TY - JOUR
T1 - Negative prognostic outcomes of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in distal cholangiocarcinoma
T2 - a retrospective analysis using propensity score matching
AU - Matsunaga, Yutaro
AU - Higuchi, Ryota
AU - Yazawa, Takehisa
AU - Uemura, Shuichiro
AU - Izumo, Wataru
AU - Ota, Takehiro
AU - Furukawa, Toru
AU - Yamamoto, Masakazu
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.
PY - 2021/8
Y1 - 2021/8
N2 - Background: The efficacy of different types of preoperative biliary drainage for cholangiocarcinoma has been debated over the past two decades. Controversy concerning the use of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) versus endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) still exists. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes between PTBD and EBD in patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma. Methods: Data of patients diagnosed with distal cholangiocarcinoma who underwent preoperative PTBD or EBD from January 1999 to December 2017 were analyzed retrospectively. Post-surgical outcomes, including the incidence of post-operative complications, peritoneal metastasis, disease-free survival, and overall survival, were analyzed. Survival analyses were also performed after propensity score matching in the PTBD and EBD groups. Results: The incidence of post-operative complications was similar in both groups. The 5-year estimated cumulative incidences for peritoneal metastasis were 14.7% and 7.2% in the PTBD and EBD groups, respectively (p = 0.192). The 5-year disease-free survival rates were 23.7% and 47.3% in the PTBD and EBD groups, respectively (p = 0.015). In the multi-variate analysis for overall survival, PTBD was an independent poor prognostic factor. The 5-year overall survival rates were 35.9% and 56.3% in the PTBD and EBD groups, respectively (hazard ratio 1.85, confidence interval 1.05–3.26, p = 0.035). The results after propensity score matching indicated a poorer prognosis in the PTBD group, with a 5-year survival rate of 35.9% in the PTBD group vs 56.0% in the EBD group (p = 0.044). Conclusion: PTBD should be considered as a negative prognostic factor in distal cholangiocarcinoma patients.
AB - Background: The efficacy of different types of preoperative biliary drainage for cholangiocarcinoma has been debated over the past two decades. Controversy concerning the use of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) versus endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) still exists. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes between PTBD and EBD in patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma. Methods: Data of patients diagnosed with distal cholangiocarcinoma who underwent preoperative PTBD or EBD from January 1999 to December 2017 were analyzed retrospectively. Post-surgical outcomes, including the incidence of post-operative complications, peritoneal metastasis, disease-free survival, and overall survival, were analyzed. Survival analyses were also performed after propensity score matching in the PTBD and EBD groups. Results: The incidence of post-operative complications was similar in both groups. The 5-year estimated cumulative incidences for peritoneal metastasis were 14.7% and 7.2% in the PTBD and EBD groups, respectively (p = 0.192). The 5-year disease-free survival rates were 23.7% and 47.3% in the PTBD and EBD groups, respectively (p = 0.015). In the multi-variate analysis for overall survival, PTBD was an independent poor prognostic factor. The 5-year overall survival rates were 35.9% and 56.3% in the PTBD and EBD groups, respectively (hazard ratio 1.85, confidence interval 1.05–3.26, p = 0.035). The results after propensity score matching indicated a poorer prognosis in the PTBD group, with a 5-year survival rate of 35.9% in the PTBD group vs 56.0% in the EBD group (p = 0.044). Conclusion: PTBD should be considered as a negative prognostic factor in distal cholangiocarcinoma patients.
KW - Distal cholangiocarcinoma
KW - Endoscopic biliary drainage
KW - Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage
KW - Peritoneal metastasis
KW - Preoperative biliary drainage
KW - Propensity score matching
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85105312468&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85105312468&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10147-021-01926-8
DO - 10.1007/s10147-021-01926-8
M3 - Article
C2 - 33903992
AN - SCOPUS:85105312468
SN - 1341-9625
VL - 26
SP - 1492
EP - 1499
JO - International Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - International Journal of Clinical Oncology
IS - 8
ER -