Surgery Today

, Volume 44, Issue 7, pp 1336–1342 | Cite as

The DNA index is a strong predictive marker in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: the results of a five-year prospective study

  • Carsten Kamphues
  • Nadine Al-Abadi
  • Angelika Dürr
  • Roberta Bova
  • Frederick Klauschen
  • Albrecht Stenzinger
  • Marcus Bahra
  • Hussein Al-Abadi
  • Peter Neuhaus
  • Daniel Seehofer
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Predictive markers for risk stratification among patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHC) are still lacking. Therefore, recent studies have focused on identifying the biological aspects of tumors that can provide more information about the tumor aggressiveness. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the prognostic potential of the DNA index in patients undergoing liver resection for IHC.

Methods

In a prospective long-term follow-up study, the DNA index of 65 IHC patients undergoing liver resection was assessed by DNA image cytometry, and this parameter, as well as standard histopathological parameters, correlated with the patient survival.

Results

The mean DNA index was 1.69 ± 0.66 (range, 0.9–4.3). The univariate survival analysis showed that the DNA index (p = 0.024) and tumor stage (p = 0.017) were associated with patient survival, whereas all other standard histopathological factors had no predictive value. The multivariate analysis identified the DNA index (p = 0.050) and tumor stage (p = 0.028) as independent prognostic parameters.

Conclusions

The DNA index is an independent predictive marker for IHC after liver resection. It is superior to most standard histopathological parameters and can be assessed pre- and postoperatively. Therefore, the DNA index might represent a promising tool in the decision-making process for patients with IHC.

Keywords

Cholangiocarcinoma DNA ploidy Prognosis 

References

  1. 1.
    Khan SA, Taylor-Robinson SD, Toledano MB, Beck A, Elliott P, Thomas HC. Changing international trends in mortality rates for liver, biliary and pancreatic tumours. J Hepatol. 2002;37(6):806–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Patel T. Increasing incidence and mortality of primary intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the United States. Hepatology. 2001;33(6):1353–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shaib YH, Davila JA, McGlynn K, El-Serag HB. Rising incidence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the United States: a true increase? J Hepatol. 2004;40(3):472–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Endo I, Gonen M, Yopp AC, Dalal KM, Zhou Q, Klimstra D, et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: rising frequency, improved survival, and determinants of outcome after resection. Ann Surg. 2008;248(1):84–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guglielmi A, Ruzzenente A, Campagnaro T, Pachera S, Valdegamberi A, Nicoli P, et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: prognostic factors after surgical resection. World J Surg. 2009;33(6):1247–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murakami Y, Uemura K, Sudo T, Hashimoto Y, Nakashima A, Kondo N, et al. Prognostic factors after surgical resection for intrahepatic, hilar, and distal cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(3):651–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Konstadoulakis MM, Roayaie S, Gomatos IP, Labow D, Fiel MI, Miller CM, et al. Fifteen-year, single-center experience with the surgical management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: operative results and long-term outcome. Surgery. 2008;143(3):366–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saxena A, Chua TC, Sarkar A, Chu F, Morris DL. Clinicopathologic and treatment-related factors influencing recurrence and survival after hepatic resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a 19-year experience from an established Australian hepatobiliary unit. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14(7):1128–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeOliveira ML, Cunningham SC, Cameron JL, Kamangar F, Winter JM, Lillemoe KD, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma: thirty-one-year experience with 564 patients at a single institution. Ann Surg. 2007;245(5):755–62.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bergquist A, Tribukait B, Glaumann H, Broome U. Can DNA cytometry be used for evaluation of malignancy and premalignancy in bile duct strictures in primary sclerosing cholangitis? J Hepatol. 2000;33(6):873–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abou-Rebyeh H, Al-Abadi H, Jonas S, Rotter I, Bechstein WO, Neuhaus P. DNA analysis of cholangiocarcinoma cells: prognostic and clinical importance. Cancer Detect Prev. 2002;26(4):313–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iachino C, Catsicojannis N, Dallera F. Prognostic significance of tumor DNA content in carcinoma of the hepatic duct confluence. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 1998;17(4):425–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weger AR, Graf AH, Askensten U, Schwab G, Bodner E, Auer G, et al. Ploidy as prognostic determinant in pancreatic cancer. Lancet. 1987;2(8566):1031.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lanza G, Gafa R, Santini A, Maestri I, Dubini A, Gilli G, et al. Prognostic significance of DNA ploidy in patients with stage II and stage III colon carcinoma: a prospective flow cytometric study. Cancer. 1998;82(1):49–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sato Y, van Gulik TM, Bosma A, Lygdiakis NJ, Koyama K, van der Heyde MN. Prognostic significance of tumor DNA content in carcinoma of the hepatic duct confluence. Surgery. 1994;115(4):488–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rijken AM, Umezawa A, van Gulik TM, Bosma A, Pollak MM, Offerhaus GJ, et al. Prognostic value of cell proliferation (Ki-67 antigen) and nuclear DNA content in clinically resectable, distal bile duct carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 1998;5(8):699–705.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hedley DW, Friedlander ML, Taylor IW. Application of DNA flow cytometry to paraffin-embedded archival material for the study of aneuploidy and its clinical significance. Cytometry. 1985;6(4):327–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chatelain R, Willms A, Biesterfeld S, Auffermann W, Böcking A. Automated Feulgen staining with a temperature-controlled staining machine. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1989;11(3):211–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bocking A, Giroud F, Reith A. Consensus report of the ESACP task force on standardization of diagnostic DNA image cytometry. European Society for Analytical Cellular Pathology. Anal Cell Pathol. 1995;8(1):67–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morine Y, Shimada M, Utsunomiya T, Imura S, Ikemoto T, Mori H, et al. Clinical impact of lymph node dissection in surgery for peripheral-type intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Surg Today. 2012;42(2):147–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muenphon K, Limpaiboon T, Jearanaikoon P, Pairojkul C, Sripa B, Bhudhisawasdi V. Amplification of chromosome 21q22.3 harboring trefoil factor family genes in liver fluke related cholangiocarcinoma is associated with poor prognosis. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12(26):4143–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kawaki J, Miyazaki M, Ito H, Nakagawa K, Shimizu H, Yoshidome H, et al. Allelic loss in human intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: correlation between chromosome 8p22 and tumor progression. Int J Cancer. 2000;88(2):228–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pradhan M, Abeler VM, Danielsen HE, Sandstad B, Tropé CG, Kristensen GB, et al. Prognostic importance of DNA ploidy and DNA index in stage I and II endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(5):1178–84.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jonas S, Al-Abadi H, Benckert C, Thelen A, Hippler-Benscheid M, Saribeyoglu K, et al. Prognostic significance of the DNA-index in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. Ann Surg. 2009;250(6):1008–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carsten Kamphues
    • 1
    • 4
  • Nadine Al-Abadi
    • 1
  • Angelika Dürr
    • 1
  • Roberta Bova
    • 1
  • Frederick Klauschen
    • 2
  • Albrecht Stenzinger
    • 3
  • Marcus Bahra
    • 1
  • Hussein Al-Abadi
    • 1
  • Peter Neuhaus
    • 1
  • Daniel Seehofer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General Visceral and Transplantation SurgeryCharité University HospitalBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institute of PathologyCharité University HospitalBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Institute of PathologyUniversity HospitalHeidelbergGermany
  4. 4.Department of General Visceral and Transplantation SurgeryCharité, University MedicineBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations