Cholangiocarcinoma: improving biliary drainage with PDT.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chapman MH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2808633 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Cholangiocarcinoma: improving biliary drainage with PDT.
Chapman Michael H MH Pereira Stephen P SP
Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy 20090601 2
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and study aimsPreoperative biliary drainage is often initiated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with potentially resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC), but additional percutaneous transhepatic catheter (PTC) drainage is frequently required. This study aimed to develop and validate a prediction model to identify patients with a high risk of inadequate ERCP drainage.Patients and methodsPatients with potentially resectable PHC and (attempted) preoperative ERCP drainage were included from two specialty center cohorts between 2001 and 2013. Indications for additional PTC drainage were failure to place an endoscopic stent, failure to relieve jaundice, cholangitis, or insufficient drainage of the future liver remnant. A prediction model was derived from the European cohort and externally validated in the USA cohort.ResultsOf the 288 patients, 108 (38%) required additional preoperative PTC drainage after inadequate ERCP drainage. Independent risk factors for additional PTC drainage were proximal biliary obstruction on preoperative imaging (Bismuth 3 or 4) and predrainage total bilirubin level. The prediction model identified three subgroups: patients with low risk (7%), moderate risk (40%), and high risk (62%). The high-risk group consisted of patients with a total bilirubin level above 150 µmol/L and Bismuth 3a or 4 tumors, who typically require preoperative drainage of the angulated left bile ducts. The prediction model had good discrimination (area under the curve 0.74) and adequate calibration in the external validation cohort.ConclusionsSelected patients with potentially resectable PHC have a high risk (62%) of inadequate preoperative ERCP drainage requiring additional PTC drainage. These patients might do better with initial PTC drainage instead of ERCP.
| S-EPMC4745253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Preoperative biliary drainage of hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HC) is controversial. The goal of this study was to compare the clinical outcome and associated complications for types II, III, and IV HC managed by percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Patients and methods Between January 2011 and June 2017, a total of 180 patients with II, III, and IV HC were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. According to the drainage method, patients were divided into two groups: PTBD (n = 81) and ERCP (n = 99). This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03104582, and was completed. Results Compared with the PTBD group, the ERCP group had a higher incidence of post-procedural cholangitis (37 [37.37 %] vs. 18 [22.22 %], P = 0.028) and pancreatitis (17 [17.17 %] vs. 2 [2.47 %], P = 0.001); required more salvaged biliary drainage (18 [18.18 %] vs. 5 [6.17 %], P = 0.029), and incurred a higher cost ( P < 0.05). Patients with type III and IV HC in the ERCP group had more cholangitis than those in the PTBD group (26 [36.62 %] vs. 11 [18.03 %], P = 0.018). The rate of cholangitis in patients who received endoscopic bilateral biliary stents insertion was higher than patients with unilateral stenting (23 [50.00 %] vs. 9 [26.47 %], P = 0.034), and underwent PTBD internal-external drainage had a higher incidence of cholangitis than those with only external drainage (11 [34.36 %] vs. 7 [14.29 %], P = 0.034). No significant difference in the rate of cholangitis was observed between the endoscopic unilateral stenting group and the endoscopic nasobiliary drainage group (9 [26.47 %] vs. 5 [26.32 %], P = 0.990). Conclusion Compared to ERCP, PTBD reduced the rate of cholangitis, pancreatitis, salvage biliary drainage, and decreased hospitalization costs in patients with types II, III, and IV HC. Risk of cholangitis for patients with types III and IV was significantly lower in the PTBD group.
| S-EPMC6976325 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07‒0.51; p = 0.009 I² = 90%), post-drainage complications (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06‒0.33; p < 0.0001; I² = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05‒0.16; p < 0.0001; I² = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD = -2.89; 95% CI -3.35 ‒ -2,43; p < 0.00001; I² = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clinical success (RD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.27 ‒ -0.11; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01‒0.15; p = 0.02; I² = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage complications, and seeding metastases.
| S-EPMC10757298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION: Controversy exists over the preferred technique of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) requiring major liver resection. The current study compared outcomes of endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients with resectable HCCA. METHODS: One hundred fifteen consecutive patients were explored for HCCA between 2001 and July 2008 and assigned by initial PBD procedure to either EBD or PTBD. RESULTS: Of these patients, 101 (88%) underwent PBD; 90 patients underwent EBD as primary procedure, and 11 PTBD. The technical success rate of initial drainage was 81% in the EBD versus 100% in the PTBD group (P = 0.20). Stent dislocation was similar in the EBD and PTBD groups (23% vs. 20%, P = 0.70). Infectious complications were significantly more common in the endoscopic group (48% vs. 9%, P < 0.05). Patients in the EBD group underwent more drainage procedures (2.8 vs. 1.4, P < 0.01) and had a significantly longer drainage period until laparotomy (mean 15 weeks vs. 11 weeks in the PTBD group; P < 0.05). In 30 patients, EBD was converted to PTBD due to failure of the endoscopic approach. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative percutaneous drainage could outperform endoscopic stent placement in patients with resectable HCCA, showing fewer infectious complications, using less procedures.
| S-EPMC2793391 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background and objectiveAlthough pre-operative biliary drainage (PBD) is frequently performed in patients with cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), its impact on patient survival is unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of PBD on overall survival of patients with extra-hepatic CCA.MethodsThis was a retrospective study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Patients who underwent biliary drainage within 3 months prior to and/or after diagnosis of CCA were included in the PBD cohort. Patients who did not receive biliary drainage were included in the non-PBD cohort. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to determine independent predictors of survival.ResultsOf 3862 patients with extra-hepatic CCA, 433 (11.2%) underwent curative surgical resection, with a median survival of 14 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 10-21 months) in the PBD cohort (n = 126) vs 31 months (95% CI, 26-39 months) in the non-PBD cohort (n = 307) (P < 0.001), during the median follow-up duration for the surgical cohort of 26 months (range, 1-60 months). Among the 433 patients, 126 (29.1%) underwent PBD and had significantly higher Charlson comorbidity index and advanced SEER stage than those without PBD before surgery. On multivariable analysis in patients who underwent curative surgical resection, after adjusting patient demographics, tumor characteristics, Charlson comorbidity index, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, PBD was significantly associated with shortened survival time (hazard ratio, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.34-4.10; P = 0.003).ConclusionsPBD appears negative impact on long-term survival in patients with potentially resectable CCA and should be avoided if possible.
| S-EPMC6573968 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6030706 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsFor the management of hilar malignant biliary obstruction (HMBO), endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) is preferred over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) because of its convenience. However, there is no established guideline for malignant hilar obstruction that requires multiple stenting. In this study, we compared the efficacy of bilateral metal stents (BMS) versus multiple plastic stents (MPS).MethodsIn this retrospective study, we analyzed 102 patients who underwent EBD with either BMS or MPS due to HMBO caused by hilar cholangiocarcinoma between 1996 and 2018 at Samsung Medical Center. We compared the successful drainage rates, cholangitis events, overall complications, mortality, and conversion rates to PTBD between the two groups.ResultsThe successful drainage rates in the BMS group and the MPS group were 71.4% (25/35) and 65.6% (44/67), respectively, with no significant difference. The MPS group had a higher cholangitis risk (hazard ratio [HR], 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21 to 3.58) and higher 6-month mortality (HR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.26 to 6.71) than the BMS group. There were no significant differences in overall complications or the conversion rate to PTBD between the groups.ConclusionsIn patients with malignant HMBO, the BMS group showed better outcomes in terms of the cholangitis rate and 6-month mortality than the MPS group. Therefore, if possible, bilateral metal stenting is recommended for HMBO caused by hilar cholangiocarcinoma.
| S-EPMC8593498 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsRelief of cholestasis in hilar cholangiocarcinoma is commonly undertaken in both curative and palliative treatment plans. There are numerous open questions with regard to the ideal biliary drainage strategy - including what constitutes clinical success (CS). In the existing data, curative patients and patients from the Western world are underrepresented.Patients and methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of patients with complex malignant hilar obstruction (Bismuth-Corlette II and higher) due to cholangiocarcinoma who underwent biliary drainage at a German referral center between 2010 and 2020. We aimed to define CS and complication rates and directly compare outcomes in curative and palliative patients.Results56 curative and 72 palliative patients underwent biliary drainage. In patients with curative intent, CS was achieved significantly more often regardless of what definition of CS was applied (e.g., total serum bilirubin (TSB) < 2 mg/dl: 66.1% vs. 27.8%, p = < 0.001, > 75% reduction of TSB: 57.1% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.003). This observation held true only when subgroups with the same Bismuth-Corlette stage were compared. Moreover, palliative patients experienced a significantly greater percentage of adverse events (33.3% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.01). Curative intent treatment and TSB at presentation were predictive factors of CS regardless of what definition of CS was applied. The observed CS rates are comparable to published studies involving curative patients, but inferior to reported CS rates in palliative series mostly from Asia.ConclusionsBiliary drainage in complex malignant hilar obstruction due to cholangiocarcinoma is more likely to be successful and less likely to cause adverse events in curative patients compared to palliative patients.
