Hepatobiliary cancers. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology.

Robert H. Luri Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University.
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN (Impact Factor: 4.18). 10/2006; 4(8):728-50.
Source: PubMed


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.

9 Reads
  • Source
    • "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 [9]. 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
  • Source
    [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
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Criteria for selecting patients to receive adjuvant chemotherapy in cases of resected intrahepatic or hilar cholangiocarcinoma (CC) are lacking. Some clinicians advocate the provision of adjuvant therapy in patients with lymph node (LN)-positive disease; however, nodal assessment is often inadequate. The aim of this study was to identify a surrogate criterion based on primary tumour characteristics. Methods: All patients who underwent resection for hilar or intrahepatic CC at a single institution between January 2000 and September 2009 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Pathological factors were recorded. The primary outcome assessed was overall survival (OS). In total, 69 patients underwent resection for hilar (n=34) or intrahepatic (n=35) CC. Their median age was 66 years and 27 patients (39%) were male. Median follow-up was 22 months and median OS was 17 months. Median tumour size was 5 cm. Overall, 23% of patients had a positive resection margin, 44% had perineural invasion, 32% had lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and 25% had positive LNs. The median number of LNs removed was two and the median number of positive LNs was zero. The presence of LVI was associated with reduced OS (11.9 months vs. 23.1 months; P=0.023). After accounting for all other adverse tumour factors, the presence of LVI persisted as the only negative prognostic factor for OS on multivariate Cox regression. In patients who had undergone resection of hilar or intrahepatic CC, the presence of LVI was strongly associated with reduced OS. Thus the finding of LVI may potentially be used as a criterion in the selection of patients for adjuvant chemotherapy.
    HPB 09/2011; 13(9):605-11. DOI:10.1111/j.1477-2574.2011.00335.x · 2.68 Impact Factor
Show more