Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Relationship between the surgical margin status, prognosis, and recurrence in extrahepatic bile duct cancer patients

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

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the relationship between the surgical margin status of the bile duct and the prognosis and recurrence of extrahepatic bile duct (EHBD) cancer.

Methods

The clinical data of 100 patients who underwent surgery for EHBD cancer between February 2002 and September 2014 were analyzed. The ductal margin status was classified into the following three categories: negative (D-N), positive with carcinoma in situ (D-CIS), and positive with invasive carcinoma (D-INV).

Results

The number of patients with D-N, D-CIS, and D-INV was 69, 16, and 15, respectively. Local recurrence rates of patients with D-CIS (56.3 %) and D-INV (66.7 %) were significantly higher compared to those of patients with D-N (10.1 %; P < 0.001). D-CIS was a significant predictor of shorter recurrence-free survival (RFS). Lymph node metastasis (P = 0.037) and D-INV (P = 0.008) were independent predictors of shorter disease-specific survival (DSS). The prognostic relevance of the ductal margin status was high, particularly in patients without lymph node metastasis.

Conclusion

The surgical margin status of the bile duct was significantly associated with RFS, DSS, and the recurrence site.

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

References

  1. Jang JY, Kim SW, Park DJ et al (2005) Actual long-term outcome of extrahepatic bile duct cancer after surgical resection. Ann Surg 241:77–184

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Wakai T, Shirai Y, Moroda T et al (2005) Impact of ductal resection margin status on long-term survival in patients undergoing resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer 103:1210–1216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sasaki R, Takeda Y, Funato O et al (2007) Significance of ductal margin status in patients undergoing surgical resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. World J Surg 31:1788–1796

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Murakami Y, Uemura K, Sudo T et al (2011) Prognostic factors after surgical resection for intrahepatic, hilar, and distal cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 18:651–658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Konishi M, Iwasaki M, Ochiai A et al (2010) Clinical impact of intraoperative histological examination of the ductal resection margin in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Br J Surg 97:1363–1368

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nakanishi Y, Kondo S, Zen Y et al (2010) Impact of residual in situ carcinoma on postoperative survival in 125 patients with extrahepatic bile duct carcinoma. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 17:166–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Han IW, Jang JY, Lee KB et al (2014) Clinicopathological analysis and prognosis of extrahepatic bile duct cancer with a microscopic positive ductal margin. HPB 16:575–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hernandez J, Cowgill SM, Al-Saadi S et al (2008) An aggressive approach to extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is warranted: margin status does not impact survival after resection. Ann Surg Oncol 15:807–814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Qiao QL, Zhang TP, Guo JC et al (2011) Prognostic factors after pancreatoduodenectomy for distal bile duct cancer. Am Surg 77:1445–1448

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C, International Union against Cancer (2010) TNM classification of malignant tumours. 7th ed. Chichester, West Sussex, UK; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell

  11. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a surgery. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Higuchi R, Ota T, Araida T et al (2010) Prognostic relevance of ductal margins in operative resection of bile duct cancer. Surgery 148:7–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nakanishi Y, Zen Y, Kawakami H et al (2008) Extrahepatic bile duct carcinoma with extensive intraepithelial spread: a clinicopathological study of 21 cases. Mod Pathol 21:807–816

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Furukawa T, Higuchi R, Yamamoto M (2014) Clinical relevance of frozen diagnosis of ductal margins in surgery of bile duct cancer. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 21:459–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Oguro S, Esaki M, Kishi Y et al (2015) Optimal indications for additional resection of the invasive cancer-positive proximal bile duct margin in cases of advanced perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 22:1915–1924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jang JY, Kim SW, Park DJ et al (2005) Actual long-term outcome of extrahepatic bile duct cancer after surgical resection. Ann Surg 241:77–84

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Kiriyama M, Ebata T, Aoba T et al (2015) Prognostic impact of lymph node metastasis in distal cholangiocarcinoma. Br J Surg 102:399–406

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ryoo I, Lee JM, Chung YE et al (2010) Gadobutrol-enhanced, three-dimensional, dynamic MR imaging with MR cholangiography for the preoperative evaluation of bile duct cancer. Investig Radiol 45:217–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kobayashi S, Nagano H, Marubashi S et al (2010) Multiditector computed tomography for preoperative prediction of postsurgical prognosis of patients with extrahepatic biliary cancer. J Surg Oncol 101:376–383

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author’s contributions

Hiroshi Kurahara: Study conception and design, drafting of manuscript

Kosei Maemura, Yuko Mataki, Yota Kawasaki, Shinichiro Mori: Acquisition of data

Masahiko Sakoda, Satoshi Iino, Yuko Kijima: Analysis and interpretation of data

Shinichi Ueno, Hiroyuki Shinchi, Sonshin Takao, Shoji Natsugoe: Critical revision of manuscript

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Digestive Surgery, Breast and Thyroid Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kagoshima University, 8-35-1, Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8520, Japan

    Hiroshi Kurahara, Kosei Maemura, Yuko Mataki, Masahiko Sakoda, Satoshi Iino, Yota Kawasaki, Shinichiro Mori, Yuko Kijima & Shoji Natsugoe

  2. Department of Clinical Oncology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kagoshima University, 8-35-1, Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8520, Japan

    Shinichi Ueno

  3. Department of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kagoshima University, 8-35-1, Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8520, Japan

    Hiroyuki Shinchi

  4. Frontier Science Research Center, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kagoshima University, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8520, Japan

    Sonshin Takao

Authors
  1. Hiroshi Kurahara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kosei Maemura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuko Mataki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Masahiko Sakoda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Satoshi Iino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yota Kawasaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Shinichiro Mori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yuko Kijima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Shinichi Ueno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Hiroyuki Shinchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Sonshin Takao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Shoji Natsugoe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hiroshi Kurahara.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Table 1

(DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kurahara, H., Maemura, K., Mataki, Y. et al. Relationship between the surgical margin status, prognosis, and recurrence in extrahepatic bile duct cancer patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg 402, 87–93 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-016-1491-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-016-1491-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation