within cystic duct (CD); combined types 2-4, extension beyond CD) and compared them.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant overall survival (OS) difference was observed between the patients with CDC, GBC, and DBDC. The T category of GBC staging was more accurate at distinguishing OS in patients with CDC than the DBDC staging. Patients with T3 CDC and GBC showed a significant OS difference when using the T category for GBC staging, while those with T1-T2 CDC and GBC showed no significant difference. In contrast, the T category of DBDC staging did not show any significant OS difference between patients with T1-T2 CDC and DBDC or T3 CDC and DBDC. Patients with type 1 CDC had significantly better OS than those with combined types.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Unlike GBCs and DBDCs, CDCs exhibit distinct clinicopathological characteristics. The OS is better when the CDC confines within the CD, compared to when it extends beyond it. Therefore, we propose a new T category scheme (T1, confined to CD; T2, invaded beyond CD) for better classifying CDCs.</p>","PeriodicalId":49094,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Research and Treatment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stage Evaluation of Cystic Duct Cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Yeseul Kim, You-Na Sung, Haesung Jung, Kyung Jin Lee, Daegwang Yoo, Sun-Young Jun, HyungJun Cho, Shin Hwang, Woohyung Lee, Seung-Mo Hong\",\"doi\":\"10.4143/crt.2024.660\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Cystic duct cancers (CDCs) have been classified as extrahepatic bile duct cancers or gallbladder cancers (GBCs); however, it is unclear whether their clinical behavior is similar to that of distal extrahepatic bile duct cancers (DBDCs) or GBCs.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>T category of the CDCs was classified using current T category scheme of the GBCs and DBDCs, and clinicopathological factors were compared among 38 CDCs, 345 GBCs, and 349 DBDCs. We modified Nakata's classifications (type 1, confined within cystic duct (CD); combined types 2-4, extension beyond CD) and compared them.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant overall survival (OS) difference was observed between the patients with CDC, GBC, and DBDC. The T category of GBC staging was more accurate at distinguishing OS in patients with CDC than the DBDC staging. Patients with T3 CDC and GBC showed a significant OS difference when using the T category for GBC staging, while those with T1-T2 CDC and GBC showed no significant difference. In contrast, the T category of DBDC staging did not show any significant OS difference between patients with T1-T2 CDC and DBDC or T3 CDC and DBDC. Patients with type 1 CDC had significantly better OS than those with combined types.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Unlike GBCs and DBDCs, CDCs exhibit distinct clinicopathological characteristics. The OS is better when the CDC confines within the CD, compared to when it extends beyond it. Therefore, we propose a new T category scheme (T1, confined to CD; T2, invaded beyond CD) for better classifying CDCs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer Research and Treatment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer Research and Treatment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.660\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.660","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:囊性导管癌(CDCs)被归类为肝外胆管癌或胆囊癌(GBCs);然而,其临床表现是否与远端肝外胆管癌(DBDCs)或GBCs相似尚不清楚:采用当前 GBC 和 DBDC 的 T 类方案对 CDC 的 T 类进行分类,并对 38 例 CDC、345 例 GBC 和 349 例 DBDC 的临床病理因素进行比较。我们修改了 Nakata 的分类(1 型,局限于囊性导管(CD)内;2-4 型合并,扩展至 CD 以外)并对其进行了比较:结果:CDC、GBC 和 DBDC 患者的总生存期(OS)无明显差异。在区分 CDC 患者的 OS 方面,GBC 分期的 T 类比 DBDC 分期更准确。当使用T分类进行GBC分期时,T3 CDC和GBC患者的OS差异显著,而T1-T2 CDC和GBC患者的OS差异不显著。相比之下,T1-T2 CDC和DBDC患者与T3 CDC和DBDC患者之间的OS差异不大。1型CDC患者的OS明显优于合并类型的患者:结论:与GBC和DBDC不同,CDC表现出独特的临床病理特征。结论:与 GBC 和 DBDC 不同,CDC 表现出不同的临床病理特征,当 CDC 局限于 CD 内时,其 OS 好于 CD 外时。因此,我们提出了一种新的 T 类方案(T1,局限于 CD 内;T2,侵入 CD 外),以更好地对 CDC 进行分类。
Purpose: Cystic duct cancers (CDCs) have been classified as extrahepatic bile duct cancers or gallbladder cancers (GBCs); however, it is unclear whether their clinical behavior is similar to that of distal extrahepatic bile duct cancers (DBDCs) or GBCs.
Materials and methods: T category of the CDCs was classified using current T category scheme of the GBCs and DBDCs, and clinicopathological factors were compared among 38 CDCs, 345 GBCs, and 349 DBDCs. We modified Nakata's classifications (type 1, confined within cystic duct (CD); combined types 2-4, extension beyond CD) and compared them.
Results: No significant overall survival (OS) difference was observed between the patients with CDC, GBC, and DBDC. The T category of GBC staging was more accurate at distinguishing OS in patients with CDC than the DBDC staging. Patients with T3 CDC and GBC showed a significant OS difference when using the T category for GBC staging, while those with T1-T2 CDC and GBC showed no significant difference. In contrast, the T category of DBDC staging did not show any significant OS difference between patients with T1-T2 CDC and DBDC or T3 CDC and DBDC. Patients with type 1 CDC had significantly better OS than those with combined types.
Conclusion: Unlike GBCs and DBDCs, CDCs exhibit distinct clinicopathological characteristics. The OS is better when the CDC confines within the CD, compared to when it extends beyond it. Therefore, we propose a new T category scheme (T1, confined to CD; T2, invaded beyond CD) for better classifying CDCs.
期刊介绍:
Cancer Research and Treatment is a peer-reviewed open access publication of the Korean Cancer Association. It is published quarterly, one volume per year. Abbreviated title is Cancer Res Treat. It accepts manuscripts relevant to experimental and clinical cancer research. Subjects include carcinogenesis, tumor biology, molecular oncology, cancer genetics, tumor immunology, epidemiology, predictive markers and cancer prevention, pathology, cancer diagnosis, screening and therapies including chemotherapy, surgery, radiation therapy, immunotherapy, gene therapy, multimodality treatment and palliative care.