This is the Scientific Surgery Archive, which contains all randomized clinical trials in surgery that have been identified by searching the top 50 English language medical journal issues since January 1998. Compiled by Jonothan J. Earnshaw, former Editor-in-Chief, BJS
Clinical impact of intraoperative histological examination of the ductal resection margin in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. BJS 2010; 97: 1363-1368.
Published: 3rd June 2010
Authors: M. Konishi, M. Iwasaki, A. Ochiai, T. Hasebe, H. Ojima, A. Yanagisawa et al.
Background
Although ductal resection margin status in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is evaluated by intraoperative histological examination of frozen sections, its clinical relevance remains controversial.
Method
Material taken from patients who underwent R0 or R1 resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with intraoperative histological examination of the final ductal resection margins between 1994 and 2003 were reviewed. The following histological classification was used: insufficient, negative for malignancy (NM), undetermined lesion (UDL) or positive for malignancy (PM). Multivariable analyses of overall survival and anastomotic recurrence in relation to ductal margin status were performed.
Results
Resection material from 363 patients was identified. For the proximal ductal margin, only PM in intramural lesions was significantly associated with poor survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1·72, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1·06 to 2·74) and anastomotic recurrence (HR 6·39, 95 per cent c.i. 1·89 to 21·62) compared with NM. In analysis of overall survival according to distal ductal margin status, the HRs for UDL and PM lesions in comparison with NM were not significant.
Conclusion
PM in intramural lesions found during intraoperative histological examination of the proximal ductal resection margin was related to clinical outcome. This finding favours additional resection of the bile duct. A similar association was not found for histology results of the distal resection margin. Copyright © 2010 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Full text