Article

Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the intrahepatic bile ducts.

Department of Pathology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2561, USA.
Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (Impact Factor: 2.88). 04/2010; 134(4):e14-8. DOI: 10.1043/1543-2165-134.4.e14
Source: PubMed
Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Philip Branton, Dec 13, 2013
0 Followers
 · 
84 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clear definitions of histological groups are essential for studies of liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancers. Thus, we developed a classification system based on abstracted information on histologies of liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancers diagnosed during 1978-2007 within all Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries. Of 61,990 reported primary liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancers, 108 distinct ICD-O histology codes were identified. During the 5 recent years of diagnosis, 2003-2007, the leading histological groups were hepatocellular carcinoma (75%) and cholangiocarcinoma (12%). The remaining categories were other specified (3%) and poorly specified carcinomas (3%), hepatoblastomas (1%), sarcomas (1%), embryonal sarcomas (0.1%), other specified malignancies (0.05%), and poorly specified malignancies (5%). During 2003-2007, only 68% of diagnoses were microscopically confirmed. Factors contributing to incomplete histological classification may include reluctance to obtain diagnostic specimens from late stage cases and administration of therapy in lieu of histological confirmation after positive diagnostic imaging. CONCLUSION: The proposed histological classification in this report may facilitate studies of primary liver cancers. This is of value because the inconsistent characterization of some cancers, particularly cholangiocarcinomas, may affect interpretation of incidence trends. Incomplete histological characterization of hepatocellular carcinomas was noted in this report. It is likely to be explained by guidelines affirming the use of non-invasive diagnostic and treatment procedures for this cancer.
    J Registry Manag 01/2011; 38(4):201-5.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer has been widely investigated in the past two decades. Research demonstrates that this therapy may help improve surgical margins, reduce rates of lymph node positivity, allow for earlier initiation of systemic therapy, and select for patients with aggressive disease in whom surgery may not be warranted. This review presents the data for neoadjuvant chemoradiation in pancreatic cancer with a focus on resectable and borderline resectable disease.
    12/2013; 2(4):353-367. DOI:10.1007/s13566-013-0120-9
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is a devastating malignant tumor arising from the peripheral intrahepatic bile duct epithelium. The incidence and mortality of ICC is markedly increasing over the past two decades worldwide, though the cause for this rise in incidence is unclear, thus intensifying the search for alternative etiological agents and pathogenetic mechanisms. Hepatolithiasis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, parasitic infection (Opisthorchis viverrini or Clonorchis sinensis), fibropolycystic liver disease, and chemical carcinogen exposure are thought to be the risk factors for ICC. Nevertheless, the majority of ICC patients do not have any of these risk factors, and none of the established risk factors can explain the recent increasing trend of ICC. Therefore, identifying other risk factors may lead to the prevention and early detection of ICC. Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is the predominant cause of hepatocellular carcinoma in HBV-endemic areas. This review discusses the evidence implicating chronic HBV infection as a likely etiology of ICC and the pathogenetic mechanisms that might be involved.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 05/2014; 20(19):5721-5729. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v20.i19.5721 · 2.43 Impact Factor