| S-EPMC11468282 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We posed six clinical questions (CQ) on preoperative biliary drainage and organized all pertinent evidence regarding these questions. CQ 1. Is preoperative biliary drainage necessary for patients with jaundice? The indications for preoperative drainage for jaundiced patients are changing greatly. Many reports state that, excluding conditions such as cholangitis and liver dysfunction, biliary drainage is not necessary before pancreatoduodenectomy or less invasive surgery. However, the morbidity and mortality of extended hepatectomy for biliary cancer is still high, and the most common cause of death is hepatic failure; therefore, preoperative biliary drainage is desirable in patients who are to undergo extended hepatectomy. CQ 2. What procedures are appropriate for preoperative biliary drainage? There are three methods of biliary drainage: percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) or endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD), and surgical drainage. ERBD is an internal drainage method, and PTBD and ENBD are external methods. However, there are no reports of comparisons of preoperative biliary drainage methods using randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Thus, at this point, a method should be used that can be safely performed with the equipment and techniques available at each facility. CQ 3. Which is better, unilateral or bilateral biliary drainage, in malignant hilar obstruction? Unilateral biliary drainage of the future remnant hepatic lobe is usually enough even when intrahepatic bile ducts are separated into multiple units due to hilar malignancy. Bilateral biliary drainage should be considered in the following cases: those in which the operative procedure is difficult to determine before biliary drainage; those in which cholangitis has developed after unilateral drainage; and those in which the decrease in serum bilirubin after unilateral drainage is very slow. CQ 4. What is the best treatment for post-drainage fever? The most likely cause of high fever in patients with biliary drainage is cholangitis due to problems with the existing drainage catheter or segmental cholangitis if an undrained segment is left. In the latter case, urgent drainage is required. CQ 5. Is bile culture necessary in patients with biliary drainage who are to undergo surgery? Monitoring of bile cultures is necessary for patients with biliary drainage to determine the appropriate use of antibiotics during the perioperative period. CQ 6. Is bile replacement useful for patients with external biliary drainage? Maintenance of the enterohepatic bile circulation is vitally important. Thus, preoperative bile replacement in patients with external biliary drainage is very likely to be effective when highly invasive surgery (e.g., extended hepatectomy for hilar cholangiocarcinoma) is planned.
| S-EPMC2794354 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThere are still many controversies about biliary drainage in MBO, and we aimed to summarize and evaluate the evidence associated with biliary drainage.MethodsWe conducted an umbrella review of SRoMAs based on RCTs. Through July 28, 2022, Embase, PubMed, WOS, and Cochrane Database were searched. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted the data, and appraised the methodological quality of the included studies. GRADE was used to evaluate the quality of the evidence.Results36 SRoMAs were identified. After excluding 24 overlapping studies, 12 SRoMAs, including 76 RCTs, and 124 clinical outcomes for biliary drainage in MBO were included. Of the 124 pieces of evidence evaluated, 13 were rated "High" quality, 38 were rated "Moderate", and the rest were rated "Low" or "Very low". For patients with MBO, 125I seeds+stent can reduce the risk of stent occlusion, RFA+stent can improve the prognosis; compared with PC, SEMS can increase the risk of tumor ingrowth and reduce the occurrence of sludge formation, and the incidence of tumor ingrowth in C-SEMS/PC-SEMS was significantly lower than that in U-SEMS. There was no difference in the success rate of drainage between EUS-BD and ERCP-BD, but the use of EUS-BD can reduce the incidence of stent dysfunction. For patients with obstructive jaundice, PBD does not affect postoperative mortality compared to direct surgery. The use of MS in patients with periampullary cancer during PBD can reduce the risk of re-intervention and stent occlusion compared to PC. In addition, we included four RCTs that showed that when performing EUS-BD on MBO, hepaticogastrostomy has higher technical success rates than choledochoduodenostomy. Patients who received Bilateral-ENBD had a lower additional drainage rate than those who received Unilateral-ENBD.ConclusionsOur study summarizes a large amount of evidence related to biliary drainage, which helps to reduce the uncertainty in the selection of biliary drainage strategies for MBO patients under different circumstances.
| S-EPMC10508238 | biostudies-literature