对日本委员会认证的专家肝胆胰外科医生和指导员进行了关于肝内胆管癌手术指征的问卷调查。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Shintaro Kuroda, Tsuyoshi Kobayashi, Etsuro Hatano, Shoji Kubo, Itaru Endo, Hideki Ohdan
{"title":"对日本委员会认证的专家肝胆胰外科医生和指导员进行了关于肝内胆管癌手术指征的问卷调查。","authors":"Shintaro Kuroda, Tsuyoshi Kobayashi, Etsuro Hatano, Shoji Kubo, Itaru Endo, Hideki Ohdan","doi":"10.1002/jhbp.12108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains challenging owing to the lack of clear guidelines on surgical resection. The 2021 ICC guidelines have not fully resolved the ongoing debate between surgical and nonsurgical treatment options. This study aimed to identify trends and issues in ICC treatment strategies in the clinical field by surveying the attitudes of hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HBP) surgeons.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey was conducted among 235 board-certified HBP surgeons affiliated with the Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery. This survey explored the perspectives on tumor conditions that define resectable, borderline resectable, and unresectable diseases, focusing on tumor size, number, and vascular invasion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Notable variability was observed in the criteria for oncological resectability. While 42.1% of the respondents considered a maximum tumor diameter of 5 cm as resectable, 37.5% indicated no size limit for resectability. Opinions regarding the resectability of tumors with lymph node involvement and vascular invasion vary widely, highlighting the need for standardized criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This survey revealed diverse approaches for defining resectability in ICC, emphasizing the necessity for more precise guidelines. Further research and expert consensus are required to establish standardized criteria that can guide clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":16056,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Questionnaire on the surgical indications for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma administered to Japanese board-certified expert hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgeons and instructors.\",\"authors\":\"Shintaro Kuroda, Tsuyoshi Kobayashi, Etsuro Hatano, Shoji Kubo, Itaru Endo, Hideki Ohdan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jhbp.12108\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains challenging owing to the lack of clear guidelines on surgical resection. The 2021 ICC guidelines have not fully resolved the ongoing debate between surgical and nonsurgical treatment options. This study aimed to identify trends and issues in ICC treatment strategies in the clinical field by surveying the attitudes of hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HBP) surgeons.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey was conducted among 235 board-certified HBP surgeons affiliated with the Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery. This survey explored the perspectives on tumor conditions that define resectable, borderline resectable, and unresectable diseases, focusing on tumor size, number, and vascular invasion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Notable variability was observed in the criteria for oncological resectability. While 42.1% of the respondents considered a maximum tumor diameter of 5 cm as resectable, 37.5% indicated no size limit for resectability. Opinions regarding the resectability of tumors with lymph node involvement and vascular invasion vary widely, highlighting the need for standardized criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This survey revealed diverse approaches for defining resectability in ICC, emphasizing the necessity for more precise guidelines. Further research and expert consensus are required to establish standardized criteria that can guide clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16056,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.12108\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.12108","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:由于缺乏明确的手术切除指南,肝内胆管癌(ICC)的治疗仍然具有挑战性。2021年的ICC指南并没有完全解决手术和非手术治疗方案之间的持续争论。本研究旨在通过调查肝胆胰(HBP)外科医生的态度,确定临床领域ICC治疗策略的趋势和问题。方法:对日本肝胆胰外科学会附属的235名委员会认证的HBP外科医生进行调查。这项调查探讨了肿瘤条件的观点,定义可切除,边缘可切除和不可切除的疾病,重点是肿瘤的大小,数量和血管侵犯。结果:肿瘤可切除性的标准存在显著差异。42.1%的受访者认为最大肿瘤直径为5厘米是可切除的,37.5%的受访者认为可切除的大小没有限制。关于淋巴结受累和血管侵犯的肿瘤的可切除性,意见分歧很大,强调了标准化标准的必要性。结论:该调查揭示了定义ICC可切除性的多种方法,强调了制定更精确指南的必要性。需要进一步的研究和专家共识来建立标准化的标准,以指导临床决策和改善患者的预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Questionnaire on the surgical indications for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma administered to Japanese board-certified expert hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgeons and instructors.

Background: Treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains challenging owing to the lack of clear guidelines on surgical resection. The 2021 ICC guidelines have not fully resolved the ongoing debate between surgical and nonsurgical treatment options. This study aimed to identify trends and issues in ICC treatment strategies in the clinical field by surveying the attitudes of hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HBP) surgeons.

Methods: A survey was conducted among 235 board-certified HBP surgeons affiliated with the Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery. This survey explored the perspectives on tumor conditions that define resectable, borderline resectable, and unresectable diseases, focusing on tumor size, number, and vascular invasion.

Results: Notable variability was observed in the criteria for oncological resectability. While 42.1% of the respondents considered a maximum tumor diameter of 5 cm as resectable, 37.5% indicated no size limit for resectability. Opinions regarding the resectability of tumors with lymph node involvement and vascular invasion vary widely, highlighting the need for standardized criteria.

Conclusion: This survey revealed diverse approaches for defining resectability in ICC, emphasizing the necessity for more precise guidelines. Further research and expert consensus are required to establish standardized criteria that can guide clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences
Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-SURGERY
自引率
10.00%
发文量
178
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences (JHBPS) is the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences. JHBPS publishes articles dealing with clinical research as well as translational research on all aspects of this field. Coverage includes Original Article, Review Article, Images of Interest, Rapid Communication and an announcement section. Letters to the Editor and comments on the journal’s policies or content are also included. JHBPS welcomes submissions from surgeons, physicians, endoscopists, radiologists, oncologists, and pathologists.
×
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