Purpose To identify factors associated with outcome after surgical management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and examine the impact of lymph node (LN) assessment on survival. Patients and Methods From an international multi-institutional database, 449 patients who underwent surgery for ICC between 1973 and 2010 were identified. Clinical and pathologic data were evaluated using uni- and multivariate analyses. Results Median tumor size was 6.5 cm. Most patients had a solitary tumor (73%) and no vascular invasion (69%). Median survival was 27 months, and 5-year survival was 31%. Factors associated with adverse prognosis included positive margin status (hazard ratio [HR], 2.20; P < .001), multiple lesions (HR, 1.80; P = .001), and vascular invasion (HR, 1.59; P = .015). Tumor size was not a prognostic factor (HR, 1.03; P = .23). Patients were stratified using the American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer T1, T2a, and T2b categories (seventh edition) in a discrete step-wise fashion (P < .001). Lymphadenectomy was performed in 248 patients (55%); 74 of these (30%) had LN metastasis. LN metastasis was associated with worse outcome (median survival: N0, 30 months v N1, 24 months; P = .03). Although patients with no LN metastasis were able to be stratified by tumor number and vascular invasion (N0; P < .001), among patients with N1 disease, multiple tumors and vascular invasion, either alone or together, failed to discriminate patients into discrete prognostic groups (P = .34). Conclusion Although tumor size provides no prognostic information, tumor number, vascular invasion, and LN metastasis were associated with survival. N1 status adversely affected overall survival and also influenced the relative effect of tumor number and vascular invasion on prognosis. Lymphadenectomy should be strongly considered for ICC, because up to 30% of patients will have LN metastasis.

No abstract

Purpose The current epidemic of prescription opioid misuse has increased scrutiny of postoperative opioid prescribing. Some 6% to 8% of opioid-naïve patients undergoing noncancer procedures develop new persistent opioid use; however, it is unknown if a similar risk applies to patients with cancer. We sought to define the risk of new persistent opioid use after curative-intent surgery, identify risk factors, and describe changes in daily opioid dose over time after surgery. Methods Using a national data set of insurance claims, we identified patients with cancer undergoing curative-intent surgery from 2010 to 2014. We included melanoma, breast, colorectal, lung, esophageal, and hepato-pancreato-biliary/gastric cancer. Primary outcomes were new persistent opioid use (opioid-naïve patients who continued filling opioid prescriptions 90 to 180 days after surgery) and daily opioid dose (evaluated monthly during the year after surgery). Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for new persistent opioid use. Results A total of 68,463 eligible patients underwent curative-intent surgery and filled opioid prescriptions. Among opioid-naïve patients, the risk of new persistent opioid use was 10.4% (95% CI, 10.1% to 10.7%). One year after surgery, these patients continued filling prescriptions with daily doses similar to chronic opioid users ( P = .05), equivalent to six tablets per day of 5-mg hydrocodone. Those receiving adjuvant chemotherapy had modestly higher doses ( P = .002), but patients with no chemotherapy still had doses equivalent to five tablets per day of 5-mg hydrocodone. Across different procedures, the covariate-adjusted risk of new persistent opioid use in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was 15% to 21%, compared with 7% to 11% for those with no chemotherapy. Conclusion New persistent opioid use is a common iatrogenic complication in patients with cancer undergoing curative-intent surgery. This problem requires changes to prescribing guidelines and patient counseling during the surveillance and survivorship phases of care.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/International Union Against Cancer (UICC) staging system for liver cancer is based on data exclusively derived from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients and thus may be inappropriate for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). We sought to empirically derive an ICC staging system from population-based data on patients with ICC. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to identify 598 patients who underwent surgery for ICC between 1988 and 2004. The discriminative abilities of the AJCC/UICC liver cancer and two Japanese ICC staging systems were evaluated. Independent predictors of survival were identified using Cox proportional hazards models. A staging system for ICC was then derived based on these analyses. The AJCC/UICC T classification system failed to adequately stratify the T2 and T3 cohorts due to tumor size >5 cm not being a relevant prognostic factor [hazard ratio (HR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-1.30]. In contrast, presence of multiple lesions (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.01-2.01) or vascular invasion (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.10-2.12) predicted adverse prognosis. Based on these findings, an ICC staging system was developed that omits tumor size. This system showed no loss of prognostic discrimination compared with the AJCC/UICC system and significant superiority over the Japanese systems. We conclude that the AJCC/UICC liver cancer staging system fails to stratify ICC patients adequately and inappropriately includes tumor size. We propose a staging system specifically developed for ICC based on number of tumors, vascular invasion, lymph node status, and presence of metastatic disease.