Skip to main content
Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research logoLink to Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research
. 2013 Aug 7;19:648–656. doi: 10.12659/MSM.889379

Advances in diagnosis and treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma – a review

Geng Zhimin 1, Hidayatullah Noor 1, Zheng Jian-Bo 1, Wang Lin 1, Rajiv Kumar Jha 2,
PMCID: PMC3739601  PMID: 23921971

Abstract

Hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HC) is a rare tumor that causes devastating disease. In the late stages, this carcinoma primarily invades the portal vein and metastasizes to the hepatic lobes; it is associated with a poor prognosis. HC is diagnosed by its clinical manifestation and results of imaging techniques such as ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography. Preoperative hepatic bile drainage can improve symptoms associated with insufficient liver and kidney function, coagulopathy, and jaundice. Surgical margin-negative (R0) resection, including major liver resection, is the most effective and potentially curative treatment for HC. If the tumor is not resected, then liver transplantation with adjuvant management can improve survival. We conducted a systematic review of developments in imaging studies and major surgical hepatectomy for HC with positive outcomes regarding quality of life.

Keywords: hilar cholangiocarcinoma, diagnosis, treatment, liver resection

Background

Hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HC), also known as Klatskin tumor, occurs at the confluence of the right and left hepatic ducts. It is a rare, devastating, and highly malignant disease of the bile duct. The biliary tree is at high risk of HC development at the biliary confluence of the right and left hepatic ducts. HC is classified into 2 categories: extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, which only invades the hepatic hilum; and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, which involves the intrahepatic duct, lobar duct, interlobular ductules, and canaliculi. On cholangiography, both extrahepatic and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma have similar features, and management for both involves resection of the tumor involving the biliary ducts [1]. Complete margin-negative (R0) resection is more curative in the early stage of HC than in the late stage. In the late stage, the tumor may be close to or invading the major vascular structures surrounding the bile duct, such as the portal vein, hepatic artery, and liver parenchyma. Most commonly, HC invades the portal vein, making surgical resection a high-risk procedure. Preoperative imaging is very important to establish a diagnosis, identify the level of obstruction, and stage the carcinomas; such imaging techniques include Doppler ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP), and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC) [2]. Surgical management is the most effective and curative procedure for R0 resection and provides a better chance for long-term survival compared with conservative therapy [3,4]. Several advances in the diagnosis, therapy, and palliation of patients affected by HC have occurred during the last few decades, but HC remains the most difficult challenge for hepatobiliary surgeons. This review article focuses on the current imaging studies and surgical management of HC.

Imaging Studies

Clinically, most affected patients present with the symptom of jaundice. Imaging studies are beneficial to determine the level of biliary tree obstruction, identify the portion of the hepatic parenchyma with major vascular involvement, and evaluate metastasis to other organs. Abdominal ultrasound findings are often used as the first-line diagnostic criteria in clinical trials to confirm biliary duct dilatation, exclude stones, and identify the level of the obstruction. Dilatation of the intrahepatic bile ducts is the most frequently seen abnormality in patients with HC. In advanced cases, ultrasonography plays an important role in confirming tumor extension within the biliary tree and verifying major vascular involvement [5,6]. However, when the tumor involves the intrahepatic or perihilar duct, it cannot be fully diagnosed by ultrasound; thus, the extent of the tumor within the biliary tree could be missed. Color Doppler ultrasonography can be used to detect tumor-induced strictures of the bile duct, as well as compression and thrombosis in the hepatic artery and portal vein. Color Doppler ultrasound is beneficial in assessing portal venous invasion and hepatic parenchymal involvement.

Due to frequent interference by bowel gas, ultrasound examination of the bile duct may not always be successful. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is performed using high-frequency ultrasound probes placed on the endoscope. EUS has the advantage of interrogating tissues and organs in direct proximity to the stomach and duodenum, increasing the ability to detect abnormalities that would not be easily identified by a percutaneous approach. In a prospective study of patients with suspected cholangiocarcinoma, EUS had a diagnostic sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 62% [7].

Intraductal ultrasound (IDUS) is performed using high-frequency US probes placed into the common bile duct under ERCP guidance [8]. Malignant biliary strictures often appear on IDUS as hypoechoic infiltrations of the ductal wall, with irregular margins [9,10]. In a prospective study of 62 patients with biliary strictures, IDUS had a diagnostic sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 93% [11].

In the current era of advanced imaging technology, it has become easier to obtain the same information as that obtained by previous invasive procedures. In most cases of hilar obstruction, abdominal CT is the standard evaluation technique with which to observe tumor size, tumor regularity, and liver atrophy and to perform liver volumetric analysis. Preoperative CT can provide the total hepatic volume for hepatic resection. High resolution is obtained when using thin-cut CT scans to observe local invasion, lobar atrophy, portal vein compression, regional and distal lymph node metastasis, and non-lymphatic distant metastasis. Serial transverse scans are sensitive for detecting intrahepatic tumors of >1 cm at the site of biliary obstruction, as well as lymphadenopathy [12]. CT is also helpful in the staging, preoperative planning, and evaluation of vascular encasement. However, in some cases of HC, visualization of the neoplasms is not definitive because they are too small to be detected, and evaluation of intraductal spread and detection of lymph nodes, and peripheral metastasis by CT is a suboptimal radiological investigation technique. CT cholangiography (CTC) was recently shown to be a promising modality for delineation of the biliary tree. In a large study, CTC was superior to conventional CT or US, and equal to ERCP for the diagnosis of HC [13]. One of the limitations of CTC is that optimal imaging quality depends on the secretory function of the liver [14].

MRCP is one of the best advanced technologies and has several advantages over CT. MRCP is a noninvasive imaging technique for biliary duct carcinoma. In recent clinical trials, MRCP was a powerful investigation method for the diagnosis of HC. It also provides important information on both obstructed and unobstructed bile ducts, as well as tumor extension within the biliary tree and periductal tissue. The combination of MRCP and magnetic resonance angiography can provide useful information about the involvement of hilar vascular structures [15,16]. Compared with ERCP, MRCP is a highly advanced and more frequently used technique for identification of the tumor site and position when assessing the resectability of HC [17,18].Importantly, it allows for observation of HC extension to the biliary tree and vessels, involvement of adjacent liver parenchyma, local lymphadenopathy, and distant metastasis [17]. MRCP is a non-invasive imaging technique for cholangiography and allows visualization of both the obstructed and unobstructed ducts, but both ERCP and PTC are invasive imaging techniques [19,20]. PTC is more desirable than ERCP because it more clearly delineates tumor involvement in the proximal biliary tree; it is often used for biliary decompression before surgical resection and can relieve jaundice for palliative therapy. ERCP is sometimes used as palliative therapy for placement of a stent in the presence of unresectable HC. In addition, ERCP and PTC have the advantage of providing brush cytology and biopsy specimens that can confirm the diagnosis of HC. ERCP and PTC are often used to evaluate and justify the possibility of major liver resection. The choice between PTC and ERCP is generally dictated by the availability of local expertise and the anatomical characteristics of the tumor [21].

Positron emission tomography (PET) is a non-invasive imaging modality that provides functional images by detecting uptake of the radiotracer 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in neoplastic cells [22]. PET is currently considered to be a standard modality for the staging of many malignancies [23]. In the last decade, integrated PET and CT imaging systems (PET/CT) have allowed for the acquisition of both anatomical and functional images [23,24]. PET and PET/CT have been proven useful in the diagnosis and staging of cholangiocarcinoma. In a recent study, PET showed a 90% sensitivity and 78% specificity [25].

Tumor Staging and Assessment for Resectability

Three basic systems are often used for the classification of peripheral HC worldwide: (1) the Bismuth-Corlette classification system [26], (2) the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) with tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification [27], and (3) the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) classification [28].

The Bismuth-Corlette classification system is commonly used in cases of biliary tree involvement [26] and to stage peripheral HC. However, in some cases it fails to provide complete information about vascular involvement, lymph node involvement, distant metastasis, and liver atrophy. This staging system is primarily used as a convenient guideline for the surgical approach (i.e., types I and II indicate local resection, type III indicates major liver resection, and type IV is a contraindication for resection), as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Bismuth-Corlette Classification System [26].

Bismuth-Corlette Classification for hilar cholangiocarcinoma
Type I Below the confluence
Type II Confined to the confluence
Type IIIa Extension into the right hepatic duct
Type IIIb Extension into the left hepatic duct
Type IV Extension into the right and left hepatic duct and multifocal bile duct tumor

The TNM classification for extrahepatic bile duct tumors provides complete information on pathological findings; thus, it is also considered to be a pathological staging system, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

TNM Classification of extrahepatic bile duct tumors according to the AJCC/UICC 7th edition.

Primary tumor (T)
TX The primary tumor cannot be assessed
T0 No evidence of a primary tumor
Tis Carcinoma in situ
T1 The tumor is confined to the bile duct histologically
T2a The tumor invades the surrounding adipose tissue beyond the wall of the bile duct
T2b The tumor invades the adjacent hepatic parenchyma
T3 The tumor invades unilateral branches of the portal vein or hepatic artery
T4 The tumor invades the main portal vein or its branches bilaterally, the common hepatic artery, the second-order biliary radicals bilaterally, or the unilateral second-order biliary radicals with contralateral portal vein or hepatic vein involvement
Regional lymph nodes (N)
NX Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed
N0 No regional lymph node metastasis
N1 Regional lymph node metastasis (cystic duct, common bile duct, hepatic artery, and portal vein)
N2 Metastasis to periaortic, pericaval, superior mesentery artery, and/or celiac artery nodes
Distant metastasis (M)
M0 No distant metastasis
M1 Distant metastasis
Stage grouping
Stage 0 Tis N0 M0
Stage I T1 N0 M0
Stage II T2a–T2b N0 M0
Stage IIIA T3 N0 M0
Stage IIIB T1–T3 N1 M0
Stage IVB Any T N2 M0
Any T Any N M1

A preoperative clinical tumor staging system was finally introduced by Jarnagin and Blumgart [28,29]. This classification system is significant for the assessment of the radial and longitudinal extension of HC. The MSKCC classification system further classifies peripheral HC according to the 3 major factors of preoperative imaging studies: (1) the location and extent of biliary ductal involvement, (2) the presence or absence of portal vein involvement, and (3) the presence or absence of hepatic lobar atrophy, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Tumor staging according to the MSKCC Classification [28].

Tumor stage (T) Description
T1 The tumor involves the biliary confluence with unilateral involvement up to secondary biliary radicles. There is no portal vein involvement or liver atrophy
T2 The tumor involves the biliary confluence with unilateral involvement up to secondary biliary radicles. There is ipsilateral portal vein involvement or ipsilateral hepatic lobar atrophy
T3 The tumor involves the biliary confluence with bilateral involvement up to secondary biliary radicles, unilateral extension to secondary biliary radicles with contralateral portal vein involvement, unilateral involvement up to secondary radicles with contralateral hepatic lobar atrophy, or main / bilateral portal vein involvement

The most commonly used system is the Bismuth-Corlette classification of bile duct involvement, but it does not include crucial information such as vascular encasement and distant metastases. Other systems are rarely used because they do not provide several key pieces of information to guide therapy.

A new system was recently designed that reports the tumor size, extent of disease in the biliary system, hepatic artery and portal vein involvement, lymph node involvement, distant metastases, and putative remnant liver volume after resection [30]. This system aims to standardize the reporting of perihilar HC so that relevant information regarding resectability, indications for liver transplantation, and prognosis can be provided.

Preoperative Biliary Drainage

Preoperative biliary drainage is extremely important in patients with hepatic insufficiency. If the biliary duct obstruction is not relieved, hepatic and renal dysfunction and coagulopathy may result [3133]. In Asia, biliary drainage is the first step in the management of patients with HC before major liver resection [3437]. However, in Western countries, the performance of biliary drainage is highly selective; endoscopic or percutaneous drainage of the catheters used for routine drainage may increase the risk of infectious complications and tumor seeding [34,38]. Preoperative biliary drainage is only indicated in patients with cholangitis, longstanding jaundice, or poor nutrition and in those in whom the insufficient liver volume is <40% of the total liver volume [39].

Surgical Treatment

Surgical management is the best option for cure of HC [29,37,40]. These carcinomas can be resected by the hepatobiliary surgical team; explorative laparotomy is needed for R0 resection with the hilar lymph nodes. If the tumor has extended to the peritoneum or involves para-aortic lymph node infiltration or bilateral hepatic lobe metastasis including the hepatic artery, portal vein, and inferior vena cava, then surgical resection is contraindicated; it is a high-risk procedure that cannot improve the patient’s quality of life. Suspicious lymph nodes around the hepatic pedicles need to be dissected and analyzed by histopathology. After peritoneal spread is confirmed by frozen section histopathology, explorative laparotomy is performed. Staging laparoscopy is recommended to detect occult metastatic disease [41]. When the tumor involves the ipsilateral hepatic bile duct and vessels, en bloc resection of the cholangiocarcinoma and partial hepatectomy with negative histological margins can improve the survival rate of the patient [29,42].

Over the past 20 years, there has been an increase in the performance of hepatic resection in patients with HC. Major hepatic resection addresses both direct hepatic invasion and intraductal extension of HC to achieve negative radial and longitudinal resection margins. According to the Bismuth-Corlette classification, right hemihepatectomy is suggested for type I, II, and IIIa tumors that involve the common hepatic duct and right hepatic biliary tree [43]; left hemihepatectomy is recommended for type IIIb tumors that extend to the left confluence of the biliary tree; and central bisectionectomy or right and left trisectionectomy is indicated for type IV tumors that invade the right and left hepatic biliary trees [44]. However, it is uncertain whether major hepatic resection can improve survival for patients with Bismuth-Corlette type I or II hilar cholangiocarcinoma; others have reported no significant difference in survival between hepatectomy and bile duct resection alone for type I and II tumors [45]. This requires further evaluation in larger studies with longer follow-up prior to assessing the true impact of hepatectomy for these tumors.

When the carcinoma extends to the lower bile duct, the procedure is combined with pancreatoduodenectomy [1,37]. However, major hepatic resection is associated with a high risk of postoperative complications, including hepatic insufficiency and other problems. In the current era, the incidence of post-hepatectomy complications associated with liver failure has markedly decreased [4,34,35]. When emboli develop in the portal vein, additional aggressive vascular resection is indicated [35]. When the tumor invades the portal vein and hepatic artery, both vessel resection and reconstruction are indicated, which are now routinely performed when necessary.

The surgical technique is very important for resection of the connective tissue of the hepatoduodenal ligament with dissection of the lymph node [46,47]. Metastasis to regional lymph nodes is common and is an important prognostic factor influencing survival after resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. The 5-year survival rate was 30% for node-negative patients, 15% for patients with regional nodal metastases, and 12% for those with para-aortic nodal metastases [48]. Lymph node dissection includes the nodes within the hepatoduodenal ligament, those behind the pancreatic head, and those along the common hepatic artery. Extended lymph node dissection beyond the hepatoduodenal ligament is not recommended [49]. Patients with grossly involved lymph nodes beyond the hepatoduodenal ligament are considered to have unresectable disease.

The biliary duct drains from the caudate lobe and enters the right and left hepatic ducts. In most cases, the carcinoma extends to the caudate lobe, and isolated radical caudate lobectomy is thus routinely planned for curative treatment of HC. Retrospective studies have shown a decrease in local recurrence and improvement in 5-year survival when concomitant caudate lobe resection is performed [33,50]. Finally, the continuity of biliary drainage is restored with a Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy.

Previous studies have shown that major hepatic resection can result in a mortality rate of 0% to 15% and morbidity rate of 14% to 76%, as shown in Table 4[28,34,5165].

Table 4.

Selected summary of patients who underwent curative resection and major liver resection.

Authors’ names Published year Resections Resectability (%) Negative margin (%) Liver resection (%) Morbidity (%) Mortality (%) 5 years survival rate (%)
Nimura et al. 1990 55 83 84 98 41 6 41
Nakeeb et al. 1996 109 56 26 14 47 4 11
Miyazaki et al. 1998 76 Not available 71 86 33 13 26
Neuhaus et al. 1999 80 Not available 61 85 55 8 22
Kosuge et al. 1999 65 72 52 80 37 9 33
Nimura 2000 142 80 61 90 49 9 26
Jarnagin et al. 2001 80 50 78 78 64 10 26
Kawarada et al. 2002 65 89 64 75 28 2.3 26
Capussotti et al. 2002 36 Not available 89 89 47.2 2.8 27.2
Kawasaki et al. 2003 79 75 68 87 14 1.3 22
Ijitsma et al. 2004 42 Not available 65 100 76 12 19
Hemming et al. 2005 53 50 80 98 40 9 35
Dinant et al. 2006 99 Not available 31 38 66 15 27
Baton et al. 2007 59 72 46 100 42 5 20
Konstadoulakis et al. 2008 59 81 68.6 86.4 25.5 6.8 34.9
Ito et al. 2008 38 55 63 53 32 0 33
Igami et al. 2010 298 70 74 98 43 2 42
Nagino et al. 2012 574 76.1 76.5 96.7 57.3 4.7 32.5

Palliative Therapy

For patients in whom R0 resection cannot be performed, palliative therapy is the best choice to relieve jaundice and pruritus. Palliative therapy may involve endoscopic stenting, percutaneous stenting, or surgical bypass. Sometimes a combined approach is needed. Palliative therapy can also improve the survival rate with low morbidity [66,67]. Recent studies have reported a success rate of 69% to 97% with percutaneous or endoscopic biliary decompression [68,69]. If the tumor extensively invades the proximal biliary tree, endoscopic placement of a single stent is difficult and may not fully decompress the left and right hepatic ducts. Thus, multiple biliary stents must first be placed in the proximal duct, then in the distal duct [70,71].

Metal stents are preferred for patients with unresectable disease. Metal stents are more expensive than plastic stents, but have larger diameters and provide better patency rates [7274]. Endoscopic stents can be either self-expanding metallic or plastic (polyethylene). Metal stents can be either uncovered or covered by sealing the metallic mesh with a membrane, which prevents tumor growth through the stent, increasing patency rates. Plastic stents often need to be changed every 2 to 3 months, but metal stents can remain patent for up to 9 months [72].

In patients with HC, ERCP is associated with a greater risk of inadequate drainage of the biliary duct. It is also associated with a high risk of cholangitis and increased mortality. ERCP is technically very difficult for bilateral stenting procedures. Some patients with advanced tumors that are totally obstructing the bile duct are candidates for percutaneous external biliary drainage [68,75]. For these patients, external drainage is the best option for palliation, but is associated with various complications such as cholangitis if used for long-term treatment. PTC with percutaneous biliary drainage is the most ideal procedure for HC [76]. Drainage in both the right and left hepatic biliary system is maintained without failure in contrast medium. Advancement of a guide wire is sometimes performed for excessive drainage into the duodenum.

For HC, adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy are discouraging and cannot improve the survival rate. Retrospective studies have suggested that transhepatic intraluminal brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy may also give unimpressive results [75,77,78]. For HC, chemotherapy may be less effective than radiotherapy and shows a response rate of 10% to 21% [79,80]. The agents used include alpha interferon, leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, and carboplatin.

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is also used to treat HC. PDT involves the intravenous injection of porphyrin-based photosensitizers. These porphyrins form chelates with iron, magnesium, copper, nickel, and zinc. A laser light of a specific wavelength is then applied to the tumor bed and may cause tumor cell death. Uncontrolled studies have shown that PDT used for unresected bile duct cancer may improve the survival rate of patients with biliary decompression [81,82].

Liver Transplantation

The ideal therapy for HC is curative R0 resection [83]. When the tumor metastasizes or spreads, palliative therapy is indicated, but it is associated with a low survival rate [84]. When the tumor has extended to the common hepatic artery, portal vein, inferior vena cava, and contralateral hepatic lobes, it is unresectable. For example, Bismuth type IV tumors involve all of the hepatic duct and are unresectable; in this condition, liver transplantation is the best way to improve survival. Previous studies have shown that when the lymph nodule is not spreading and the tumor is locally restricted, liver transplantation has the best result [85,86]. No available selection criteria for patients with HC advise liver transplantation. In some cases, however, it can be recommended as the most appropriate treatment for HC. The Mayo Clinic protocol was recently developed with the intent to treat a highly selective group of patients with HC with a strict regimen of preoperative staging and neoadjuvant treatment followed by orthotopic liver transplantation [87]. Outcomes of 65 patients treated with this protocol showed 1- and 5-year survival rates of 91% and 76%, respectively.

Conclusions

Surgical resection is the best management for HC. Negative tumor margins with major hepatic resection can improve the survival rate of the patient. HC can be properly diagnosed by imaging studies such as CT, MRCP, ERCP, and PTC. We conclude that major hepatectomy for HC can increase the proportion of R0 resections and improve recurrence-free survival outcomes.

