Therapeutic value of lymph node dissection during hepatectomy in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma with negative lymph node involvement
ABSTRACT Routine and radical lymph node dissection is a clinical concern for improving the surgical outcome in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). The therapeutic value of the procedure during hepatectomy has, however, not been evaluated.
Between January 1990 and December 2004, 104 patients with ICC undergoing macroscopic curative resections were investigated retrospectively with special reference to lymph node status. The role of lymph node dissection was evaluated according to macroscopic type: mass-forming (MF) type (n = 68) and MF plus periductal infiltration (PI) type (n = 36) of ICC.
Lymph node involvement and intrahepatic metastases were an independent, unfavorable prognostic factor in the MF type of ICC. Negative lymph node involvement provided a favorable survival rate in the 41 patients without intrahepatic metastases (P < .0001). Among the 29 patients without lymph node involvement and intrahepatic metastases, there was no difference according to the use of lymph node dissection (P = .8071). Also, no difference was seen with lymph node involvement in the 24 patients with the MF plus PI type of ICC who had no intrahepatic metastases (P = .6620).
For purpose of diagnostic staging and exclusion of positive regional lymph nodes, lymph node dissections might be useful in patients with the MF type and the MF plus PI type of ICC; however, routine use of lymph node dissection in patients with the MF type of ICC is not recommended, because no difference in survival was observed in the patients with negative lymph node metastases, irrespective of the use of lymph node dissection.
SourceAvailable from: Timothy M PawlikJournal of Hepatology 06/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jhep.2014.01.021 · 9.86 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Cholangiocarcinoma (CC) is a malignancy that arises from the epithelial cells of the biliary system (ductules as well as large ducts, and likely from progenitor cells, as well). Intrahepatic CC (ICC) is the second most common primary hepatic malignancy after hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and accounts for 10-15% of primary liver cancers. ICC differs from both extrahepatic and CC and HCC and has unique risk factors, histological features, genetic alterations and clinical outcomes. The natural history and results of surgical intervention are not well described as ICC is a relatively uncommon tumor, especially in the USA. This article reviews the literature relevant to the surgical management and outcome of patients with ICC in the USA.Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences 02/2015; 22(2). DOI:10.1002/jhbp.157
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The role of lymph node dissection (LND) in the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains controversial. We sought to systematically review all available evidence to determine the role of LND in patients with HCC and ICC. Studies that reported on LND, lymph node metastasis (LNM), and short- and long-term outcomes for patients with HCC or ICC survival were identified from PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Data were extracted, synthesized, and analyzed using standard techniques. A total of 603 and 434 references were identified for HCC and ICC, respectively. Among HCC patients, the overall prevalence of LND was 51.6 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 19.7-83.5) with an associated LNM incidence of 44.5 % (95 % CI 27.4-61.7). LNM was associated with a 3- and 5-year survival of 27.5 and 20.8 %, respectively. Among ICC patients, most patients 78.5 % (95 % CI 76.2-80.7) underwent LND; 45.2 % (95 % CI 39.2-51.2) had LNM. Three and 5-year survival among ICC patients with LNM was 0.2 % (95 % CI 0-0.7) and 0 %, respectively. While there are insufficient data to recommend a routine LND in all patients with HCC or ICC, the potential prognostic value of LND suggests that LND should at least be considered at the time of surgery.Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 10/2014; DOI:10.1007/s11605-014-2667-1 · 2.39 Impact Factor