Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019
Recurrence After Resection for Intraductal Papillary Neoplasm of Bile Duct (IPNB) According to Tumor Location.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
You Yunghun, Choi Seong Ho, Choi Dong Wook, Heo Jin Seok, Han In Woong, Jang Kee-Taek, Han Sunjong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: No studies have yet analyzed the characteristics of recurrence after resection for intraductal papillary neoplasm of bile duct (IPNB) based on tumor location. We analyzed the patterns, timing, and risk factors for recurrence.
METHODS: From 1994 to 2014, data from 103 patients who were diagnosed with IPNB were retrospectively reviewed. Among these, 44 were extrahepatic IPNB (E-IPNB) and 59 were intrahepatic IPNB (I-IPNB).
RESULTS: CK20, pancreaticobiliary type, tumor invasion beyond ductal wall, tumor invasion to adjacent organs, and invasive disease were more frequently found in E-IPNB than in I-IPNB (22.7 vs. 8.5%; p = 0.043, 38.6 vs. 23.7%; p = 0.050, 20.5 vs. 11.9%; p < 0.001, 4.5 vs. 1.7%; p < 0.001 and 93.2 vs. 55.9%; p < 0.001). E-IPNB has poorer 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) compared to I-IPNB (51.7 vs. 91.4%; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the rate of initial isolated locoregional recurrence and initial distant recurrence according to tumor location (14.6 in E-IPNB vs. 3.0% in I-IPNB; p = 0.123, 19.5 in E = IPNB vs. 12.0% in I-IPNB; p = 0.136). Recurrence rate according to timing was different between E-IPNB and I-IPNB: within 1 year (33.3% vs. 83.3%; p = 0.061) and 1-3 years (50.0% vs. 0%; p = 0.052). The independent prognostic factors for RFS were tumor location (p = 0.034) and lymph node metastasis (p = 0.013).
CONCLUSIONS: E-IPNB has a worse prognosis than I-IPNB. Different follow-up schedules for surveillance according to tumor location are needed after surgery.
METHODS: From 1994 to 2014, data from 103 patients who were diagnosed with IPNB were retrospectively reviewed. Among these, 44 were extrahepatic IPNB (E-IPNB) and 59 were intrahepatic IPNB (I-IPNB).
RESULTS: CK20, pancreaticobiliary type, tumor invasion beyond ductal wall, tumor invasion to adjacent organs, and invasive disease were more frequently found in E-IPNB than in I-IPNB (22.7 vs. 8.5%; p = 0.043, 38.6 vs. 23.7%; p = 0.050, 20.5 vs. 11.9%; p < 0.001, 4.5 vs. 1.7%; p < 0.001 and 93.2 vs. 55.9%; p < 0.001). E-IPNB has poorer 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) compared to I-IPNB (51.7 vs. 91.4%; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the rate of initial isolated locoregional recurrence and initial distant recurrence according to tumor location (14.6 in E-IPNB vs. 3.0% in I-IPNB; p = 0.123, 19.5 in E = IPNB vs. 12.0% in I-IPNB; p = 0.136). Recurrence rate according to timing was different between E-IPNB and I-IPNB: within 1 year (33.3% vs. 83.3%; p = 0.061) and 1-3 years (50.0% vs. 0%; p = 0.052). The independent prognostic factors for RFS were tumor location (p = 0.034) and lymph node metastasis (p = 0.013).
CONCLUSIONS: E-IPNB has a worse prognosis than I-IPNB. Different follow-up schedules for surveillance according to tumor location are needed after surgery.