Does preoperative biliary drainage compromise the long-term survival of patients with pancreatic head carcinoma?

Clinical Impact of Preoperative Biliary Drainage in Patients with Ductal Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreatic Head

Our aim was to study the association between preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) and morbidity following cephalic pancreaticoduodenectomy (CPD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and its prognostic impact, which is still controversial in the literature. A retrospective study was conducted, which included 128 patients who underwent CPD for PDAC, divided into two groups: those who underwent PBD (group 1) and those who did not undergo this procedure (group 2). Group 1 was subdivided according to the drainage route: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), group 1.1, and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC), group 1.2. 34.4% of patients underwent PBD, and 47.7% developed PBD-related complications, with 37% in group 1.1 and 64.7% in group 1.2 (p = 0.074). There was a significant difference between group 1 and 2 regarding bacterial colonization of the bile (45.5% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001), but no difference was found in the colonization by multidrug-resistant bacteria, the development of Clavien–Dindo ≥ III complications, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and delayed gastric emptying (DGE), intra-abdominal abscess, hemorrhage, superficial surgical site infection (SSI), and readmission. Between groups 1.1 and 1.2, there was a significant difference in clinically relevant DGE (44.4% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.014) and Clavien–Dindo ≥ III complications (59.3% vs. 88.2%, p = 0.040). There were no significant differences in median overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) between groups 1 and 2. Groups 1.1 and 1.2 had a significant difference in DFS (10 vs. 5 months, p = 0.017). In this group of patients, PBD was associated with increased bacterial colonization of the bile, without a significant increase in postoperative complications or influence in survival. ERCP seems to contribute to the development of clinically significant DGE. Patients undergoing PTC appear to have an early recurrence.

Comprehensive multimodal management of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: Current status and progress

Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) is a complex clinical entity with specific biological features. Criteria for resectability need to be assessed in combination with tumor anatomy and oncology. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for BRPC patients is associated with additional survival benefits. Research is currently focused on exploring the optimal NAT regimen and more reliable ways of assessing response to NAT. More attention to management standards during NAT, including biliary drainage and nutritional support, is needed. Surgery remains the cornerstone of BRPC treatment and multidisciplinary teams can help to evaluate whether patients are suitable for surgery and provide individualized management during the perioperative period, including NAT responsiveness and the selection of surgical timing.

Plastic or self-expandable metal stent: Which is the most suitable for patients with pancreatic head cancer in the upcoming era of neoadjuvant chemotherapy? A review

Obstructive jaundice is a major symptom of pancreatic head cancer, and although its amelioration is required before scheduling chemotherapy, the decision to perform biliary drainage for resectable pancreatic cancer has remained controversial. In recent years, the effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer has been reported. Preoperative biliary drainage has become increasingly necessary, making the choice of stent an important one; thus, the longer the waiting period extends through neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the more durable stents - such as self-expandable metallic stents, rather than plastic stents - would be desired as an option. Still, there is insufficient evidence regarding surgical outcomes and long-term prognosis, and further confirmatory studies are needed. Through this review, we aim to provide an update on the characteristics of biliary stents and preoperative biliary drainage for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer.

Comparison of Biliary Drainage Techniques for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage are all established techniques for drainage of malignant biliary obstruction. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was aimed at comparing all 3 modalities to each other.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multiple databases were searched from inception to October 2019 to identify relevant studies. All the patients were eligible to receive any one of the 3 interventions. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed using standardized tools. Outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, adverse events, and reintervention. Direct meta-analyses were performed using the random-effects model. NMA was conducted using a multivariate, consistency model with random-effects meta-regression. The GRADE approach was followed to rate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 17 studies with 1566 patients. Direct meta-analysis suggested that EUS-guided biliary drainage had a lower reintervention rate than ERCP. NMA did not show statistically significant differences to favor any one intervention with certainty across all the outcomes. The overall certainty of evidence was found to be low to very low for all the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence did not favor any intervention for drainage of malignant biliary obstruction across all the outcomes assessed. ERCP with or without EUS should be considered first to allow simultaneous tissue acquisition and biliary drainage.

Efficacy and safety of preoperative biliary drainage in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) on outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in patients with biliary obstruction.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science from database inception to 11 March 2021. We used the ROBINS-I tool and Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 to assess the risk of bias. The data were statistically analyzed using the RevMan software (Version 5.4).

RESULTS

In all, 43 studies, including 23,076 patients, were analyzed, of which 13,922 patients were treated with PBD and 9154 were treated with no preoperative biliary drainage (NPBD). The morbidity     , infection morbidity      , and postoperative pancreatic fistulae (POPF)       in patients undergoing PBD, were significantly higher than those in patients undergoing NPBD. Further, PBD may lead to a significantly worse 2- and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates           . In subgroup meta-analysis, the differences in morbidity, POPF, and OS outcomes lost significance between the PBD and NPBD groups when the mean total serum bilirubin (TSB) concentration was below 15 mg/dl.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine PBD still cannot be recommended because it showed no beneficial effect on postoperative outcomes. However, in patients with < 15 mg/dl TSB concentration, PBD tends to be a better choice.

Preoperative Biliary Drainage Does Not Independently Reduce Survival After Pancreaticoduodenectomy Among Patients With Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A National Registry Study

Objective

This study aimed to explore a possible relationship between preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) and overall survival in a national cohort of Swedish patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

Background

PBD has been shown to increase postoperative complications after PD, but its use is steadily increasing. There are a few small studies that have indicated that PBD might in itself negatively affect overall survival after PD.

Methods

Patients from the Swedish National Registry for tumors in the pancreatic and periampullary region diagnosed from 2010 to 2019 who underwent PD for PDAC were included. Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards analyses were performed to investigate survival.

Results

Out of 15,818 patients in the registry, 3113 had undergone PD, of whom 1471 had a histopathological diagnosis of PDAC. Patients who had undergone PBD had significantly worse survival, but the effect of PBD disappeared in the multivariable analysis when elevated bilirubin at any time was included.

Conclusions

PBD does not independently influence survival after PD for PDAC, but this study implies that even a nominally increased preoperative bilirubin level might impair long-term survival.

INR and not bilirubin levels predict postoperative morbidity in patients with malignant obstructive jaundice

BACKGROUND

There are no established predictors for deciding between upfront surgery and PBD in pancreatic head malignancy. Once PBD is present, the ideal drainage-time remains elusive. The aim was, to identify predictors in jaundiced patients and ideal PBD-duration.

METHODS

Analysis of 304 patients with pancreatic head malignancy (56% with PBD, n = 170) undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed. Postoperative morbidity and survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

Postoperative complications increased after PBD (98.2% vs. 88.8%; p < 0.001). Patients with PBD received more postoperative antibiotics (42.4% vs. 21.6%; p < 0.001) and wound infections were increased (21.4% vs. 9.4%; p = 0.006). INR predicted postoperative morbidity (p = 0.026), whereas serum-bilirubin (p = 0.708), leucocytes (p = 0.158) and MELD-score (p = 0.444) had no impact. Complications were not different between long (>4 weeks) and short (<4 weeks) PBD-duration (p = 0.608). No life-threatening complications (CDIV + V) occurred after long drainage (0.0% vs. 8.9%; p = 0.028) and long-term survival was not compromised.

CONCLUSIONS

INR is a suitable predictor for postoperative outcome, while serum-bilirubin levels had no predictive value. The INR can help deciding between PBD and upfront surgery. If PBD is inevitable, drainage duration of >4 weeks reduced major complications.

CATEGORY

Clinical study.

The Effect of Preoperative Biliary Drainage with or without Pancreatic Stenting on Complications after Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

The necessity of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) prior to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is still controversial. However, in some settings, PBD with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure is recommended as a preferred management. Meanwhile, pancreatic duct stenting in the drainage procedure is rarely performed for selected indications, and its associated complications after PD remain quite unknown.

Methods

A retrospective observational longitudinal cohort study was performed on patients who underwent PBD and PD from a prospectively maintained database at the National Cancer Center from March of 2015 to July of 2019. Patients who underwent biliary stenting alone, biliary and pancreatic stenting, were distributed into two study cohort groups, and their records were scrutinized for the incidence of postoperative complications.

Results

A total of 83 patients who underwent successful PD after biliary drainage were identified. 29 patients underwent nasobiliary drainage (ENBD)/plastic or metal bile duct stenting (BS) and pancreatic duct stenting (PS group), and 54 patients underwent only ENBD/BS, without pancreatic duct stenting (NPS group). No differences were found between the two groups with respect to in-hospital time, overall complication rate, respective rate of serious (grade 3 or higher) complication rate, bile anastomotic leakage, bleeding, abdominal infection, surgical wound infection, organ dysfunction, and pancreatic anastomotic leakage. Postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction rates differed significantly, which occurred in 3 (5.56%) cases in the NPS group, compared with 6 (20.7%) cases in the PS group (P = 0.06). In the univariate and multivariate regression model analysis, pancreatic duct stenting was correlated with higher rates of gastrointestinal dysfunction [odds ratio (OR) = 4.25, P = 0.0472].

Conclusion

Our data suggested that PBD and pancreatic duct stenting prior to pancreatoduodenectomy would increase the risk of postoperative delayed gastric emptying, while the overall incidence of postoperative complications and other complications, such as pancreatic leakage and bile duct leakage, showed no statistical difference.

Survival analysis among unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients undergoing endoscopic or percutaneous interventions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Most patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed at a late stage and are not candidates for surgical resection. Many have jaundice requiring biliary drainage, which can be accomplished using ERCP or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). To date, no studies have evaluated the impact of ERCP or PTBD on survival among patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. The aims of our study were to compare overall survival between patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer receiving ERCP with those receiving PTBD, to compare overall survival between patients who received a biliary intervention (ERCP or PTBD) versus those who received no biliary intervention, and to compare secondary outcomes, such as length of hospital stay and costs, between ERCP and PTBD.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. Patients with known pancreatic cancer were included if they had a pancreatic head mass and/or evidence of biliary obstruction. We used a time-varying Cox proportional hazards model to estimate overall survival of patients receiving ERCP versus PTBD and overall survival among patients who received a biliary intervention versus no biliary drainage. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, costs, and admissions within 30 days.

RESULTS

Of 14,808 patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer, 8898 patients (60.0%) underwent biliary drainage and 5910 patients (39.9%) received no biliary intervention. ERCP accounted for most biliary interventions (8271, 93.0%), whereas 623 patients (7.0%) underwent PTBD. In multivariable analysis, ERCP was associated with reduced mortality compared with PTBD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], .67; 95% confidence interval [CI], .60-.75). When ERCP or PTBD was compared with no biliary intervention, both procedures were associated with a survival benefit (aHR, .51 [95% CI, .49-.54] and .53 [95% CI, .48-.59], respectively). Compared with patients receiving PTBD, those who underwent ERCP had shorter mean length of hospital stay (7.0 ± 5.7 days vs 9.6 ± 6.6 days, respectively; P < .001) and lower hospital charges ($54,899.25 vs $75,246.00, P < .001) but no significant difference in hospitalization or 30-day readmissions.

CONCLUSIONS

ERCP is associated with reduced mortality compared with PTBD in pancreatic cancer patients, highlighting the critical role of ERCP in the management of biliary obstruction from pancreatic cancer.

Does Pre-operative Biliary Drainage Influence Long-Term Survival in Patients With Obstructive Jaundice With Resectable Pancreatic Head Cancer?

Objectives: Whether pre-operative biliary drainage (PBD) affects long-term survival of patients with obstructive jaundice with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy is still controversial. Most of the previous research did not include the important total serum bilirubin (TB) level before intervention as well as before surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of PBD on long-term survival after considering the TB level.

Methods: Data were collected retrospectively from patients with obstructive jaundice who underwent resection of pancreatic head cancer in a high-volume center. X-Tile software and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were applied to determine the optimal cut-off levels for TB and age based on the minimal probability (P)-value and the largest χ2-value. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed after univariate analysis to assess independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

Results: Of 426 patients with obstructive jaundice who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for resectable pancreatic head cancer during a 7 year period, 242 (56.8%) received PBD and 184 (43.2%) underwent surgery directly. The OS of patients who received PBD was significantly worse than that of patients who did not receive PBD by univariate analysis (median of 16.6 vs. 22.2 months, P = 0.048). After including liver function parameters in the multivariate Cox regression, we found that the use of PBD was not associated with OS or DFS, while TB before intervention >150 μmol/L was an independent adverse prognostic factor for both OS [hazard ratio (HR), 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05–1.91] and DFS (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.08–1.77).

Conclusions: In patients with obstructive jaundice with resectable pancreatic head cancer, undergoing PBD before pancreaticoduodenectomy did not impair or benefit survival rates compared with surgery alone. However, TB before intervention >150 μmol/L predicted an unfavorable prognosis, irrespective of the PBD procedure.

Effects of different preoperative biliary drainage methods for resected malignant obstruction jaundice on the incidence rate of implantation metastasis: A meta-analysis

The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) for resected malignant obstruction jaundice (MOJ) on the incidence rate of implantation metastasis. Databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were utilized. With reference to literature reported until January 2019, controlled clinical trials were designed to compare the effects of PTBD and EBD for MOJ on the incidence rate of implantation metastasis. Subsequently, odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated with Review Manager 5.3.0 software. A total of 10 studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis, including 1,085 cases in the PTBD group and 1,379 cases in the EBD group. The results revealed that there was a significant difference in the incidence rate of implantation metastasis between the PTBD group and EBD group (OR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.23–0.53, P<0.00001). Subgroup analysis revealed that the incidence rates of both catheter-related implantation metastasis and peritoneal metastasis were lower in the EBD group (OR=0.23, 95% CI: 0.12–0.44, P<0.00001; OR=0.47, 95% CI: 0.31–0.74, P=0.0008, respectively), and the advantage of EBD was demonstrated in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, distal cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic carcinoma (OR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.17–0.74, P=0.006; OR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.17–0.60, P=0.0005; OR=0.27, 95% CI: 0.19–0.40, P<0.00001, respectively). In conclusion, this meta-analysis revealed the appropriate choice of preoperative biliary drainage for resected MOJ. The application of EBD reduced the incidence rate of implantation metastasis, however more evidence is required from future studies, to confirm the results.

A systematic review of the comparison of the incidence of seeding metastasis between endoscopic biliary drainage and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage for resectable malignant biliary obstruction

Background and aim

Endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and percutaneous biliary drainage (PTBD) are the two main strategies of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) for resectable malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) worldwide, but which is better remains unclear. Seeding metastasis (SM) has been reported repeatedly in the recent decade, although it is rarely taken into consideration in the choice of PBD. Hence, a systematic review was badly warranted to evaluate the incidence of SM between PTBD and EBD in the preoperative treatment of MBO.

Methods

PubMed, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were used to identify any potentially eligible studies comparing the incidence of SM between EBD and PTBD from Nov 1990 to Mar 2018. The effect size was determined by odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Ten studies were enrolled in this study, including 1379 cases in the EBD group and 1085 cases in the PTBD group. Results showed that the incidence of SM in the EBD group was significantly lower than that in the PTBD group (10.5% vs. 22.0%, OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.23~0.53). Subgroup analysis stratified by the definition of SM showed that the pooled ORs for peritoneal metastasis and tube-related SM between EBD and PTBD were 0.42 (95% CI 0.31~0.57) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.10~0.29), respectively. Subgroup analysis stratified by the location of MBO showed that the pooled ORs for the incidence of SM between EBD and PTBD for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, distal cholangiocarcinoma, and pancreatic cancer were 0.27 (95% CI 0.13~0.56), 0.32 (95% CI 0.17~0.60), and 0.27 (95% CI 0.19~0.40), respectively.

Conclusion

EBD should be the optimal PBD for MBO considering the SM, but it deserved further validation.

Pleural dissemination of cholangiocarcinoma caused by percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage during the management of resectable cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Only 3 case reports have addressed pleural dissemination in association with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. The aim of this study was to investigate recurrence after resection of cholangiocarcinoma after percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and to clarify the incidence of and the factors responsible for pleural dissemination.

METHODS

Between 2001 and 2015, we reviewed retrospectively all consecutive patients who underwent resection for perihilar or distal cholangiocarcinoma after percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage for recurrence, including pleural dissemination.

RESULTS

During the study period, all consecutive patients underwent resection of cholangiocarcinoma after management with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Of these, 100 patients (32.1%) underwent left-sided percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage alone, and 212 (67.9%) underwent right-sided percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage with or without left-sided percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Pleural dissemination, which developed exclusively on the right side of the thoracic cavity after resection, was found in 12 patients (3.8%); these patients underwent right-sided percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage; computed tomography demonstrated that the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage catheter passed through the thoracic cavity in all 12 patients. The diagnosis of pleural dissemination was made at a median of 381 days (range, 44 to 2,944 days) after operation. Survival was poor, with a median survival time of 516 days. Statistically, right-sided percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage was identified as a risk factor for pleural dissemination.

CONCLUSION

Pleural dissemination after right-sided percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage is likely a procedure-related iatrogenic complication because of the "special route" by which the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage catheter must be passed through the right thoracic cavity.

ENBD is Associated with Decreased Tumor Dissemination Compared to PTBD in Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding the risk of tumor dissemination when percutaneous biliary drainage is used before surgical resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC). We aimed to compare the incidence of tumor dissemination after preoperative endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) with that after percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) for PHC.

METHODS

Data from 208 consecutive patients who underwent PHC resection between 2000 and 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. The influence of drainage type on incidence of tumor dissemination was examined. Seventy-six patients underwent ENBD (37%), 87 underwent PTBD (42%), and 45 underwent surgery without preoperative biliary drainage (WD, 22%).

RESULTS

The respective 2- and 5-year estimated cumulative incidences of tumor dissemination in the ENBD group (11.8/14.6%) were lower than in the PTBD group (28.8/35.9%, p = 0.003) and equivalent to that in the WD group (11.2/15.9%, p = NS). PTBD (hazard ratio [HR] vs. ENBD, 2.80) was an independent risk factor for postoperative tumor dissemination in the multivariate analysis. The 2- and 5-year disease-specific survival rates were higher in the ENBD group (67.6/47.3%) than in the PTBD group (56.6/27.8%, p = 0.032) and equivalent to that in the WD group (64.9/53.8%, p = NS). However, drainage type was not an independent risk factor in multivariate analysis of disease-specific survival.

CONCLUSION

For patients with PHC, the associated risk of postoperative tumor dissemination in the ENBD group was lower than in the PTBD group and equivalent to that in the WD group. Thus, ENBD is the ideal procedure for preoperative biliary drainage.

Effectiveness and risk of biliary drainage prior to pancreatoduodenectomy: review of current status

Preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) prior to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) has gained popularity as bridge management to resolve jaundice, but its role is being challenged as it is thought to increase morbidity. To clarify the current recommendations for PBD prior to PD, we reviewed the literature, including all relevant articles published in English up until December, 2015. There is increasing evidence that PBD causes bile infection, which is related to the morbidity of infectious complications. Results of transhepatic drainage are poorer than those of endoscopic stenting, especially in an oncologic setting, although it is still unclear whether metallic stents are superior to nasobiliary drainage. PBD should be avoided whenever possible and performed only in selected cases, such as the emergency setting, an inevitable long delay (>4 weeks) before PD, and jaundice-related anorexia. Seemingly, transhepatic drainage should be reserved for refractory cases if endoscopic drainage is not possible. Further studies comparing endoscopic drainage techniques, such as metallic stents and nasobiliary drainage, are required to assess the most effective technique of PBD. Bile infection should be prevented by adequate antibiotic prophylaxis and treated even in the absence of symptoms, and bile status should be assessed systematically.

