Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validation study for prognostic scoring system for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma surgery using preoperative factors

  • Research
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Recently, systemic inflammatory responses (SIR) have been shown to play a pivotal role in the development and progression of cancer. We previously reported that four factors, serum carcinoembryonic antigen (> 7 ng/dL), serum albumin (< 3.5 g/dL), C-reactive protein (> 0.5 mg/dL), and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR; > 150), were independent prognostic factors after perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHCC) surgery. We also advocated a prognosis predictive preoperative prognostic score (PPS) using these four factors and showed that PPS could predict patients’ prognosis on survival. This retrospective study sought to validate preoperatively available prognostic factors for survival after major hepatectomy as reported previously, including PPS for PHCC.

Methods

We retrospectively validated our PPS score and reported SIR scoring systems using the data of 125 consecutive patients who underwent PHCC surgery from January 2010 to November 2020.

Results

PPS was an independent preoperative prognostic factors for survival. The T and N categories were independent prognostic factors. Other SIR scores were not independent preoperative factors in the univariate analysis. Among SIR scores, only the PPS was found to be associated with OS and disease-free survival. The PPS was also associated with histopathological factors (T and N categories).

Conclusion

PPS could be useful in predicting long-term survival after PHCC and may be a more useful scoring system than other SIR systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Kondo S, Hirano S, Ambo Y, Tanaka E, Okushiba S, Morikawa T, Katoh H (2004) Forty consecutive resections of hilar cholangiocarcinoma with no postoperative mortality and no positive ductal margins: results of a prospective study. Ann Surg 240:95–101. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000129491.43855.6b

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Wiggers JK, Groot Koerkamp B, Cieslak KP, Doussot A, van Klaveren D, Allen PJ, Besselink MG, Busch OR, D’Angelica MI, DeMatteo RP, Gouma DJ, Kingham TP, van Gulik TM, Jarnagin WR (2016) Postoperative mortality after liver resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: development of a risk score and importance of biliary drainage of the future liver remnant. J Am Coll Surg 223:321-331.e321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.03.035

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Matsuo K, Rocha FG, Ito K, D’Angelica MI, Allen PJ, Fong Y, Dematteo RP, Gonen M, Endo I, Jarnagin WR (2012) The Blumgart preoperative staging system for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: analysis of resectability and outcomes in 380 patients. J Am Coll Surg 215:343–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.05.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nagino M, Ebata T, Yokoyama Y, Igami T, Sugawara G, Takahashi Y, Nimura Y (2013) Evolution of surgical treatment for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a single-center 34-year review of 574 consecutive resections. Ann Surg 258:129–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182708b57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Komaya K, Ebata T, Yokoyama Y, Igami T, Sugawara G, Mizuno T, Yamaguchi J, Nagino M (2018) Recurrence after curative-intent resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: analysis of a large cohort with a close postoperative follow-up approach. Surgery 163:732–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2017.08.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van Gulik TM, Kloek JJ, Ruys AT, Busch OR, van Tienhoven GJ, Lameris JS, Rauws EA, Gouma DJ (2011) Multidisciplinary management of hilar cholangiocarcinoma (Klatskin tumor): extended resection is associated with improved survival. Eur J Surg Oncol 37:65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2010.11.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yonemori A, Kondo S, Matsuno Y, Ito T, Nakanishi Y, Miyamoto M, Tanaka E, Hirano S (2010) Prognostic impact of regional lymph node micrometastasis in patients with node-negative biliary cancer. Ann Surg 252:99–106. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e33c0a

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Noji T, Kondo S, Hirano S, Tanaka E, Suzuki O, Shichinohe T (2008) Computed tomography evaluation of regional lymph node metastases in patients with biliary cancer. Br J Surg 95:92–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5920

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kobayashi S, Tomokuni A, Gotoh K, Takahashi H, Akita H, Marubashi S, Yamada T, Teshima T, Fukui K, Fujiwara Y, Sakon M (2017) A retrospective analysis of the clinical effects of neoadjuvant combination therapy with full-dose gemcitabine and radiation therapy in patients with biliary tract cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:763–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.12.008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Balkwill F, Mantovani A (2001) Inflammation and cancer: back to Virchow? Lancet 357:539–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04046-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Coussens LM, Werb Z (2002) Inflammation and cancer. Nature 420:860–867. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. McDonald B, Spicer J, Giannais B, Fallavollita L, Brodt P, Ferri LE (2009) Systemic inflammation increases cancer cell adhesion to hepatic sinusoids by neutrophil mediated mechanisms. Int J Cancer 125:1298–1305. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.24409

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Proctor MJ, Morrison DS, Talwar D, Balmer SM, O’Reilly DS, Foulis AK, Horgan PG, McMillan DC (2011) An inflammation-based prognostic score (mGPS) predicts cancer survival independent of tumour site: a Glasgow Inflammation Outcome Study. Br J Cancer 104:726–734. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6606087

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang DS, Luo HY, Qiu MZ, Wang ZQ, Zhang DS, Wang FH, Li YH, Xu RH (2012) Comparison of the prognostic values of various inflammation based factors in patients with pancreatic cancer. Med Oncol 29:3092–3100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-012-0226-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Walsh SR, Cook EJ, Goulder F, Justin TA, Keeling NJ (2005) Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic factor in colorectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 91:181–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.20329

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nozoe T, Ninomiya M, Maeda T, Matsukuma A, Nakashima H, Ezaki T (2010) Prognostic nutritional index: a tool to predict the biological aggressiveness of gastric carcinoma. Surg Today 40:440–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-009-4065-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Okuno M, Ebata T, Yokoyama Y, Igami T, Sugawara G, Mizuno T, Yamaguchi J, Nagino M (2016) Evaluation of inflammation-based prognostic scores in patients undergoing hepatobiliary resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastroenterol 51:153–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-015-1103-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hashimoto Y, Ajiki T, Yanagimoto H, Tsugawa D, Shinozaki K, Toyama H, Kido M, Fukumoto T (2021) Risk factors for occult metastasis detected by inflammation-based prognostic scores and tumor markers in biliary tract cancer. World J Clin Cases 9:9770–9782. https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v9.i32.9770

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Oshiro Y, Sasaki R, Fukunaga K, Kondo T, Oda T, Takahashi H, Ohkohchi N (2013) Inflammation-based prognostic score is a useful predictor of postoperative outcome in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 20:389–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-012-0550-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Juntermanns B, Radunz S, Heuer M, Hertel S, Reis H, Neuhaus JP, Vernadakis S, Trarbach T, Paul A, Kaiser GM (2010) Tumor markers as a diagnostic key for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Eur J Med Res 15:357–361. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-783x-15-8-357

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Saito H, Noji T, Okamura K, Tsuchikawa T, Shichinohe T, Hirano S (2016) A new prognostic scoring system using factors available preoperatively to predict survival after operative resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Surgery 159:842–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.10.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nagino M, DeMatteo R, Lang H, Cherqui D, Malago M, Kawakatsu S, DeOliveira ML, Adam R, Aldrighetti L, Boudjema K, Chapman W, Clary B, de Santibañes E, Dong J, Ebata T, Endo I, Geller D, Guglielmi A, Kato T, Lee SG, Lodge P, Nadalin S, Pinna A, Polak W, Soubrane O, Clavien PA (2021) Proposal of a new comprehensive notation for hepatectomy: the “New World” terminology. Ann Surg 274:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000004808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibañes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Utsumi M, Kitada K, Tokunaga N, Kato T, Narusaka T, Hamano R, Miyasou H, Tsunemitsu Y, Otsuka S, Inagaki M (2021) A combined prediction model for biliary tract cancer using the prognostic nutritional index and pathological findings: a single-center retrospective study. BMC Gastroenterol 21:375. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-021-01957-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Kawakami H, Kondo S, Kuwatani M, Yamato H, Ehira N, Kudo T, Eto K, Haba S, Matsumoto J, Kato K, Tsuchikawa T, Tanaka E, Hirano S, Asaka M (2011) Preoperative biliary drainage for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: which stent should be selected? J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 18:630–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-011-0404-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Liska V, Treska V, Skalicky T, Fichtl J, Bruha J, Vycital O, Topolcan O, Palek R, Rosendorf J, Polivka J, Holubec L (2017) Evaluation of tumor markers and their impact on prognosis in gallbladder, bile duct and cholangiocellular carcinomas - a pilot study. Anticancer Res 37:2003–2009. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.11544

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Loosen SH, Roderburg C, Kauertz KL, Koch A, Vucur M, Schneider AT, Binnebösel M, Ulmer TF, Lurje G, Schoening W, Tacke F, Trautwein C, Longerich T, Dejong CH, Neumann UP, Luedde T (2017) CEA but not CA19-9 is an independent prognostic factor in patients undergoing resection of cholangiocarcinoma. Sci Rep 7:16975. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17175-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Higuchi R, Yazawa T, Uemura S, Izumo W, Ota T, Kiyohara K, Furukawa T, Egawa H, Yamamoto M (2019) Surgical outcomes for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma with vascular invasion. J Gastrointest Surg 23:1443–1453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-3948-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nakanishi Y, Tsuchikawa T, Okamura K, Nakamura T, Tamoto E, Murakami S, Ebihara Y, Kurashima Y, Noji T, Asano T, Shichinohe T, Hirano S (2016) Prognostic impact of the site of portal vein invasion in patients with surgically resected perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Surgery 159:1511–1519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.01.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study has no financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery II, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Kita-15, Nishi 7, Kita-Ku, Sapporo, 060-8638, Japan

    Yuma Aoki, Takehiro Noji, Kimitaka Tanaka, Aya Matsui, Yoshitsugu Nakanishi, Toshimichi Asano, Toru Nakamura, Takahiro Tsuchikawa & Satoshi Hirano

Authors
  1. Yuma Aoki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Takehiro Noji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kimitaka Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aya Matsui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yoshitsugu Nakanishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Toshimichi Asano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Toru Nakamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Takahiro Tsuchikawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Satoshi Hirano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Y.A. and T.N wrote the main manuscript text, and Y.A. prepared Figs. 1–2. K.T, Y.N, A.M, T.A, and T.N created database. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takehiro Noji.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board of Hokkaido University (021-0001) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. It was registered at the UMIN-CTR (UMIN000045055).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (TIF 187 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 14 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aoki, Y., Noji, T., Tanaka, K. et al. Validation study for prognostic scoring system for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma surgery using preoperative factors. Langenbecks Arch Surg 408, 430 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-03145-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-03145-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation