Advances in Clinical Medicine
Vol. 13  No. 04 ( 2023 ), Article ID: 63655 , 8 pages
10.12677/ACM.2023.134727

两种不同分型肝内胆管癌临床病理特征及预后分析

万得晨,张彬*

安徽医科大学第二附属医院普外科,安徽 合肥

收稿日期:2023年3月1日;录用日期:2023年3月28日;发布日期:2023年4月6日

摘要

目的:探讨两种不同分型肝内胆管癌的临床病理特征及预后分析。方法:回顾性分析安徽医科大学第二附属医院行根治性手术切除的89例肝内胆管细胞癌患者,按肿瘤解剖部位分为两组:小胆管型肝内胆管癌组52例、大胆管型肝内胆管癌组37例。收集两组患者的一般临床资料、实验室检查结果、肿瘤病理特征及生存状态、生存时间。对两组患者的临床病理特征和术后总生存率对比分析。结果:大胆管型ICC组患者的CA19-9、AST、ALT、ALP、GGT、ALB、TBIL、淋巴结转移率及微血管浸润率明显高于小胆管型ICC组,肿瘤直径明显小于小胆管型ICC组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),两组ICC患者在年龄、性别、BMI、胆道结石病史、胆道手术史、高血压、糖尿病、乙肝病史、TP、分化程度、脉管癌栓、神经侵犯、MVI无显著统计学差异(P > 0.05)。大胆管型ICC患者1、2和3年总生存率分别为(75.7%、35.1%、8.1%)明显低于小胆管型ICC患者(82.7%、59.6%、30.8%),P < 0.05差异有统计学意义。大胆管型ICC患者中位生存时间为(11.4个月95%CI 10.8~16.4)、小胆管型ICC患者中位生存时间为(14.3个月95%CI 13.5~18.9),存在统计学差异(Log Rank P = 0.002)。结论:大胆管型ICC患者术前肝功能更差,更易合并胆道梗阻,更容易发生淋巴转移,微血管浸润,术后生存效果较差。小胆管型ICC患者发病更为隐匿。

关键词

肝内胆管癌,大胆管型肝内胆管癌,小胆管型肝内胆管癌,临床病理,总生存率

Clinicopathological Features and Prognosis Analysis of Two Different Types of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

Dechen Wan, Bin Zhang*

Department of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei Anhui

Received: Mar. 1st, 2023; accepted: Mar. 28th, 2023; published: Apr. 6th, 2023

ABSTRACT

Objective: To investigate the clinicopathological features and prognosis of two different types of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Methods: The clinical data of 89 patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma who underwent surgical resection in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University were retrospectively analyzed, and the patients were divided into two groups according to the anatomical site of tumors: 52 cases of Small Duct Type ICC group and 37 cases of Lager Duct Type ICC group, and the general clinical data, laboratory test results, tumor pathological characteristics, survival status and time of the two groups were collected. Results: The rates of CA19-9, AST, ALT, ALP, GGT, ALB, TBIL, lymph node metastasis and microvascular infiltration rates in the Lager Duct Type ICC group were significantly higher than those in the Small Duct Type ICC group, and the tumor diameter was significantly smaller than that in the Small Duct Type ICC group, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05), and there were no significant statistical differences (P > 0.05) in age, sex, BMI, history of biliary stones, history of biliary surgery, hypertension, diabetes, history of hepatitis B, TP, degree of differentiation, vascular cancer thrombus, nerve invasion, and MVI (P 0.05). The overall survival rates of 1, 2 and 3 years in Bold IC patients (75.7%, 35.1% and 8.1%) were significantly lower than those in small bile tube ICC patients (82.7%, 59.6% and 30.8%), and the difference in P < 0.05 was statistically significant. There were statistically significant differences in median survival (11.4 months, 95%CI 10.8~16.4), and in small bile casts ICC (14.3 months, 95%CI 13.5~18.9), (Log Rank P = 0.002). Conclusion: Patients with Lager Duct Type ICC have worse preoperative liver function, are more likely to have biliary obstruction, are more prone to lymphatic metastasis, microvascular infiltration, and have poor postoperative survival. Patients with Small Duct Type ICC have a more insidious onset.

