Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Perihilar cholangiocarcinomas are often considered incurable. Late diagnosis is common. Advanced disease therefore frequently causes questioning of curative surgical outcome.

Aim

This study aimed to develop a prediction model of curative surgery in patients suffering from perihilar cholangiocarcinomas based on preoperative endosonography and computer tomography.

Methods

A cohort of 81 patients (median age 67 (54–75) years, 62% male) with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma was retrospectively analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of staging variables taken from the European Staging System was performed and applied to ROC analysis.

Results

The correlation of predicted rates of eligibility for surgery with actual rates reached AUC values between 0.652 and 0.758 for endosonography and computer tomography (p < 0.05 each). Best prediction for curative surgical option was achieved by combining endosonography and computer tomography (AUC: 0.787; 95% CI 0.680–0.893, p < 0.0001). A predictive model (pSurg) was developed using multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

Our predictive web-based model pSurg with inclusion of T, N, M, B, PV, HA and V stage of the recently published European Staging System for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma results in highly significant predictability for curative surgery when combining preoperative endosonography and computer tomography, thus allowing for better patient selection in terms of possibility of curative surgery.

Keywords

CCC cholangiocarcinoma prediction operability score

Key summary

Summarize the established knowledge on this subject:

Perihilar cholangiocarcinomas (pCCA) are often considered incurable.

Surgical resection is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates.

Various staging systems exist, none predicting operability.

European Staging System (ESS) might overcome the limitation of former staging systems.

What are the significant and/or new findings of this study?

Adequate preoperative staging of pCCA by means of computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasonography is feasible.

ESS is valuable for staging patients with pCCA.

This is the first predictive model for estimating the likelihood of curative surgery in patients with pCCA.

A newly developed web-based (www.pmal-score.org) score refers patients with pCCA to either potentially curative surgery or to primary non-surgical oncological treatment

Introduction

Cholangiocarcinomas (CCA) represent a heterogeneous group of malignant transformations of epithelial cells of the bile duct presenting markers of cholangiocyte differentiation. Currently, the most common classification divides CCAs into three subgroups on the basis of their anatomical location including intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal cholangiocarcinomas. These subsets differ not only in their anatomic origin, but also in epidemiology, pathogenesis and treatment.^1–3 This leads to different demands in staging systems and therapeutic approaches. A simple, reproducible and comprehensive staging system is needed not only to identify the appropriate therapeutic option and avoid dispensable operations, but also to evaluate outcomes over time and between institutions with respect to quality assessment.

Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is localized to the area between the second-degree biliary branches and the junction of the cystic duct and the common bile duct.² Because it was first described by Klatskin in 1965, pCCA is commonly named the Klatskin tumor.⁴ It accounts for 50%–67% of all cholangiocarcinomas.^5–7 A variety of risk factors for pCCA, which accounts for 10% of cases, have been identified, including advanced age, male gender, primary sclerosing cholangitis, parasitic infections, cholelithiasis, cirrhosis, inflammatory bowel disease and chronic pancreatitis.^2,8,9

CCA is the second most common primary liver tumor worldwide.^5,10,11 Since incidence and mortality rates have risen, it represents a challenging and controversial disease.

Most of these tumors are commonly diagnosed in the advanced stage of the disease, which worsens their very poor survival prognosis. The current five-year survival rate after surgery, even in selected cases, rarely exceeds 35%.^6,7,9,12,13 The only potentially curative treatment for this type of cancer is the complete surgical resection of the tumor that can be applied to only a minority of patients with well-localized lesions. In selected cases liver transplantation can be performed.^6,14

For the appropriate prediction of operability, the comparison of results over time and among different centers is needed. The major barrier to comparing results among centers and identifying the best therapeutic approach according to the type and extent of the disease is the lack of such a reliable, comprehensive staging system. The Bismuth-Corlette classification is widely used, but it does not include critical data about distant metastases, though this classification has recently been extended to also take into account arterial and venous encasement.⁷ Other systems are restricted to each center’s experience and do not provide enough information for guiding therapy, including liver transplantation. One currently available staging system is the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center staging system similar to Bismuth-Corlette, which is primarily used for the evaluation of patients who are eligible for a surgical resection. The tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system as a commonly used staging system is specifically intended for predicting prognosis; however, it is based on resection results, and therefore it is not applicable to the majority of pCCA patients with unresectable disease or preoperatively, which must be staged on clinical, rather than pathologic, criteria.¹³

