C h o l a n g i o c a rc i n o m a

a, b
Adeel S. Khan, MD, MPH *, Leigh Anne Dageforde, MD, MPH

KEYWORDS
 Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA)  Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHCCA)  Klatskin tumor
 Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCCA)
 Extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EHCCA)

KEY POINTS
 Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare malignancy and accounts for only 2% of all malignancies.
Incidence is on the increase in the Western world.
 Cholangiocarcinoma arises from the malignant growth of the epithelial lining of the bile
ducts and can be found all along the biliary tree. It can be classified into subtypes based
on location: intrahepatic (arising from the intrahepatic biliary tract in the hepatic paren-
chyma), perihilar (at the hilum of the liver involving the biliary confluence), and distal (extra-
hepatic, often in the head of the pancreas).
 Despite differences in location of the cholangiocarcinoma, it is associated with a poor
prognosis with surgical resection offering the best chance of cure.
 Margin status and locoregional lymph node metastases are the most important determi-
nants of postsurgical outcomes.
 Liver transplantation is currently indicated for a select group of patients with unresectable
hilar cholangiocarcinoma in absence of locoregional lymph node spread and metastatic
disease in the setting of an institutional protocol involving neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

INTRODUCTION
Nature of the Problem
Cholangiocarcinomas (CCA) are rare tumors arising from the epithelium of the bile
ducts (BD) and can involve any part of the biliary tract.1 Anatomically, they can be
classified as intrahepatic (IH), arising in the IH BDs in the hepatic parenchyma, or
extrahepatic (EH). Extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EHCCA) can further be cate-
gorized as perihilar (involving BD confluence in the liver hilum) or distal (mid or lower
half of the BD, often in the head of pancreas).1,2 Approximately 60% of CCA are peri-
hilar; 30% arise in the mid or distal BD, and 6% to 10% are IH.3 Historically, surgical
resection has been the only potentially curable option; however, management can

a
Section of Abdominal Transplant Surgery, Washington University St Louis, One Barnes-Jewish
Hospital Plaza, Suite 6107 Queeny Tower, St Louis, MO 63110, USA; b Division of Transplant
Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, White 511, Boston, MA 02114, USA
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected]

Surg Clin N Am - (2018) -–-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2018.12.004 surgical.theclinics.com
0039-6109/18/ª 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
2 Khan & Dageforde

be challenging because many patients present in advanced stages with unresect-

able disease.1–3 Among patients deemed resectable on initial cross-sectional imag-
ing, approximately 30% are found to be unresectable on exploration, and many of
those resected demonstrate microscopically positive margins on final pathology
(R1).3 Moreover, many patients with CCA have underlying primary sclerosing chol-
angitis (PSC) and/or cirrhosis, which can further complicate decision making and
treatment.1,2 In recent years, liver transplantation (LT) has emerged as a promising
option in a small highly selected group of patients with unresectable perihilar chol-
angiocarcinoma (PHCCA) in the absence of locoregional or distant metastatic
disease.

Epidemiology
CCA is a rare tumor comprising only 3% of gastrointestinal malignancies and has an
annual incidence of 5000 new cases in the United States.1–3 Worldwide, intrahepatic
cholangiocarcinoma (IHCCA) is the second most common liver tumor behind hepato-
cellular carcinoma (HCC) and accounts for approximately 10% to 25% of all hepato-
biliary malignancies.1 CCA is far more prevalent in Asia, where in some parts the
incidence is as high as 113 per 100,000.1 In comparison, the incidence of CCA in
the West is much lower at 2.1 new cases per 100,000 population; however, reports
indicate a trend toward increasing rates in recent years.4,5 CCA affects men more
frequently than women with ratios of 1:1.2 to 1.5, rarely occurs before age of 40,
and typically presents in the seventh decade of life.1,2

Risk Factors
There are several well-described risk factors for CCA.

Primary sclerosing cholangitis

PSC is an autoimmune disease resulting in inflammation and stricturing of interhepatic
and/or extrahepatic BDs and is a well-established risk factor for CCA because of
ongoing inflammation, epithelial proliferation, and bile stasis. The reported lifetime
incidence of CCA among PSC patients is as high as 36%.1,6

Choledochal cysts
Patients with choledochal cysts are at a 10- to 50-fold higher risk of developing CCA
(IHCCA and EHCCA).1,2,7 The lifetime incidence of CCA in these patients ranges from
6% to 30% and is thought to be secondary to reflux of pancreatic enzymes, bile stasis,
and increased concentration of intraductal bile acids in dilated ducts, which can lead
to malignant transformation in the cyst epithelial cells over time.1,7,8

Viral hepatitis and cirrhosis

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and C (HCV) infections and liver cirrhosis, regardless of cause,
have been reported as risk factors for CCA. Sorensen and colleagues9 followed
11,605 patients with cirrhosis over a period of 6 years and reported a10-fold increase
in risk of CCA in patients with cirrhosis. Shahib and colleagues10 reviewed 625 cases
of IHCCA in the United States and reported a significant association with HCV,
whereas many studies from HBV endemic countries in Asia have implicated HBV as
a risk factor for IHCCA.1,8

Hepatolithiasis
Hepatolithiasis is an established risk factor for IHCCA with up to 10% of patients with
hepatolithiasis developing CCA in some parts of Asia.8,11 Postulated mechanisms of
 Cholangiocarcinoma 3

malignant transformation in biliary epithelium include prolonged irritation by stones,

bile stasis, and cholangitis.1,11

Parasitic infections
Opisthorchis viverrini and Clonorchis sinensis are hepatobiliary flukes that have a well-
established association with CCA particularly in Southeast Asia where these infesta-
tions are common. Shin and colleagues12 demonstrated a population-attributable
risk of CCA in C sinensis endemic areas to be as high as 27.9% in men and 16% in
women. Parasitic infections are far less common in the West and are rarely encoun-
tered as a cause of CCA.1,2

Other risk factors

Toxins (particularly Thorotrast exposure during the World War II), inflammatory bowel
disease (both ulcerative colitis and Crohn disease), choledocholithiasis and cholangi-
tis, diabetes and obesity, heavy alcohol use, and smoking are some of the other risk
factors that have been implicated in the development of CCA.1,2,8–10

ANATOMY AND PATHOPHYSIOLOGY

As introduced above, CCA can develop anywhere along the BD system. The location
of the CCA impacts the presentation, diagnosis, treatment options, and prognosis.
CCA is a primary biliary cancer arising from a malignant transformation cholangio-
cyte rather than the hepatocytes, which form the more common liver cancer HCC with
malignant transformation.13 The molecular pathogenesis of CCA involves several
different signal transduction pathways. Recent data indicate some of these mutations
in genetic traits may be similar between CCA and HCC.14

Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
Gene mutations
Regarding specific mutations and IHCCA, the KRAS mutation is one of the most
frequently seen in CCA and is an oncogene shown to induce IHCCA in mouse
models.15 About 20% of IHCCA have a loss of function mutation of gene TP53, which
has been shown to be oncogenic.16 Most recently, mutations in isocitrate dehydroge-
nase (IDH1) and 2 (IDH2) have been appreciated in 10% to 23% of IHCCA.17 Although
mass-forming CCA is the most common IHCCA phenotype (85%), other phenotypes
include periductal IHCCA that grows along the BD and intraductal-growth IHCCA.18
The differences in these types can impact surgical management and clinical
outcomes.

