Hepatobiliary cancers. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology.
Hepatobiliary cancers are common worldwide and highly lethal. Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common hepatobiliary malignancy and the seventh most common cancer worldwide. Gallbladder cancer is the most common biliary tract malignancy, accounting for approximately 5000 newly diagnosed cases in the United States. Cholangiocarcinomas are diagnosed throughout the biliary tree and are usually classified as intrahepatic or extrahepatic. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas arise from intrahepatic small-duct radicals, whereas extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas encompass hilar carcinomas (including Klatskin's tumors). These guidelines discuss these subtypes of hepatobiliary cancer and the epidemiology, pathology, etiology, staging, diagnosis, and treatment of each subtype.
Available from: Alexander Monto
- "After referral, additional cross-sectional imaging evaluation was conducted at the San Francisco VAMC in the form of computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The authors' approach to treatment and evaluation criteria of tumor resectability, in general, followed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines . Decisions regarding treatment modalities offered to patients (palliative or curative) were made based on data from crosssectional imaging studies, analysis of local tumorrelated factors, social issues, and assessment of underlying liver impairment. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Several methods of treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are often used in combination for either palliation or cure. We established a multidisciplinary treatment team (MDTT) at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center in November 2003 and assessed whether aggressive multimodality treatment strategies may affect survival. A prospective database was established and follow-up information from patients with presumed HCC was collected up to November 2006. Information from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) cancer registry from January 2000 to November 2003 identified patients with HCC that were evaluated at the same institution prior to the establishment of the MDTT. The establishment of a MDTT resulted in the doubling of patient referrals for treatment. Significantly more patients were evaluated at earlier stages of disease and received either palliative or curative therapies. The overall survival (p<0.0001) and length of follow-up (p<0.05) were significantly improved after the establishment of the MDTT. Stage-by-stage comparisons indicate that aggressive multimodality therapy conferred significant survival advantage to patients with American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) stage II HCC (odds ratio 15.50, p<0.001). Multidisciplinary collaboration and multimodality treatment approaches are important in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma and improves patient survival.
HPB 12/2008; 10(6):405-11. DOI:10.1080/13651820802356572 · 2.68 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Radical resection is recommended for selected patients with gallbladder (GB) cancer. We sought to determine whether radical resection improves survival for patients with early-stage cancer and to evaluate surgeon compliance with current treatment recommendations.
Patients with stage 0, I, or II GB cancer who underwent surgical resection were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) tumor registry from 1988 through 2004. Patients were classified by surgical procedure performed (simple vs. radical resection) and adjuvant treatment given (radiation therapy [RT] vs. no RT). Unadjusted and adjusted overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared.
Of the 4,631 patients who underwent surgery for early-stage GB cancer from 1988 through 2004, 4,188 (90.4%) underwent cholecystectomy alone and 443 (9.6%) underwent radical surgery including hepatic resection. The proportion of patients having radical surgery for T1b, T2, and T3 cancers was 4.5%, 5.6%, and 16.3%, respectively. For patients with T1b/T2 cancer, radical resection was associated with significant improvement in adjusted CSS (p = 0.01) and OS (p = 0.03). For patients with T3 cancers, we noted no improvement in CSS or OS. Survival for patients with node-positive disease (stage 2b) was universally poor and not improved by radical resection. For all patients who underwent radical resection, node negativity, female sex, age <70, low grade, and RT predicted improved CSS and OS.
Despite a significant survival advantage for patients with T1b/T2 GB cancer who undergo radical resection, this treatment is significantly underutilized. Ensuring delivery of recommended surgical treatment is vital to improving outcomes for patients with this disease.
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 12/2008; 13(4):722-7. DOI:10.1007/s11605-008-0772-8 · 2.80 Impact Factor
Available from: Elizabeth B Habermann
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Guidelines for the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend radical cholecystectomy, including hepatic resection and portal lymph node (LN) dissection, for patients with early stage gallbladder (GB) cancer. We sought to determine the survival benefit conferred by adequate LN evaluation.
We used the surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) neoplasm registry to identify patients who had an operation for GB cancer between 1988 and 2004. Patients were classified by stage of disease, operative procedure performed (cholecystectomy alone or radical resection), number of LNs evaluated (0, 1, >1), and receipt of radiation (RT). We included patients with T1B, T2, and T3 neoplasms who were LN positive or negative. Patients with T4 neoplasms and those with metastatic disease were excluded. Multivariate analysis included adjustment for age, race, sex, neoplasm grade, stage, operation performed, receipt of RT, and neoplasm registry.
We identified 4,614 patients who underwent operative treatment for stage 1-2B GB (including T1B-T3 and LN positive or negative) cancer between 1988 and 2004. Of 4,614 patients, 9.6% (442) had radical resection, whereas 90.4% (4,172) had cholecystectomy alone. Among patients undergoing radical resection, 56% had LNs evaluated as compared with 28% of patients after cholecystectomy. For patients with T1B and T2 neoplasms who underwent radical resection, pathologic evaluation of at least 1 LN was associated with a significant improvement in median overall survival (OS) compared with those who had no LN evaluated (123 months vs 22 months; P < .0001). Radical resection with no LN evaluation provided similar OS compared with cholecystectomy alone (22 months vs 23 months; P = NS). For patients with T3 neoplasms, radical resection, including pathologic evaluation of at least 1 LN, was also associated with improved OS compared with radical resection with no LN evaluation (12 months vs 7 months; P = .0014). Again, individuals who had radical resection without LN evaluation had similar OS compared with those who had cholecystectomy alone (7 months vs 6 months; P = NS). Individuals who had radical resection with LN evaluation were more likely to receive RT than those who had radical resection without LN evaluation (33.1% vs 19.1%; P = .002). In multivariate analysis (including adjustment for RT), however, LN evaluation was still associated with a decrease in mortality compared with no LN evaluated (HR = 0.611; 95% CI = 0.484, 0.770). The pathologic evaluation of additional LN (>1) did not provide any additional benefit compared with the evaluation of a single node (HR = 0.795; 95% CI = 0.571, 1.107). Radical resection alone (without LN evaluation) did not provide any benefit over cholecystectomy alone (HR = 1.098; 95% CI = 0.971, 1.241).
LN evaluation is a critical component of radical resection for GB cancer. In the absence of LN evaluation, radical resection provides no benefit over cholecystectomy alone.
Surgery 10/2009; 146(4):706-11; discussion 711-3. DOI:10.1016/j.surg.2009.06.056 · 3.38 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.