Keywords:Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma, Lager Duct Type ICC, Small Duct Type ICC, Clinicopathology, Overall Survival

Copyright © 2023 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. 引言

胆管癌(cholangiocarcinoma, CCA)是发生于肝内外胆管上皮细胞的恶性肿瘤,一般将发生于二级及以上胆管的CCA定义为肝内胆管癌(Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, ICC),约占CCA的5%~10% [1] [2] ,其在发病机制、临床及病理特征等多方面与肝外胆管癌(Extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, ECC)显著不同 [3] 。近年来,ICC总体发病率及死亡率不断增加,而ECC发病率稳定甚至下降 [4] ,研究发现 [5] ICC与ECC分别在多种基因上差异表达。ECC常较早引起胆道梗阻,而ICC早期起病隐匿,早期诊断困难 [6] ,进展期ICC也较少因为胆管梗阻而出现发热、黄疸。ICC高度侵袭,术后复发率高达60%~70%,术后3年生存率仅约30% [7] [8] [9] ,预后极差。组织学上,ECC主要是粘液腺癌或乳头状瘤,而ICC的异质性更强 [10] [11] 。有学者根据ICC解剖位置及组织学特征将其分为大胆管型ICC和小胆管型ICC [12] [13] [14] 。大胆管型ICC常起源于肝内大胆管,包括左右肝管、肝段胆管及区域胆管,胆管壁有胆管腺体;小胆管型ICC常起源于肝内小胆管,包括小叶间胆管、赫林管及毛细胆管,胆管壁无胆管腺体 [12] [15] 。目前对该两种类型ICC临床病理特征及预后研究较少,本研究通过回顾性分析89例ICC患者,初步探讨两种ICC患者的临床病理特征与预后,为临床诊疗提供参考。

2. 资料和方法

2.1. 一般资料

回顾性分析2013年1月至2019年12月在安徽医科大学第二附属医院肝胆外科接受根治性肝切除术的89例ICC患者临床及病理资料,按肿瘤解剖部位分为两组,其中小胆管型ICC组52例,大胆管型ICC组37例。本研究所有患者术前均知情同意且签署手术知情同意书。

2.2. 纳入和排除标准

纳入标准:1) 术前经CT、MRI拟诊断为ICC,术后病理、免疫组化确诊为ICC,影像学、临床及病理资料完整。2) 首次接受根治性肝切除治疗,既往未接受全身系统治疗(全身化疗、介入治疗、靶向治疗及免疫治疗等)。3) 术后随访资料完整。

排除标准:1) 既往已接受全身系统治疗。2) 仅行手术取活检未行根治性切除患者。3) 肝门部胆管癌、远端胆管癌、转移性肝癌或者合并肝细胞肝癌。

2.3. 观察指标

1) 术前一般资料包括性别、年龄、体重指数(BMI)、高血压、糖尿病、饮酒史、胆石病史、胆道手术史。

2) 患者术前实验室检查结果:总蛋白(TP)、白蛋白(ALB)、碱性磷酸酶(AKP)、γ-谷氨酰转肽酶(γ-GT)、总胆红素(TBIL)、谷丙转氨酶(ALT)、谷草转氨酶(AST)、肿瘤标志物:甲胎蛋白(AFP)、肿瘤糖类抗原CA19-9,乙肝表面抗原(HBsAg)。

3) 术后病理学检查情况:肿瘤直径、肿瘤数目、神经侵犯、微血管浸润(MVI)、淋巴结转移、肿瘤分化程度、TNM分期(TNM分期参考AJCC第8版ICC的TNM分期) [16] 。

2.4. 术后随访

本研究随访采用电话随访的方式进行,以患者手术日期为起点,截止日期为2022年12月;主要随访内容为患者术后生存状态及存活时间,生存时间为患者手术日期到随访截止日期或者死亡时间。

2.5. 统计学分析

采用SPSS26.0统计学软件进行数据处理,计量资料以Mann-Whitney U检验进行分析,计数资料采用卡方检验,生存分析采用Kaplan-Meier曲线分析,采用对数秩检验(Log Rank)进行组间比较。以P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。

3. 结果

3.1. 两组ICC患者临床基本资料比较

小胆管型ICC组患者与大胆管型ICC组患者在年龄、性别、BMI、是否合并高血压、糖尿病、胆道结石及有无胆道手术史上差异无统计学差异,P > 0.05。见表1

3.2. 两组ICC患者实验室检查结果比较

大胆管型ICC组CA19-9、AST、ALT、ALP、GGT、ALB及TBil均明显高于小胆管型ICC组患者,P < 0.05差异有统计学意义,两组ICC患者在AFP、TP、HBV-DNA、HBsAg间无显著统计学差异(P > 0.05)。见表2

Table 1. Comparison of baseline data between the two groups

表1. 两组患者基线资料比较

Table 2. Comparison of laboratory tests between the two groups

表2. 两组患者实验室检查比较

3.3. 两组ICC患者肿瘤病理特征比较

小胆管型ICC患者肿瘤直径明显大于大胆管型ICC患者,大胆管型ICC患者较小胆管型ICC患者更易发生淋巴结转移、微血管浸润(MVI),差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。两组患者在肿瘤数目、脉管癌栓、神经侵犯、分化程度及肿瘤分期上无显著统计学差异(P > 0.05)。见表3

Table 3. Comparison of tumor characteristics of patients in the two groups

表3. 两组患者肿瘤特征比较

3.4. 两组ICC患者术后生存情况比较

结果表明,大胆管型ICC患者1、2和3年总生存率分别为(75.7%、35.1%、8.1%)明显低于小胆管型ICC患者(82.7%、59.6%、30.8%),P < 0.05差异有统计学意义。大胆管型ICC患者中位生存时间为(11.4个月95%CI 10.8~16.4)、小胆管型ICC患者中位生存时间为(14.3个月95%CI 13.5~18.9),存在统计学差异(Log Rank P = 0.002)。见图1

Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier curves for total postoperative survival time in two groups

图1. 两组患者术后总生存时间Kaplan-Meier曲线

4. 讨论

ICC确切病因尚不清楚,多种因素与ICC发病相关:包括肝胆管结石、原发性硬化性胆管炎、先天性胆道畸形、病毒性肝炎、糖尿病、非酒精性脂肪性肝病等 [17] [18] [19] [20] 。本研究纳入89例ICC患者中,共35例(39.3%) ICC患者合并肝胆管结石,12例(13.5%)患者合并胆道手术史,16例(18.0%)患者HBsAg阳性,10例(11.2%)患者合并糖尿病。大胆管型ICC组与小胆管型ICC组在糖尿病、胆道结石及有无胆道手术史上无显著统计学差异(P > 0.05)。文献报道称 [15] ,大胆管型ICC常与慢性胆管性病变如(肝内胆管结石、原发性硬化性胆管炎)相关;小胆管型ICC常发生于慢性肝炎或肝硬化背景中。这与本研究结论不符,可能与本研究样本量较小相关。临床上对于长期合并肝胆管结石、胆道感染及慢性肝炎病史患者,应引起足够重视、避免漏诊。

大胆管型ICC与小胆管型ICC临床特征存在明显差异。本研究结果显示:大胆管型ICC实验室检查中ALT、AST、ALB、TBIL、ALP及γ-GT明显高于小胆管型ICC组,有显著统计学差异(P < 0.05)。这提示大胆管型ICC患者术前肝功能更差,更容易合并胆道梗阻。有研究表明 [15] :大胆管型ICC大体分型以导管浸润型或导管内生型为主,小胆管型ICC大体分型以肿块型为主,导管浸润型或导管内生型更易合并胆道狭窄、梗阻 [6] [21] 。大胆管型ICC肿瘤直径明显小于小胆管型ICC组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05),提示小胆管型ICC患者早期发病可能更为隐匿。ICC患者无特异性肿瘤标志物,CA19-9作为临床重要的观察指标,其特异性易受胆道感染影响、不足以据此诊断或鉴别诊断肝内胆管癌。CA19-9诊断ICC的特异性和敏感性分别为86%和89%,合并胆道梗阻时,其特异性降低,若解除梗阻后CAl9-9仍升高,提示肝内胆管细胞癌可能性大 [22] 。本研究89例ICC患者共64例(64.0%) CA19-9表达阳性,其中小胆管型ICC组31例(62.0%),大胆管型ICC组33例(94.3%),有显著统计学差异(P < 0.05)。可能与大胆管型ICC更易合并胆道梗阻相关。

大胆管型ICC更易合并血管及淋巴结转移,预后更差。大胆管型ICC组与小胆管型ICC组在分化程度、T分期上无显著统计学差异(P > 0.05)。ICC肿瘤高度侵袭,本研究中,89例患者术后病理提示:46例(52.9%)伴有神经侵犯,23例(26.4%)伴有淋巴结转移,19例(21.8%)合并脉管癌栓,9例(3.4%)合并微血管浸润。大胆管型ICC组淋巴结转移率及微血管浸润明显高于小胆管型ICC组,有显著统计学差异(P < 0.05),在神经侵犯、脉管癌栓无显著统计学差异(P > 0.05)。与目前多项研究结论类似 [12] [15] [23] 。本研究中大胆管型ICC预后明显差于小胆管型ICC。Yamada等研究提示 [12] :大胆管型ICC预后差可能与大胆管ICC更易合并血管侵犯、神经侵犯及淋巴结转移有关。

综上所述:大胆管型ICC患者较小胆管型ICC患者术前肝功能更差,更易合并胆道梗阻,更容易发生淋巴转移及血管侵犯。小胆管型ICC患者发病更为隐匿。大胆管型ICC患者预后较差。本研究为单中心回顾性研究,有选择偏倚,容易受混杂因素影响,且样本量少,尤其是大胆管型ICC。后续本研究团队将扩大样本量,开展多中心研究。

文章引用

万得晨,张 彬. 两种不同分型肝内胆管癌临床病理特征及预后分析
Clinicopathological Features and Prognosis Analysis of Two Different Types of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma[J]. 临床医学进展, 2023, 13(04): 5130-5137. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2023.134727