Although being a very informative and comprehensive system, the European Staging System (ESS) has its limitations in inter-institutional comparison and data collection by requiring extensive data from different phases of preoperative care, which may not always be available at one particular setting.¹⁵

The diagnostic evaluation consists of, in addition to physical examination, blood counts and liver function tests of abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), endoscopic retrograde or percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (ERCP) and possibly endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS).¹⁶ While CT and MRI have the advantage of delineating hepatobiliary anatomy, localizing lymphadenopathy and additionally allowing staging of distant metastases, EUS provides more accurate information of the distal extrahepatic biliary tree, hilar lesions and vasculature. Hence, the above-mentioned techniques should not be considered competitive but complementary and in the authors’ opinions may all be necessary as part of a surgical assessment.

Thus, the aim of this study was to more specifically evaluate the value of the imaging methods EUS and CT to identify detailed anatomical and pathological factors that predict the possibility of curative-intended resection in patients with pCCA.

Materials and methods

Study design

We performed a retrospective study analyzing patients with histologically proven pCCA undergoing CT scan, EUS and surgical exploration. Informed, written consent from all patients was obtained before investigations were performed. This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki 1975 and the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidelines and was waived by the local ethical review board of Münster, Germany because of its retrospective study design (#2016-046-f-S; April 4, 2016). A total of 81 of 109 consecutive patients at our tertiary referral center who underwent diagnostics for perihilar tumors between 2002 and 2013 and who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were enrolled.

Inclusion criteria were the following: All patients underwent general physical examination and laboratory testing. Participants were eligible for the study if they were at least 18 years of age and were scheduled for EUS, CT scan and surgical exploration. Clinical baseline data of patients enrolled are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of patients with pCCA tumor.

Variable	Curation by surgery	No surgical option	p value
Number	31	50
Age, years (IQR)	67 (54–75)	68 (57–73)	0.888
Sex, %, M/F	20/11	30/20	0.686
Laboratory parameters, median (IQR)
Serum bilirubin, mg/dl	0.9 (0.5–11)	2.15 (0.85–13)	0.548
γ-GT, U/l	337 (104–835)	507.5 (103–982)	0.658
AST, U/l	49.0 (28–84)	98.5 (45–186)	0.066
ALT, U/l	50.0 (23–131)	105.5 (47–210)	0.712
Hemoglobin, g/dl	13.85(12.65–14.8)	12.70 (11.85–14.10)	0.817
INR	0.99 (0.94–1.09)	1.04 (0.99–1.17)	0.181
CRP, mg/dl	1.65 (1.0–2.5)	2.95 (1.7–8.4)	0.001
CEA, µg/l	2.15 (0.75–2.73)	1.9 (1.1–5.1)	0.065
CA 19-9, U/ml	119 (48–248)	256 (63–1287)	0.116

pCCA: perihilar cholangiocarcinoma; M: male; F: female; IQR: interquartile range; γ-GT: gamma-glutamyl transferase; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; ALT: alanine aminotransferase; INR: international normalized ratio; CRP: C-reactive protein; CEA: carcinoembryonic antigen; CA 19-9: cancer antigen 19-9. Bold variables indicate significance.

Procedures

The following procedure descriptions were adapted from a previous publication by the authors.¹⁷ All endoscopic maneuvers were executed by highly experienced investigators according to the generally accepted guidelines with an ERCP/EUS case volume greater than 200/year.¹⁸ All endoscopic procedures were performed under conscious sedation (propofol combined with pethidine) according to the German guidelines.¹⁹

The EUS procedures were performed using a radial or linear echoendoscope with up to a 10 MHz frequency (EG-3670 URK and EG-3870 UTK, Pentax Medical/Hitachi Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) with the patient lying in the left lateral position.

CT examinations were performed using multi-slice CT scanners (16- and 64-slice scanner, Siemens AG, Forchheim, Germany) using a standardized tube voltage at 120 kV with a detector configuration of 16 mm × 0.75 mm and 32 mm × 0.6 mm, respectively, and a pitch of 0.75. In the majority of cases, the images were reconstructed with a slice thickness of 1.0 mm (reconstruction increment of 0.8) with a soft tissue reconstruction kernel (B30). A volume of 120–150 ml intravenous contrast agent (Ultravist 370®, Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Leverkusen, Germany) was applied at a constant flow rate of 3–4 ml/s depending on the acquired phases of contrast enhancement. Dual-phasic images were acquired with a scan delay of 45 seconds (late arterial, as obtained by test or care bolus technique) and 75 seconds (portal-venous). The imaging protocol did not differ from the standardized protocol used in clinical routines. For image assessment, the reconstructed images were assessed on a standard workstation (Syngo, Siemens AG, Forchheim, Germany) with cine mode and multiplanar reformation capabilities. In 46 cases, image analysis was possible only on hard copies. Image data were analyzed independently by one radiologist, blinded to the final diagnosis, who evaluated the pCCA characteristics and the involvement of regional lymph nodes or distant metastases. Furthermore, tumor size and localization were assessed.

All participants underwent surgery with a curative intention or for staging laparoscopy at the Department of General and Visceral Surgery of Münster University hospital for definite staging assessment.

Staging of pCCA

In retrospect, all patients were preoperatively staged according to the new staging for pCCA according to DeOliveira.⁷ For each diagnostic tool (EUS and CT) the following information was obtained: T stage, N stage, M stage, involvement of the bile ducts (B stage), involvement of the portal vein (PV stage), involvement of the hepatic artery (HA stage) and estimation of the liver remnant volume by CT scan (V stage). Because the macroscopic form (F stage), recorded as periductal or sclerosing type, mass-forming type or intraductal polypoid type, is difficult to assess preoperatively, which is in accordance with the findings by Ismael et al.,¹⁵ we did not include it in our analysis.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS 17.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA). Results are expressed as medians with interquartile range (IQR), or number/percentages. Non-continuous parameters were analyzed by chi-square test and continuous parameters were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate. A p value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The predictive model for multivariate logistic regression was calculated based on the T, N, M, B, PV, HA and V stage of the new staging system by DeOliveira.⁷ The predictive factor X was generated as the weighted sums of the predictive factors, weighed with their regression coefficients from the binary logistic regression analysis. Final probability of curative surgical option (pSurg) was calculated as follows: pSurg = 1/(1 + e^–x). A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in the patient cohort with pCCA with correlation of predicted (EUS, CT and the combination of the two diagnostic tools) versus actual rates of eligibility for surgery was performed. The area under the curve (AUC), 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and p values for each of the diagnostic tools were plotted. Predicted rates of curative surgery were presented using box plots.

Results

A total of 81 out of 109 screened patients were included for statistical analysis. Patients who underwent curative surgery (n = 31) were compared to 50 individuals who intraoperatively had no option for curative surgical resection because of extended disease. The median age was 69 (58–76) years and did not differ statistically between the two groups. Gender distribution was similar (Table 1). Laboratory parameters were analyzed. C-reactive protein (CRP) (1.65 [1.0–2.5] versus 2.95 [1.7–8.4] p = 0.001) was the only laboratory value that was significantly higher in the cohort with no curative surgical option. Detailed baseline characteristics are presented in Table 1.

B stage, T stage, N stage, M stage, PV stage, HA stage and V stage according to the new classification ESS⁷ were assessed by EUS or CT and compared with histopathology and intraoperative findings.

Multivariate analysis

Multivariate analysis was performed with a total of 13 variables comprising the T, N, M, B, PV, HA and V staging. Regression coefficients and odds ratios for each variable can be obtained from Table 2. Independent predictors for curative surgery were T stage (0.038) assessed by EUS scan and T stage (p = 0.028), N stage (p = 0.003), M stage (p = 0.016) and V stage (p = 0.013) assessed by CT scan.

Table 2.

Multivariate analysis for prediction of curative surgical option (logistic binary regression).

Predictive factors	Regression-coefficient	Odds ratio	95% CI	p value
EUS B stage	−0.217	0.805	0.282	2.298	0.686
EUS T stage	1.654	5.228	1.092	25.028	0.038
EUS PV stage	−27.975	0.000	0.000	.	0.999
EUS HA stage	5.579	264.860	0.000	.	1.000
EUS N stage	0.368	1.445	0.249	8.373	0.681
EUS M stage	21.824	3.007E9	0.000	.	0.999
CT B stage	0.342	1.408	0.710	2.790	0.327
CT T stage	2.231	9.311	1.273	68.130	0.028
CT PV stage	−0.305	0.737	0.272	2.000	0.549
CT HA stage	−0.087	0.917	0.362	2.323	0.855
CT N stage	−2.619	0.073	0.013	0.421	0.003
CT M stage	−4.199	0.015	0.000	0.454	0.016
CT V stage	0.820	2.271	1.186	40.350	0.013
Constant	−0.441

EUS: endoscopic ultrasonography; CT: computed tomography; B stage: bile ducts; PV stage: involvement of the portal vein; HA stage: involvement of the hepatic artery; T: tumor; N: node; M: metastasis; V stage: estimation of the liver remnant volume; CI: confidence interval.

Predicting factor pSurg and ROC analysis

Based on 13 predictors, a risk score for curative surgery was developed by logistic regression (X = −0.217*[EUS B stage] + 1.654*[EUS T stage]−27.975*[EUS PV stage] + 5.579*[EUS HA stage] + 0.368*[EUS N stage] + 21.824*[EUS M stage] + 0.342*[CT B stage] + 2.231*[CT T stage]−0.305 [CT PV stage]−0.087*[CT HA stage]−2.619*[CT N stage]−4.199*[CT M stage] + 0.820 [V stage]−0.441). Using ROC analysis and AUC calculation, the correlation of predicted rates with actual rates of eligibility for surgery reached AUC values of 0.652 and 0.758 for EUS and CT scan, respectively (p < 0.05 each, Figures 1 and 2). Best significant correlation between predicted curative surgery and the actual curative surgery was found by ROC with combination of EUS and CT (AUC: 0.786; 95% CI 0.679–0.892, p < 0.0001), Figure 3).

Figure 1.

Correlation of predicted (EUS) versus actual rates of eligibility for surgery in the patient cohort with Klatskin tumors (AUC:0.652; 95%CI 0.530–0.775, p = 0.022). Bold line: ROC curve.

Figure 2.

Correlation of predicted (CT) versus actual rates of eligibility for surgery in the patient cohort with Klatskin tumors (AUC:0.758; 95%CI 0.643–0.873, p < 0.0001). Bold line: ROC curve.

Figure 3.

Correlation of predicted (EUS and CT) versus actual rates of eligibility for surgery in the patient cohort with Klatskin tumors (AUC:0.786; 95%CI 0.679–0.892, p < 0.0001). Bold line: ROC curve.

For clarification, predicted versus actual rates of curative surgery are presented in Figure 4: The predicted median rates of curative surgery were between 6% and 93% (first (lowest) quarter by curative surgery prediction 13% (IQR 6–19%), second quarter 35% (29%–42%), third quarter 65% (61%–71%), fourth (highest) quarter 90% (89%–93%)).

Figure 4.

Predicted versus actual rates of curative surgery. Patients were classified into quarters according to their individual predicted probability of curative surgery (boxes represent the IQR; whiskers indicate the minimum and maximum values, but are not longer than 2 times the length of the corresponding box), which is plotted against the actual curative surgery rate for the quarters.

For practical reasons, once having calculated the risk score pSurg, which represents the individual probability of curative surgery based on the 13 predictors, it is desirable to estimate the sensitivity and specificity rates. Best results can be obtained considering the first and last quarter of predicted surgery (for details, see Figure 4). The resulting sensitivity rate, specificity rate, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 100%, 83%, 91% and 100%, respectively (Table 3). When considering quarter I/II as inoperable and quarter III/IV as operable, sensitivity and specificity rates were lower (Table 3).

Table 3.

Sensitivity and specificity rates of risk score pSurg predicting curative surgery.

	Quarter I/II vs. III/IV		Quarter I vs. IV^a
pSurg	%	95% CI	%	95% CI
Sensitivity	88	79–98	100	n.c.
Specificity	46	28–65	83	62–100
PPV	72	60–84	91	79–100
NPV	72	52–92	100	n.c.

pSurg lowest quarter considered as inoperable, highest quarter as operable.

pSurg: final probability of curative surgical option; PPV: positive predictive value; NPV: negative predictive value; n.c.: not calculable because all cases considered were truly curative operable; CI: confidence interval.

Discussion

Surgical resection is the main column of potentially curative treatment for pCCA. However, less than 25% of patients present with early-stage tumor disease and can be resected with curative intention.¹⁸ Furthermore, surgical resection of pCCA is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates up to 6% and 38%,^19–22 respectively, indicating that only selected patients might achieve beneficial effects from operative treatment. Thus, adequate staging of tumor disease is crucial to guide further treatment and to avoid unnecessary surgery. Commonly used staging systems for pCCA include the Bismuth-Corlette classification, the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center staging system and the American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control TNM system.^23,24 However, these are based on surgical pathology and therefore cannot predict operability before surgery. In order to potentially overcome this limitation, a new ESS was published in 2011⁷ and is continuously evaluated in a prospective registry ever since, but has not yet been validated.^25,26 Recently, Ismael and colleagues retrospectively evaluated its clinical applicability in 47 patients admitted for resection of pCCA.¹⁵ The authors criticized the ESS for the large number of variables needed to be assessed and because not all data seem available by preoperative diagnostics. In their study, 30% of patients required data from the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative setting to be accurately staged. Thus, the authors concluded that ESS is limited for its use in surgical planning. However, the authors included only CT scanning for preoperative assessment of the variables. In our study, we combined endosonographic and radiology findings for the documentation of the variables. Except for F stage, all variables could be easily assessed preoperatively by the above-mentioned imaging modalities in our patient cohort, demonstrating applicability of the ESS in clinical practice. On the other hand, solely looking at the individual parameters of the ESS might not help in the process of decision making regarding operability.

The decision-making process might be facilitated if the treating physician had reliable clinical and biochemical markers for prediction of malignancy. By univariate and multivariate analysis, we identified various standard clinical and laboratory variables that were closely and independently associated with malignancy in bile duct obstruction.

For instance, multivariate analysis of the 13 factors that comprise the ESS revealed only EUS T stage (p = 0.038), CT T stage (p = 0.028), CT N stage (p = 0.003), CT M stage (p = 0.016) and CT V stage (p = 0.013) as independent predictors for operability (Table 2).

Contrariwise, the decision-making process might be accelerated if the treating physician had a quickly assessable and reliable calculating model on hand to predict operability in patients with pCCA. We therefore developed a stratified scoring system for the prediction of operability using the method described in our previous study.²⁷

Our prediction model (pSurg) is based on modified ESS criteria for staging pCCA using EUS and CT, thus making it easily applicable during routine clinical practice and predicting operability with high accuracy. When using our prediction model, AUCs of the ROC curves of predictive operability were 0.786; 95% CI 0.679–0.892, p < 0.0001 (Figure 3). In case of calculated probability for surgery between 25% and 75%, adequate conclusion of operability is less likely because of low sensitivity and specificity rates. In these patients, our predictive model is less practicable. However, patients in our cohort who were assigned to either the first or fourth quarter of our prediction model correlated well with the actual rate of operability allowing adequate assessment with high sensitivity and specificity rates of 100 and 83%, respectively. For simple use of our predictive model, we have developed a web-based application “pSurg” (www.pmal-score.org) to allow for rapid calculation of the probability of operability in patients with pCCA. It is speculative whether other complementary imaging techniques such as endoscopic cholangioscopy, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) or positron emission tomography CT would have an additional value in the prediction of operability.

In our opinion, MRCP or cholangioscopy would not add much value, since these methods do not permit any reliable statement on tumor extent; however, the diagnostic value for detection of pCCA remains unaffected. Contrast CT has its strength in detecting vascular involvement (portal vein and hepatic artery), more so than MRCP or MRI.^28–31 However, the relationship between the tumor and the vasculature is an essential parameter of the ESS and therefore of our predictive score. Recently published European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines³² recommend EUS especially for lymph node staging adjunct to radiographic imaging such as MRI or CT. Nevertheless, positron emission tomography CT could certainly play a role in better detection of distant metastases. Since MRI or MRCP were not available for all our included patients (n = 21), and only full datasets can be used for statistical analysis, we did not include these imaging modalities in our analysis.

Conclusions

This is the first predictive model for estimating the likelihood of curative surgery in patients with pCCA based on the extended ESS by DeOliveira et al.⁷ Better prediction enables both earlier curative surgery of pCCA and improved management, which may result in better selection of patients with curative option and possibly reduced morbidity and mortality. Our score (pSurg) is an easy, simple and applicable method in the primary evaluation of patients with pCCA using only standard diagnostic imaging modalities. It can be used web based (www.pmal-score.org) to refer patients with pCCA to either potentially curative surgery or to primary non-surgical oncological treatment. However, whether an individual patient (in special circumstances) has to undergo surgical exploration to be sure of inoperability remains an individual decision.

Limitations

We acknowledge that possible misclassification or information bias as a result of the retrospective study design might affect the veracity of the findings of our study. In addition, all patients in our study cohort underwent surgery with a curative intention or for staging laparoscopy possibly leading to a potential patient selection bias and thus, possibly limiting the applicability of our predictive model. MRI variables were not used in the model because a minority of patients (n = 21) were evaluated with this modality. Furthermore, our newly developed score should be validated in an external validation cohort with the same imaging modalities as used in ours. Nevertheless, we are able to show that by combining various preoperative imaging modalities accurate prediction of operability by means of ESS seems highly feasible.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

None declared.

Ethics approval

This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki 1975 and the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidelines and was waived by the local ethical review board of Münster, Germany because of its retrospective study design (#2016-046-f-S; April 4, 2016).

Funding

This work was supported by grants to A. Hüsing-Kabar from the Dean’s Office of the medical faculty of the Westfälische-Wilhelms University of Münster, Germany.

Informed consent

Informed consent of patients prior to procedures and surgery was obtained in all cases.

References

Bridgewater

Galle

Khan

et al.

Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol 2014; 60: 1268–1289.

Razumilava

Gores

. Cholangiocarcinoma. Lancet 2014; 383: 2168–2179.

Vogel

Wege

Caca

et al.

The diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2014; 111: 748–754.

Klatskin

. Adenocarcinoma of the hepatic duct at its bifurcation within the porta hepatis. An unusual tumor with distinctive clinical and pathological features. Am J Med 1965; 38: 241–256.

Khan

Davidson

Goldin

et al.

Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma: An update. Gut 2012; 61: 1657–1669.

Zhang

Yan

. Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: Current therapy. World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol 2014; 5: 344–354.

DeOliveira

Schulick

Nimura

et al.

New staging system and a registry for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Hepatology 2011; 53: 1363–1371.

Suarez-Munoz

Fernandez-Aguilar

Sanchez-Perez

et al.

Risk factors and classifications of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2013; 5: 132–138.

Rizvi

Gores

. Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of cholangiocarcinoma. Gastroenterology 2013; 145: 1215–1229.

10.

Ramia

. Hilar cholangiocarcinoma. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2013; 5: 113–114.

11.

Soares

Kamel

Cosgrove

et al.

Hilar cholangiocarcinoma: Diagnosis, treatment options, and management. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2014; 3: 18–34.

12.

Schweitzer

Hoffmann

Papendorf

et al.

Prognostische Faktoren bei Patienten mit cholangiozellulärem Karzinom – monozentrische Analyse von 570 Patienten. Z Gastroenterol 2013; 51: K87–K87.

13.

Chaiteerakij

Harmsen

Marrero

et al.

A new clinically based staging system for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1881–1890.

14.

Han

Jang

Kang

et al.

Role of resection for Bismuth type IV hilar cholangiocarcinoma and analysis of determining factors for curative resection. Ann Surg Treat Res 2014; 87: 87–93.

15.

Ismael

Loyer

Kaur

et al.

Evaluating the clinical applicability of the European Staging System for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 2016; 20: 741–747.

16.

Eckel

Brunner

Jelic

. Biliary cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2011; 22(Suppl 6): vi40–vi44.

17.

Heinzow

Kammerer

Rammes

et al.

Comparative analysis of ERCP, IDUS, EUS and CT in predicting malignant bile duct strictures. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 10495–10503.

18.

Nakeeb

Tran

Black

et al.

Improved survival in resected biliary malignancies. Surgery 2002; 132: 555–563. discussion 563–564.

19.

Huang

Biehl

Lee

et al.

Outcomes after resection of cholangiocellular carcinoma. Am J Surg 2004; 187: 612–617.

20.

Ito

Agni

Rettammel

et al.

Resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: Concomitant liver resection decreases hepatic recurrence. Ann Surg 2008; 248: 273–279.

21.

Endo

Gonen

Yopp

et al.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Rising frequency, improved survival, and determinants of outcome after resection. Ann Surg 2008; 248: 84–96.

22.

Lang

Sotiropoulos

Frühauf

et al.

Extended hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma (ICC): When is it worthwhile? Single center experience with 27 resections in 50 patients over a 5-year period. Ann Surg 2005; 241: 134–143.

23.

Bismuth

Corlette

. Intrahepatic cholangioenteric anastomosis in carcinoma of the hilus of the liver. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1975; 140: 170–178.

24.

Jarnagin

Fong

DeMatteo

et al.

Staging, resectability, and outcome in 225 patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg 2001; 234: 507–517; discussion 517–519.

25.

Nagino

. Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: A surgeon’s viewpoint on current topics. J Gastroenterol 2012; 47: 1165–1176.

26.

Groot Koerkamp

Wiggers

Allen

et al.

American Joint Committee on Cancer staging for resected perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: A comparison of the 6th and 7th editions. HPB (Oxford) 2014; 16: 1074–1082.

27.

Meister

Uphoff

Heinecke

et al.

Novel score for prediction of malignant bile duct obstruction based on biochemical and clinical markers. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015; 41: 877–887.

28.

Domagk

Wessling

Conrad

et al.

Which imaging modalities should be used for biliary strictures of unknown aetiology?

Gut 2007; 56: 1032–1032.

29.

Zhao

Luo

Sun

et al.

Computed tomography in diagnosing vascular invasion in pancreatic and periampullary cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2009; 8: 457–464.

30.

Manak

Merkel

Klein

et al.

Resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Assessment using multidetector-row computed tomography with multiplanar reformations. Abdom Imaging 2009; 34: 75–80.

31.

Gusmini

Nicoletti

Martinenghi

et al.

Vascular involvement in periampullary tumors: MDCT, EUS, and CDU. Abdom Imaging 2009; 34: 514–522.

32.

Valle

Borbath

Khan

et al.

Biliary cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2016; 27(Suppl 5): v28–v37.

Preoperative prediction of curative surgery of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma by combination of endoscopic ultrasound and computed tomography

Abstract

Background

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Key summary

Introduction

Materials and methods

Study design

Procedures

Staging of pCCA

Statistical analysis

Results

Multivariate analysis

Predicting factor pSurg and ROC analysis

Discussion

Conclusions

Limitations

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Ethics approval

Funding

Informed consent

References