Premium
Clinicopathological characteristics of intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile duct: a Japan‐Korea collaborative study
Author(s) -
Kubota Keiichi,
Jang JinYoung,
Nakanuma Yasuni,
Jang KeeTaek,
Haruyama Yasuo,
Fukushima Noriyoshi,
Furukawa Toru,
Hong SeungMo,
Sakuraoka Yuhki,
Kim Haeryoung,
Matsumoto Takatsugu,
Lee Kyung Bun,
Zen Yoh,
Kim Jaeri,
Miyazaki Masaru,
Choi Dong Wook,
Heo Jin Seok,
Endo Itaru,
Hwang Shin,
Nakamura Masafumi,
Han HoSeong,
Uemoto Shinji,
Park Sang Jae,
Hong Eun Kyung,
Nanashima Atsushi,
Kim DongSik,
Kim Joo Young,
Ohta Tetsuo,
Kang Koo Jeong,
Fukumoto Takumi,
Nah Yang Won,
Seo Hyung Il,
Inui Kazuo,
Yoon DongSup,
Unno Michiaki
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of hepato‐biliary‐pancreatic sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.63
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1868-6982
pISSN - 1868-6974
DOI - 10.1002/jhbp.785
Subject(s) - bile duct , intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm , medicine , pancreas , gastroenterology , intrahepatic bile ducts , pathology
Background The prevalent location and incidence of intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile duct (IPNB) and invasive carcinoma associated with them have varied markedly among studies due to differences in diagnostic criteria and tumor location. Methods IPNBs were classified into two types: Type 1 IPNB, being histologically similar to intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas, and Type 2 IPNB, having a more complex histological architecture with irregular papillary branching or foci of solid‐tubular components. Medical data were evaluated. Results Among 694 IPNB patients, 520 and 174 had Type 1 and Type 2, respectively. The levels of AST, ALT, ALP, T. Bil, and CEA were significantly higher in patients with Type 2 than in those with Type 1. Type 1 IPNB was more frequently located in the intrahepatic bile duct than Type 2, whereas Type 2 was more frequently located in the distal bile duct than Type 1 IPNB ( P < 0.001). There were significant differences in 5‐year cumulative survival rates (75.2% vs 50.9%; P < 0.0001) and 5‐year cumulative disease‐free survival rates (64.1% vs 35.3%; P < 0.0001) between the two groups. Conclusion Type 1 and Type 2 IPNBs differ in their clinicopathological features and prognosis. This classification may help to further understand IPNB.