Staging
Until 2011, there was not a uniform TNM staging for IHCCA. After the seventh edition
of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging for IHCCA was devel-
oped. This 7th edition of AJCC TNM staging was found to be accurate and beneficial
in predicting outcomes for patients undergoing resection for IHCCA.19

Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma
Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHCCA) is the most common subtype of CCA and ac-
counts for approximately 60% of biliary tract malignancies.20 Although considerable
progress has been made in diagnosing and treating HCCA since the condition was
first described by Altemeier in 1957, it still remains a challenging problem with consid-
erable morbidity and mortality.20
4 Khan & Dageforde

Cause and associated gene mutations Most PHCCA cases occur spontaneously, and
although chronic inflammation and bile stasis have been implicated as common risk
factors, the precise cause remains unclear. Specific genetic mutations have been
linked with PHCCA and include K-ras, C-myc, p53, and Bcl-2. K-ras mutations in
particular have been reported in up to 60% of patients, are more frequently seen in
perihilar tumors greater than 3 cm and in patients with lymph node metastasis, and
are often associated with poor survival.21,22

Tumor subtypes Pathologically, EHCCA can be further classified into 3 distinct sub-
types: sclerosing (70%), nodular (20%), and papillary (5%–10%). Sclerosing and
nodular tumors are typically firm and commonly involve the hilum. These tumors, partic-
ularly sclerosing subtype, cause circumferential thickening of the BD with radial or lon-
gitudinal tumor spread and demonstrate an early involvement of the lymphatic plexus
around the BDs. These tumors are rarely confined to the BD and often demonstrate
direct extension into surrounding hepatic parenchyma at the time of diagnosis. For
this reason, successful resection of PHCCA almost always mandates an en bloc partial
hepatectomy. Papillary tumors on the other hand are typically located in the distal BD,
often have a well-defined stalk making them less likely to invade adjacent structures,
and are generally associated with a favorable prognosis after resection.21,23

Classification and staging Classification of PHCCA involves not only differentiating it

from IHCCA and distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCCA) but also stratifying tumors based
on specific anatomic and prognostic factors.20,21 In 1975, Bismuth and Corlette24 first
described their criteria for categorizing PHCCA based on the extent to which the com-
mon hepatic duct (CHD), BD confluence, and left and right ducts were involved by the
tumor. The classification system and subsequent modifications by the investigators in
1992 categorized lesions into 4 subtypes and made recommendations for type and
extent of surgical resection for each subtype ranging from local excision for type l le-
sions to hepatectomy and LT for type intravenous (IV) lesions25 (Table 1). Although this
classification system is useful for stratifying patients based on biliary involvement, it is
limited in ability to predict resectability and survival because it does not take into
consideration vascular involvement, lobar atrophy, and spread to regional lymph
nodes.20,21,23 The group at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) attemp-
ted to expand on the Bismuth-Corlette classification by proposing a preoperative
T-staging system that stratifies patients into 2 groups based on (1) extent of BDs
involved by tumor, (2) portal vein involvement, and (3) presence of lobar atrophy.26
Jarnagin and colleagues26 demonstrated that this staging system correlated with
resectability, likelihood of achieving an R0 resection, presence of metastatic disease,
and median survival. Another frequently used staging system is the AJCCTNM staging
system, which considers the size and extent of primary tumor, regional lymph node
status, and distant metastasis.27 This system is helpful in determining resectability
of the tumor, but critics have questioned its ability to accurately predict survival.21,23,28

Table 1
Modified Bismuth-Corlette classification for hilar cholangiocarcinoma

Type Definition
I Stricture below the main hepatic confluence
II Stricture confined to main hepatic confluence
IIIA Stricture extends into main right hepatic duct
IIIB Stricture extends into main left hepatic duct
IV Stricture extends into right and left hepatic ducts
 Cholangiocarcinoma 5

Distal cholangiocarcinoma
DCCA is defined as a tumor arising from the common BD below the confluence of the
cystic duct and above the ampulla of Vater and constitutes approximately 20% to
40% of all diagnosed CCA. In the seventh edition of the AJCC staging manual pub-
lished in 2010, for the first time distal BD tumors were classified as a separate entity
and staged separately from IHCCA and PHCCA.1,2,4,5,27 This TNM staging system
considers tumor extent, lymph node spread, and presence of distant metastases
and is a useful prognostic tool.

CLINICAL PRESENTATION

Table 2 summarizes the common signs and symptoms associated with CCA.
IHCCA diagnosis is often incidental. When patients do present with symptoms, they
are usually symptoms such as fullness and rarely pain resulting from the size of the
liver mass. Oftentimes the patients have normal liver function. Patients with EHCCA
most often present with jaundice but can also have unintentional weight loss, general
malaise, and occasional right upper quadrant pain.29
Most patients (>90%) with EHCCA present with symptoms of obstructive jaundice
(jaundice, tea-colored urine, alcoholic stools, cholangitis, pruritis, and such). Jaundice
may not be apparent if only the right- or left-sided BDs are involved, but these patients
may still have other symptoms, such as vague abdominal pain, weight loss, and
anorexia.30 Patients with papillary tumors may present with intermittent episodes of
obstructive jaundice due to small pieces of tumor breaking off and causing obstruc-
tion. Clinical examination may be remarkable for jaundice, possible hepatomegaly,
or a palpable gallbladder if the obstruction is distal to cystic duct insertion. In addition,
some patients can be diagnosed based on abnormal liver function tests, particularly
alkaline phosphatase and serum bilirubin, both of which can be elevated with obstruc-
tive processes.20,21

DIAGNOSIS

Table 3 summarizes the commonly used diagnostic tests for IH and EHCCA.

Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
The first step in diagnosis of IHCCA includes high-quality abdominal imaging with
either liver protocol triple-phase computed tomography (CT) scan or MRI. On CT

Table 2
Signs and symptoms of intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Signs Symptoms
IHCCA  Increased liver function tests  Malaise
 Mass found on screening  Right upper-quadrant fullness
ultrasound in patients with  Right upper-quadrant pain
underlying liver disease  Failure to thrive/weight loss
 Palpable liver edge or mass
in the right upper quadrant
 Jaundice (rare in IHCCA)
EHCCA (PHCCA 1 DCCA)  Jaundice  Pruritus
 Elevated liver function tests  Unintentional weight loss
and alkaline phosphatase  Clay-colored stools
 Abdominal pain
6 Khan & Dageforde

Table 3
Commonly used diagnostic tests for intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Diagnosis
IHCCA  Imaging: CT and/or MRI
 Tumor markers: CA 19-9, AFP
 Imaging Guided percutaneous biopsy
EHCCA-PHCCA  Imaging: CT and/or MRI/MRCP
 CT angiography often helpful to evaluate vessel involvement
 MRCP to evaluate BD involvement
 Tumor markers: CA 19-9
 ERCP with biopsy and brushings
 FISH
EHCCA-DCCA  Imaging: pancreas protocol CT and/or MRI/MRCP
 Tumor marker: CA 19-9
 ERCP with biopsy and brushings
 FISH
 EUS to evaluate pancreas head for any possible mass more consistent with
pancreatic adenocarcinoma

imaging, IHCCA is hypodense on noncontrasted CT and has peripheral rim enhance-

ment in the arterial phase. There is progressive hyperattenuation on venous and
delayed phases.31,32 IHCCA on MR shows up as hypointense on T1, and hyperintense
on T2-weighted images. In addition, rim hyperenhancement in the arterial phase is
consistent with IHCCA.33 Unlike the use of the Liver Reporting and Data System
criteria to diagnose HCC on MRI in cirrhotic patients, imaging is not sufficient for defin-
itive diagnosis of IHCCA, and a patient may still require a biopsy if definitive diagnosis
is required. Percutaneous image-guided biopsy is usually the best approach.31,32
Tumor markers such as carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) can be used in the
setting of IHCCA but is not highly sensitive or specific for this malignancy. This tumor
marker can also be elevated in benign diseases. Although elevated CA 19-9 is not al-
ways correlated with CCA, patients with unresectable CCA have significantly higher
CA 19-9 levels than patients with resectable CA 19 to 9.34 Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level
can be elevated in HCC or mixed IHCCA/HCC tumors but is most commonly not
elevated in pure CCA.34

Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma and Distal

Cholangiocarcinoma)
Patients who are suspected of having EHCCA are subjected to blood testing, including
complete blood count, coagulation profile, and liver function tests. Serum alkaline
phosphatase and bilirubin levels are often elevated, suggestive of an obstructive path-
ologic condition. Tumor markers such as CA 19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen may
be falsely elevated in patients with hyperbilirubinemia, but may be relevant after biliary
decompression. Moreover, 10% of the population does not express Lewis-antigen
and CA 19-9 levels may be undetectable even in the setting of CCA. Tumor markers
have a role for postoperative surveillance in patients who had elevated levels on
initial presentation. A rising CA 19-9 level may be the first sign of recurrent
disease.20,21,23,30,34
Traditionally, most patients presenting with painless jaundice are initially worked up
with an abdominal ultrasound, which is a noninvasive and cost-efficient way to assess
the biliary tree. Although ultrasound is sensitive for picking up biliary dilation and
 Cholangiocarcinoma 7

detecting choledocholithiasis, it is less accurate in determining site of obstruction,

delineation of mass if present, and presence of metastatic disease.28,32
High-quality cross-sectional imaging is the single most important diagnostic and
staging test in patients suspected of having CCA.35 The most recent guidelines
from National Comprehensive Cancer Center recommend imaging with contrast
enhanced (triple or quadruple phase) CT scan or MRI /magnetic resonance cholan-
giopancreatography (MRCP).23 The radiographic interpretation should focus on the
location and extent of biliary involvement (staging), involvement of vascular struc-
tures (hepatic artery, portal vein, superior mesenteric vessels), and evidence of IH,
locoregional (perihilar or portal lymph nodes), or distant metastatic disease.35–37
Cross-sectional imaging for PHCCA also provides information on liver volumes,
caudate involvement, and lobar atrophy; all of which are extremely valuable in plan-
ning surgical intervention. CT should be performed with IV contrast, and images
should be obtained with thin 1- to 2-mm cuts in arterial pancreatic and portal venous
phases of IV contrast.21,23,35,36 MRI with MRCP has an advantage of clear delinea-
tion of extent of BD involvement and a better diagnostic specificity in diagnosing
benign causes of hilar obstruction. Chryssou and colleagues37 demonstrated MRI
with MRCP to have an accuracy of approximately 80% in predicting successful
resection of PHCCA. The diagnostic and staging accuracy of both modalities signif-
icantly diminishes after biliary stent placement due to decompression and imaging
artifacts.21,23
EHCCA tend not to be fludeoxyglucose avid so PET has low sensitivity for diag-
nosing CCA or providing information on anatomic resectability. PET/CT has a speci-
ficity of about 80% for the detection of distant metastatic disease as well as lymph
node metastasis, but rarely adds to information obtained from other staging
modalities.23,38
Direct cholangiography through either endoscopic retrograde cholangiography
(ERC) or percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC) offers excellent visuali-
zation of the biliary tree and can provide with a good understanding of the location
and extent of stricture.39–42 ERC and PTC also have the advantage of allowing one to
obtain BD tissue for histologic examination. Because of fibrotic nature of these tu-
mors, it is often difficult to obtain a pathologic diagnosis; endoscopic brushings
and washings yield a positive result in only about 40% of EHCC patients.20,39–42
Newer technique of fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) targets pericentromeric
regions of chromosome 3, 7, and 17 and can significantly enhance the sensitivity
of brush biopsies.23 The finding of polysomy is diagnostic of malignancy with a
sensitivity of 50% and specificity of greater than 95%.23 However, it must be pointed
out that, in the absence of suspicion for benign cause of biliary obstruction, a tissue
diagnosis is not mandatory before proceeding with attempted resection or trans-
plantation. On the other hand, pathologic confirmation is mandatory before chemo-
therapy or radiation, outside of an institutional transplant protocol. Use of ERCP-
guided digital cholangioscopy (Spyglass) can further enhance the diagnostic sensi-
tivity and specificity for CCA to 90% and 95.8%, respectively, by aiding in direct
visualization of the BDs, tissue sampling, and therapeutic maneuvers.20,21,23 Endo-
scopic ultrasound (EUS) can also provide valuable information in staging EHCC,
assessing depth of tumor and relationship with adjacent vascular structures. More-
over, EUS can also allow fine needle aspiration biopsies from suspicious regional or
distant lymph nodes, which can provide valuable information and can sometimes
change the treatment plan.39 Percutaneous or laparoscopic biopsy of tumors or
lymph nodes is not recommended because of the high risk of disease
dissemination.43
8 Khan & Dageforde

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
Surgical management: resection
Surgical resection is the treatment of choice for IHCCA when possible, but unfortu-
nately, many patients present with late-stage, unresectable disease. Before surgical
resection, full assessment of the extent of disease is necessary to assure complete
resection of the IHCCA with sufficient functional liver remnant (FLR). Prognosis re-
mains poor for large tumors with lymphovascular invasion, nodal disease, or multicen-
tricity. If needed, patients can undergo pre-resection treatment to grow the remnant
liver. Details on volume assessment and FLR optimization are presented under the
section on PHCCA.

Surgical management: liver transplantation

LT, although a mainstay of treatment of HCC, has not been widely accepted as a treat-
ment strategy for CCA. In very early IHCCA, there have been positive outcomes with
increased survival in selected patients with small tumors. These multicenter retro-
spective studies were performed using liver explant pathology. The outcomes were
significantly better for patients with solitary IHCCA less than 2 cm.44,45 There is also
a report of LT in 25 patients with unresectable IHCCA at University of California, Los
Angeles over more than 20 years.46 In many patients undergoing LT for IHCCA, the
tumors are found incidentally postoperatively on pathology, and therefore, patients
do not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy.47 A recent study outlines a prospective
protocol for liver transplant in patients with IHCCA responsive to neoadjuvant therapy,
but to date over 7 years only 6 patients have been successfully transplanted.48

Management of unresectable disease

Unresectable patients can receive chemotherapy, radiation therapy, placement of a
hepatic artery infusion pump (HAIP), and liver-directed therapy. For patients receiving
chemotherapy alone, combination therapy provides the best benefit. The ABC-02 trial
included 410 patients treated with Gemcitabine 1 Cisplatin versus Gemcitabine alone
in a mixed group of patients with biliary tract malignancies. Overall, addition of
Cisplatin improved outcome and slowed the time of progression significantly from 5
to 8 months as well as lengthened overall survival from 8.1 to 11.7 months.49 Recent
data have shown that combining systemic chemotherapy with chemoradiation ther-
apy improves outcomes.50 On review of the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and
End Results) database, palliative radiotherapy for unresectable IHCCA was associated
with improved overall and cancer-free survival.51
Another option for patients with unresectable disease is targeted therapy using
HAIP. After the pump is placed, the patient receives a continuous infusion of fluoro-
deoxyuridine in combination with systemic chemotherapy. Data from MSKCC show
improved survival for patients treated with combination systemic therapy and HAIP
chemotherapy.52 The investigators describe successful downstaging in a few patients
from unresectable to resectable disease, which may indicate a possible future role of
intra-arterial therapy in patients with borderline resectable disease.52
Liver-directed therapy is an option for patients who are not surgical candidates and
for patients presenting with disease too extensive for resection. Liver-directed therapy
can include treatment with radioembolization, transarterial chemoembolization, and
ablation, most commonly radiofrequency ablation (RFA). In a recent review of the Na-
tional Cancer Database, patients with more advanced stage of IHCCA were less likely
to receive RFA, and RFA was only associated with a survival benefit in stage I disease.
Patients with more advanced disease benefited from radioembolization and
 Cholangiocarcinoma 9

radiation.53 Radioembolization with yttrium-90 (Y-90) in unresectable IHCCA has been

shown in several studies to be successful in reducing the size of unresectable IHCCA,
and some patients have been able to proceed to resection following Y-90
treatment.54,55

