Is routine lymph node dissection recommended for liver resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Takamichi Ishii; Kentaro Iwaki; Akiyoshi Nakakura; Tomoaki Yoh; Yoichiro Uchida; Etsuro Hatano

doi:10.1016/j.hpb.2024.03.1163

Is routine lymph node dissection recommended for liver resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

HPB (Oxford). 2024 Mar 27:S1365-182X(24)01239-5. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2024.03.1163. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Takamichi Ishii¹, Kentaro Iwaki², Akiyoshi Nakakura³, Tomoaki Yoh², Yoichiro Uchida², Etsuro Hatano²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Japan; Department of Surgery for Abdominal Oncology and Organ Regeneration, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Japan. Electronic address: taishii@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.
² Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Japan.
³ Department of Biomedical Statistics and Bioinformatics, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Japan.

PMID: 38580611
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2024.03.1163

Abstract

Background/purpose: This meta-analysis aimed to elucidate the therapeutic effects of routine lymph node dissection (LND) with liver resection on intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).

Methods: Databases, including MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched to identify studies comparing LND and non-LND for ICC liver resection. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and secondary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS), in-hospital morbidity, blood loss, and R0 rate.

Results: Seventeen studies involving 4407 patients were included. The OS did not differ between the LND (n = 2158) and non-LND (n = 2249) groups (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83-1.32). The secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the groups. Subgroup analyses stratified by the risk of bias showed a significant difference in OS between the high- and low-risk groups (P = 0.0008). In the low-risk group, LND (vs. non-LND) was associated with superior OS (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98). Most studies in low-risk groups involved patients who were clinically node-negative.

Conclusions: The therapeutic effects of routine LND for ICC have not been demonstrated. However, LND had a positive impact on OS in studies with a low risk of bias, thus suggesting that there may be a subset of ICC patients who would benefit from LND.

Publication types

Review