胆管癌诊断和治疗指南2008

GUIDELINES Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma: consensus document S A Khan, B R Davidson, R Goldin, S P Pereira, W M C Rosenberg, S D Taylor-Robinson, A V Thillainayagam, H C Thomas, M R Thursz, H Wasan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gut 2002;51(Suppl VI):vi1–vi9 1.0 GUIDELINES 1.1 Development of guidelines There is currently no clear national consensus for the optimal diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma. The need for these guidelines was highlighted following the annual meeting of the British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL) in September 2000. During their development these guidelines were presented at a BASL Liver CancerWorkshop in January 2001. They were also circulated to BASLmembers and the Liver Section of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Committee members, including gastroenterologists, hepatologists, gastroenterological surgeons, pathologists, radi- ologists, and epidemiologists for comments before the final consensus document was drawn up. 1.2 Strategy The guidelines are based on comprehensive literature surveys including results from randomised controlled trials, system- atic reviews and meta-analyses, and cohort, prospective, and retrospective studies. On issues where no significant study data were available, evidence was obtained from expert com- mittee reports or opinions. Where possible, specific recom- mendations have been graded, based on the quality of evidence available (section 2.4). 1.3 Context and intent These guidelines are intended to bring consistency and improvement in the patient’s management from first suspi- cion of cholangiocarcinoma through to confirmation of the diagnosis and subsequent management. As stated in previous BSG guidelines, patient preferences must be sought and deci- sions made jointly by the patient and health carer, based on the risks and benefits of any intervention. Furthermore, the guidelines should not necessarily be regarded as the standard of care for all patients. Individual cases must be managed on the basis of all clinical data avail- able for that case. The guidelines are subject to change in light of future advances in scientific knowledge. 2.0 BACKGROUND Mortality rates from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma have risen steeply and steadily over the past 30 years and since the mid 1990s more deaths have been coded annually in England and Wales as being due to this tumour than to hepatocellular carcinoma.1 In 1997 and 1998 cholangiocarcinoma caused almost 1000 deaths/year in England and Wales (approxi- mately equal numbers of men and women). The cause of this rise is unknown and does not appear to be explained simply by improvements in diagnosis or changes in coding practice.1 The incidence of biliary cancers corresponds to mortality rates as the prognosis from these tumours is very poor. 2.1 Risk factors1 2 • Age (65% of patients are over 65 years old). • Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), with or without ulcerative colitis, is the commonest known predisposing factor for cholangiocarcinoma in the UK (lifetime risk 5–15%). • Chronic intraductal gall stones. • Bile duct adenoma and biliary papillomatosis. • Caroli’s disease (cystic dilatation of ducts, lifetime risk 7%). • Choledochal cysts (about 5% will transform, risk increases with age). • Thorotrast (a radiological agent no longer licensed for use, although the risk of cholangiocarcinoma lasts several decades). • Smoking (increased risk in association with PSC). • In SE Asia, where the tumour is quite common, the associ- ated risk factors are: – liver flukes—Opisthorchis viverrini and Clonorchis sinensis, – chronic typhoid carriers—sixfold increased risk of all hepatobiliary malignancy. 2.2 Anatomical classification3–5 “Cholangiocarcinoma” originally referred only to primary tumours of the intrahepatic bile ducts and was not used for extrahepatic bile duct tumours but the term is now regarded as inclusive of intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal extrahepatic tumours of the bile ducts (fig 1). • 20–25% are intrahepatic. • 50–60% of all cases of cholangiocarcinoma are perihilar tumours (those involving the bifurcation of the ducts are “Klatskin” tumours). • Most Klatskin tumours may have been coded as intra- hepatic tumours for purposes of death certification. • 20–25% are distal extrahepatic tumours. • About 5% of tumours may be multifocal. The extent of duct involvement by perihilar tumours may be classified as suggested by Bismuth:3 • type I: tumours below the confluence of the left and right hepatic ducts; • type II: tumours reaching the confluence but not involving the left or right hepatic ducts; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbreviations: BASL, British Association for the Study of the Liver; BSG, British Society of Gastroenterology; PSC, primary sclerosing cholangitis; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; US, ultrasonography; CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MRCP, MR cholangiopancreatography; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; PTC, percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography; TNM, tumour-node-metastasis; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; 5-FU, 5-fluorouracil. vi1 www.gutjnl.com • type III: tumours occluding the common hepatic duct and either the right (IIIa) or left (IIIb) hepatic duct; • type IV: tumours that are multicentric or that involve the confluence and both the right and left hepatic ducts. 