Combined Tumor Burden Score and Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9 Grading System to Predict Outcomes Among Patients with Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.
Journal
Journal of the American College of Surgeons
ISSN: 1879-1190
Titre abrégé: J Am Coll Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9431305
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 04 2023
01 04 2023
Historique:
pubmed:
3
2
2023
medline:
17
3
2023
entrez:
2
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The interplay of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) and tumor burden score (TBS) within intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma remains ill-defined. We evaluated the roles of TBS and CA19-9 relative to overall survival (OS) and recurrence, as well as the predictive ability of the combined TBS and CA19-9 (CTC) grading system. Patients undergoing liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma between 2000 and 2020 were identified using a multi-institutional database. The impact of CA19-9 and TBS on 5-year OS and 3-year recurrence was assessed, along with the prognostic accuracy of the CTC grading system (ie the composite score of CA19-9 level and TBS). Among 831 patients, the median age was 58.2 years and 482 (58.0%) were male. The median [IQR] CA19-9 level was 49.7 [17.0, 221.0] U/mL and TBS was 6.1 [4.1, 8.3]. Median [IQR] and 5-year OS were 36.9 [32.3, 43.1] months and 38.9%, respectively; 3-year recurrence was 68.9%. Five-year survival varied relative to CA19-9 (low vs high, 49.0% vs 19.7%) and TBS (low vs high, 53.6% vs 26.9%) (p < 0.001 for both). On multivariable analysis, high CA19-9 (hazard ratio [HR] 2.02, 95% CI 1.64 to 2.49) and high TBS (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.06) remained independently associated with OS. In turn, the CTC grading score stratified 5-year OS (low vs intermediate vs high CTC, 57.7% vs 39.9% vs 12.6%; p < 0.001) and remained an independent prognostic factor (referent, low CTC; [intermediate CTC] HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.01; [high CTC] HR 3.28, 95% CI 2.47 to 4.36). The interplay between tumor morphology and biology dictates long-term prognosis after liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Prognostic models such as the CTC grading system may inform discussions around prognosis, as well as help identify which patients with ICC may benefit more from neoadjuvant chemotherapy rather than up-front surgery.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The interplay of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) and tumor burden score (TBS) within intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma remains ill-defined. We evaluated the roles of TBS and CA19-9 relative to overall survival (OS) and recurrence, as well as the predictive ability of the combined TBS and CA19-9 (CTC) grading system.
STUDY DESIGN
Patients undergoing liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma between 2000 and 2020 were identified using a multi-institutional database. The impact of CA19-9 and TBS on 5-year OS and 3-year recurrence was assessed, along with the prognostic accuracy of the CTC grading system (ie the composite score of CA19-9 level and TBS).
RESULTS
Among 831 patients, the median age was 58.2 years and 482 (58.0%) were male. The median [IQR] CA19-9 level was 49.7 [17.0, 221.0] U/mL and TBS was 6.1 [4.1, 8.3]. Median [IQR] and 5-year OS were 36.9 [32.3, 43.1] months and 38.9%, respectively; 3-year recurrence was 68.9%. Five-year survival varied relative to CA19-9 (low vs high, 49.0% vs 19.7%) and TBS (low vs high, 53.6% vs 26.9%) (p < 0.001 for both). On multivariable analysis, high CA19-9 (hazard ratio [HR] 2.02, 95% CI 1.64 to 2.49) and high TBS (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.06) remained independently associated with OS. In turn, the CTC grading score stratified 5-year OS (low vs intermediate vs high CTC, 57.7% vs 39.9% vs 12.6%; p < 0.001) and remained an independent prognostic factor (referent, low CTC; [intermediate CTC] HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.01; [high CTC] HR 3.28, 95% CI 2.47 to 4.36).
CONCLUSIONS
The interplay between tumor morphology and biology dictates long-term prognosis after liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Prognostic models such as the CTC grading system may inform discussions around prognosis, as well as help identify which patients with ICC may benefit more from neoadjuvant chemotherapy rather than up-front surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36728327
doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000557
pii: 00019464-202304000-00046
doi:
Substances chimiques
CA-19-9 Antigen
0
Carbohydrates
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
804-813Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Bridgewater J, Galle PR, Khan SA, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol 2014;60:1268–1289.
