Bile duct segmental resection versus pancreatoduodenectomy for middle and distal common bile duct cancer

Survival Comparison of Different Operation Types for Middle Bile Duct Cancer: Bile Duct Resection versus Pancreaticoduodenectomy Considering Complications and Adjuvant Treatment Effects

BACKGROUND

Margin status is one of the most significant prognostic factors after curative surgery for middle bile duct (MBD) cancer. Bile duct resection (BDR) is commonly converted to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) to achieve R0 resection. Additionally, adjuvant treatment is actively performed after surgery to improve survival. However, the wider the range of surgery, the higher the chance of complications; this, in turn, makes adjuvant treatment impossible. Nevertheless, no definitive surgical strategy considers the possible complication rates and subsequent adjuvant treatment. We aimed to investigate the appropriate surgical type considering the margin status, complications, and adjuvant treatment in MBD cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2008 to 2017, 520 patients diagnosed with MBD cancer at the Samsung Medical Center were analyzed retrospectively according to the operation type, margin status, complications, and adjuvant treatment. The R1 group was defined as having a carcinoma margin.

RESULTS

The 5-year survival rate for patients who underwent R0 and R1 resection was 54.4% and 33.3%, respectively (p = 0.131). Prognostic factors affecting the overall survival were the age, preoperative CA19-9 level, T stage, and N stage, but not the operation type, margin status, complications, or adjuvant treatment. The complication rates were 11.5% and 29.8% in the BDR and PD groups, respectively (p < 0.001). We observed no significant difference in the adjuvant treatment ratio according to complications (p = 0.675). Patients with PD who underwent R0 resection and could not undergo chemotherapy because of complications reported better survival rates than those with BDR who underwent R1 resection after adjuvant treatment (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

The survival outcome of patients with R1 margins who underwent BDR did not match those with R0 margins after PD, even after adjuvant treatment. Due to improvements in surgical techniques and the ability to resolve complications, surgical complications exert a marginal effect on survival. Therefore, surgeons should secure R0 margins to achieve the best survival outcomes.

Segmental bile duct resection versus pancreatoduodenectomy for middle and distal third bile duct cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

INTRODUCTION

Data regarding oncologic outcomes of segmental bile duct resection (SBDR) versus pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for bile duct cancers (BDC) are conflicting. We compared SBDR and PD for BDC utilizing pooled data analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive PRISMA 2020 systematic review was performed. Studies comparing SBDR with PD for BDC were included. Pooled mean differences (MD), odds ratios (OR), and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed. Study quality, bias, heterogeneity, and certainty were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twelve studies from 2004 to 2021 were included, comprising 533 SBDR and 1,313 PD. SBDR was associated with positive proximal duct margins (OR 1.56; CI 1.11-2.18; P = .01), and distal duct margins (OR 43.25; CI 10.38-180.16; P < .01). SBDR yielded fewer lymph nodes (MD -6.93 nodes; CI -9.72-4.15; P < .01) and detected fewer nodal metastases (OR 0.72; CI 0.55-0.94; P = .01). SBDR portended less perioperative morbidity (OR 0.31; CI 0.21-0.46; P < .01), but not mortality (OR 0.52; CI 0.20-1.32; P = .17). SBDR was associated with locoregional recurrences (OR 1.88; CI 1.01-3.53; P = .02), and lymph node recurrences (OR 2.13; CI 1.42-3.2; P = .04). SBDR yielded decreased 5-year OS (OR 0.75; CI 0.65-0.85; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite decreased perioperative morbidity, SBDR appears to provide inferior oncologic control for BDC.

Impact of Nrf2 overexpression on cholangiocarcinoma treatment and clinical prognosis

PURPOSE

Nrf2 regulates antioxidant protein expression and protects against drug toxicity and oxidative stress, whereas Keap1 controls Nrf2 activity. The Keap1-Nrf2 pathway affects the prognosis of various cancers, however, its effect on cholangiocarcinoma chemoresistance and prognosis remains unclear. This study aimed to determine whether the Keap1-Nrf2 pathway affects chemoresistance and prognosis of distal cholangiocarcinoma.

METHODS

We investigated the correlation between Nrf2 and Keap1 expression and clinical characteristics and prognosis in 91 patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma who underwent curative surgery. Immunohistochemical staining was performed on paraffin blocks using primary antibodies against Nrf2 and Keap1. The relationship between Keap1 and Nrf2 protein expression levels, and clinical characteristics and prognosis was examined.

RESULTS

Nrf2 expression was not associated with overall survival in patients who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy (P=0.994). Among patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, the Nrf2 low expression group had a significantly longer median overall survival than the Nrf2 high expression group in Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (P=0.019). In multivariate analysis, high expression of Nrf2 was confirmed as an independent poor prognostic factor in the group receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (P=0.041).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that Nrf2 overexpression reduces the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in distal cholangiocarcinoma.

Prognostic Impact of Resection Margin Length in Patients Undergoing Resection for Mid-Common Bile Duct Cancer: A Single-Center Experience

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to analyze survival outcomes after segmental bile duct resection (BDR) for mid-common bile duct cancer according to the length of the tumor-free BDR margins.

METHOD

A total of 133 consecutive patients underwent BDR for mid-bile duct cancers between December 2007 and June 2017. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to verify the cutoff value of the R0 resection margin. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to resection margin status (group 1; R0 resection margin ≥5 mm; group 2, R0 resection margin <5 mm; and group 3, R1 resection margin).

RESULTS

The median follow-up period of the study cohort was 24 months. A resection margin of 5 mm in length was verified to be suitable as a reliable cutoff value. The median disease-free and overall survival (OS) periods were 32 and 49 months in group 1, 13 and 20 months in group 2, and 23 and 30 months in group 3, respectively (p = 0.03 and p < 0.001). The length of the tumor-free resection margin (hazard ratio, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-3.67; p = 0.022) was independent factor affecting OS.

CONCLUSIONS

BDR for mid-bile duct cancer appears to be a feasible surgical option in selected patients with careful preoperative imaging assessment and intraoperative frozen-section diagnosis. Our results suggest achieving a BDR margin ≥5 mm to improve survival outcomes.

Double rarity: malignant masquerade biliary stricture in a situs inversus totalis patient

Background

Situs inversus totalis is a rare anatomical variation of both the thoracic and the abdominal organs. Common bile duct strictures can be caused by malignant and benign diseases as well. 7–18% of the latter ones are 'malignant masquerade’ cases, as pre-operative differentiation is difficult.

Case presentation

We present the case of a 68y male patient with known situs inversus totalis and a recent onset of obstructive jaundice caused by a malignant behaving common bile duct stricture. Technically difficult endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, brush cytology, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound, and percutaneous transhepatic drainage with stent implantation were performed for proper diagnosis. Cholecystectomy, common bile duct resection with hilar lymphadenectomy, and hepatico-jejunostomy have been performed following multidisciplinary consultation. The final histology report did not confirm any clear malignancy, the patient is doing well.

Conclusion

In situs inversus patients, both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures can lead to various difficulties. Benign biliary strictures are frequently misdiagnosed preoperatively as cholangiocellular carcinoma. Surgery is usually unavoidable, involving a significant risk of complications. The co-existence of these two difficult diagnostic and therapeutic features made our case challenging.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01155-w.

Oncologic Reappraisal of Bile Duct Resection for Middle-Third Cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Although bile duct resection (BDR) in addition to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is considered a surgical approach in patients with middle-third cholangiocarcinoma (MCC), available prognostic information after BDR remains very limited. The aim of this study was to reappraise BDR from the viewpoint of surgical oncology.

METHODS

Patients who underwent BDR or PD for MCC between 2001 and 2010 at 32 Japanese hospitals were included. Clinicopathological factors were retrospectively compared according to surgical procedure to identify a subset cohort who benefited most from BDR.

RESULTS

During the study, 92 patients underwent BDR (n = 38) or PD (n = 54). BDR was characterized by a shorter operation time, less blood loss, less frequent complications, and lower mortality, than PD. The incidence of positive surgical margins was 26.3% versus 5.6% (P = 0.007). The survival rate after BDR was significantly worse than that after PD: 38.8% versus 54.8% at 5 years (P = 0.035), and BDR was independently associated with deteriorated survival [hazard ratio (HR), 1.76; P = 0.023] by multivariable analysis. In the BDR group, tumor length < 15 mm (HR, 3.38; P = 0.017) and ductal margin length ≥ 10 mm (HR, 2.54; P = 0.018) were independent positive prognostic factors. Stratified by these two favorable factors, the 5-year survival rate was 63.0% in patients with 1/2 factors and 6.7% in those with 0 factors (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with MCC, BDR provided a better short-term and a worse long-term outcome than PD. However, patient selection using tumor length and ductal margin length may allow a favorable survival probability even after BDR.

Prognosis for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients treated with postoperative adjuvant transcatheter hepatic artery chemoembolization

OBJECTIVE

We used meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of transcatheter hepatic arterial chemoembolization (TACE) for the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).

METHODS

We performed the meta-analysis using the R 3.12 software and the quality evaluation of data using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The main outcomes were recorded as 1-year overall survival (OS), 3-year OS, 5-year OS, and hazard ratio (HR) of TACE treatment or non-TACE treatment. The heterogeneity test was performed using the Q-test based on chi-square and I² statistics. Egger's test was used to test the publication bias. The odds ratio or HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to represent the effect index.

RESULTS

Nine controlled clinical trials involving 1724 participants were included in this study; patients came mainly from China, Italy, South Korea, and Germany. In the OS meta-analysis, the 1-year and 3-year OS showed significant heterogeneity, but not the 5-year OS. TACE increased the 1-year OS (odds ratio = 2.66, 95% CI: 1.10-6.46) of the patients with ICC, but the 3- and 5-year OS rates were not significantly increased. The results had no publication bias, but the stability was weak. The HR had significant heterogeneity (I² = 0%, P= 0.54). TACE significantly decreased the HR of ICC patients (HR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.48-0.73). The results had no publication bias, and the stability was good.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with TACE is effective for patients with ICC. Regular updating and further research and analysis still need to be carried out.

Benefits and limitations of middle bile duct segmental resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a standardized strategy for patients with middle and distal bile duct cancers. The aim of this study was to compare clinicopathological features of bile duct segmental resection (BDR) with PD in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

METHODS

Consecutive cases with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma who underwent BDR (n = 21) or PD (n = 84) with achievement of R0 or R1 resection in Kobe University Hospital between January 2000 and December 2016 were enrolled in the present study.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent PD were significantly younger than those receiving BDR. The frequency of preoperative jaundice, biliary drainage and cholangitis was not significantly different between the two groups. The duration of surgery was longer and there was more intraoperative bleeding in the PD than in the BDR group (553 vs. 421 min, and 770 vs. 402 mL; both P<0.01). More major complications (>Clavien-Dindo IIIa) were observed in the PD group (46% vs. 10%, P<0.01). Postoperative hospital stay was also longer in that group (30 vs. 19 days, P = 0.02). Pathological assessment revealed that tumors were less advanced in the BDR group but the rate of lymph node metastasis was similar in both groups (33% in BDR and 48% in PD, P = 0.24). The rate of R0 resection was significantly higher in the PD group (80% vs. 38%, P<0.01). Adjuvant chemotherapy was more frequently administered to patients in the BDR group (62% vs. 38%, P = 0.04). Although 5-year overall survival rates were similar in both groups (44% for BDR and 51% for PD, P = 0.72), in patients with T1 and T2, the BDR group tended to have poorer prognosis (44% vs. 68% at 5-year, P = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

BDR was comparable in prognosis to PD in middle bile duct cancer. Less invasiveness and lower morbidity of BDR justified this technique for selected patients in a poor general condition.