10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Survival analysis and prognostic nomogram for patients undergoing resection of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Tumor location of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) might influence survival after resection. A consecutive series of 175 patients who had undergone a potentially curative resection of extrahepatic CCA was analyzed. We calculated concordance indices of different constructed prognostic models for survival including TNM (tumour-node-metastasis) staging and developed a nomogram of the most sensitive model. Overall cancer-specific survival rates were 83%, 58%, and 26% at 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively. Cancer-specific survival according to location was 42% for proximal, 23% for mid, and 19% for distal CCA after 5 years. Tumor location was not an independent significant predictor (P = 0.06). A prognostic model using all potential prognostic variables predicted survival better compared with TNM staging (concordance index 0.65 versus 0.63). A reduced model containing only lymph node status, microscopically residual tumor status, and tumor differentiation grade, also outperformed TNM staging (concordance index 0.66). Tumor location of extrahepatic CCA does not independently predict cancer-specific survival after resection. We developed a nomogram, based on a prognostic model with lymph node status, microscopically residual tumor status of resection margins, and tumor differentiation grade, that predicted survival better than TNM staging.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Annals of Oncology
          Annals of Oncology
          Oxford University Press (OUP)
          09237534
          October 2012
          October 2012
          : 23
          : 10
          : 2642-2649
          Article
          10.1093/annonc/mds077
          22532585
          5f565f96-1982-490a-8512-501758554ebd
          © 2012

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          http://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article