Stage Evaluation of Cystic Duct Cancer
- Author:
Yeseul KIM
1
;
You-Na SUNG
;
Haesung JUNG
;
Kyung Jin LEE
;
Daegwang YOO
;
Sun-Young JUN
;
HyungJun CHO
;
Shin HWANG
;
Woohyung LEE
;
Seung-Mo HONG
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Cancer Research and Treatment 2025;57(2):528-538
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Purpose:Cystic duct cancers (CDCs) have been classified as extrahepatic bile duct cancers or gallbladder cancers (GBCs); however, it is unclear whether their clinical behavior is similar to that of distal extrahepatic bile duct cancers (DBDCs) or GBCs.
Materials and Methods:T category of the CDCs was classified using current T category scheme of the GBCs and DBDCs, and clinicopathological factors were compared among 38 CDCs, 345 GBCs, and 349 DBDCs. We modified Nakata’s classifications (type 1, confined within cystic duct [CD]; combined types 2-4, extension beyond CD) and compared them.
Results:No significant overall survival (OS) difference was observed between the patients with CDC, GBC, and DBDC. The T category of GBC staging was more accurate at distinguishing OS in patients with CDC than the DBDC staging. Patients with T3 CDC and GBC showed a significant OS difference when using the T category for GBC staging, while those with T1-T2 CDC and GBC showed no significant difference. In contrast, the T category of DBDC staging did not show any significant OS difference between patients with T1-T2 CDC and DBDC or T3 CDC and DBDC. Patients with type 1 CDC had significantly better OS than those with combined types.
Conclusion:Unlike GBCs and DBDCs, CDCs exhibit distinct clinicopathological characteristics. The OS is better when the CDC confines within the CD, compared to when it extends beyond it. Therefore, we propose a new T category scheme (T1, confined to CD; T2, invaded beyond CD) for better classifying CDCs.
