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
. 2022 Dec 12;14(24):6126.
doi: 10.3390/cancers14246126.

The Prognostic Role of True Radical Resection in Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma after Improved Evaluation of Radial Margin Status

Mario De Bellis  1 , Maria Gaia Mastrosimini  2 , Simone Conci  1 , Sara Pecori  2 , Tommaso Campagnaro  1 , Claudia Castelli  2 , Paola Capelli  2 , Aldo Scarpa  2 , Alfredo Guglielmi  1 , Andrea Ruzzenente  1
Affiliations

The Prognostic Role of True Radical Resection in Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma after Improved Evaluation of Radial Margin Status

Mario De Bellis et al. Cancers (Basel). .

Abstract

Background: The evaluation of surgical margins in resected perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHCC) remains a challenging issue. Both ductal (DM) and radial margin (RM) should be considered to define true radical resections (R0). Although DM status is routinely described in pathological reports, RM status is often overlooked. Therefore, the frequency of true R0 and its impact on survival might be biased.

Objective: To improve the evaluation of RM status and investigate the impact of true R0 on survival.

Methods: From 2014 to 2020, 90 patients underwent curative surgery for PHCC at Verona University Hospital, Verona, Italy. Both DM (proximal and distal biliary margin) and RM (hepatic, periductal, and vascular margin) status were evaluated by expert hepatobiliary pathologists. Patients with lymph-node metastases or positive surgical margins (R1) were candidates for adjuvant treatment. Clinicopathological and survival data were retrieved from an institutional database.

Results: True R0 were 46% (41) and overall R1 were 54% (49). RM positivity resulted in being higher than DM positivity (48% versus 27%). Overall survival was better in patients with true R0 than in patients with R1 (median survival time: 53 vs. 28 months; p = 0.016). Likewise, the best recurrence-free survival was observed in R0 compared with R1 (median survival time: 32 vs. 15 months; p = 0.006). Multivariable analysis identified residual disease status as an independent prognostic factor of both OS (p = 0.009, HR = 2.68, 95% CI = 1.27-5.63) and RFS (p = 0.009, HR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.20-3.83).

Conclusion: Excellent survival was observed in true R0 patients. The improved evaluation of RM status is mandatory to properly stratify prognosis and select patients for adjuvant treatment.

Keywords: hilar cholangiocarcinoma; periductal margin; radial margin; residual disease; surgical margin.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comprehensive analysis of surgical margins positivity in R1 resection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overall and recurrence-free survival according to residual disease status.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Overall and recurrence-free survival according to radial margin status.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Overall and recurrence-free survival according to residual disease and lymph-nodes status.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Overall survival in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma by different evaluation of radical resection.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Nagino M., Ebata T., Yokoyama Y., Igami T., Sugawara G., Takahashi Y., Nimura Y. Evolution of Surgical Treatment for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Single-Center 34-Year Review of 574 Consecutive Resections. Ann. Surg. 2013;258:129–140. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182708b57. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Groot Koerkamp B., Wiggers J.K., Gonen M., Doussot A., Allen P.J., Besselink M.G.H., Blumgart L.H., Busch O.R.C., D’Angelica M.I., DeMatteo R.P., et al. Survival after Resection of Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma-Development and External Validation of a Prognostic Nomogram. Ann. Oncol. 2015;26:1930–1935. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv279. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rassam F., Roos E., van Lienden K.P., van Hooft J.E., Klümpen H.J., van Tienhoven G., Bennink R.J., Engelbrecht M.R., Schoorlemmer A., Beuers U.H.W., et al. Modern Work-up and Extended Resection in Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: The AMC Experience. Langenbeck’s Arch. Surg. 2018;403:289–307. doi: 10.1007/s00423-018-1649-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tang Z., Yang Y., Zhao Z., Wei K., Meng W., Li X. The Clinicopathological Factors Associated with Prognosis of Patients with Resectable Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicine. 2018;97:e11999. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011999. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shinohara K., Ebata T., Shimoyamo Y., Mizuni T., Yokoyama Y., Yamaguchi Ã.J., Onoe Ã.S., Watanabe N., Nagino M. A Study on Radial Margin Status in Resected Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma. Ann. Surg. 2019;273:572–578. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003305. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources