Journal List > Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg > v.27(3) > 1516083695

Bajracharya, Shrestha, Kim, Nahm, Park, and Park: Retrospective analysis of 8th edition American Joint Cancer Classification: Distal cholangiocarcinoma

Abstract

Backgrounds/Aims

This is a retrospective analysis of whether the 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) was a significant improvement over the 7th AJCC distal extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma classification.

Methods

In total, 111 patients who underwent curative resection of mid-distal bile duct cancer from 2002 to 2019 were included. Cases were re-classified into 7th and 8th AJCC as well as clinicopathological univariate and multivariate, and Kaplan-Meier survival curve and log rank were calculated using R software.

Results

In patient characteristics, pancreaticoduodenectomy/pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy had better survival than segmental resection. Only lymphovascular invasion was found to be significant (hazard ratio 2.01, p = 0.039) among all clinicopathological variables. The 8th edition AJCC Kaplan Meier survival curve showed an inability to properly segregate stage I and IIA, while there was a large difference in survival probability between IIA and IIB.

Conclusions

The 8th distal AJCC classification did resolve the anatomical issue with the T stage, as T1 and T3 showed improvement over the 7th AJCC, and the N stage division of the N1 and N2 category was found to be justified, with poorer survival in N2 than N1. Meanwhile, in TMN staging, the 8th AJCC was able differentiate between early stage (I and IIA) and late stage (IIB and III) to better explain the patient prognosis.

INTRODUCTION

Cholangiocarcinoma is a cluster of tumors that can be classified into three clinical types: intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal. Cases of cholangiocarcinoma have been increasing worldwide. Currently, these tumors account for 15% of all primary liver cancers and less than 3% of gastrointestinal malignancies [1]. Unfortunately, the early stage of this cancer is typically asymptomatic, which leads to late diagnosis and higher rates of morbidity and mortality.
In the last decade, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) has made several revisions to the distal cholangiocarcinoma classification. In 2017, the 8th edition the AJCC proposed an alternative method of TNM staging. This classification measured the depth of tumor invasion from the basal lamina of the adjacent normal epithelium to the deepest infiltrating tumor cells. The lymph node classification was also changed: N0 means no metastasis is noted in the examined lymph nodes, N1 means metastasis in 1 to 3 regional lymph node(s), and N2 means metastasis in ≥ 4 regional lymph nodes (Table 1). These changes enabled a more objective diagnosis and thus assisted in finding an improved method of the treatment outcome for this cancer. This study focuses on the efficacy of the 8th version of AJCC staging against the 7th edition in the prediction of prognosis of patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study population

All cases of surgically resected primary distal cholangiocarcinoma were collected between May 2002 and March 2019 from a hospital database. The information on the 115 patients that was collected in this way was reclassified into TNM according to the 7th and 8th edition classifications. We excluded four patients with inadequate data on depth, margins, lymph node status, and perineural invasion (PNI). Hence, a total of 111 patient cases were ultimately considered to be suitable for this study.
The informed consent was waived by Gangnam Severance Hospital IRB (No. 3-2019-0282).

Clinical variables

The clinical variables for the selected cases were age, sex, preoperative bile drainage, operation type, complications, postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy or concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT), tumor size, tumor differentiation, portal vein invasion, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), PNI, tumor invasion depth, positive lymph node count, and tumor stage as per the 7th and 8th editions of the AJCC classifications (Table 2).

Statistical analysis

For statistical analyses, the R software was used. The univariate and multivariate cox proportional hazard model was used to analyze various clinicopathological factors, and a p-value < 0.05 was considered to denote statistical significance. The life table, the Kaplan-Meier curve, and the log rank test were used to compare the 7th and 8th AJCC TNM staging.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics

Out of 111 cases, 69 patients were male and 42 were female, and the mean age during the surgery was 68 years. Of all 111 patients, 96 underwent a drainage procedure prior to their surgery. The most common drainage was endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD/ENBD), which was done for 72 of the patients.
Pyloric preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD) was performed in 95 patients. Most patient had G2 histological differentiation (adenocarcinoma, moderately differentiated), 29 patients had LVI positive and 77 patients had PNI positive on final histopathology report. Postoperatively adjuvant treatment with either chemotherapy or CCRT was conducted in 47 of the patients that were enrolled in the study.

Stage reclassification from the 7th edition to the 8th edition

After reclassification from the 7th edition to 8th edition AJCC, 40 patients were in stage I, 40 were in stage IIA, 21 were in stage IIB, 40 were in stage IIIA, and none were in either stage IIB or stage IV (Table 3).

Comparison of Kaplan-Meier survival according to the different variables

The stage grouping of the 8th edition was found to be a stronger predictor of long-term outcome (p < 0.0001) (Fig. 1C). In terms of the Kaplan-Meier survival curve pairwise comparisons, the 5year patient survival at 30, 45, and 60 months was similar between patients in stages I and IIA; in a comparison of stage IIA and IIB, the survival of IIA patients was drastically better than IIB survival, and for IIIA, more than 80% of patients did not survive beyond 12 months. The total percentages of patient survival at 5 years were 30%, 30%, 9.5%, and 0% for patients with tumors at stages I, IIA, IIB, and IIIA, accordingly (Fig. 1C).
Upon analyzing the previous 7th AJCC model tumor staging, the results were statistically significant at p < 0.0001. At the end of 5 years, there were 4 patients with stage IA tumors who survived, 12 with stage IB, 5 with stage IIA, 6 with stage IIB, and no survivors with stage III after 10 months (Fig. 1, 2).

Univariate analysis of factors associated with overall survival

In the univariate model, females were found to be at more risk than males, and patients who were over 70 years were also at a higher risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, p = 0.717). Another high-risk factor was patients who underwent combined drainage rather than other drainage procedures (HR 6.07, p = 0.050), and PD/PPPD surgery had better survival rates than segmental resection surgery. Similarly, G3 grade tumors had bad prognosis compared to G2 and G1 grade tumors, while LVI present at final histopathology was found to be higher risk (HR 2.01, p = 0.039) in a statistically significant finding (Table 4).

Univariate analysis of T and N staging according to 7th and 8th AJCC

According to the 7th AJCC edition, T2 patients were 3.5 times more at risk than T1 patients whereas T3 patients were 5 times more at risk than T1 patients. Meanwhile, in the 8th AJCC edition, T2 patients had 50% more risk than T1 patients (HR 1.49, p = 0.245), and T3 was 8 times more at risk than T1 patients (HR 8.43, p < 0.001). There were no T4 patients in our study (Table 4).
The results of the univariate model showed 5-year survival of 8th stage N1 (HR 3.38, p < 0.001) N2 (HR 6.08, p < 0.001), and 7th N staging model N1 (HR 3.93, p < 0.001).

Multivariate analysis of T and N staging 7th and 8th AJCC

In the 7th AJCC, 5-years survival showed T2 (HR 2.56, p = 0.213), T3 (HR 3.73, p = 0.082), and N1 (HR 3.20, p < 0.001) compared to 8th AJCC T2 (HR 1.34, p = 0.391), T3 (HR 3.90, p = 0.025), N1 (HR 3.10, p = 0.001), and N2 (HR 4.36, p = 0.003) (Table 5).

DISCUSSION

Previous research proved that the 7th AJCC classification for distal cholangiocarcinoma had inadequate T staging [2]. That combined with the lack of a precise histological definition of the bile duct anatomy [3] led to the creation of the 8th AJCC classification. The 8th edition’s advantage in terms of T classification is that it eliminates the subjectivity in determining the edge of invasion by using histological means and the variability of tissue constituents around the bile duct [3-5]. It also helped elucidate the prognosis of the patients and create a tailor-made treatment regimen for them.
In this analysis, only the LVI in the final histopathology report was found to be statistically significant in terms of p-value, whereas other variables (age, sex, drainage, portal/superior mesenteric vein resection, operation performed, histological differences, PNI, complication, and postoperative treatment) showed increased HR, but were not statistically significant in terms of p-value.
When the Kaplan-Meier survival curve was chartered, T1 and T3 and N stage of 8th AJCC all showed better patient survival probability than 7th AJCC, but T2 of the 7th edition was found to have a better survival rate than the 8th edition. While the 8th stage Kaplan-Meier survival analysis shows stage I and IIA having nearly the same survival months, at between 30 months to 60 months. Meanwhile, stage I survival probability was lower than that of stage IIA at the end of 5 years. There was a huge survival difference between IIA and IIB. While there have been multiple studies in recent years in T and N categories from the 8th edition of AJCC staging to predict patient prognosis [6], tumor depth was a better indicator than if anatomically confined to bile duct or spread [5,7], and dual organ invasion is associated with a lower survival rate than single organ invasion in a distal duct cancer study [8]. Reappraisals of the classification of distal cholangiocarcinoma are based on tumor depth [9] or a proposed modification of staging for distal cholangiocarcinoma based on lymph node ration using the Korean multicenter database [10], which sought to validate or suggest necessary changes in the 8th AJCC.
In our retrospective analysis, the 8th AJCC classification did resolve the anatomical issue within the T stage, and there were also improvements in T1 and T3. The N stage division of the N1 and N2 category was justified as there was poorer survival probability in N2 than N1. Meanwhile, in TMN staging, the 8th AJCC was able to differentiate between early stage (I and IIA) and late stage (IIB and III) to better explain the patient prognosis. However, the similarity between the Kaplan-Meier survival curve after 30 months in stage I and IIA and the big disparity in the survival curve between IIA and IIB suggests that the 8th AJCC edition still requires another revision.
It is to be duly noted that this paper has limitations, as this case study was conducted with data collected from a single institution that had 111 viable cases. A much larger multi-institution or multi-national study with a higher number of cases and a longer follow-up period with the inclusion of an unresected T4 group would be ideal for a stronger statistical study.

Notes

FUNDING

None.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization: JSP. Data curation: ADB, KP. Methodology: SS, JHN. Visualization: HSK. Writing - original draft: ADB. Writing - review & editing: JSP.

REFERENCES

1. Banales JM, Marin JJG, Lamarca A, Rodrigues PM, Khan SA, Roberts LR, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma 2020: the next horizon in mechanisms and management. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020; 17:557–588. DOI: 10.1038/s41575-020-0310-z. PMID: 32606456. PMCID: PMC7447603.
2. Postlewait LM, Ethun CG, Le N, Pawlik TM, Buettner S, Poultsides G, et al. 2016; Proposal for a new T-stage classification system for distal cholangiocarcinoma: a 10-institution study from the U.S. Extrahepatic Biliary Malignancy Consortium. HPB (Oxford). 18:793–799. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2016.07.009. PMID: 27506989. PMCID: PMC5061021.
3. Hong SM, Pawlik TM, Cho H, Aggarwal B, Goggins M, Hruban RH, et al. 2009; Depth of tumor invasion better predicts prognosis than the current American Joint Committee on Cancer T classification for distal bile duct carcinoma. Surgery. 146:250–257. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.02.023. PMID: 19628081. PMCID: PMC3402913.
4. Hong SM, Cho H, Moskaluk CA, Yu E. 2007; Measurement of the invasion depth of extrahepatic bile duct carcinoma: an alternative method overcoming the current T classification problems of the AJCC staging system. Am J Surg Pathol. 31:199–206. DOI: 10.1097/01.pas.0000213384.25042.86. PMID: 17255764.
5. Moon A, Choi DW, Choi SH, Heo JS, Jang KT. 2015; Validation of T stage according to depth of invasion and N stage subclassification based on number of metastatic lymph nodes for distal extrahepatic bile duct (EBD) carcinoma. Medicine (Baltimore). 94:e2064. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002064. PMID: 26683915. PMCID: PMC5058887.
6. Jun SY, Sung YN, Lee JH, Park KM, Lee YJ, Hong SM. 2019; Validation of the Eighth American Joint Committee on cancer staging system for distal bile duct carcinoma. Cancer Res Treat. 51:98–111. DOI: 10.4143/crt.2017.595. PMID: 29510611. PMCID: PMC6333967.
7. Min KW, Kim DH, Son BK, Kim EK, Ahn SB, Kim SH, et al. 2017; Invasion depth measured in millimeters is a predictor of survival in patients with distal bile duct cancer: decision tree approach. World J Surg. 41:232–240. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-016-3687-7. PMID: 27549598.
8. Min KW, Kim DH, Son BK, Moon KM, Kim EK, Oh YH, et al. 2018; Author correction: dual-organ invasion is associated with a lower survival rate than single-organ invasion in distal bile duct cancer: a multicenter study. Sci Rep. 8:12230. Erratum for: Sci Rep 2018;8:10826. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-30161-x. PMID: 30097619. PMCID: PMC6086837.
9. Aoyama H, Ebata T, Hattori M, Takano M, Yamamoto H, Inoue M, et al. 2018; Reappraisal of classification of distal cholangiocarcinoma based on tumour depth. Br J Surg. 105:867–875. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10869. PMID: 29688585.
10. You Y, Shin YC, Choi DW, Heo JS, Shin SH, Kim N, et al. 2020; Proposed modification of staging for distal cholangiocarcinoma based on the lymph node ratio using Korean multicenter database. Cancers (Basel). 12:762. DOI: 10.3390/cancers12030762. PMID: 32213853. PMCID: PMC7140100.

Fig. 1
Kaplan-Meier survival curve according to 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging (n = 111): (A) T staging, (B) N staging, and (C) Kaplan-Meier survival staging. In the 8th Kaplan-Meier survival staging shows an intercrossing of I and IIA in 30 months onward with similar survival till 5 years with a huge gap between IIB and IIIA.
ahbps-27-3-251-f1.tif
Fig. 2
Kaplan-Meier survival curve according to 7th American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging (n = 111): (A) T staging, (B) N staging. (C) In the 7th Kaplan-Meier survival curve, IA and IB were closely graphed with stage III poor survival.
ahbps-27-3-251-f2.tif
Table 1
American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) distal cholangiocarcinoma
AJCC 7th edition AJCC 8th edition
T category (pT)
T1 tumor confined to the bile duct histologically T1 depth of invasion < 5 mm
T2 tumor invades beyond the wall of the bile duct T2 depth of invasion 5–12 mm
T3 tumor invades gallbladder, pancreas, duodenum or other adjacent organs without involvement of celiac axis or superior mesenteric artery T3 depth of invasion > 12 mm
T4 tumor involves celiac axis, superior mesenteric artery and/or common hepatic artery T4 involves the celiac axis, or the superior mesenteric artery
N category (pN)
N0 no regional lymph node metastasis N0 no regional lymph node metastasis
N1 regional lymph node metastasis N1 metastasis in 1–3 regional lymph nodes
N2 metastasis in 4 regional lymph nodes
Table 2
Patient characteristics (n = 111)
Data Differentiation Total no. Percentage (%)
Age (yr) < 70 55 49.5
≥ 70 56 50.5
Sex Male 69 62.2
Female 42 37.8
Method of bile drainage before surgery No drainage 17 15.3
ERBD/ENBD 72 64.9
PTBD 18 16.2
Combined 4 3.6
Operation type PD/PPPDa) 95 85.6
Segmental resection 16 14.4
Histological differences G1 20 18.0
G2 71 64.0
G3 20 18.0
Portal vein resection Yes 12 10.8
No 99 89.2
Lymphovascular invasion Yes 29 26.1
No 82 73.9
Perineural invasion Yes 77 69.4
No 34 30.6
Complications Yes 35 31.5
No 76 68.5
Postoperative adjuvant chemo/CCRT No 64 57.7
Yes 47 42.3
T stage (7th AJCC) T1 17 15.3
T2 44 39.6
T3 50 45.0
N stage (7th AJCC) N0 75 67.6
N1 36 32.4
T stage (8th AJCC) T1 47 42.3
T2 55 49.5
T3 9 8.1
N stage (8th AJCC) N0 75 67.6
N1 25 22.5
N2 11 9.9

ERBD, endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage; ENBD, endoscopic nasobiliary drainage; PTBD, percutaneous transhepatic bile drainage; PD, pancreaticoduodenectomy; PPPD, pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiation therapy; AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer.

a)Total pancreatectomy was included for convenient statistical analysis (n = 1).

Table 3
Staging wise reclassification from 7th edition to 8th edition (n = 111)
Staging 8th AJCC

I IIA IIB IIIA IIIB Total
7th AJCC
IA 13 3 16
IB 19 15 34
IIA 7 13 2 22
IIB 1 9 18 10 38
III 1 1
Total 40 40 21 10 111

AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer.

Table 4
Univariable analysis of factors associated with overall survival (n = 111)
Variable Categorization Univariable analysis

HR (95% CI) p-value
Sex Female 1
Male 0.84 (0.43–1.63) 0.607
Age (yr) < 70 1
≥ 70 1.12 (0.60–2.08) 0.717
Drainage No drainage 1
ERBD/ENBD 2.35 (0.71–7.73) 0.157
PTBD 2.17 (0.54–8.70) 0.271
Combined 6.07 (0.99–37.15) 0.050
Operation type PD/PPPD 1
Segmental resection 1.32 (0.61–2.88) 0.473
Histological differences G1 1
G2 1.99 (0.76–5.17) 0.156
G3 2.28 (0.72–7.20) 0.160
Portal vein resection Yes 1
No 0.76 (0.26–2.15) 0.606
Lymphovascular invasion No 1
Yes 2.01 (1.03–3.92) 0.039
Perineural invasion No 1
Yes 1.93 (0.92–4.08) 0.081
Complication Yes 1
No 0.78 (0.40-1.49) 0.2456
Postoperative treatment No 1
Yes 1.69 (0.9–3.1) 0.096
T stage (7th AJCC) T1 1
T2 3.51 (0.81–15.21) 0.090
T3 5.89 (1.38–25.18) 0.016
N stage (7th AJCC) N0 1
N1 3.93 (2.09–7.38) < 0.001
T stage (8th AJCC) T1 1
T2 1.49 (0.75–2.93) 0.245
T3 8.43 (2.79–25.48) < 0.001
N stage (8th AJCC) N0 1
N1 3.38 (1.68–6.78) < 0.001
N2 6.08 (2.47–14.91) < 0.001

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ERBD, endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage; ENBD, endoscopic nasobiliary drainage; PTBD, percutaneous transhepatic bile drainage; PD, pancreaticoduodenectomy; PPPD, pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy; AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer.

Table 5
Multivariable analysis of factors associated with overall survival (n = 111)
Variable Categorization 7th AJCC staging 8th AJCC staging


HR (95% CI) p-value HR (95% CI) p-value
T stage (7th AJCC) T1 1
T2 2.56 (0.58–11.32) 0.213
T3 3.73 (0.84–16.53) 0.082
N stage (7th AJCC) N0 1
N1 3.20 (1.68–6.11) < 0.001
T stage (8th AJCC) T1 1
T2 1.34 (0.68–2.66) 0.391
T3 3.90 (1.18–12.84) 0.025
N stage (8th AJCC) N0 1
N1 3.10 (1.53–6.29) 0.001
N2 4.36 (1.60–11.83) 0.003

AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

TOOLS
Similar articles