Extrahepatic Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma

Surgical management: resection
Determination of resectability Surgical resection is the best chance of long-term sur-
vival and cure in patients with PHCCA. The goals of surgical resection are to resect
involved intrahepatic and extrahepatic BDs (R0 resection) along with draining portal
lymph nodes. Successful resection of the biliary confluence almost always involves
resection of right or left liver (depending on extent of tumor), and often the caudate
lobe especially with left-sided tumors. Five-year survival rates following resection
generally range from 25% to 50% with long-term survival being limited by locoregional
recurrence and distant metastases.20,21,23,26,56 Patients with positive microscopic (R1)
or gross (R2) margin have a significantly worse outcome with median surgical ranging
from 12 to 21 months.23
Resectability is determined by ability to have options for biliary reconstruction and
to leave behind adequate future liver remnant (FLR). With this basic principle in mind,
experts at the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association hilar CCA consensus
meeting put forth the following criteria for categorizing a nonmetastatic PHCCA as
unresectable: (1) bilateral segmental ductal extension, (2) unilateral atrophy with either
contralateral segmental ductal or vascular inflow involvement, and (3) unilateral
segmental ductal extension with contralateral vascular inflow involvement.23 Despite
these seemingly clear guidelines, up to 50% of patients are found unresectable at
time of surgery, and of those resected, an R0 resection can only be achieved in
70% to 80% patients, indicating that there is room for improvement in preoperative
workup despite the recent advances in cross-sectional imaging.20,21,23,26
Preoperative planning and workup Patients being considered for resection are
assessed for their medical candidacy for a major hepatic resection and thorough car-
diopulmonary workup performed when indicated. In addition, patients requiring right
hepatectomy or extended resection for PHCCA are at risk for post-hepatectomy liver
failure (PHLF) as sequelae of inadequate functional/FLR, and careful assessment of
FLR quality and volume is vital before proceeding with resection. Volume optimization
strategies, such a portal vein embolization (PVE), should be considered in patients
with borderline or inadequate FLR.
Assessment of future liver remnant volume and quality FLR is defined as a percent-
age of remaining functional liver volume compared with preoperative functional liver
volume (total liver volume with tumor volume subtracted). FLR volume serves as a pre-
dictor of remnant liver function, and therefore, FLR is widely used as a surrogate for
risk of developing PHLF. Several 3-dimensional packages are available for use with
CT and MRI for estimating liver volumes. In general, FLR 20% in otherwise healthy
liver is associated with good postresection outcomes, and this cutoff has been well
established as the minimum safe limit of resection.57,58 In patients with mild steatosis,
cholestasis, and early cirrhosis (Childs-Pugh A), the safe limits for FLR is in the range of
30% to 35% and increases to a minimum of 40% in patients with severe steatosis and
cholestasis.58
In addition to the volume, it is also important to have an idea of the function of the FLR,
which can be diminished in patients with hepatosteatosis, in patients with cholestasisis,
10 Khan & Dageforde

and in those who have received systemic chemotherapy. Tests like indocyanine green
clearance, galactose elimination test, lidocaine-monoethylglycinexylidide, test, and the
13
C-aminopyrine breath test are some of the available tests for functional assessment of
liver before resection.59
Strategies for optimization of the functional liver remnant: portal vein
embolization PVE is the most commonly used strategy for FLR volume optimization
in PHCCA patients with inadequate or borderline FLR. It has been shown in multiple
studies to be effective in inducing lobar hypertrophy with a low risk of complications
(<3%).20,23,60 Many patients with PHCCA have significant cholestasis and/or require
neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced disease, and therefore, a higher
FLR cutoff of 30% to 40% is used by most centers.20 Studies have shown median
FLR growth of 40% to 62% after a median of 34 to 37 days of PVE with 72% to
80% of patients able to undergo resection as originally planned.61,62 Abulkhir and col-
leagues63 reported results from a meta-analysis of 1088 patients undergoing PVE and
showed a markedly lower incidence of PHLF and death compared with series report-
ing outcomes after major hepatectomy in patients who did not undergo PVE. All pa-
tients had FLR volume increase, and 85% went on to have liver resection after PVE
with a PHLF incidence of 2.5% and a surgical mortality of 0.8%. Most of the contra-
lateral liver hypertrophy occurs within the first 3 to 4 weeks of PVE, and rates can be
slower in patients with underlying parenchymal disease and/or cirrhosis.58 If FLR after
PVE remains 20% or if the degree of hypertrophy is 5%, liver resection should be
considered high risk and may be contraindicated.64

Preoperative biliary drainage The choice and indication of preoperative biliary

drainage in patients with PHCCA remains a topic of controversy. Proponents of pre-
operative drainage cite studies that show major hepatic resection in the setting of
jaundice, and significant biliary obstruction can impact FLR hypertrophy and
contribute to PHLF and postoperative morbidity,65–67 whereas opponents cite
increased rates of cholangitis with biliary instrumentation, potential delay in therapy,
and lack of studies demonstrating an impact on postoperative mortality or improve-
ment in overall survival.21,66,68 However, there is clear consensus that preoperative
biliary drainage should be performed in PHCCA patients with cholangitis, those under-
going neoadjuvant chemotherapy, patients with hyperbilirubinemia-induced malnutri-
tion, hepatic or renal insufficiency, and patients undergoing PVE.23 Decompression
should be prioritized for the FLR rather than biliary system within the proposed resec-
tion, because decompression of the remnant liver will aid in restoring metabolic and
synthetic function in this portion and minimize potential for atrophy due to chronic
biliary obstruction.20 PTC is viewed by many to be the preferred choice of biliary
decompression compared with ERC, because the former technique can allow better
delineation of extent of proximal tumor spread, faster normalization of liver enzymes,
and potential for decreasing cholangitis-related complications; however, modality of
choice may vary from center to center depending on institutional experience with
one particular technique.20,23,67

Surgical approach and intraoperative considerations Surgical management of

PHCCA patients is considerably more challenging compared with IHCCA or DCCA,
which can often be treated with hepatectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy, respec-
tively. Patients with concerns for advanced disease on preoperative imaging should
be subjected to diagnostic laparoscopy to assess for occult peritoneal metastases,
which has shown to help avoid an unnecessary laparotomy incision in approximately
10% patients with peritoneal implants.69 Definitive surgery for PHCCA required partial
 Cholangiocarcinoma 11

hepatectomy with en bloc resection of the EH BD, portal lymphadenectomy, and

restoration of biliary continuity with Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy. The caudate
lobe is generally resected with all left-sided and most right-sided tumors because
the biliary drainage of the caudate lobe is to the left duct or biliary confluence and oc-
casionally into the right biliary system. A dilated caudate lobe duct on preoperative im-
aging for PHCCA indicates obstruction because of tumor and warrants removal in
order to minimize the risk of biliary leak from uncontrolled caudate duct as well as
to increase chances of obtaining a negative surgical margin.20,21,23 Use of intraoper-
ative ultrasound can confirm extent of tumor and relationship with important anatomic
structures. Hilar dissection is carried out to dissect all lymph nodes and expose portal
structures. Frozen section of distal BD is typically performed to rule out distal spread
along BD. The portal vein and hepatic artery to the side being resected and the asso-
ciated hepatic veins are typically divided extrahepatically, whereas the BD is trans-
ected sharply during parenchymal transection. There are many described
techniques of parenchymal transection based on individual preference with compara-
ble outcomes; however, the principles of maintaining low central venous pressure dur-
ing resection and use of intermittent Pringle maneuver can significantly decrease
blood loss during the surgery.70

Role of vascular resection En bloc resection of portal vein or hepatic artery may be
required during hepatectomy in order to obtain a negative surgical margin. Although
many centers have shown that a limited portal vein resection can be safely carried
out in select patients without any significant increase in postoperative morbidity or
mortality, experience with hepatic artery resection has not replicated the same suc-
cess.20,71 In select patients portal vein resection and reconstruction, with intention
of obtaining a margin negative resection, is indicated for short segment vein involve-
ment on the side of the future liver remnant. Hepatic artery involvement on the other
hand is considered a contraindication to resection in most centers around the
world.20,23,71

