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
. 2025 Jun;32(6):4363-4373.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-025-17038-w. Epub 2025 Feb 28.

Long-Term Outcomes According to Surgical Margin in Mass-Forming Cholangiocarcinoma: The Role of R1vasc

Affiliations

Long-Term Outcomes According to Surgical Margin in Mass-Forming Cholangiocarcinoma: The Role of R1vasc

Flavio Milana et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2025 Jun.

Abstract

Background: R0 resection is the standard for mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma (MFCCC). R1vasc resection (tumor-vessel detachment) yielded results comparable to R0 and superior to parenchymal-tumor exposure (R1par) for hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastases. This study aims to clarify R1vasc outcomes for MFCCC.

Patients and methods: Margin status of patients with MFCCC undergoing resection between 2008 and 2022 was assessed to determine the oncological efficacy of R1vasc regarding survival and hepatic recurrence.

Results: The study analyzed 125 patients: 68 (54.4%) R0, 18 (14.4%) R1vasc, 24 (19.2%) R1par, and 15 (12.0%) R1vasc + par. Tumor size was similar between R0 (4.4 cm, range 1.5-19.0) and R1vasc (4.3 cm, range 2.3-14.5, p = 0.754) but larger for R1par (8.2 cm, range 2.5-15.0, p = 0.005) and R1vasc + par (9.0 cm, range 5.0-17.0, p < 0.001). The median overall survival (OS) was comparable for R0 [64.8 months; 95% confidence interval (CI): 50.0-79.6], R1vasc (54.4 months; 95% CI 19.6-89.2; p = 0.932), and R1vasc + par (62.0 months; 95% CI 35.6-88.5; p = 0.989). R1par showed lower OS (26.8 months; 95% CI 16.1-37.6; p = 0.134). Local recurrence was higher for R1par (45.8%, p < 0.0001) compared with R0 (10.3%) and similar for R1vasc (16.6%) and R1vasc + par (20.0%). Survival after hepatic recurrence was higher for R1vasc compared with R1par (p = 0.041).

Conclusions: R1vasc is a valid option for increasing resectability in patients with MFCCC, with OS being comparable to R0. R1vasc + par may be necessary for larger tumors.

Keywords: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; Liver resection; Mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma (MFCCC); Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy; R1 vascular resection (R1vasc); Tumor exposure; Vascular detachment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosures: The authors declare no conflict of interest and confirm that they received no financial or material support related to this study.

References

    1. Mazzaferro V, Gorgen A, Roayaie S, Droz Dit Busset M, Sapisochin G. Liver resection and transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol. 2020;72(2):364–77. - DOI - PubMed
    1. European Association for the Study of the Liver. Electronic address: easloffice@easloffice.eu, European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL-ILCA clinical practice guidelines on the management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol. 2023;79(1):181–208.
    1. Kupietzky A, Ariche A. Surgical aspects of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cancers. 2022;14(24):6265. - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Moris D, Palta M, Kim C, Allen PJ, Morse MA, Lidsky ME. Advances in the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: an overview of the current and future therapeutic landscape for clinicians. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73(2):198–222. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Braconi C, Patel T. Cholangiocarcinoma: new insights into disease pathogenesis and biology. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2010;24(4):871–84. - DOI - PubMed - PMC

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources