<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> Background: Management of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is mainly by surgery. Computed tomography is the imaging choice by which to evaluate tumor extension and resectability. However, reports concerning the accuracy of computed tomography for this purpose differ. Objective: To retrospectively assess the accuracy of 16-detector-row computed tomography in evaluating tumor extension and tumor resectability of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.Method: Sixty-two patients attending our hospital from January 2004 to June 2011were included in this study. Tumor extension and resectability were retrospectively reviewed. Pathological results, diagnostic laparoscopy, and surgical findings were used as references.Result: The accuracy for predictability of resectability was 80.7%. The accuracy of 16-detector-row computed tomography in evaluating tumor extension was; 95.2% for prediction of ductal involvement, 85.7% for prediction of hepatic artery invasion, 79.1% for prediction of portal vein invasion, 67.3% for prediction of N1 nodal involvement and 90.9% for prediction of N2 nodal involvement.Conclusion: Good accuracy was found using 16-detector-row computed tomography in overall evaluation of tumor resectability. For tumor extension, 16-detector-row computed tomography has good accuracy except for evaluating N1 nodes.</abstract>

Background: Management of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is mainly by surgery. Computed tomography is the imaging choice by which to evaluate tumor extension and resectability. However, reports concerning the accuracy of computed tomography for this purpose differ. Objective: To retrospectively assess the accuracy of 16-detector-row computed tomography in evaluating tumor extension and tumor resectability of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.Method: Sixty-two patients attending our hospital from January 2004 to June 2011were included in this study. Tumor extension and resectability were retrospectively reviewed. Pathological results, diagnostic laparoscopy, and surgical findings were used as references.Result: The accuracy for predictability of resectability was 80.7%. The accuracy of 16-detector-row computed tomography in evaluating tumor extension was; 95.2% for prediction of ductal involvement, 85.7% for prediction of hepatic artery invasion, 79.1% for prediction of portal vein invasion, 67.3% for prediction of N1 nodal involvement and 90.9% for prediction of N2 nodal involvement.Conclusion: Good accuracy was found using 16-detector-row computed tomography in overall evaluation of tumor resectability. For tumor extension, 16-detector-row computed tomography has good accuracy except for evaluating N1 nodes.

Original article. Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: accuracy of 16-detector-row computed tomography in evaluating tumor extension and resectability

Department of Radiology, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330,

Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330,

Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330,

Asian Biomedicine

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Background: Management of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is mainly by surgery. Computed tomography is the imaging choice by which to evaluate tumor extension and...

Original article. Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: accuracy of 16-detector-row computed tomography in evaluating tumor extension and resectability

Online veröffentlicht: 04. Feb. 2017

Seitenbereich: 499 - 507

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5372/1905-7415.0704.204

Schlüsselwörter
Accuracy, MDCT, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, tumor extension, 16-detector-row computed tomography

© 2017

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Original article. Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: accuracy of 16-detector-row computed tomography in evaluating tumor extension and resectability

Online veröffentlicht: 04. Feb. 2017

Seitenbereich: 499 - 507

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5372/1905-7415.0704.204

SchlüsselwörterAccuracy, MDCT, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, tumor extension, 16-detector-row computed tomography

© 2017

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Schlüsselwörter
Accuracy, MDCT, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, tumor extension, 16-detector-row computed tomography