Adjuvant treatment Successful R0 resection provides the patient with the best
chance of cure. The role of adjuvant therapy after resection in the form of either sys-
temic chemotherapy or chemoradiation is not well defined, but there is clear evidence
to suggest that it should be offered to patients with margin-positive or node-positive
PHCCA. Kim and colleagues72 demonstrated that use of adjuvant chemoradiation
with capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in 168 patients with resected CCA was asso-
ciated with prolonged 5-year overall survival when compared with resection alone
(36.5% vs 28.2%), and 5-year locoregional control was similarly increased in the che-
moradiation group (58.5% vs 44.4%). Similarly, Borghero and colleagues73 compared
outcomes in 42 patients with either R1 resection or locoregional nodal involvement
who received adjuvant chemoradiation with patients with negative resection margins
and regional lymph nodes and demonstrated both groups to have similar 5-year over-
all survival (36% vs 42%, respectively).74

Surgical management: liver transplantation

Initial experience with LT for PHCCA included many patients with advanced disease and
predictably resulted in dismal outcomes, with many centers reporting 5-year survivals of
less than 30%.73 However, in the past decade or so, LT has evolved to represent a
promising option for carefully selected patients with unresectable tumors when used
as part of a standardized protocol using neoadjuvant chemoradiation.75,76 Protocol typi-
cally involves neoadjuvant treatment with chemotherapy (5-FU) and radiation (external
beam radiation with or without endoluminal brachytherapy boost) for patients with
12 Khan & Dageforde

localized, nonmetastatic PHCCA without IH disease. Diagnostic laparoscopy is per-

formed as a last step, and patients listed for LT if no metastatic and/or lymph node
involvement is seen. Oral capecitabine is continued until time of LT.75,76 The Mayo clinic
group published their outcomes in 126 PHCCA patients transplanted over an 18-year
period using their protocol and demonstrated a 5-year overall survival of 75% in this
highly selected group. The survival in PSC patients was 80% compared with 64% for
patients with de novo PHCCA.77 Murad and colleagues78 reviewed LT outcomes
from 12 high-volume transplant centers in the United States and demonstrated a
65% recurrence-free survival after 5 years in 287 patients with PHCCA who underwent
LT after neoadjuvant chemoradiation showing this form of therapy to be highly effective
in this carefully selected cohort of patients. It is important to note that patients undergo-
ing LT were highly selected, required to pass stringent inclusion criteria, and had a not
insignificant risk of drop out during LT evaluation and waiting time, making it difficult to
generalize the results for all patients with PHCCA. Currently, surgical resection remains
the treatment of choice for resectable PHCCA patients.
Management of unresectable disease
Chemoradiation with or without intraluminal chemotherapy forms the mainstay of treat-
ment in patients with locally advanced, unresectable tumors who are not candidates for
LT with a median survival ranging from 11 months to 15 months.23 The favored approach
in patients with metastatic or locoregional recurrence is systemic chemotherapy with
gemcitabine and cisplatin representing first-line chemotherapy agents.23 Radiation for
local recurrence can be associated with significant toxicity to the jejunal limb and generally
is not recommended.20,21 Photodynamic therapy and endoscopic RFA are relatively new
modalities that have an evolving role in the treatment algorithm for unresectable CCA pa-
tients and may offer a survival advantage over stenting alone.20,21,23
Extrahepatic Distal Cholangiocarcinoma
Surgical management
Patients with DCCA are treated similar to patients with ampullary and periampullary tu-
mors with pancreaticoduodenectomy offering the best chance of cure in patients with
resectable disease. Goal of surgery should be an R0 resection with emphasis on careful
assessment of BD margin with intraoperative frozen section as needed. Patients with
borderline resectable disease can be considered for neoadjuvant treatment, especially
when there are doubts about ability to achieve a margin-negative resection. Portal vein
or superior mesenteric vein resection with reconstruction can be performed for short-
segment vein involvement when the vein is clearly involved and resection would maxi-
mize chances of obtaining a negative margin. Studies have shown that long-term sur-
vival in patients undergoing R0 resection with portal vein reconstruction is similar to
patients having standard resection alone.79 Adequate lymphadenectomy at time of sur-
gery involved removal of regional lymph nodes with pancreaticoduodenectomy spec-
imen. The role of adjuvant therapy after margin-negative and node-negative resection
is unclear with most studies not demonstrating any clear advantage with adjuvant che-
moradiation or systemic chemotherapy compared with no adjuvant treatment.80 For pa-
tients with R1 resection and/or positive lymph nodes, there is a growing body of
literature that supports use of chemoradiation followed by chemotherapy or chemo-
therapy alone with modest improvement in disease-free and overall survival.79,80
Management of unresectable disease
For patients with unresectable or metastatic disease, gemcitabine and cisplatin-
based palliative systemic chemotherapy is generally recommended; however, median
survival in these patients is less than a year.79
 Cholangiocarcinoma 13

CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN THE LITERATURE

Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
Resection
Even with resection, 5-year survival in patients with IHCCA remains low and ranges from
10% to 49%.81,82 Tumor recurrence is common and occurs most frequently in the liver.
Recurrence rates are dependent on several factors, including resection margins, IHCCA
type (intraductal growth, mass forming, and periductal infiltrating), tumor size, tumor
multifocality, lymphovascular invasion, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, prognostic nutri-
tional index, elevated CA 19-9, and lymph node status18,19,29,83–87 (Box 1).
Margin status mattered most in patients with node-negative disease, and R1 resec-
tion was independently related with poor survival; however, in patients with node-
positive disease, margin status was not independently related to survival. In a study
of 212 patients who underwent resection for mass-forming CCA, median survival
was related to margin size.19 Most IHCCA recurrences occur in the first 2 years of
resection.29,36,82

Liver transplantation
For locally advanced IHCCA, LT has better outcomes than resection alone (5-year sur-
vival 33% vs 0% for resection), but transplant outcomes for late-stage tumors are
worse than transplant for comparable HCC.46,47 Outcomes for liver transplant for
IHCCA are mixed depending on the study and stage of the tumor. Early-stage IHCCA
(2 cm) has a better outcome following transplant that is consistent with outcomes
following transplant for HCC.44,47 One of the difficulties in comparing outcomes for pa-
tients undergoing LT for IHCCA is that many tumors are found retrospectively on
explant pathology, and also that patients receive varied amounts of neoadjuvant treat-
ment with either chemotherapy or liver-directed therapy. Table 4 summarizes post-
transplant outcomes from major studies reporting experience with LT for IHCCA.
There may be a benefit with HAIP placement in select patients ultimately leading to
resection, but overall prognosis of patients with unresectable IH CCA is very poor.52
Despite treatment with systemic chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and liver-directed
therapies, median overall survival is often less than 1 year for patients with unresect-
able disease.13

Box 1
Factors associated with recurrence and worse survival after resection for intrahepatic
cholangiocarcinoma

 Large tumor size >5 cm

 Tumor multifocality
 Higher TMN stage
 Lymph node metastases
 Lymphovascular invasion
 Margin status (R1 resection in node negative disease)
 Intraductal growth IHCCA type
 Elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio
 Low prognostic nutritional index
 Perineural invasion
 Elevated CA 19-9
14 Khan & Dageforde

Table 4
Select reports of outcomes after transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

5y
Number Recurrence Median Time to 1 y Survival Survival
Reference of Patients Rate (%) Recurrence (%) (%) (%)
Sapisochin et al,44 2014
All IHCCA 29 24.1 14.6 mo 79 45
Very Early Stage (single 8 0 100 73
tumor 2 cm)
Late Stage 21 36.4 71 34
Hong et al,98 2011 25 41 Not reported 52 (2 y) 32
Lee et al,47 2018
All IHCCA (included 44 36.4 Not reported 63.6 63.6
mixed IHCCA-HCC
tumors)
Early Stage 16 29.4 87.7 35.6
Late Stage 28 40.7 74.1 61.4
Lunsford et al,48 2018 6 50 7.6 mo 100 83.3

Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma
Resection
Median survival following resection is 11 to 38 months, and the 5-year survival gener-
ally ranges from 20% to 40%, with locoregional metastasis limiting long-term sur-
vival.26,30,56,71,88–92 Results from some of the largest-volume studies on PHCCA are
summarized in Table 5. One of the strongest determinants of survival is margin status,
and patients with positive BD margins have significantly worse survival compared with
patients with negative margins.29 Five-year survival among patients with R0 resection
is 27% to 45% compared with 0% to 23% for patients with R1/R2 resection.23,26,30,46
Even after margin-negative resections, recurrence rates range from 50% to 70%.26
Other factors associated with poor prognosis are regional lymph node metastases,
high-grade tumor, tumor depth, and tumor histology (nodular sclerosing vs papil-
lary).20,21,28,30 Prognosis without surgery is poor, with most patients living less than
a year from diagnosis.

Transplantation
A very small subset of patients with locally advanced unresectable PHCCA but
without lymph node or distant metastatic disease may be eligible for LT under insti-
tutional protocol using neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Outcomes in this small group of
highly selected individuals are promising with reported overall survival of 53% to

Table 5
Selected reports of outcomes after resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

Series, y N R0 Resection (%) 5-y Survival (%)

Cho et al,30 2012 105 70.5 34.1
Song et al,89 2013 230 76.5 33
de Jong et al,3 2012 305 73 20
Nuzzo et al,91 2012 440 77 25.5
Furusawa et al,92 2014 144 99 35
Yu et al,90 2014 238 50 17
 Cholangiocarcinoma 15

Table 6
Selected reports of postresection outcomes and poor prognostic factors for distal
cholangiocarcinoma

Number of Median 5-y Survival

Reference patients Survival (%) Poor Prognostic Factors
Kwon et al,94 2014 133 41 R2 margin
Lymphovascular invasion
High TNM stage
DeOliveira et al,97 2007 239 23 R1/R2 margin
Lymph node metastases
Tumor >2 cm
Poorly differentiated tumors
Murakami et al,96 2007 43 26 mo 44 Older age
Pathologic pancreatic invasion
Lymph node metastases
Perineural invasion
R1/R2 margin
TNM stage II and III
Hong et al,46 2009; 147 20.3 mo 18 Tumor depth >5 mm
Hong et al,98 2011

76% and disease-free survival of 60% to 65% at 5 years after LT.75,77,78 Posttrans-
plant outcomes are better in PSC patients compared with those with de novo
PHCCA.

Distal Cholangiocarcinoma
The median survival for patients who undergo resection for DCCA is approximately
2 years with a 5-year survival of 20% to 40% depending on extent of disease.80,93,94
Several studies have looked at prognostic factors for patients undergoing resection
for DCCA. Some of the commonly reported risk factors for cancer recurrence of poor
survival are positive resection margin (R1 or R2), positive lymph nodes, tumor
size >2 cm, and poorly differentiated tumors, perineural invasion, lymphovascular in-
vasion, pancreatic invasion, and depth of tumor invasion.80,93–98 Murakami and col-
leagues96 looked at their experience with resection margins and lymph node
involvement in resection specimens in 43 patients and reported significantly worse
5-year survival in patients with positive margins compared with negative margins
(8% vs 60%) and in patients with involved lymph nodes compared with patients
without lymph node involvement (18% vs 40%). Table 6 summarizes outcomes
and poor prognostic factors after resection for DCCA in several large studies. Me-
dian survival in patients with unresectable DCCA is poor with most patients living
less than a year after diagnosis.80

SUMMARY

CCA is the most common primary biliary malignancy and can arise in the IH or EH
biliary system. The prognosis is generally quite poor because many patients present
at an advanced stage where surgery is not an option. However, among patients
with resectable disease, surgery with negative margins offers the best chance of
cure. Margin status and locoregional lymph node metastases are the most important
determinants of postsurgical outcomes with increased risk of recurrence in patients
with positive BD margins or lymph node metastasis. A very small group of patients
16 Khan & Dageforde

with unresectable hilar CCA without spread to regional lymph nodes or distant sites
might benefit from LT when carried out under an institutional protocol involving neo-
adjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

REFERENCES

1. Tyson GL, El-Serag HB. Risk factors for cholangiocarcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol
Hepatol 2011;54:173–84.
2. Welzel TM, Graubard BI, El-Serag HB, et al. Risk factors for intrahepatic and
extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the Unites States: a population-based
case-control study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;5:1221–8.
3. de Jong MC, Marques H, Clary BM, et al. The impact of portal vein resection on
outcomes for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. A Multi-institutional analysis of 305
cases. Cancer 2012;118:4737–47.
4. Yang JD, Kim B, Sanderson SO, et al. Biliary tract cancers in Olmsted County,
Minnesota, 1976-2008. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107(8):1256–62.
5. Saha SK, Zhu AX, Fuchs CS, et al. Forty-year trends in cholangiocarcinoma inci-
dence in the U.S.: intrahepatic disease on the rise. Oncologist 2016;21(5):594–9.
6. LaRusso NF, Shneider BL, Black D, et al. Primary sclerosing cholangitis: sum-
mary of a workshop. Hepatol 2006;44:746–64.
7. Soreide K, Korner H, Havnen J, et al. Bile duct cysts in adults. Br J Surg 2004;91:
1538–48.
8. Blechacz BR, Gores GJ. Cholangiocarcinoma. Clin Liver Dis 2008;12:131–50.
9. Sorensen HT, Friis S, Olsen JH, et al. Risk of liver and other types of cancer in
patients with cirrhosis: a nationwide cohort study in Denmark. Hepatol 1998;28:
921–5.
10. Shahib YH, El-Serag HB, Davila JA, et al. Risk factors of intrahepatic cholangio-
carcinoma in the Unites States: a case-control study. Gastroenterology 2005;128:
620–6.
11. Kubo S, Kinoshita H, Hirohashi K, et al. Hepatolithiasis associated with cholangio-
carcinoma. World J Surg 1995;19:637–41.
12. Shin HR, Oh JK, Lim MK, et al. Descriptive epidemiology of cholangiocarcinoma
and clonorchiasis in Korea. J Korean Med Sci 2010;25:1011–6.
13. Bridgewater J, Galle PR, Khan SA, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and man-
agement of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol 2014;60(6):1268–89.
14. Palmer WC, Patel T. Are common factors involved in the pathogenesis of primary
liver cancers? A meta-analysis of risk factors for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
[review]. J Hepatol 2012;57(1):69–76 [Erratum in: J Hepatol 2012;57(5):1160].
15. O’Dell MR, Huang JL, Whitney-Miller CL, et al. Kras(G12D) and p53 mutation
cause primary intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Res 2012;72(6):
1557–67.
16. Farazi PA, Zeisberg M, Glickman J, et al. Chronic bile duct injury associated with
fibrotic matrix microenvironment provokes cholangiocarcinoma in p53-deficient
mice. Cancer Res 2006;66(13):6622–7.
17. Borger DR, Tanabe KK, Fan KC, et al. Frequent mutation of isocitrate dehydroge-
nase (IDH)1 and IDH2 in cholangiocarcinoma identified through broad-based tu-
mor genotyping. Oncologist 2012;17(1):72–9.
18. Bagante F, Weiss M, Alexandrescu S, et al. Long-term outcomes of patients with
intraductal growth sub-type of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. HPB (Oxford)
2018;20(12):1189–97.
 Cholangiocarcinoma 17

19. Farges O, Fuks D, Boleslawski E, et al. Influence of surgical margins on outcome

in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter study by the AFC-
IHCC-2009 study group. Ann Surg 2011;254(5):824–9 [discussion: 830].
20. Lidsky ME, Jarnagin WR. Surgical management of hilar cholangiocarcinoma at
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2018;2:304–12.
21. Poruk KE, Pawlik TM, Weiss MJ. Perioperative management of hilar cholangiocar-
cinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 2015;19(10):1889–99.
22. Isa T, Tomita S, Nakachi A, et al. Analysis of microsatellite instability, K-ras gene
mutation and p53 protein overexpression in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
Hepatogastroenterology 2002;49(45):604–8.
23. Mansour JC, Aloia TA, Crane CH, et al. Hilar cholangiocarcinoma: expert
consensus statement. HPB (Oxford) 2015;17:691–9.
24. Bismuth H, Corlette MB. Intrahepatic cholangioenteric anastomosis in carcinoma
of the hilus of liver. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1975;140:170–8.
25. Bismuth H, Nakache R, Diamond T. Management strategies in resection for hilar
cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg 1992;215(1):31–8.
26. Jarnagin WR, Fong Y, DeMatteo RP, et al. Staging, resectability, and outcome in
225 patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg 2001;234:507–17.
27. Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition
of AJCC cancer staging annual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;
17(6):1471–4.
28. de Jong MC, Hong SM, Augustine MM, et al. Hilar cholangiocarcinoma: tumor
depth as a predictor of outcome. Arch Surg 2011;146(6):697–703.
29. Endo I, Gonen M, Yopp AC, et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: rising fre-
quency, improved survival, and determinants of outcome after resection. Ann
Surg 2008;248(1):84–96.
30. Cho MS, Kim SH, Park SW. Surgical outcomes and predicting factors of curative
resection in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma: 10 year single-institution
experience. J Gastrointest Surg 2012;16(9):1672–9.
31. Valls C, Gumà A, Puig I, et al. Intrahepatic peripheral cholangiocarcinoma: CT
evaluation. Abdom Imaging 2000;25(5):490–6.
32. Choi BL, Lee JM, Han JK. Imaging of intrahepatic and hilar cholangiocarcinoma.
Abdom Imaging 2004;29(5):548–57.
33. Ni T, Shang XS, Wang WT, et al. Different MR features for differentiation of intra-
hepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma ac-
cording to tumor size. Br J Radiol 2018;91(1088):20180017.
34. Patel AH, Harnois DM, Klee GG, et al. The utility of CA 19-9 in the diagnoses of
cholangiocarcinoma in patients without primary sclerosing cholangitis. Am J Gas-
troenterol 2000;95(1):204–7.
35. Aloia TA, Charnasangavej C, Faria S, et al. High-resolution computed tomogra-
phy accurately predicts resectability in hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Am J Surg
2007;193:702–6.
36. Chen HW, Lai EC, Pan AZ, et al. Preoperative assessment and staging of hilar
cholangiocarcinoma with 16 multidetector-row computed tomograpy cholangiog-
raphy and angiography. Hepatogastroenterology 2009;56(91–92):578–83.
37. Chryssou E, Guthrie JA, Ward J, et al. Hilar cholangiocarcinoma: MR correlation
with surgical and histological findings. Clin Radiol 2010;65(10):781–8.
38. Breitenstein S, Apesteugi C, Clavien PA. Positron emission tomography (PET) for
cholangiocarcinoma. HPB (Oxford) 2008;10:120–1.
18 Khan & Dageforde

39. Tamada K, Ushio J, Sugano K. Endoscopic diagnosis of extrahepatic bile duct

carcinoma: advances and current limitations. World J Clin Oncol 2011;10(2):
203–16.
40. De Bellis M, Sherman S, Fogel EL, et al. Tissue sampleing at ERCP in suspected
malignant biliary strictures (Part 1). Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:552–61.
41. Silva MA, Tekin K, Aytekin F, et al. Surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a 10 year
experience of a tertiary referral center in the UK. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005;31(5):
633–9.
42. Park MS, Kim TK, Kim KW, et al. Differentiation of extrahepatic bile duct cholan-
giocarcinoma from benign stricture: findings at MRCP versus ERCP. Radiology
2004;233(1):234–40.
43. Heimbach KM, Sanchez W, Rosen CM, et al. Trans-peritoneal fine needle aspira-
tion biopsy of hilar cholangiocarcinoma is associated with disease dissemination.
HPB (Oxford) 2011;13:356–60.
44. Sapisochin G, Rodrı́guez de Lope C, Gastaca M, et al. “Very early” intrahepatic
cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhotic patients: should liver transplantation be reconsid-
ered in these patients? Am J Transplant 2014;14(3):660–7.
45. Sapisochin G, de Lope CR, Gastaca M, et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or
mixed hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma in patients undergoing liver transplan-
tation: a Spanish matched cohort multicenter study. Ann Surg 2014;259(5):
944–52.
46. Hong JC, Jones CM, Duffy JP, et al. Comparative analysis of resection and liver
transplantation for intrahepatic and hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a 24-year experi-
ence in a single center. Arch Surg 2011;146(6):683–9.
47. Lee DD, Croome KP, Musto KR, et al. Liver transplantation for intrahepatic chol-
angiocarcinoma. Liver Transpl 2018;24(5):634–44.
48. Lunsford KE, Javle M, Heyne K, et al. Methodist–MD Anderson Joint Cholangio-
carcinoma Collaborative Committee (MMAJCCC). Liver transplantation for locally
advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant therapy: a
prospective case-series. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;3(5):337–48
[Erratum in: Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;3(6):e3].
49. Valle J, Wasan H, Palmer DH, et al. ABC-02 Trial Investigators. Cisplatin plus
gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;
362(14):1273–81.
50. Verma V, Kusi Appiah A, Lautenschlaeger T, et al. Chemoradiotherapy versus
chemotherapy alone for unresected intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: practice
patterns and outcomes from the national cancer database. J Gastrointest Oncol
2018;9(3):527–35.
51. Shao F, Qi W, Meng FT, et al. Role of palliative radiotherapy in unresectable intra-
hepatic cholangiocarcinoma: population-based analysis with propensity score
matching. Cancer Manag Res 2018;10:1497–506.
52. Konstantinidis IT, Groot Koerkamp B, Do RK, et al. Unresectable intrahepatic
cholangiocarcinoma: Systemic plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy is
associated with longer survival in comparison with systemic chemotherapy alone.
Cancer 2016;122(5):758–65.
53. Kolarich AR, Shah JL, George TJ Jr, et al. Non-surgical management of patients
with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the United States, 2004-2015: an NCDB
analysis. J Gastrointest Oncol 2018;9(3):536–45.
54. Rayar M, Sulpice L, Edeline J, et al. Intra-arterial yttrium-90 radioembolization
combined with systemic chemotherapy is a promising method for downstaging
 Cholangiocarcinoma 19

unresectable huge intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma to surgical treatment. Ann

