Long-Term Outcomes According to Surgical Margin in Mass-Forming Cholangiocarcinoma: The Role of R1vasc
- PMID: 40019600
- DOI: 10.1245/s10434-025-17038-w
Long-Term Outcomes According to Surgical Margin in Mass-Forming Cholangiocarcinoma: The Role of R1vasc
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.
© 2025. Society of Surgical Oncology.
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
-
- 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.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
