Cholangiocarcinoma: three different entities based on location

Cholangiocarcinoma is a relatively rare malignancy that arises from the biliary tract epithelium and accounts for 3% of all gastrointestinal cancers (1). Despite improvement in survival over the past few decades, long-term survival following potentially curative resection remains poor with a 5-year survival rate of 20–40% (2-4). For this reason, gaining a better understanding of the different types of cholangiocarcinoma, prognostic factors, and gene signatures is vital to guide efficacious treatment and subsequently improving outcomes. As such, we read with great interest the manuscript by Hang et al. entitled, “Cholangiocarcinoma: anatomical location-dependent clinical, prognostic, and genetic disparities”. In their study, the authors identified 11,710 patients from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Cancer Registries (SEER) and 45 patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas with intrahepatic, perihilar, or distal cholangiocarcinoma to compare tumor location with incidence, postoperative survival, prognostic factors, and genetic heterogeneities (5).

Historically, intrahepatic bile duct cancer was included in the staging schema for liver cancer, which was largely based on data derived from hepatocellular carcinoma, and perihilar and distal cholangiocarcinoma were grouped together as extrahepatic bile duct cancer (6). It was not until the release of the 7^th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual in 2010 that the heterogeneity between intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal cholangiocarcinoma was fully recognized (7). In the 7^th edition, separate staging classifications were defined for intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal cholangiocarcinoma. With respect to intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (tumor arising proximal to the second-order bile ducts), the decision to separate it from hepatocellular carcinoma and create a unique staging system was based upon prior studies demonstrating that tumor size was not a significant prognostic factor and that distinct growth patterns including mass forming, periductal infiltrative, and mixed types had prognostic impact (7). For perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (tumor arising between the second-order bile ducts and the cystic duct-bile duct junction), Ebata et al. demonstrated that patients with involvement of adjacent liver parenchyma have a better prognosis than individuals with vascular invasion following resection (8). This finding was incorporated in the 7^th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual (7). With respect to distal cholangiocarcinoma (tumor arising between the cystic duct-bile duct junction and the ampulla of Vater), Hong et al. reported that tumor depth was most strongly associated with survival (9). This finding was incorporated in the 8^th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual which was released in 2018 (10).

In the study by Hang et al., the authors further highlight the differences among intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal cholangiocarcinoma (5). In accordance with other studies, the incidence among the three types was highest for perihilar (48%) followed by intrahepatic (46.6%) and distal (5.3%) (11,12). In contrast, the proportion of patients who underwent surgery was highest for distal (37.8%) followed by perihilar (36.3%) and intrahepatic (18.5%). Patients with intrahepatic disease were more likely to have distant metastasis (43.5%) compared with perihilar (30.3%) and distal (30.1%) cholangiocarcinoma. Prognosis also differed substantially between the types with respect to 5-year overall survival (intrahepatic =3.7%, perihilar =7%, distal =1.9%) and 5-year overall survival following surgery (intrahepatic =16.7%, perihilar =16.4%, distal =5.7%). This finding differed somewhat from that of a retrospective cohort study that included 564 patients who underwent surgical exploration at Johns Hopkins Hospital over a 31-year time period (intrahepatic =40%, perihilar =10%, distal =23%) (3). However, these differences may be secondary to selection bias.

The authors also performed stratified analyses for each of the anatomical locations to identify disparities in prognostic factors following surgery. Not surprisingly, stage was associated with overall survival for all three types. For intrahepatic and perihilar, age, tumor differentiation, and lymph node metastasis were also significant factors. Lymph node dissection was a significant prognostic factor only for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. This may in part be due to the fact that lymphadenectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is underutilized and has not consistently demonstrated a survival benefit (13). However, lymph node evaluation does provide accurate staging and guides adjuvant treatment decisions. For perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, it appears that retrieval of at least 4 lymph nodes following resection is required for accurate staging and may be associated with a survival benefit (14,15). However, one of the most important prognostic factors that was not analyzed in the study is margin status. Multiple studies have demonstrated worse survival for patients with a positive margin following resection of intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal cholangiocarcinoma compared to those with a negative margin (3,16-18). Furthermore, studies suggest that a negative margin width ≥10 mm has a significant survival advantage and thus should be obtained for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (16,19).

While most of the differences between intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal cholangiocarcinoma identified in this study by Hang et al. confirmed data from previous studies, the most potentially impactful difference noted was the disparities in prognosis-predictive genes, protein domains, and potential processes and pathways for recurrence between intrahepatic and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (5). The authors identified the top genes for effectiveness in prognostic estimation for intrahepatic and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, which has not been previously described. These findings highlight the importance of studying each of the cholangiocarcinoma types separately with respect to genomic profiling to identify potential target points for new therapeutic modalities, which is especially important given that clinical trials have demonstrated that adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation provide only a modest survival benefit for a malignancy already associated with poor long-term survival (20,21). In addition to R0 resection, future clinical trials involving targeted therapy will likely be the key to further improvement in survival for these aggressive malignancies.

In conclusion, the recent manuscript by Hang et al. provides further evidence into the diagnostic, molecular, and prognostic disparities between intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal cholangiocarcinoma. Further studies should aim to utilize these data to evaluate precision personalized therapies for these aggressive malignancies.

Acknowledgments

Funding: None.

Footnote

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm.2020.03.167) The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Vauthey JN, Blumgart LH. Recent advances in the management of cholangiocarcinomas. Semin Liver Dis 1994;14:109-14. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Nathan H, Pawlik TM, Wolfgang CL, et al. Trends in survival after surgery for cholangiocarcinoma: a 30-year population-based SEER database analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 2007;11:1488-96; discussion 1496-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. DeOliveira ML, Cunningham SC, Cameron JL, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma: thirty-one-year experience with 564 patients at a single institution. Ann Surg 2007;245:755-62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Mavros MN, Economopoulos KP, Alexiou VG, et al. Treatment and prognosis for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 2014;149:565-74. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Hang H, Jeong S, Sha M, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma: anatomical location-dependent clinical, prognostic, and genetic disparities. Ann Transl Med 2019;7:744. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 6th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002.
7. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer, 2010.
8. Ebata T, Nagino M, Kamiya J, et al. Hepatectomy with portal vein resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: audit of 52 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 2003;238:720-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Hong SM, Pawlik TM, Cho H, et al. Depth of tumor invasion better predicts prognosis than the current American Joint Committee on Cancer T classification for distal bile duct carcinoma. Surgery 2009;146:250-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene F, et al. editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th ed. Basel: Springer, 2017.
11. Waseem D, Tushar P. Intrahepatic, perihilar and distal cholangiocarcinoma: management and outcomes. Ann Hepatol 2017;16:133-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Rizvi S, Khan SA, Hallemeier CL, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma - evolving concepts and therapeutic strategies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2018;15:95-111. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Zhou R, Lu D, Li W, et al. Is lymph node dissection necessary for resectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford) 2019;21:784-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Bagante F, Tran T, Spolverato G, et al. Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: number of nodes examined and optimal lymph node prognostic scheme. J Am Coll Surg 2016;222:750-9.e2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
15. Giuliante F, Ardito F, Guglielmi A, et al. Association of lymph node status with survival in patients after liver resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma in an italian multicenter analysis. JAMA Surg 2016;151:916-22. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Spolverato G, Yakoob MY, Kim Y, et al. The impact of surgical margin status on long-term outcome after resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22:4020-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Shinohara K, Ebata T, Shimoyama Y, et al. A study on radial margin status in resected perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg 2019. [Epub ahead of print]. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Chua TC, Mittal A, Arena J, et al. Resection margin influences survival after pancreatoduodenectomy for distal cholangiocarcinoma. Am J Surg 2017;213:1072-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
19. Tang H, Lu W, Li B, et al. Influence of surgical margins on overall survival after resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e4621. [Crossref] [PubMed]
20. Ben-Josef E, Guthrie KA, El-Khoueiry AB, et al. SWOG S0809: A phase II intergroup trial of adjuvant capecitabine and gemcitabine followed by radiotherapy and concurrent capecitabine in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:2617-22. [Crossref] [PubMed]
21. Primrose JN, Fox RP, Palmer DH, et al. Capecitabine compared with observation in resected biliary tract cancer (BILCAP): a randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:663-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]