Surgical Indication for Advanced Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma According to the Optimal Preoperative Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9 Cutoff Value
The indication of surgery in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) patients with lymph node metastasis (LNM), macroscopic periductal infiltration (PI), and intrahepatic metastasis (IM) remains unclear.
Patients who underwent resection for mass-forming (MF) dominant ICC and unresected patients caused by LNM, IM, or locally advanced tumors (UR group) were enrolled. The significance of CA19-9 was investigated in advanced ICC.
Seventy-three patients who underwent resection and 20 UR patients were analyzed. Using the minimum p value approach based on the overall survival, the optimal CA19-9 cutoff value was 300 U/mL. The OS of the patients with CA19-9 < 37 U/mL (n = 26; MST, 49.6 months) and 37–300 U/mL (n = 28; MST, 45.1 months) was comparable (P = 0.842); however, the OS of the patients with CA19-9 = 37–300 U/mL was significantly better than that with CA19-9 ≥ 300 U/mL (n = 19; MST, 15.3 months; P < 0.001). CA19-9 > 300 U/mL, MF + PI, and IM were independently associated with OS. The OS of the patients with CA19-9 < 300 U/mL who developed LNM (MST, 34.0 months), MF + PI (MST, 32.9 months), or IM (MST, 35.2 months), or who required major vascular resection (MST, 45.1 months) was better than those with CA19-9 ≥ 300 U/mL who developed LNM (MST, 8.7 months; P = 0.005), MF + PI (MST, 7.5 months; P = 0.040), or IM (MST, 8.7 months; P = 0.001), or who required major vascular resection (MST, 14.8 months; P = 0.015); their prognosis was similar with the UR group.
Even if patients had ICC developing LNM, PI, or IM, or require major vascular resection, surgical resection can be indicated for patients with CA19-9 < 300 U/mL. However, the indications for either adjuvant therapy or resection should be carefully determined in patients with CA19-9 ≥ 300 U/mL.
Lymph node metastasis
European Association for the Study of Liver
Carbohydrate antigen 19-9
American Joint Committee on Cancer
International Union Against Cancer
Portal vein resection
Hepatic artery resection
Inferior vena cava resection
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Yamamoto Y, Sugiura T, Okamura Y et al (2017) The pitfalls of left trisectionectomy or central bisectionectomy for biliary cancer: anatomical classification based on the ventral branches of segment VI portal vein relative to the right hepatic vein. J Gastrointest Surg 30:017–3486Google Scholar
- 11.Shimada K, Sano T, Sakamoto Y et al (2007) Surgical outcomes of the mass-forming plus periductal infiltrating types of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a comparative study with the typical mass-forming type of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. World J Surg 31:2016–2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-007-9194-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.CC C (2009) American Joint Committee on Cancer: AJCC cancer staging atlas: a companion to the seventh editions of the AJCC cancer staging manual and handbook, 2nd ednGoogle Scholar
- 27.Japan LCSGo (2010) General rules for the clinical and pathological study of primary liver cancer 3th English ed. Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar