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.

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.

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.