Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008;10(2):122-5.
doi: 10.1080/13651820801993540.

Criteria of unresectability and the decision-making process

Affiliations

Criteria of unresectability and the decision-making process

R D Schulick. HPB (Oxford). 2008.

Abstract

Determination of the exact criteria for resectability in patients with cholangiocarcinoma and how they are most efficiently evaluated has many limitations. Among many factors taken into account in this decision-making process are: the condition of the patient, the biology of the disease, and the technical expertise of the surgeon and hospital. An attempt is made here to organize recommendations for the work-up of patients and the main criteria for resectability as best possible, keeping in mind that there will always be some limited room for exceptions, especially if the biology is favorable. Work-up and determination of resectability for patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma are more straightforward than at the other two sites of the disease (perihilar and peripheral). In general, these follow the same principles as those for other periampullary carcinomas (pancreas, ampullary, and duodenal). The work-up and determination of resectability for patients with peripheral cholangiocarcinoma can be relatively straightforward if the lesion is away from the hilus of the liver and does not involve a significant proportion of parenchyma, but can be problematic if it is more central or very large. Patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinomas are perhaps the most challenging, as factors such as patient condition, biology of the disease, local involvement of the major vessels and bile ducts at the hilum, and the future liver remnant all have a bearing in the decision-making process.

Keywords: Cholangiocarcinoma; resectability; staging.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Cholangiocarcinoma – staging.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Cholangiocarcinoma – criteria of unresectability.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Atkins D, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: Pilot study of a new system. BMC Health Services Research. 2005;5:25. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lang H, Sotiropoulos GC, Frühauf NR, Dömland M, Paul A, Kind EM, et al. Extended hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma (ICC): when is it worthwhile? Single center experience with 27 resections in 50 patients over a 5-year period. Ann Surg. 2005;241:134–43. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Otto G, Romaneehsen B, Hoppe-Lotichius M, Bittinger F. Hilar cholangiocarcinoma: resectability and radicality after routine diagnostic imaging. J Hepatobil Pancreat Surg. 2004;11:310–18. - PubMed
    1. Goere D, Wagholikar GD, Pessaux P, Carrère N, Sibert A, Vilgrain S, et al. Utility of staging laparoscopy in subsets of biliary cancers. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:721–5. - PubMed
    1. Nimura Y, Kamiya J, Kondo S, Nagino M, Uesaka K, Oda K, et al. Aggressive preoperative management and extended surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: Nagoya experience. J Hepatobil Pancreat Surg. 2000;7:155–62. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources