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
. 2023 Jan;40(1):65-77.
doi: 10.12701/jyms.2022.00213. Epub 2022 May 26.

The effect and therapeutic compliance of adjuvant therapy in patients with cholangiocarcinoma after R0 resection: a retrospective study

Han Taek Jeong  1 , Joonkee Lee  1 , Hyeong Ho Jo  1 , Ho Gak Kim  1 , Jimin Han  1
Affiliations

The effect and therapeutic compliance of adjuvant therapy in patients with cholangiocarcinoma after R0 resection: a retrospective study

Han Taek Jeong et al. J Yeungnam Med Sci. 2023 Jan.

Abstract

Backgruound: This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between surveillance and adjuvant therapy (AT) groups after R0 resection for cholangiocarcinoma (CCA).

Methods: A total of 154 patients who underwent R0 resection for CCA at the Daegu Catholic University Medical Center between January 2010 and December 2019 were included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed.

Results: The median follow-up duration was 899 days. There were 109 patients in the AT group and 45 patients in the surveillance group. The patients in the AT group were younger (67 years vs. 74 years, p<0.001) and included more males (64.2% vs. 46.7%, p=0.044). The proportion of patients with stage III CCA was larger in the AT group than in the surveillance group (13.8% vs. 2.2%, p=0.005). In addition, AT did not improve OS (5-year OS rate, 69.3% in the AT group vs. 64.2% in the surveillance group, p=0.806) or PFS (5-year PFS rate, 42.6% in the AT group vs. 48.9% in the surveillance group, p=0.113). In multivariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model, stage III CCA (hazard ratio [HR], 10.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.92-40.00; p<0.001) was a significant predictor of OS. American Society of Anesthesiologists classification II (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.81; p=0.005), and American Joint Committee on Cancer stages II (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.25-7.89; p=0.015) and III (HR, 8.08; 95% CI, 2.80-23.32; p<0.001) were independent predictors of PFS.

Conclusion: AT after R0 resection for CCA did not improve OS or PFS.

Keywords: Adjuvant chemotherapy; Biliary tract surgical procedures; Cholangiocarcinoma; Survival analysis; Watchful waiting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Flowchart of the study population.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Comparison of survival curves for patients with R0-resected cholangiocarcinoma. (A) Overall survival. (B) Progression-free survival.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Comparison of overall survival for patients with R0-resected cholangiocarcinoma. (A) Patients with lymphovascular invasion. (B) Patients with perineural invasion. (C) Patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I disease. (D) Patients with AJCC stage II disease.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Comparison of progression-free survival for patients with R0-resected cholangiocarcinoma. (A) Patients with lymphovascular invasion. (B) Patients with perineural invasion. (C) Patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I disease. (D) Patients with AJCC stage II disease.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.
Comparison of overall survival for patients with R0-resected cholangiocarcinoma according to regimens. (A) Comparison between gemcitabine group and surveillance group. (B) Comparison between gemcitabine/cisplatin group and surveillance group. (C) Comparison between tegafur/uracil group and surveillance group. (D) Comparison of overall survival among regimens.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.
Comparison of progression-free survival for patients with R0-resected cholangiocarcinoma according to regimens. (A) Comparison between gemcitabine group and surveillance group. (B) Comparison between gemcitabine/cisplatin group and surveillance group. (C) Comparison between tegafur/uracil group and surveillance group. (D) Comparison of overall survival among regimens.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Brindley PJ, Bachini M, Ilyas SI, Khan SA, Loukas A, Sirica AE, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021;7:65. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Khan SA, Tavolari S, Brandi G. Cholangiocarcinoma: epidemiology and risk factors. Liver Int. 2019;39(Suppl 1):19–31. - PubMed
    1. Belkouz A, Wilmink JW, Haj Mohammad N, Hagendoorn J, de Vos-Geelen J, Dejong CH, et al. Advances in adjuvant therapy of biliary tract cancer: an overview of current clinical evidence based on phase II and III trials. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2020;151:102975. - PubMed
    1. Allen MJ, Knox JJ. A review of current adjuvant and neoadjuvant systemic treatments for cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma. Hepatoma Res. 2021;7:73.
    1. Kim BW, Oh CM, Choi HY, Park JW, Cho H, Ki M. Incidence and overall survival of biliary tract cancers in South Korea from 2006 to 2015: using the National Health Information Database. Gut Liver. 2019;13:104–13. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources