肝周胆管癌切除切缘阳性的影响:导管切缘与径向切缘。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-26 DOI:10.1007/s00423-024-03547-x
Poowanai Sarkhampee, Weeris Ouransatien, Nithi Lertsawatvicha, Satsawat Chansitthichock, Paiwan Wattanarath
{"title":"肝周胆管癌切除切缘阳性的影响:导管切缘与径向切缘。","authors":"Poowanai Sarkhampee, Weeris Ouransatien, Nithi Lertsawatvicha, Satsawat Chansitthichock, Paiwan Wattanarath","doi":"10.1007/s00423-024-03547-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Resection margin status is the important prognostic factor in resected perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). Although the impact of ductal margin (DM) was reported in many studies, the influence of radial margin (RM) is unclear. This study aims to investigate the effect of positive RM on survival.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with pCCA underwent curative resection between 2013 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Resection margin status was divided into negative resection margin (R0) and positive resection margin (R1); positive RM alone (RM+) and positive DM with or without positive RM (DM+).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 167 pCCA patients, 62 (37.1%) had R1 margin. Among 62 R1 patients; 17 (27.4%) had positive DM alone, 20 (32.3%) had positive RM alone and 25 (40.3%) had both positive DM and RM. The R1 patients had a significantly greater number of lymph node metastasis (LNM) and advanced tumor staging than R0 patients, however there was no difference between the RM + and DM + patients. The median survival time of patients with RM + was significantly poorer than R0 patients (13.8 vs. 24.5 months; p < 0.001, respectively) and similar to the DM + patients (9.1 months, p = 0.556). However, in patients with LNM, those who underwent R0 resection had no statistically significant difference in survival outcomes compared to those with R1 resection.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Positive resection margin remains the important prognostic factor, and positive RM is common in these patients. Positive RM also had a comparable effect on survival as positive DM. As a result, in pCCA, surgical resection should target both RM and DM.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":"409 1","pages":"359"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of positive resection margin in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, ductal margin vs radial margin.\",\"authors\":\"Poowanai Sarkhampee, Weeris Ouransatien, Nithi Lertsawatvicha, Satsawat Chansitthichock, Paiwan Wattanarath\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00423-024-03547-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Resection margin status is the important prognostic factor in resected perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). Although the impact of ductal margin (DM) was reported in many studies, the influence of radial margin (RM) is unclear. This study aims to investigate the effect of positive RM on survival.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with pCCA underwent curative resection between 2013 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Resection margin status was divided into negative resection margin (R0) and positive resection margin (R1); positive RM alone (RM+) and positive DM with or without positive RM (DM+).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 167 pCCA patients, 62 (37.1%) had R1 margin. Among 62 R1 patients; 17 (27.4%) had positive DM alone, 20 (32.3%) had positive RM alone and 25 (40.3%) had both positive DM and RM. The R1 patients had a significantly greater number of lymph node metastasis (LNM) and advanced tumor staging than R0 patients, however there was no difference between the RM + and DM + patients. The median survival time of patients with RM + was significantly poorer than R0 patients (13.8 vs. 24.5 months; p < 0.001, respectively) and similar to the DM + patients (9.1 months, p = 0.556). However, in patients with LNM, those who underwent R0 resection had no statistically significant difference in survival outcomes compared to those with R1 resection.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Positive resection margin remains the important prognostic factor, and positive RM is common in these patients. Positive RM also had a comparable effect on survival as positive DM. As a result, in pCCA, surgical resection should target both RM and DM.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery\",\"volume\":\"409 1\",\"pages\":\"359\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03547-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03547-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介切除边缘状态是肝周胆管癌(pCCA)的重要预后因素。尽管许多研究都报道了导管缘(DM)的影响,但放射缘(RM)的影响尚不明确。本研究旨在探讨RM阳性对生存率的影响:回顾性分析2013年至2018年间接受根治性切除术的pCCA患者。切除边缘状态分为切除边缘阴性(R0)和切除边缘阳性(R1);单纯RM阳性(RM+)和DM阳性伴或不伴RM阳性(DM+):在167例pCCA患者中,62例(37.1%)的切除边缘为R1。在 62 例 R1 患者中,17 例(27.4%)仅有 DM 阳性,20 例(32.3%)仅有 RM 阳性,25 例(40.3%)同时有 DM 和 RM 阳性。与 R0 患者相比,R1 患者的淋巴结转移(LNM)数量和肿瘤晚期分期明显增加,但 RM + 和 DM + 患者之间没有差异。RM + 患者的中位生存时间明显低于 R0 患者(13.8 个月 vs. 24.5 个月;P 结论:阳性切除边缘仍然是肿瘤切除术的关键:切除边缘阳性仍是重要的预后因素,而RM阳性在这些患者中很常见。阳性 RM 对生存期的影响与阳性 DM 相当。因此,对于 pCCA,手术切除应同时针对 RM 和 DM。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The impact of positive resection margin in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, ductal margin vs radial margin.

Introduction: Resection margin status is the important prognostic factor in resected perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). Although the impact of ductal margin (DM) was reported in many studies, the influence of radial margin (RM) is unclear. This study aims to investigate the effect of positive RM on survival.

Methods: Patients with pCCA underwent curative resection between 2013 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Resection margin status was divided into negative resection margin (R0) and positive resection margin (R1); positive RM alone (RM+) and positive DM with or without positive RM (DM+).

Results: Of the 167 pCCA patients, 62 (37.1%) had R1 margin. Among 62 R1 patients; 17 (27.4%) had positive DM alone, 20 (32.3%) had positive RM alone and 25 (40.3%) had both positive DM and RM. The R1 patients had a significantly greater number of lymph node metastasis (LNM) and advanced tumor staging than R0 patients, however there was no difference between the RM + and DM + patients. The median survival time of patients with RM + was significantly poorer than R0 patients (13.8 vs. 24.5 months; p < 0.001, respectively) and similar to the DM + patients (9.1 months, p = 0.556). However, in patients with LNM, those who underwent R0 resection had no statistically significant difference in survival outcomes compared to those with R1 resection.

Conclusion: Positive resection margin remains the important prognostic factor, and positive RM is common in these patients. Positive RM also had a comparable effect on survival as positive DM. As a result, in pCCA, surgical resection should target both RM and DM.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
342
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Langenbeck''s Archives of Surgery aims to publish the best results in the field of clinical surgery and basic surgical research. The main focus is on providing the highest level of clinical research and clinically relevant basic research. The journal, published exclusively in English, will provide an international discussion forum for the controlled results of clinical surgery. The majority of published contributions will be original articles reporting on clinical data from general and visceral surgery, while endocrine surgery will also be covered. Papers on basic surgical principles from the fields of traumatology, vascular and thoracic surgery are also welcome. Evidence-based medicine is an important criterion for the acceptance of papers.
期刊最新文献
Low vs. conventional intra-abdominal pressure in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective cohort study. Comparative effectiveness totally endoscopic thyroidectomy via completely submental tri-hole approach and transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy without insufflation. Curative treatment for oligometastatic gastroesophageal cancer- results of a prospective multicenter study. New purse-string suture clamp and multi-functional seal cap: a simple intracorporeal circular-stapled oesophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy. The importance of microvascular invasion in patients with non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1