Prognostic impact of type of preoperative biliary drainage in patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Surgical results of patients with resected distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC) were evaluated to elucidate prognostic impact of the type of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD).

METHODS

Eighty-eight patients with resected DCC were stratified into two groups according to the type of PBD: the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) group (n = 25) and the endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) group (n = 63).

RESULTS

Overall 5-year survival rate of the patients in the PTBD group was poorer than in the EBD group (24% vs. 52%, P = 0.020). On univariate analysis, PTBD, pancreatic invasion, perineural invasion, and lymph node involvement were significant prognostic factors for poor overall survival. On multivariate analysis, PTBD was the only significantly independent prognostic factor for poor overall survival. The incidence of liver metastasis was significantly higher in the PTBD group than in the EBD group (32.0% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

PTBD should be avoided as much as possible in patients with DCC since the patients who underwent PTBD had poorer overall survival and higher incidence of liver metastasis than those who underwent EBD.

Verification of the oncologic inferiority of percutaneous biliary drainage to endoscopic drainage: A propensity score matching analysis of resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage is an established biliary drainage method but is associated with a potential risk of seeding metastasis. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate whether percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage really increases seeding metastasis and worsens the postoperative survival in patients with resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma after percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage or endoscopic biliary drainage were retrospectively reviewed. Seeding metastasis was defined as peritoneal/pleural dissemination and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage sinus tract recurrence. Univariate and multivariate analyses followed by propensity score matching were performed to adjust the data for the baseline characteristics of the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and endoscopic biliary drainage patients.

RESULTS

Of 320 resected patients, 168 underwent percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and the remaining 152 received endoscopic biliary drainage before operation. The survival of the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage patients was significantly lower than that of the endoscopic biliary drainage patients (37.0% vs 44.3% at 5 years, P = .019). Multivariate analyses showed that percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage was an independent predictor of poor survival (P = .011) and a risk factor for seeding metastasis (P = .005). After propensity score matching (71 patients in each group), the survival of the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage patients was significantly worse than that of the endoscopic biliary drainage patients (P = .018). The estimated cumulative recurrence rate of seeding metastasis was significantly higher in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage patients than in the endoscopic biliary drainage patients (P = .005), while the recurrence rates at other sites were similar between the 2 groups (P = .413).

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage increases the incidence of seeding metastasis and shortens the postoperative survival in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Endoscopic biliary drainage is recommended as the optimal method for preoperative biliary drainage.

Current status of preoperative drainage for distal biliary obstruction

Preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) was developed to improve obstructive jaundice, which affects a number of organs and physiological mechanisms in patients waiting for surgery. However, its role in patients who will undergo pancreaticoduodenectomy for biliary obstruction remains controversial. This article aims to review the current status of the use of preoperative drainage for distal biliary obstruction. Relevant articles published from 1980 to 2015 were identified by searching MEDLINE and PubMed using the keywords “PBD”, “pancreaticoduodenectomy”, and “obstructive jaundice”. Additional papers were identified by a manual search of the references from key articles. Current studies have demonstrated that PBD should not be routinely performed because of the postoperative complications. PBD should only be considered in carefully selected patients, particularly in cases where surgery had to be delayed. PBD may be needed in patients with severe jaundice, concomitant cholangitis, or severe malnutrition. The optimal method of biliary drainage has yet to be confirmed. PBD should be performed by endoscopic routes rather than by percutaneous routes to avoid metastatic tumor seeding. Endoscopic stenting or nasobiliary drainage can be selected. Although more expensive, the use of metallic stents remains a viable option to achieve effective drainage without cholangitis and reintervention.