Abstract
Aim:
Combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma (combined tumor) has been described as either a variant of hepatoma or a variant of cholangiocarcinoma. Prior studies evaluated fewer than 50 patients with combined tumors, precluding multivariate analyses. Posited was the notion that analysis of a large database would yield more definite answers.
Methods:
This study used SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute) to analyze 282 combined tumors, 2,035 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, and 19,336 hepatomas between the years 1973–2003. Multinomial logit regression calculated point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (c.i.) for relative risk (rr). Cox regression calculated point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (c.i.) for hazard ratios (ĥ).
Results:
Men less often had cholangiocarcinomas than they had combined tumors (rr = 0.63, c.i. = 0.49–0.81). Hepatomas less often than combined tumors presented with distant spread (rr = 0.56, c.i. = 0.43–0.72). Men (rr = 1.50, c.i. = 1.17–1.93) and patients with a known Asian or Pacific birthplace (rr = 2.36, c.i. = 1.56–3.56) more often had hepatomas than they had combined tumors. Among patients not known to have an Asian/Pacific birthplace, a diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma (ĥ = 0.72, c.i. = 0.63–0.82) or hepatoma (ĥ = 0.75, c.i. = 0.66–0.86) provided a better prognosis than did a diagnosis of combined tumor.
Conclusion:
Combined tumors differ from hepatomas and cholangiocarcinomas in terms of distribution and survival patterns in the population; they should be considered neither cholangiocarcinomas nor hepatomas.
Keywords: hepatoma, cholangiocarcinoma, combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma, multinomial logit, survival analysis
Introduction
Combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinomas (combined tumors) have been a source of controversy ever since they were described [Allen, 1949]. Multiple studies have been performed [Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan, 1990; Maeda, 1995; Ng, 1998; Jarnagin, 2002; Tickoo, 2002; Tang, 2006], none with more than 50 patients with combined tumors. Some thought combined tumor a form of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma [Jarnagin, 2002; Tickoo, 2002]; others felt it to be a variant of hepatoma [Maeda, 1995; Ng, 1998; Tang, 2006]. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute has been found to be an authoritative source of information on cancer incidence and survival in the United States; information concerning this database has been made available at its website (www.seer.com). Posited was the notion that this large database would provide enough patients for multivariate analyses that might better define combined tumors. Assessed were the contributions of gender, stage, age, and place of birth to the distribution of the tumor types. Also evaluated were survival differences among tumor types after gender, place of birth, stage, and age were accounted for.
Materials and Methods
A case listing session provided patients from the SEER 17 Registry data base over the period 1973–2003. Table 1 displayed inclusion and exclusion criteria and the means by which patient subgroups were created. R 2.5.1 analyzed the data. χ2 tests assessed relationships of tumor type and 1) age, 2) stage, 3) birthplace, and 4) gender. Multinomial logit regression compared 1) cholangiocarcinoma and combined tumors and 2) hepatoma and combined tumors with respect to age, stage, birthplace, and gender. The Hausmann test assessed the independence of irrelevant alternatives assumption. The Kaplan-Meier method yielded survival estimates. Log rank tests and Cox regression analyzed survival differences. The Grambsch-Therneau test assessed the proportional hazards assumption. Because frequency and survival analyses were performed, a Bonferroni adjustment was made; null hypotheses were rejected when P < 0.025.
Table 1.
Data acquisition schema.
| Database |
| SEER 17 Regs Public-Use, Nov 2005 (1973–2003 varying) |
| Selection criteria |
| Site: Liver and intrahepatic bile duct |
| Limited to histologic type: |
| Cholangiocarcinoma—ICD-0 8160 |
| Hepatoma—ICD-0 8170 |
| Combined tumor—ICD-0 8180 |
| Follow-up: Active |
| First malignant primary indicator: Yes |
| Diagnostic confirmation: Microscopically confirmed |
| Excluded: Autopsy/Death certificate cases |
| Data collected and stratification |
| Gender |
| Age at diagnosis: Below median of 65 years and 65 or more years |
| Stage: No metastases, unstaged, and metastases |
| Place of birth: Asian/Pacific and other |
| Survival time in months: Up to 48 months |
| Vital status |
Results
Table 2 displayed frequency distributions for the 22,553 patients. 282 (1.3%) had combined tumors. 2,935 (13.0%) had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas. 19,336 (85.7%) had hepatomas. 13,268 (58.8%) lacked distant spread. 5,482 (24.3%) showed distant spread. 6,582 (29.2%) were women. 3,895 (17.3%) had a known Asian/Pacific birthplace. χ2 tests showed tumor types differed as regards stage, gender, birthplace, and age (P < 0.025, for each analysis).
Table 2.
Frequency distributions (and percents) of 22,553 patients with liver tumors by histologic type with respect to stage, gender, birthplace, and age. For each variables, χ2 tests showed the differences with respect to tumor type could not have been explained by chance (P < 0.025).
| Combined tumors | Cholangiocarcinomas | Hepatomas | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stage | ||||
| No metastases | 147 (1.1%) | 1,376 (10.4%) | 11,745 (88.5%) | 13,268 (100%) |
| Unstaged | 37 (1.0%) | 505 (13.3%) | 3,261 (85.7%) | 3,803 (100%) |
| Metastases | 98 (1.8%) | 1,054 (19.2%) | 4,330 (79.0%) | 5,482 (100%) |
| Gender | ||||
| Women | 98 (1.5%) | 1,364 (20.7%) | 5,120 (77.8%) | 6,582 (100%) |
| Men | 184 (1.2%) | 1,571 (9.8%) | 14,216 (89.0%) | 15,971 (100%) |
| Birthplace | ||||
| Asian/Pacific | 25 (0.6%) | 252 (6.5%) | 3,618 (92.9%) | 3,895 (100%) |
| Other | 257 (1.4%) | 2,683 (14.4%) | 15,718 (84.2%) | 18,658 (100%) |
| Age | ||||
| Less than 65 years | 146 (1.3%) | 1,315 (11.8%) | 9709 (86.9%) | 11,170 (100%) |
| 65 or more years | 136 (1.2%) | 1,620 (14.2%) | 9627 (84.6%) | 11,383 (100%) |
Multinomial logit regression (Table 3) yielded point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (c.i.) for relative risk (rr). Men were less likely than women (rr = 0.63, c.i. = 0.49–0.81) to develop cholangiocarcinomas than combined tumors. Men more than women (rr = 1.50, 95% c.i. = 1.17–1.93) and patients with known Asian/Pacific birthplaces more than those born elsewhere (rr = 2.36, c.i. = 1.56–3.56) more likely had hepatomas than combined tumors. Hepatomas were less likely to present with distant spread than were combined tumors (rr = 0.56, c.i. = 0.43–0.72).
Table 3.
Multinomial logit regression comparing 2,935 patients with intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinomas and 19,336 patients with hepatomas with 282 patients with combined tumors.
| β (s.e.) | Z | rr (95% c.i.) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cholangicarcinoma v. combined tumor | |||
| Intercept | 2.4 | ||
| Man v. woman | −0.46 (0.13) | −3.53* | 0.63 (0.49–0.81) |
| Unstaged v. no metastases | 0.36 (0.19) | 1.88 | 1.43 (0.98–2.09) |
| Metastases v. no metastases | 0.15 (0.14) | 1.11 | 1.16 (0.89–1.52) |
| Asian or Pacific birth v. other | 0.01 (0.22) | 0.03 | 1.01 (0.65–1.55) |
| 65 or more years old v. younger | 0.21 (0.13) | 1.64 | 1.23 (0.96–1.58) |
| Hepatoma v. combined tumor | |||
| Intercept | 3.92 | ||
| Man v. woman | 0.41 (0.13) | 3.19* | 1.50 (1.17–1.93) |
| Unstaged v. no metastases | 0.12 (0.19) | 0.65 | 1.13 (0.78–1.62) |
| Metastases v. no metastases | −0.58 (0.13) | −4.43* | 0.56 (0.43–0.72) |
| Asian/Pacific birth v. other | 0.86 (0.21) | 4.08* | 2.36 (1.56–3.56) |
| 65 or more years old v. younger | 0.11 (0.12) | 0.94 | 1.12 (0.88–1.42) |
P < 0.025.
The Hausmann test was performed. Point estimate vectors for models with (pf) and without (ps) cholangiocarcinoma were calculated. Removal of pf elements related to cholangiocarcinoma yielded a conformable vector (pfc). The difference vector (d) was d = ps–pfc. Variance-covariance matrixes for models with (Cf) and without (Cs) cholangiocarcinoma were calculated. Removal of Cf elements related to cholangiocarcinoma yielded a conformable matrix (Cfc). The difference matrix (Q) was Q = Cs–Cfc. Then, χ2 = dTMd, where M was the generalized inverse of Q. The degrees of freedom (d.f.) was the rank of Q. The independence of irrelevant alternatives assumption held (χ2 = 0.17, 6 d.f., P > 0.50).
Univariate survival analyses (Table 4) showed median survivals ranging from two to six months; log rank tests showed statistically significant differences among tumor types with respect to age, stage, birthplace and gender (P < 0.025, for each analysis). Cox regression (Table 5) calculated hazard ratios (ĥ) and 95% confidence intervals (c.i.). The Grambsch-Therneau test showed the proportional hazards assumption did not hold for birthplace (ρ = 0.033; χ2 = 20.43, P < 0.025); the analysis was stratified by birthplace. Persons with a known Asian/Pacific birthplace lacked statistically significant predictor variables (P > 0.025, for each analysis). Among patients without a known Asian/Pacific birthplace, cholangiocarcinomas (ĥ = 0.72, c.i. = 0.63–0.82) and hepatomas (ĥ = 0.75, c.i. = 0.66–0.86) imparted a better prognosis than did combined tumors.
Table 4.
Univariate survival analyses.
| Patients n = 22,553 | Deaths n = 18,803 | Median survival Months (95% c.i.) | Log rank χ2 (df) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Histologic type | ||||
| Combined | 282 (1.3%) | 254 (1.4%) | 3 (2–3) | |
| Cholangiocarcinoma | 2,935 (13%) | 2,568 (13.7%) | 4 (4–5) | |
| Hepatoma | 19,336 (85.7%) | 15,981 (85%) | 4 (4–4) | 34.2 (2)* |
| Asian or Pacific birthplace | ||||
| No | 18,658 (82.7%) | 15,645 (83.2%) | 4 (4–4) | |
| Yes | 3,895 (17.3%) | 3,158 (16.8%) | 5 (5–6) | 74.4 (1)* |
| Age in years | ||||
| 65 or more | 11,170 (49.5%) | 8,872 (47.2%) | 5 (4–5) | |
| 64 or less | 11,383 (50.5%) | 9,931 (52.8%) | 3 (3–4) | 234 (1)* |
| Gender | ||||
| Woman | 6,582 (29.2%) | 5,435 (28.9%) | 5 (4–5) | |
| Man | 15,971 (70.8%) | 13,368 (71.1%) | 4 (4–4) | 43.8 (1)* |
| Metastatic status | ||||
| No metastases | 13,268 (58.8%) | 10,188 (54.2%) | 6 (6–6) | |
| Unstaged | 3,803 (16.9%) | 3,463 (18.4%) | 3 (3–3) | |
| Metastases | 5,482 (24.3%) | 5,152 (27.4%) | 2 (2–2) | 1,991 (2)* |
P < 0.025.
Table 5.
Cox regression analyses.
| β (s.e.) | z | ĥ (95% c.i.) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asian or Pacific birthplace (n = 3895) | |||
| Cholangiocarcinoma v. combined | −0.25 (0.22) | −1.11 | 0.78 (0.51–1.2) |
| Hepatoma v. combined | −0.28 (0.21) | −1.34 | 0.76 (0.5–1.14) |
| 65 or more years v. younger | 0.05 (0.04) | 1.37 | 1.05 (0.98–1.13) |
| Man v. woman | 0.14 (0.04) | 3.42* | 1.15 (1.06–1.25) |
| Unstaged v. no metastases | 0.45 (0.05) | 8.51* | 1.57 (1.41–1.74) |
| Metastases v. no metastases | 0.79 (0.04) | 18.36* | 2.21 (2.03–2.4) |
| Other birthplace (n = 18658) | |||
| Cholangiocarcinoma v. combined | −0.33 (0.07) | −4.83* | 0.72 (0.63–0.82) |
| Hepatoma v. combined | −0.28 (0.07) | −4.28* | 0.75 (0.66–0.86) |
| 65 or more years v. younger | 0.26 (0.02) | 16.24* | 1.3 (1.26–1.34) |
| Man v. woman | 0.14 (0.02) | 7.8* | 1.15 (1.11–1.19) |
| Unstaged v. no metastases | 0.41 (0.02) | 19.16* | 1.51 (1.45–1.57) |
| Metastases v. no metastases | 0.74 (0.02) | 38.71* | 2.1 (2.03–2.18) |
P < 0.025.
Discussion
This study compared combined tumors with cholangiocarcinomas and hepatomas. For men more than for women, cholangiocarcinomas were less often seen than were combined tumors. Hepatomas, more so than combined tumors, were seen in men (relative to women), presented without distant spread (relative to presenting without distant spread), and arose in patients with an Asian/Pacific birthplace (relative to those born elsewhere). Among those with a non-Asian/Pacific birthplace, a diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma or hepatomas conferred a better prognosis than did a diagnosis of combined tumor.
Both hepatitis B and hepatitis C have been found to induce hepatoma [Engstrom, 2003]; recent studies have also implicated both viruses with respect to cholangiocarcinoma [Gatselis, 2007; Hai, 2005; Perumal, 2006; Shaib, 2007]. The pre-S mutant of hepatitis B has been shown to most often be seen in those parts of the world (Asia and the Pacific) that have high rates of hepatoma; a relationship to cholangiocarcinoma has not been found [Fan y, 2001; Huy TT, 2003]. This study in part confirmed these results by comparing patients with a known Asian/Pacific birthplace to those without a known Asian/Pacific birthplace. Hepatomas, but not cholangiocarcinomas, were more often seen in persons with an Asian/Pacific birthplace than were combined tumors, when compared with patients born elsewhere.
Limitations of this study included its inability to subclassify combined tumors [Goodman, 1985], to take into account the results of hepatitis virus serologic studies, and to evaluate the effect of alcohol and/or drug abuse. The limitations were more than compensated for by the increased sample size; no prior study of this problem included more than 50 patients, precluding multivariate analyses. The importance of sample size was reflected in this study, which had only 25 combined tumors in patients with an Asian/Pacific birthplace: no survival differences with respect to tumor type were identified among this cohort.
The findings of this study complemented those of a recent summary of laboratory findings. Hepatic progenitor cells can have been shown to be able to differentiate towards the biliary and hepatocyte lineages [Libbrecht, 2006]. The cells have been found to be the source of combined tumors. Most hepatomas, by contrast, have been shown to derive from other cells [Libbrecht, 2006]. Cholangiocarcinomas have not been found to have an origin from these cells [Libbrecht, 2006]. Some animal models suggested a common origin for all three tumors, but this has not been demonstrated in humans [Libbrecht, 2006]. Irrespective of these findings with respect to tumor classification, this study showed that the differences matter little from the patient’s perspective because median survival for all three tumor types is less than six months.
This study showed that combined tumors differ from hepatomas and cholangiocarcinomas in terms of distribution and survival patterns in the population; they should be considered neither hepatomas or cholangiocarcinomas.
References
- Allen RA, Lisa JR. Combined Liver Cell and Bile Duct Carcinoma. Am J Pathol. 1949;25:647–55. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Engstrom PF, Elin R, Sigurdson ER, et al. Primary Neoplasms of the Liver. In: Kufe D, Weichselbaum R, Bast R, et al., editors. Cancer Medicine. 6 edn. London: BC Hamilton; 2007. 2003. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?highlight=primary,engstrom&rid=cmed6.chapter.25058 accessed Decmber 11. [Google Scholar]
- Fan YF, Lu CC, Chen WC, et al. Prevalence and significance of hepatitis B virus (HBV) pre-S mutants in serum and liver at different replicative stages of chronic HBV infection. Hepatology. 2001;33:277–86. doi: 10.1053/jhep.2001.21163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gatselis NK, Tepetes K, Loukopoulos A, et al. Hepatitis B virus and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Invest. 2007;25:55–58. doi: 10.1080/07357900601130722. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Goodman ZD, Ishak KG, Langloss JM, et al. Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma. A histologic and immunohistochemical study. Cancer. 1985;55:124–35. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19850101)55:1<124::aid-cncr2820550120>3.0.co;2-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hai S, Kubo S, Yamamoto S, et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics of hepatitis C virus-associated intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Dig Surg. 2005;22:432–9. doi: 10.1159/000091446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Huy TT, Ushijima H, Win KM, et al. High prevalence of hepatitis B. virus pre-s mutant in countries where it is endemic and its relationship with genotype and chronicity. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:5449–55. doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.12.5449-5455.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jarnagin WR, Weber S, Tickoo SK, et al. Combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma: demographic, clinical, and prognostic factors. Cancer. 2002;94:2040–6. doi: 10.1002/cncr.10392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Libbrecht L. Hepatic progenitor cells in human liver tumor development. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:6261–5. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i39.6261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan Primary liver cancer in Japan. Clinicopathologic features and results of surgical treatment. Ann Surg. 1990;211:277–87. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Maeda T, Adachi E, Kajiyama K, et al. Combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma: proposed criteria according to cytokeratin expression and analysis of clinicopathologic features. Hum Pathol. 1995;26:956–64. doi: 10.1016/0046-8177(95)90084-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ng IO, Shek TW, Nicholls J, et al. Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma: a clinicopathological study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1998;13:34–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.1998.tb00542.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Perumal V, Wang J, Thuluvath P, et al. Hepatitis C and hepatitis B nucleic acids are present in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas from the United States. Hum Pathol. 2006;37:1211–6. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2006.04.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shaib YH, El-Serag HB, Nooka AK, et al. Risk factors for intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a hospital-based case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1016–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01104.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tang D, Nagano H, Nakamura M, et al. Clinical and pathological features of Allen’s type C classification of resected combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma: a comparative study with hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocellular carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10:987–98. doi: 10.1016/j.gassur.2006.01.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tickoo SK, Zee SY, Obiekwe S, et al. Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma: a histopathologic, immunohistochemical, and in situ hybridization study. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:989–97. doi: 10.1097/00000478-200208000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]