2.3 Pathology6–14 There are separate histological classifications of intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas. The WHO classifica- tions are given below. 2.3.1 WHO classification of carcinomas of the liver • Hepatocellular carcinoma • Combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma • Cholangiocarcinoma, intrahepatic • Bile duct cystadenocarcinoma • Undifferentiated carcinoma 2.3.2 WHO classification of carcinomas of the extrahepatic bile ducts • Carcinoma in situ • Adenocarcinoma • Papillary adenocarcinoma • Adenocarcinoma, intestinal-type • Mucinous adenocarcinoma • Clear cell adenocarcinoma • Signet ring cell carcinoma • Adenosquamous carcinoma • Squamous cell carcinoma • Small cell carcinoma (oat cell carcinoma) • Undifferentiated carcinoma 2.3.3 Histological grade Most cholangiocarcinomas (95%) are adenocarcinomas. Adeno- carcinomas are classified (1–4) according to the percentage of tumour that is composed of glandular tissue. Some types of adenocarcinoma are however not graded: carcinoma in situ, clear cell adenocarcinoma, and papillary adenocarcinoma. Signet ring cell carcinoma is given a grade of 3 and small cell carcinoma a grade of 4. Squamous cell carcinomas are graded according to the least differentiated areas. Most studies have demonstrated a relation between histological grade and post- operative outcome although stage is more important. 2.3.4 Molecular diagnosis15 • Cholangiocarcinoma is often associated with inactivation of tumour suppressor genes—for example, p53, APC, Smad-4, bcl-2, and p16. • Mutations in oncogenes have also been described—for example, K-ras, c-myc, c-erbB-2, and c-neu. • Chromosomal aneuploidy has been reported in up to 25% of periampullary tumours. • Although these mutations can lead to detectable pheno- typic changes, the diagnostic or prognostic usefulness of these developments is unclear and molecular profiling does not, as yet, have an established clinical role in patients with cholangiocarcinoma. 2.4 Levels of evidence16 Studies used as a basis for these guidelines are graded in rela- tion to the quality of evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence (May 2001).16 These are summarised in the appendix with explana- tory notes, and have been reproduced with the permission of the Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. 3.0 DIAGNOSIS 3.1 Clinical features5 17 • Most common presenting clinical features of perihilar or extrahepatic tumours are those of biliary obstruction: jaun- dice, pale stool, dark urine, and pruritus. • Right upper quadrant pain, fever, and rigors suggest cholangitis (this is unusual without drainage attempts). • Cholangiocarcinoma usually presents after the disease is advanced. This is particularly true with more proximal intrahepatic and perihilar tumours obstructing one duct, which often present with systemic manifestations of malignancy, such as malaise, fatigue, and weight loss. • Some cases are detected incidentally as a result of deranged liver function tests, or ultrasound scans performed for other indications. 3.2 Blood tests5 17 There are no blood tests diagnostic for cholangiocarcinoma. Liver function tests often show an obstructive picture with raised: • alkaline phosphatase • bilirubin • gamma glutamyl transpeptidase. However, aminotransferases are frequently relatively nor- mal but may be markedly raised in acute obstruction or cholangitis. • Prolonged obstruction of the common bile or hepatic duct can cause a reduction in fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K) and increase prothrombin time. Figure 1 Schematic diagram for sites of cholangiocarcinoma. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (International Classification of Disease-9 codes (ICD-9) 155.1): 1=peripheral cholangiocarcinoma; 2a, b=right and left hepatic ducts; and 3=confluence of right and left hepatic ducts (perihilar, Klatskin tumours). Extrahepatic (ICD-9 156): 4=common hepatic duct; 5=gall bladder (ICD-9 156.0); 6=cystic duct; and 7=common bile duct. 2a 1 3 6 4 7 5 2b Levels of evidence lead to subsequent grading of recommendations as: A=consistent level 1 studies; B=consistent level 2 or 3 studies or extrapolations from level 1 studies; C=level 4 studies or extrapolations from level 2 or 3 studies; D=level 5 evidence or inconsistent or inconclusive studies of any level. vi2 Khan, Davidson, Goldin, et al www.gutjnl.com • With advanced disease, systemic non-specific markers of malignancymay be altered—for example, reduced albumin, haemoglobin, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). 3.2.1 Serum tumour markers5 18–20 (evidence level 2b) There are no tumour markers specific for cholangiocarcinoma. Overall, the sensitivity and specificity of tumour marker measurements are low but may be useful in conjunction with other diagnostic modalities where diagnostic doubt exists. There is no evidence that measurement of tumour markers is useful for monitoring tumour progression. CA 19-9, carci- noembryonic antigen (CEA), and CA-125 are currently the most widely used serum tumour markers. CA 19-9 The value of CA 19-9 in patients with suspected cholangiocar- cinoma is unclear. However: • CA 19-9 is elevated in up to 85% of patients with cholangi- ocarcinoma; • it has been reported that a CA 19-9 value greater than 100 U/ml has a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 80% in patients with PSC; • CA 19-9 elevation can occur in obstructive jaundice without malignancy but persistently raised levels of CA 19-9 after biliary decompression suggest malignancy; • CA 19-9 does not discriminate between cholangiocarci- noma, pancreatic, or gastric malignancy and may also be elevated in severe hepatic injury from any cause; • the value of CA 19-9 for detecting cholangiocarcinoma in patients without PSC is unknown; • CA 19-9 may be useful for the differential diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma but further studies are needed. CEA • Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is raised in approximately 30% of patients with cholangiocarcinoma. • CEA can also be elevated in inflammatory bowel disease, biliary obstruction, other tumours, and severe liver injury. CA-125 • This is elevated in 40–50% of cholangiocarcinoma patients. • It may signify the presence of peritoneal involvement but further studies are needed Other serum tumour markers Several other potential serum tumour markers have been linked to cholangiocarcinoma including CA-195, CA-242, DU-PAN-2, IL-6, and trypsinogen-2. Their clinical role is currently unclear. 3.3 Imaging5 17 21–31 3.3.1 Ultrasonography (US)5 17 21 (evidence level 4) • Remains the firstline investigation for suspected biliary obstruction. • Diagnosis should be suspected when intrahepatic, but not extrahepatic, ducts are dilated. • Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma may be seen as a mass lesion but this is unusual. • Gall stones excluded. • Often misses small perihilar, extrahepatic, and periampul- lary tumours and not good at defining the extent of the tumour. • Colour Doppler can detect tumour induced compression/ thrombosis of the portal vein or hepatic artery. 3.3.2 Computed tomography (CT)5 17 21 (evidence level 4) CTmay provide good views of intrahepatic mass lesion, dilated intrahepatic ducts, and localised lymphadenopathy, however: • CT does not usually define the extent of cholangiocarci- noma, • abdominal lymphadenopathy is common in PSC and does not necessarily indicate malignant change, • suspected perihilar tumours or those involving the portal venous/arterial system should be studied by contrast enhanced spiral/helical CT. 3.3.3 Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)5 22–28 (evidence levels 2b and 3a) At present good quality MR is the optimal initial investigation for suspected cholangiocarcinoma, providing information on: • liver and biliary anatomy and local extent of the tumour, • extent of duct involvement by tumour with MR cholangio- pancreatography (MRCP), • hepatic parenchymal abnormalities and presence of liver metastases, • hilar vascular involvement by MR angiography. 3.3.4 Cholangiography (MRCP, ERCP, and PTC)5 17 22–28 (evidence levels 2b and 3b) • Essential for early diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma and assessing resectability. • MRCP is non-invasive and determines the extent of duct involvement by tumour without the risks of endoscopic ret- rograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or percutane- ous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC). • ERCP, when available, is usually favoured above PTC. How- ever, ideally, facilities for PTC should always be available to deal with cases where attempts at ERCP have failed. • There is no clear evidence that PTC should generally be favoured over ERCP on the basis of the level of obstruction. However, PTC may be the modality of choice depending on local expertise and anatomical considerations. • ERCP or PTC allows bile sampling for cytology, which is positive in about 30% of cholangiocarcinoma cases. The yield may be improved by the use of thin preparations and cytospin. • Combined brush cytology and biopsy specimens increase yield to 40–70%. • Negative cytology from brushings does not exclude malignancy. • ERCP and PTC also allow stent insertion for palliative pur- poses in irresectable tumours (section 4.2). • Angiography in combination with cholangiography pre- dicts resectability. 3.3.5 New techniques5 17 29 30 There are several new promising techniques that are under evaluation. Endoscopic ultrasound • Allows good view of distal extrahepatic biliary tree, gall bladder, regional lymph nodes, and vasculature. Recommendations • As the sensitivity and specificity of individual tumour mark- ers is low, patients should have a combination of serum tumour markers measured where diagnostic doubt exists. However, diagnosis should not rest solely on serum tumour marker measurements (recommendation grade C). Cholangiocarcinoma guidelines vi3 www.gutjnl.com • Facilitates guided fine needle aspiration/biopsy of lesions and lymph nodes. Positron emission tomography with [18F]-2-deoxy-D-glucose • Cholangiocarcinoma cells have high glucose uptake, like most malignancies. • Biliary epithelial cell metabolism is assessed in vivo via the glucose analogue [18F]-2-deoxy-D-glucose. • Glucose and [18F]-2-deoxy-D-glucose are both phosphor- ylated but the latter is not further metabolised and accumulates in cholangiocarcinoma cells giving rise to “hot” spots. Other new techniques • Intraductal US, endoscopic/percutaneous flexible cholangi- oscopy, and radiolabelled ligand imaging. 3.3.6 Staging5 31 (evidence levels 4, 5) Cholangiocarcinoma staging is based on the tumour-node- metastasis (TNM) system or alternatively: • stage I: tumour invasion limited to the mucosa or muscle layer; • stage II: local invasion; • stage III: as stages I and II but involving regional and hepa- toduodenal lymph nodes or invasion of adjacent tissues; • stage IV: extensive invasion of the liver, adjacent structures, or lymph nodes, and/or distant metastases. Once cholangiocarcinoma is suspected, comprehensive staging must be carried out to screen for metastatic disease. Up to 50% of patients are lymph node positive, and 10–20% have peritoneal involvement, at presentation. Clearly, previous imaging of US, CT, and MR are also part of staging. Spread to distant parts of the body is late and uncommon. Nevertheless, the following should be carried out: • chest radiography, • CT abdomen (unless abdominal MRI/MRCP already per- formed), • laparoscopy (most centres perform laparoscopy to deter- mine the presence of peritoneal or superficial liver metastases in those considered resectable on imaging). 3.4 Confirmatory histology6–13 31 32 (evidence level 5) Although positive histology and cytology are often difficult to obtain at ERCP, they are recommended for confirmation of a diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma. Histology is also important for planning clinical trials. An adenocarcinoma is the usual histological subtype seen (see section 2.3.3 above). The only histological feature that allows a definite diagnosis of cholan- giocarcinoma to be made is the presence of coexisting carcinoma in situ and this is uncommon.However, for patients with potentially curable (resectable) disease, open or percuta- neous biopsy is not recommended due to the risk of tumour seeding. 3.5 Excluding metastatic disease33 34 Cholangiocarcinoma is sometimes very difficult to differenti- ate from metastatic adenocarcinoma, particularly if the pathological diagnosis is obtained from outside the biliary tree—for example, porta hepatis lymph node/mass or from liver metastases. Thorough clinical examination and other investigations are necessary to exclude a primary from elsewhere. The extent to which another possible primary is pursued and investigations done (some suggested below) will depend on the clinical situation in each individual case.Meta- static adenocarcinoma mimicking cholangiocarcinoma may arise from several organs, particularly: (1) pancreas—axial imaging (for example, MR, CT, EUS) (evi- dence levels 2b, 3a; recommendation grade B); (2) stomach— axial imaging, endoscopy (evidence levels 2b, 3a; recommendation grade B); (3) breast—clinical examination, mammography only if breast mass (evidence level 1b; recommendation grade A); (4) lung—chest radiography (evidence levels 2b, 3a; rec- ommendation grade B); (5) colon—colonoscopy or spiral CT (evidence level 3a; recommendation grade B). Serum tumour markers may also be useful—for example, LDH,α-fetoprotein (evidence level 3b; recommendation grade B). 4.0 TREATMENT 4.1 Surgery4 17 35–40 (evidence levels 2a–c, 3a, b) Surgery is the only curative treatment for patients with cholangiocarcinoma. Surgery cures the minority of patients with cholangiocarcinoma, with a 9–18% five year survival for proximal bile duct lesions and 20–30% for distal lesions. • Bile duct cancers may be multifocal (5%). • Lymph node involvement is present in 50% of all patients at presentation and is associated with poor surgical outcome. • Peritoneal and distant metastases are present in 10–20% of all patients at presentation. 4.1.1 Resectable tumours • Patients’ suitability for major surgery should be guided by medi