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
Meta-Analysis
. 2012 Sep;85(1017):1255-62.
doi: 10.1259/bjr/88405305.

Radiological staging in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A T Ruys  1 , B E van Beem, M R W Engelbrecht, S Bipat, J Stoker, T M Van Gulik
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Radiological staging in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A T Ruys et al. Br J Radiol. 2012 Sep.

Abstract

Objective: To obtain diagnostic performance values of CT, MRI, ultrasound and 18-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET)/CT for staging of hilar cholangiocarcinoma.

Methods: A comprehensive systematic search was performed for articles published up to March 2011 that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed with the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool.

Results: 16 articles (448 patients) were included that evaluated CT (n=11), MRI (n=3), ultrasound (n=3), or PET/CT (n=1). Overall, their quality was moderate. The accuracy estimates for evaluation of CT for ductal extent of the tumour was 86%. The sensitivity and specificity estimates of CT were 89% and 92% for evaluation of portal vein involvement, 83% and 93% for hepatic artery involvement, and 61% and 88% for lymph node involvement, respectively. Data were too limited for adequate comparisons of the different techniques.

Conclusion: Diagnostic accuracy studies of CT, MRI, ultrasound or PET/CT for staging of hilar cholangiocarcinoma are sparse and have moderate methodological quality. Data primarily concern CT, which has an acceptable accuracy for assessment of ductal extent, portal vein and hepatic artery involvement, but low sensitivity for nodal status.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of articles included in the meta-analysis. HCCA, hilar cholangiocarcinoma.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kloek JJ, van Delden OM, Erdogan D, ten Kate FJ, Rauws EA, Busch OR, et al. Differentiation of malignant and benign proximal bile duct strictures: the diagnostic dilemma. World J Gastroenterol 2008;14:5032–8 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ito F, Cho CS, Rikkers LF, Weber SM. Hilar cholangiocarcinoma: current management. Ann Surg 2009;250:210–18 - PubMed
    1. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bismuth H, Nakache R, Diamond T. Management strategies in resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg 1992;215:31–8 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cho ES, Park MS, Yu JS, Kim MJ, Kim KW. Biliary ductal involvement of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: multidetector computed tomography versus magnetic resonance cholangiography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007;31:72–8 - PubMed