We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Surgical Resection Does Not Improve Survival in Multifocal Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Comparison of Surgical Resection with Intra-Arterial Therapies.
Annals of Surgical Oncology 2018 January
BACKGROUND: Multifocal intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) has traditionally been treated with surgical resection when amenable. Intra-arterial therapy (IAT) for multifocal ICC has not been directly compared with surgical resection.
METHODS: A single-center, retrospective review of consecutive patients treated for multifocal ICC was conducted. Patients with distant metastases or treatment with systemic chemotherapy alone were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups: surgical resection versus IAT; IAT included transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), transarterial radioembolization (TARE), and hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) pump therapy. Subjects were also analyzed by surgical resection, TACE, and HAI pump therapy.
RESULTS: Overall, 116 patients with multifocal ICC were studied, 57 in the surgical resection group and 59 in the IAT group (TACE = 41, HAI pump = 16, TARE = 2). The IAT group was characterized by a higher incidence of bilobar disease (88.1% vs. 47.4%, p < 0.001), larger tumors (median 10.6 vs. 7.5 cm, p = 0.004), higher incidence of macrovascular invasion (44.1% vs. 24.6%, p = 0.027), and higher rate of nodal metastases (57.6% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.002). Median overall survival for surgical resection was 20 months versus 16 months for IAT (p = 0.627). Multivariate analysis found that macrovascular invasion [hazard ratio (HR) 2.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56-4.09] and non-receipt of systemic chemotherapy (HR 3.81, 95% CI 2.23-6.52) were independent poor prognostic risk factors. Surgical resection was not associated with a survival advantage over IAT on multivariate analysis (p = 0.242).
CONCLUSION: Despite selection bias for use of surgical resection compared with IAT, no survival advantage was conferred in the treatment of multifocal ICC.
METHODS: A single-center, retrospective review of consecutive patients treated for multifocal ICC was conducted. Patients with distant metastases or treatment with systemic chemotherapy alone were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups: surgical resection versus IAT; IAT included transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), transarterial radioembolization (TARE), and hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) pump therapy. Subjects were also analyzed by surgical resection, TACE, and HAI pump therapy.
RESULTS: Overall, 116 patients with multifocal ICC were studied, 57 in the surgical resection group and 59 in the IAT group (TACE = 41, HAI pump = 16, TARE = 2). The IAT group was characterized by a higher incidence of bilobar disease (88.1% vs. 47.4%, p < 0.001), larger tumors (median 10.6 vs. 7.5 cm, p = 0.004), higher incidence of macrovascular invasion (44.1% vs. 24.6%, p = 0.027), and higher rate of nodal metastases (57.6% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.002). Median overall survival for surgical resection was 20 months versus 16 months for IAT (p = 0.627). Multivariate analysis found that macrovascular invasion [hazard ratio (HR) 2.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56-4.09] and non-receipt of systemic chemotherapy (HR 3.81, 95% CI 2.23-6.52) were independent poor prognostic risk factors. Surgical resection was not associated with a survival advantage over IAT on multivariate analysis (p = 0.242).
CONCLUSION: Despite selection bias for use of surgical resection compared with IAT, no survival advantage was conferred in the treatment of multifocal ICC.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app