参考文献

  1. 1. El-Diwany, R., Pawlik, T.M. and Ejaz, A. (2019) Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America, 28, 587-599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soc.2019.06.002

  2. 2. Bergquist, A. and Von Seth, E. (2015) Epi-demiology of Cholangiocarcinoma. Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology, 29, 221-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2015.02.003

  3. 3. Patel, T. (2014) New Insights into the Molecular Pathogenesis of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. Journal of Gastroenterology, 49, 165-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-013-0894-y

  4. 4. Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R.L., et al. (2021) Global Cancer Sta-tistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71, 209-249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660

  5. 5. Sia, D., Tovar, V., Moeini, A., et al. (2013) Intrahepatic Cholangiocarci-noma: Pathogenesis and Rationale for Molecular Therapies. Oncogene, 32, 4861-4870. https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2012.617

  6. 6. Krasinskas, A.M. (2018) Cholangiocarcinoma. Surgical Pathology Clinics, 11, 403-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.path.2018.02.005

  7. 7. Konstantinidis, I.T., Arkadopoulos, N. and Ferrone, C.R. (2016) Surgical Management of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma in the Modern Era: Advances and Challenges. Chinese Clinical Oncology, 5, 9.

  8. 8. Kelley, R.K., Bridgewater, J., Gores, G.J., et al. (2020) Systemic Therapies for Intrahepatic Chol-angiocarcinoma. Journal of Hepatology, 72, 353-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2019.10.009

  9. 9. Hewitt, D.B., Brown, Z.J. and Pawlik, T.M. (2022) Surgical Management of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. Expert Review of Anti-cancer Therapy, 22, 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737140.2022.1999809

  10. 10. Rodrigues, P.M., Olaizola, P., Paiva, N.A., et al. (2021) Pathogenesis of Cholangiocarcinoma. Annual Review of Pathology, 16, 433-463. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pathol-030220-020455

  11. 11. Guedj, N. (2022) Pathology of Cholangiocarcinomas. Current Oncology, 30, 370-380. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30010030

  12. 12. Yamada, M., Yamamoto, Y., Sugiura, T., et al. (2019) Compari-son of the Clinicopathological Features in Small Bile Duct and Bile Ductular Type Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. An-ticancer Research, 39, 2121-2127. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.13325

  13. 13. Aishima, S. and Oda, Y. (2015) Pathogenesis and Classification of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Different Characters of Perihilar Large Duct Type versus Peripheral Small Duct Type. Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences, 22, 94-100. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.154

  14. 14. Song, G., Shi, Y., Meng, L., et al. (2022) Single-Cell Transcriptomic Analysis Suggests Two Molecularly Subtypes of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. Nature Communications, 13, 1642. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29164-0

  15. 15. 赵燕青, 董辉, 丛文铭. 肝内胆管癌病理学分型新进展[J]. 肝脏, 2022, 27(2): 242-244.

  16. 16. Lee, A.J. and Chun, Y.S. (2018) Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: The AJCC/UICC 8th Edition Updates. Chinese Clinical Oncology, 7, 52. https://doi.org/10.21037/cco.2018.07.03

  17. 17. Corrao, S., Natoli, G. and Argano, C. (2021) Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Is Associated with Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma and Not with Extrahepatic Form: Definitive Evidence from Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 33, 62-68. https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000001684

  18. 18. Dyson, J.K., Beuers, U., Jones, D.E.J., et al. (2018) Pri-mary Sclerosing Cholangitis. The Lancet, 391, 2547-2559. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30300-3

  19. 19. Matsumoto, K., Onoyama, T., Kawata, S., et al. (2014) Hep-atitis B and C Virus Infection Is a Risk Factor for the Development of Cholangiocarcinoma. Internal Medicine, 53, 651-654. https://doi.org/10.2169/internalmedicine.53.1410

  20. 20. Wongjarupong, N., Assavapongpaiboon, B., Su-santitaphong, P., et al. (2017) Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease as a Risk Factor for Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMC Gastroenterology, 17, 149. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-017-0696-4

  21. 21. Kendall, T., Verheij, J., Gaudio, E., et al. (2019) Anatomical, Histomorphological and Molecular Classification of Cholangiocarcinoma. Liver International, 39, 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.14093

  22. 22. Bridgewater, J., Galle, P.R., Khan, S.A., et al. (2014) Guidelines for the Di-agnosis and Management of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. Journal of Hepatology, 60, 1268-1289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2014.01.021

  23. 23. Yu, Z., Ni, Q., Jia, H., et al. (2022) Prognostic Analysis of Radical Resection for iCCA(phl) and iCCA(pps): A Retrospective Cohort Study. Frontiers in Oncology, 12, Article ID: 992606. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.992606

  24. NOTES

    *通讯作者。

期刊菜单