Footnotes

Source of support: Self financing

References

  • 1.Ebata T, Kamiya J, Nishio H, et al. The concept of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is valid. Br J Surg. 2009;96:926–34. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6655. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sugiura T, Nishio H, Nagino M, et al. Value of multidetector-row computed tomography in diagnosis of portal vein invasion by perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. World J Surg. 2008;32:1478–84. doi: 10.1007/s00268-008-9547-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Launois B, Terblanche J, Lakehal M, et al. Proximal bile duct cancer: high respectability rate and 5 year survival. Ann Surg. 1999;230:266–75. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199908000-00018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nishio H, Nagino M, Nimura Y. Surgical management of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: the Nagoya experience. HPB(Oxford) 2005;7:259–62. doi: 10.1080/13651820500373010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gibson RN, Yeung E, Thompson JN, et al. Bile duct obstruction: radiologic evaluation of level, cause, and tumor resectability. Radiology. 1986;160:43–47. doi: 10.1148/radiology.160.1.3520654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Okuda K, Ohto M, Tsuchiya Y. The role of ultrasound, percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography, computed tomographic scanning, and magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of bile duct cancer. World J Surg. 1988;12:18–26. doi: 10.1007/BF01658481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Varghese JC, Farrell MA, Courtney G, et al. A prospective comparison of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the evaluation of patients with suspected biliary tract disease. Clin Radiol. 1999;54:513–20. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(99)90848-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chak A, Catanzaro A. Innovative methods of biliary tract diagnosis: intraductal ultrasound and tissue acquisition. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2003;13:609–22. doi: 10.1016/s1052-5157(03)00068-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Baron TH, Clain JE, et al. Evaluation of indeterminate bile duct strictures by intraductal US. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:372–79. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Brugge WR. Endoscopic techniques to diagnose and manage biliary tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4561–65. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.19.729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Farrell RJ, Agarwal B, Brandwein SL, et al. Intraductal US is a useful adjunct to ERCP for distinguishing malignant from benign biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:681–87. doi: 10.1067/mge.2002.128918. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Valls C, Gumà A, Puig I, et al. Intrahepatic peripheral cholangiocarcinoma: CT evaluation. Abdom Imaging. 2000;25:490–96. doi: 10.1007/s002610000079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Xu AM, Cheng HY, Jiang WB, et al. Multi-slice three-dimensional spiral CT cholangiography: a new technique for diagnosis of biliary diseases. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2002;1:595–603. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Singh P, Patel T. Advances in the diagnosis, evaluation and management of cholangiocarcinoma. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2006;22:294–99. doi: 10.1097/01.mog.0000218967.60633.64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Schwartz LH, Coakley FV, Sun Y, et al. Neoplastic pancreaticobiliary duct obstruction: evaluation with breath-hold MR cholangiopancreatography. Am J Roentgenol. 1998;170:1491–95. doi: 10.2214/ajr.170.6.9609160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lee MG, Park KB, Shin YM, et al. Preoperative evaluation of hilar cholangiocarcinoma with contrast-enhanced three-dimensional fast imaging with steady-state precession magnetic resonance angiography: comparison with intraarterial digital subtraction angiography. World J Surg. 2003;27:278–83. doi: 10.1007/s00268-002-6701-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Manfredi R, Barbaro B, Masselli G, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of cholangiocarcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2004;24:155–64. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-828892. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Khan SA, Miras A, Pelling M, Taylor-Robinson SD. Cholangiocarcinoma and its management. Gut. 2007;56:1755–56. doi: 10.1136/gut.2007.138859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zhang Y, Uchida M, Abe T, et al. Intrahepatic peripheral cholangiocarcinoma: comparison of dynamic CT and dynamic MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1999;23:670–77. doi: 10.1097/00004728-199909000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yeh TS, Jan YY, Tseng JH, et al. Malignant perihilar biliary obstruction; magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatographic findings. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:432–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.01763.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Khan SA, Davidson BR, Goldin R, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma: consensus document. Gut. 2002;51:VI1–9. doi: 10.1136/gut.51.suppl_6.vi1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sun L, Wu H, Guan YS. Positron emission tomography/computer tomography: challenge to conventional imaging modalities in evaluating primary and metastatic liver malignancies. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13:2775–83. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i20.2775. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Iglehart JK. The new era of medical imaging – progress and pitfalls. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2822–28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMhpr061219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kapoor V, McCook BM, Torok FS. An introduction to PET-CT imaging. Radiographics. 2004;24:523–43. doi: 10.1148/rg.242025724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wakabayashi H, Akamoto S, Yachida S, et al. Significance of fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging in the diagnosis of malignancies in patients with biliary stricture. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005;31:1175–79. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2005.05.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bismuth H, Corlette MB. Intrahepatic cholangioenteric anastomosis in carcinoma of the hilus of the liver. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1975;140:170–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging. Handbook. 7th ed. Chicago, IL: Springer; 2010. Perihilar Bile Ducts; p. 718. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Jarnagin WR, Fong Y, DeMatteo RP, et al. Staging, resectability, and outcome in 225 patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2001;234:507–17. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200110000-00010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Burke E, Jarnigan WR, Hochwald SN, et al. Hilar cholangiocarcinoma: patterns of spread, the importance of hepatic resection for curative operation, and a presurgical clinical staging system. Ann Surg. 1998;228:385–94. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199809000-00011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.DeOliveira ML, Schulick RD, Nimura Y, et al. New staging system and a registry for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Hepatology. 2011;53:1363–71. doi: 10.1002/hep.24227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Pitt HA, Gomes AS, Lois JF, et al. Does preoperative percutaneous biliary drainage reduce operative risk or increase hospital cost? Ann Surg. 1985;201:545–53. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198505000-00002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hochwald SN, Burke EC, Jarnagin WR, et al. Association of preoperative biliary stenting with increased postoperative infectious complications in proximal cholangiocarcinoma. Arch Surg. 1999;134:261–66. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.134.3.261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rea DJ, Munoz-Juarez M, Farnell MB, Donohue JH, et al. Major hepatic resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: analysis of 46 patients. Arch Surg. 2004;139:514–23. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.139.5.514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Nimura Y, Kamiya J, Kondo S, et al. Aggressive preoperative management and extended surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: Nagoya experience. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2000;7:155–62. doi: 10.1007/s005340050170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Nagino M, Kamiya J, Arai T, et al. One hundred consecutive hepatobiliary resections for biliary hilar malignancy: preoperative blood donation, blood loss, transfusion, and outcome. Surgery. 2005;137:148–55. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2004.06.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kondo S, Hirano S, Ambo Y, et al. Forty consecutive resections of hilar cholangiocarcinoma with no postoperative mortality and no positive ductal margins: results of a prospective study. Ann Surg. 2004;240:95–101. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000129491.43855.6b. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kondo, Takahashi K, Katanuma A, et al. Preoperative biliary drainage for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2007;14:441–46. doi: 10.1007/s00534-006-1192-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sakata J, Shirai Y, Wakai T, et al. Catheter tract implantation metastases associated with percutaneous biliary drainage for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2005;11:7024–27. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v11.i44.7024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Laurent A, Tayar C, Cherqui D. Cholangiocarcinoma: preoperative biliary drainage (Con) HPB (Oxford) 2008;10:126–29. doi: 10.1080/13651820802007472. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chamberlain RS, Blumgart LH. Hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a review and commentary. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7:55–66. doi: 10.1007/s10434-000-0055-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Weber SM, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, et al. Staging laparoscopy in patients with extrahepatic biliary carcinoma. Analysis of 100 patients. Ann Surg. 2002;235:392–99. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200203000-00011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Tsao JI, Nimura Y, Kamiya J, et al. Management of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: comparison of an American and a Japanese experience. Ann Surg. 2000;232:166–74. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200008000-00003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ikeyama T, Nagino M, Oda K, et al. Surgical approach to Bismuth type I and II hilar cholangiocarci-nomas: audit of 54 consecutive cases. Ann Surg. 2007;246:1052–57. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318142d97e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Nagino M, Kamiya J, Arai T, et al. “Anatomic” right hepatic trisectionectomy (extended right hepatectomy) with caudate lobectomy for hilar cholangiocarcinoma”. Ann Surg. 2006;243:28–32. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000193604.72436.63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Jang JY, Kim SW, Park DJ, et al. Actual long-term outcome of extrahepatic bile duct cancer after surgical resection. Ann Surg. 2005;241:77–84. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000150166.94732.88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Verbeek PC, van Leeuwen DJ, de Wit LT, et al. Benign fibrosing disease at the hepatic confluence mimicking Klatskin tumors. Surgery. 1992;112:866–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ito F, Agni R, Rettammel RJ, Been MJ, et al. Resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: concomitant liver resection decreases hepatic recurrence. Ann Surg. 2008;248:273–79. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31817f2bfd. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kitagawa Y, Nagino M, Kamiya J, et al. Lymph node metastasis from hilar cholangiocarcinoma: audit of 110 patients who underwent regional and para-aortic node dissection. Ann Surg. 2001;233:385–92. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200103000-00013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Tojima Y, Nagino M, Ebata T, et al. Immunohistochemically demonstrated lymph node micrometastasis and prognosis in patients with otherwise node-negative hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2003;237:201–7. doi: 10.1097/01.SLA.0000048446.18118.FC. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Gazzaniga GM, Filauro M, Bagarolo C, Mori L. Surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: an Italian experience. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2000;7:122–27. doi: 10.1007/s005340050165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Nimura Y, Hayakawa N, Kamiya J, et al. Hepatic segmentectomy with caudate lobe resection for bile duct carcinoma of the hepatic hilus. World J Surg. 1990;14:535–43. doi: 10.1007/BF01658686. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Nakeeb A, Pitt HA, Sohn TA, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma. A spectrum of intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal tumors. Ann Surg. 1996;224:463–73. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199610000-00005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Miyazaki M, Ito H, Nakagawa K, et al. Aggressive surgical approaches to hilar cholangiocarcinoma: hepatic or local resection? Surgery. 1998;123:131–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Neuhaus P, Jonas S, Bechstein WO, et al. Extended resections for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 1999;230:808–18. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199912000-00010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Kosuge T, Yamamoto J, Shimada K, et al. Improved surgical results for hilar cholangiocarcinoma with procedures including major hepatic resection. Ann Surg. 1999;230:663–71. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199911000-00008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kawarada Y, Das BC, Naganuma T, et al. Surgical treatment of hilar bile duct carcinoma: experience with 25 consecutive hepatectomies. J Gastrointest Surg. 2002;6:617–24. doi: 10.1016/s1091-255x(01)00008-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Capussotti L, Muratore A, Polastri R, et al. Liver resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: in-hospital mortality and longterm survival. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;195:641–47. doi: 10.1016/s1072-7515(02)01481-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kawasaki S, Imamura H, Kobayashi A, et al. Results of surgical resection for patients with hilar bile duct cancer: application of extended hepatectomy after biliary drainage and hemihepatic portal vein embolization. Ann Surg. 2003;238:84–92. doi: 10.1097/01.SLA.0000074984.83031.02. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.IJitsma AJ, Appeltans BM, de Jong KP, et al. Extrahepatic bile duct resection in combination with liver resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a report of 42 cases. J Gastrointest Surg. 2004;8:686–94. doi: 10.1016/j.gassur.2004.04.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Hemming AW, Reed AI, Fujita S, et al. Surgical management of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2005;241:693–99. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000160701.38945.82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Dinant S, Gerhards MF, Rauws EA, et al. Improved outcome of resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma (Klatskin tumor) Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:872–80. doi: 10.1245/ASO.2006.05.053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Baton O, Azoulay D, Adam DV, Castaing D. Major hepatectomy for hilar cholangiocarcinoma type 3 and 4: prognostic factors and longterm outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:250–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.10.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Konstadoulakis MM, Roayaie S, Gomatos IP, et al. Aggressive surgical resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: is it justified? Audit of a single center’s experience. Am J Surg. 2008;196:160–69. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.07.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Igami T, Nishio H, Ebata T, et al. Surgical treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma in the “new era”: the Nagoya University experience. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2010;17:449–54. doi: 10.1007/s00534-009-0209-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Nagino M, Ebata T, Yokoyama Y, et al. Evolution of surgical treatment for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. A single-center 34-year review of 574 consecutive resections. Ann Surg. 2013;258(1):129–40. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182708b57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Andersen JR, Sørensen SM, Kruse A, et al. Randomised trial of endoscopic endoprosthesis versus operative bypass in malignant obstructive jaundice. Gut. 1989;30:1132–35. doi: 10.1136/gut.30.8.1132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Smith AC, Dowsett JF, Russell RC, et al. Randomised trial of endoscopic stenting versus surgical bypass in malignant low bileduct obstruction. Lancet. 1994;344:1655–60. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)90455-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Cheng JL, Bruno MJ, Bergman JJ, et al. Endoscopic palliation of patients with biliary obstruction caused by nonresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma: efficacy of self-expandable metallic Wallstents. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:33–39. doi: 10.1067/mge.2002.125364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Freeman ML, Overby C. Selective MRCP and CT-targeted drainage of malignant hilar biliary obstruction with self-expanding metallic stents. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:41–49. doi: 10.1067/mge.2003.292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Becker CD, Glättli A, Maibach R, Baer HU. Percutaneous palliation of malignant obstructive jaundice with the Wallstent endoprosthesis: follow-up and reintervention in patients with hilar and non-hilar obstruction. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1993;4:597–604. doi: 10.1016/s1051-0443(93)71930-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Cheung KL, Lai EC. Endoscopic stenting for malignant biliary obstruction. Arch Surg. 1995;130:204–7. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1995.01430020094018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Davids PH, Groen AK, Rauws EA, et al. Randomised trial of self-expanding metal stents versus polyethylene stents for distal malignant biliary obstruction. Lancet. 1992;340:1488–92. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)92752-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Knyrim K, Wagner HJ, Pausch J, Vakil N. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of metal stents for malignant obstruction of the common bile duct. Endoscopy. 1993;25:207–12. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1010294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Prat F, Chapat O, Ducot B, et al. Predictive factors for survival of patients with inoperable malignant distal biliary strictures: a practical management guideline. Gut. 1998;42:76–80. doi: 10.1136/gut.42.1.76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Kuvshinoff BW, Armstrong JG, Fong Y, et al. Palliation of irresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma with biliary drainage and radiotherapy. Br J Surg. 1995;82:1522–25. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800821122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Shapiro MJ. Management of malignant biliary obstruction: non-operative and palliative techniques. Oncology. 1995;9:493–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Bowling TE, Galbraith SM, Hatfield AR, et al. A retrospective comparison of endoscopic stenting alone with stenting and radiotherapy in non-resectable cholangiocarcinoma. Gut. 1996;39:852–58. doi: 10.1136/gut.39.6.852. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Leung JT, Kuan R. Intraluminal brachytherapy in the treatment of bile duct carcinomas. Australian Radiology. 1997;41:151–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1673.1997.tb00701.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Patt YZ, Jones DV, Jr, Hoque A, et al. Phase II trial of intravenous fluorouracil and subcutaneous interferon alfa-2b for biliary tract cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2311–15. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.8.2311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Sanz-Altamira PM, Ferrante K, Jenkins RL, et al. A phase II trial of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and carboplatin in patients with unresectable biliary tree carcinoma. Cancer. 1998;82:2321–25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Berr F, Wiedmann M, Tannapfel A, et al. Photodynamic therapy for advanced bile duct cancer: evidence for improved palliation and extended survival. Hepatology. 2000;31:291–98. doi: 10.1002/hep.510310205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Wiedmann M, Berr F, Schiefke I, et al. Photodynamic therapy in patients with non-resectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma: 5-year follow-up of a prospective phase II study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:68–75. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)01288-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Madariaga JR, Iwatsuki S, Todo S, et al. Liver resection for hilar and peripheral cholangiocarcinomas: a study of 62 cases. Ann Surg. 1998;227:70–79. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199801000-00011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Figueras J, Llado L, Valls C, et al. Changing strategies in diagnosis and management of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Liver Transplant. 2000;6:786–94. doi: 10.1053/jlts.2000.18507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Rea DJ, Heimbach JK, Rosen CB, et al. Liver transplantation with neoadjuvant chemoradiation is more effective than resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2005;242:451–58. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000179678.13285.fa. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Jonas S, Mittler J, Pascher A, et al. Extended indication in living-donor liver transplantation: bile duct cancer. Transplantation. 2005;80:S101–4. doi: 10.1097/01.tp.0000187106.29908.2b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Shimoda M, Farmer DG, Colquhoun SD, et al. Liver transplantation for cholangiocellular carcinoma: analysis of a single-center experience and review of the literature. Liver Transpl. 2001;7:1023–33. doi: 10.1053/jlts.2001.29419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medical Science Monitor : International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research are provided here courtesy of International Scientific Information, Inc.

RESOURCES