Surg Oncol 2015;22(9):3102–8.
55. Shaker TM, Chung C, Varma MK, et al. Is there a role for Ytrrium-90 in the treat-
ment of unresectable and metastatic intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma? Am J
Surg 2018;215(3):467–70.
56. Kobayashi A, Miwa S, Nakata T, et al. Disease recurrence patterns after R0 resec-
tion of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Br J Surg 2010;97:56–64.
57. Abdalla EK, Adam R, Bilchik AJ, et al. Improving resectability of hepatic colo-
rectal metastases: expert consensus statement. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:
1271–80.
58. Khan AS, Garcia-Aroz S, Ansari MA, et al. Assessment and optimization of liver
volume before major hepatic resection: current guidelines and a narrative review.
Int J Surg 2018;52:74–81.
59. Gazzaniga GM, Cappato S, Belli FE, et al. Assessment of hepatic reserve for the
indication of hepatic resection: how I do it. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2005;
12:27–30.
60. Abdalla E. Portal vein embolization (prior to major hepatectomy) effects on regen-
eration, resectability and outcome. J Surg Oncol 2010;102:960–7.
61. Worni M, Shah KN, Clary BM. Colorectal cancer with potentially resectable hepat-
ic metastases: optimizing treatment. Curr Oncol Rep 2014;16:407.
62. Shindoh J, Vauthey JN, Zimmitti G. Analysis of the efficacy of portal vein embo-
lization for patients with extensive liver malignancy and very low future liver
remnant volume, including a comparison with the associating liver partition with
portal vein ligation for stated hepatectomy approach. J Am Coll Surg 2013;217:
126–33.
63. Abulkhir A, Limongelli P, Healey AJ, et al. Preoperative portal vein embolization
for major liver resection: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2008;247:49–57.
64. Ribero D, Abdalla EK, Madoff DC, et al. Portal vein embolization before major
hepatectomy and its effect on regeneration, resectability and outcome. Br J
Surg 2007;94:1386–94.
65. Nimura Y. Preoperative biliary drainage before resection for cholangiocarcinoma
(Pro). HPB (Oxford) 2008;10:130–3.
66. Iacono C, Ruzzenente A, Campagnaro T, et al. Role of preoperative biliary
drainage in jaundiced patients who are candidates for pancreatoduodenectomy
or hepatic resection: highlights and drawbacks. Ann Surg 2013;257:191–204.
67. Kennedy TJ, Yopp A, Qin Y, et al. Role of preoperative biliary drainage of liver
remnant prior to extended liver resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. HPB (Ox-
ford) 2009;11:445–51.
68. Laurent A, Taylor C, Cherqui D. Cholangiocarcinoma: preoperative biliary
drainage (Con). HPB (Oxford) 2008;10:126–9.
69. Bird N, Elmasry M, Jones R, et al. Role of staging laparoscopy in the stratification
of patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Br J Surg 2017;104:418–25.
70. Melendez JA, Arslan V, Fischer ME, et al. Perioperative outcomes of major hepat-
ic resections under low central venous pressure anesthesia: blood loss, blood
transfusion and the risk of postoperatiec renal dysfunction. J Am Coll Surg
1998;187:620–5.
71. Abbas S, Sandroussi C. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of
vascular resection in the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. HPB (Oxford)
2013;15:492–503.
72. Kim TH, Han SS, Park SJ, et al. Role of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resected
extrahepatic biliary tract cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011l;81:e853–9.
20 Khan & Dageforde

73. Borghero Y, Crane CH, Szklaruk J, et al. Extrahepatic bile duct adenocarcinoma:
patients at high risk for local recurrence treated with surgery and adjuvant che-
moradiation have an equivalent overall survival to patients with standard-risk
treated with surgery alone. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15:3147–56.
74. Shimoda M, Farmer DG, Colquhoun SD, et al. Liver transplantation for cholangio-
cellular carcinoma: analysis of a single center experience and review of literature.
Liver Transpl 2001;7(12):1023–33.
75. Heimbach JK, Haddock MG, Alberts SR, et al. Transplantation for hilar cholangio-
carcinoma. Liver Transpl 2004;10(suppl.2):65–8.
76. Rea DJ, Heimbach JM, Rosen CB, et al. Liver transplantation with neoadjuvant
chemoradiation is more effective trhan resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma.
Ann Surg 2005;242:451–8.
77. Rosen CB, Heimbach JK, Gores GJ. Liver transplantation for cholangiocarci-
noma. Transpl Int 2010;23(7):692–7.
78. Murad SW, Kim WR, Harnoid DM, et al. Efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiation
followed by liver transplantation, for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma at 12 US cen-
ters. Gastroenterology 2012;143:88–98.e3.
79. Chua TC, Saxena A. Extended pancreaticoduodenectomy with vascular resec-
tion for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 2010;14(9):
1442–52.
80. Dickson PV, Behrman SW. Distal cholangiocarcinoma. Surg Clin North Am 2014;
94:325–42.
81. de Jong MC, Nathan H, Sotiropoulos GC, et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma:
an international multi-institutional analysis of prognostic factors and lymph node
assessment. J Clin Oncol 2011;29(23):3140–5.
82. Conci S, Ruzzenente A, Viganò L, et al. Patterns of distribution of hepatic nodules
(single, satellites or multifocal) in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: prognostic
impact after surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2018;25(12):3719–27.
83. Farges O, Fuks D, Le Treut YP, et al. AJCC 7th edition of TNM staging accurately
discriminates outcomes of patients with resectable intrahepatic cholangiocarci-
noma: by the AFC-IHCC-2009 study group. Cancer 2011;117(10):2170–7.
84. Buettner S, Spolverato G, Kimbrough CW, et al. The impact of neutrophil-to-
lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio among patients with intrahe-
patic cholangiocarcinoma. Surgery 2018;164(3):411–8.
85. Hyder O, Hatzaras I, Sotiropoulos GC, et al. Recurrence after operative manage-
ment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Surgery 2013;153(6):811–8.
86. Choi SB, Kim KS, Choi JY, et al. The prognosis and survival outcome of intrahe-
patic cholangiocarcinoma following surgical resection: association of lymph node
metastasis and lymph node dissection with survival. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;
16(11):3048–56.
87. Ribero D, Pinna AD, Guglielmi A, et al, Italian Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
Study Group. Surgical Approach for Long-term Survival of Patients With Intrahe-
patic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Multi-institutional Analysis of 434 Patients. Arch
Surg 2012;147(12):1107–13.
88. Lee SG, Song GW, Hwang S, et al. Surgical treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma
in the new era: the Asan experience. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2010;17:
476–89.
89. Song SC, Choi DW, Kow AWC, et al. Surgical outcomes f 230 resected hilar chol-
angiocarcinoma in a single center. ANZ J Surg 2013;83:268–74.
 Cholangiocarcinoma 21

90. Yu W, Shao, Gu Z, et al. Effect evaluation of vascular resection for patients with
hilar cholangiocarcinoma: original data and meta-analysis. Hepatogastroenterol-
ogy 2014;61(130):307–13.
91. Nuzzo G, Giuliante F, Ardito F, et al. Improvement in perioperative and long-term
outcome after surgical treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: results of an Italian
multicenter analysis of 440 patients. Arch Surg 2012;147(1):26–34.
92. Furusawa N, Kobayashi A, Yokoyama T, et al. Surgical treatment of 144 cases of
hilar cholangiocarcinoma without liver-related mortality. World J Surg 2014;38(5):
1164–76.
93. Distal bile duct. In: Edge SB, Byrd DR, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th
edition. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 227–33.
94. Kwon HJ, Kim SG, Chun JM, et al. Prognostic factors in patients with middle and
distal bile duct cancers. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20(21):6658–65.
95. Lim KH, Oh DY, Chie EK, et al. Adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation therapy
(CCRT) alone versus CCRT followed by adjuvant chemotherapy: which is better
in patients with radically resected extrahepatic biliary tract cancer? A non-
randomized single center study. BMC Cancer 2009;9:345.
96. Murakami Y, Uemura K, Hayashidani Y, et al. Prognostic significance of lymph
node metastasis and surgical margin status for distal chaolangiocarcinoma.
J Surg Oncol 2007;95(3):207–12.
97. DeOliveira ML, Cunningam SC, Camreon JL, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma: thirty-
one year experience with 564 patients at a single institution. Ann Surg 2007;
245(5):755–62.
98. Hong SM, Pawlik TM, Cho HJ, et al. Depth of tumor invasion better predicts prog-
nosis than the current American Joint Committee on Cancer T classification for
distal bile duct carcinoma. Surgery 2009;146(2):250–7.