Fong ZV, Brownlee SA, Qadan M, Tanabe KK. The clinical management of cholangiocarcinoma in the United States and Europe: A comprehensive and evidence-based comparison of guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol 2021;28:2660–2674.
Endo I, Gonen M, Yopp AC, et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Rising frequency, improved survival, and determinants of outcome after resection. Ann Surg 2008;248:84–96.
Bagante F, Spolverato G, Weiss M, et al. Defining long-term survivors following resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 2017;21:1888–1897.
Zhang XF, Xue F, He J, et al. Proposed modification of the eighth edition of the AJCC staging system for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. HPB (Oxford) 2021;23:1456–1466.
Wang Y, Li J, Xia Y, et al. Prognostic nomogram for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after partial hepatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:1188–1195.
Sasaki K, Morioka D, Conci S, et al. The tumor burden score: A new “metro-ticket” prognostic tool for colorectal liver metastases based on tumor size and number of tumors. Ann Surg 2018;267:132–141.
Sasaki K, Margonis GA, Andreatos N, et al. The prognostic utility of the “Tumor Burden Score” based on preoperative radiographic features of colorectal liver metastases. J Surg Oncol 2017;116:515–523.
Tsilimigras DI, Moris D, Hyer JM, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma tumour burden score to stratify prognosis after resection. Br J Surg 2020;107:854–864.
Elfadaly AN, Tsilimigras DI, Hyer JM, et al. Impact of tumor burden score on conditional survival after curative-intent resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A multi-institutional analysis. World J Surg 2021;45:3438–3448.
Tsilimigras DI, Hyer JM, Paredes AZ, et al. Tumor burden dictates prognosis among patients undergoing resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A tool to guide post-resection adjuvant chemotherapy? Ann Surg Oncol 2021;28:1970–1978.
Bagante F, Spolverato G, Merath K, et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma tumor burden: A classification and regression tree model to define prognostic groups after resection. Surg (United States) 2019;166:983–990.
Lee T, Teng TZJ, Shelat VG. Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 — tumor marker: Past, present, and future. World J Gastrointest Surg 2020;12:468–490.
Li H, Liu R, Qiu H, et al. Tumor burden score stratifies prognosis of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after hepatic resection: A retrospective, multi-institutional study. Front Oncol 2022;12(March):1–9.
Zhang X-F, Xue F, Dong D-H, et al. Number and station of lymph node metastasis after curative-intent resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma impact prognosis. Ann Surg 2021;274:e1187–e1195.
Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB, et al. The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:93–99.
Nathan H, Aloia TA, Vauthey JN, et al. A proposed staging system for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:14–22.
Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: The 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17:1471–1474.
Moro A, Mehta R, Sahara K, et al. The impact of preoperative CA19-9 and CEA on outcomes of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2020;27:2888–2901.
Asaoka T, Kobayashi S, Hanaki T, et al. Clinical significance of preoperative CA19-9 and lymph node metastasis in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Surg Today 2020;50:1176–1186.
Sahara K, Tsilimigras DI, Mehta R, et al. A novel online prognostic tool to predict long-term survival after liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: The “metro-ticket” paradigm. J Surg Oncol 2019;120:223–230.
Tsilimigras DI, Hyer JM, Bagante F, et al. Resection of colorectal liver metastasis: Prognostic impact of tumor burden vs KRAS mutational status. J Am Coll Surg 2021;232:590–598.
Tsilimigras DI, Hyer JM, Diaz A, et al. Synergistic impact of alpha-fetoprotein and tumor burden on long-term outcomes following curative-intent resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13:1–12.
Spolverato G, Ejaz A, Kim Y, et al. Tumor size predicts vascular invasion and histologic grade among patients undergoing resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 2014;18:1284–1291.
Yu T, Chen X, He ZX, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic factors for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A population-based study. Sci Rep 2021;11:1–11.
Buettner S, Spolverato G, Kimbrough CW, et al. The impact of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio among patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Surg (United States) 2018;164:411–418.
Mazzaferro V, Llovet JM, Miceli R, et al. Predicting survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria: A retrospective, exploratory analysis. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:35–43.
Mazzaferro V. Results of liver transplantation: With or without Milan criteria? Liver Transplant 2007;13:S44–S47.