Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Significance of Ductal Margin Status in Patients Undergoing Surgical Resection for Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of this study was to determine whether carcinoma in situ at the bile duct margin is prognostically different from residual invasive carcinoma in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Summary Background Data

Although there are many reports that the ductal margin status at bile duct resection stumps is a prognostic indicator in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, some patients who undergo resection with microscopic tumor involvement of the bile duct margin survive longer than expected.

Methods

A retrospective clinicopathological analysis of 128 patients who had undergone surgical resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma was conducted. The status of the bile duct resection margin was classifiedas negative in 105 patients (82.0%), positive for carcinoma in situ in 12 patients (9.4%), and positive for invasive carcinoma in 11 patients (8.6%).

Results

Ductal margin status was an independent prognostic indicator by both univariate (p = 0.0022) and multivariate (p = 0.0105) analyses, along with lymph node metastasis. There was no significant difference between patients with a negative ductal margin and those with a positive ductal margin with carcinoma in situ (p = 0.5247). The 5-year survival rate of patients with a positive ductal margin with carcinoma in situ (22.2%) was significantly better (p = 0.0241) than with invasive carcinoma (0%). There was a significant relationship between local recurrence and ductal margin status (p = 0.0401).

Conclusions

Among patients undergoing surgical resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, invasive carcinoma at the ductal resection margins appears to have a significant relation to local recurrence and also a significant negative impact on survival, whereas residual carcinoma in situ does not. Discrimination whether carcinoma in situ or invasive carcinoma is present is important in clinical setting in which the resection margin at the ductal stump is positive.

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. Nagorney DM, Donohue JH, Farnell MB, et al. (1993) Outcomes after curative resections of cholangiocarcinoma. Arch Surg 128:871–879

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fong Y, Blumgart LH, Lin E, et al. (1996) Outcome of treatment for distal bile duct cancer. Br J Surg 83:1712–1715

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chamberlain RS, Blumgart LH. (2000) Hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a review and commentary. Ann Surg Oncol 7:55–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ahrendt SA, Cameron JL, Pitt HA. (1997) Current management of patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Adv Surg 30:427–452

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jarnagin WR, Shoup M. (2004) Surgical management of cholangiocarcinoma. Semin Liver Dis 24:189–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Klempnauer J, Ridder GJ, Werner M, et al. (1997) What constitutes long-term survival after surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma? Cancer 79:26–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hemming AW, Reed AI, Fujita S, et al. (2005) Surgical management of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg 241:693–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bosma A. (1990) Surgical pathology of cholangiocarcinoma of the liver hilus (Klatskin tumor). Semin Liver Dis 10:85–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nakeeb A, Pit HA, Sohn TA, et al. (1996) Cholangiocarcinoma. A spectrum of intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal tumors. Ann Surg 224:463–473

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kawasaki S, Imamura H, Kobayashi A, et al. (2003) Results of surgical resection for patients with hilar bile duct cancer: application of extended hepatectomy after biliary drainage and hemihepatic portal vein embolization. Ann Surg 238:84–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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  Google Scholar 

  12. Sakamoto Y, Kosuge T, Shimada K, et al. (2005) Prognostic factors of surgical resection in middle and distal bile duct cancer: an analysis of 55 patients concerning the significance of ductal and radial margins. Surgery 137:396–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bismuth H, Nakache R, Diamond T. (1992) Management strategies in resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg 215:31–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bismuth H, Corlette MB. (1975) Intrahepatic cholangioenteric anastomosis in carcinoma of the hilus of the liver. Surg Gynecol Obstet 140:170–178

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al., editors. (2002) American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, 6th edition, Springer-Verlag, New York, 145–150

    Google Scholar 

  16. Japanese Society of Biliary Surgery. (2003) General Rules for Surgical and Pathological Studies on Cancer of the Biliary Tract, 5th Edition, Kanehara, Tokyo,

    Google Scholar 

  17. Albores-Saavedra J, Henson DE, Klimstra DS. (2000) Tumors of the Gallbladder and Extrahepatic Bile Ducts, and Ampulla of Vater, 3rd Edition, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC, 191–215

    Google Scholar 

  18. Albores-Saavedra J, Henson DE, Sobin LH. (1991) Histological Typing of Tumours of the Gallbladder and Extrahepatic Bile Ducts, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,

    Google Scholar 

  19. Henson DE, Albores-Saavedra J, Corle D. (1992) Carcinoma of the extrahepatic bile ducts. Histologic types, stage of disease, grade, and survival rates. Cancer 70:1498–1501

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Albores-Saavedra J, Marakata L, Krueger JE, et al. (2000) Noninvasive and minimally invasive papillary carcinomas of the extrahepatic bile ducts. Cancer 89:508–515

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaplan EL, Meier P. (1958) Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cox D, Oakes D. (1983) Analysis of Survival Data, Chapman and Hall, London,

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schoenthaler R, Phillips TL, Castro J, et al. (1994) Carcinoma of the extrahepatic bile ducts. The University of California at San Francisco experience. Ann Surg 219:267–274

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ebata T, Watanabe H, Ajioka Y, et al. (2002) Pathological appraisal of lines of resection for bile duct carcinoma. Br J Surg 89:1260–1267

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sasaki R, Takahashi M, Funato O, et al. (2001) Prognostic significance of lymph node involvement in middle and distal bile duct cancer. Surgery 129:677–683

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Boerma E. (1990) Research into the results of resection of hilar bile duct cancer. Surgery 108:572–580

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ogura Y, Muzumoto R, Tabata M, et al. (1993) Surgical treatment of carcinoma of the hepatic duct confluence: analysis of 55 resected carcinomas. World J Surg 17:85–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

    Ryoko Sasaki & Nobuhiro Ohkohchi

  2. Department of Surgery, Iwate Medical University School of Medicine, Morioka, Japan

    Ryoko Sasaki, Yuichiro Takeda, Osamu Funato, Hiroyuki Nitta, Hidenobu Kawamura & Go Wakabayashi

  3. Division of Pathology, Department of Central Clinical Laboratory, Iwate Medical University School of Medicine, Morioka, Japan

    Yuichiro Takeda, Noriyuki Uesugi & Tamotsu Sugai

Authors
  1. Ryoko Sasaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuichiro Takeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Osamu Funato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hiroyuki Nitta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hidenobu Kawamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Noriyuki Uesugi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tamotsu Sugai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Go Wakabayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nobuhiro Ohkohchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryoko Sasaki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sasaki, R., Takeda, Y., Funato, O. et al. Significance of Ductal Margin Status in Patients Undergoing Surgical Resection for Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. World J Surg 31, 1788–1796 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-007-9102-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-007-9102-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation