Removal of intrahepatic bile duct stone could reduce the risk of cholangiocarcinoma: A single-center retrospective study in South Korea

doi:10.12998/wjcc.v12.i5.913

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 12, Issue 5

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (1779)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-1) series, Tables (1-3) series.

Item

Count

PDF

119

WORD

HTML

719

Figures (1-1)

118

Tables (1-3)

136

Sum=1104

Featured Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

106

Download

210

Sum=316

Publishing Process of This Article

Item

Count

Browse

108

Download

193

Sum=301

Feb 16, 2024 (publication date) through Jul 21, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (1)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Clinical Cases

ISSN

2307-8960

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Retrospective Study

World J Clin Cases. Feb 16, 2024; 12(5): 913-921
Published online Feb 16, 2024. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i5.913

Table 1 Baseline characteristics between intrahepatic duct stone patient with or without cholangiocarcinoma

Variable	IHD stone with CCC, n = 36	IHD stone without CCC, n = 361	P value
Male sex	12 (33.3)	143 (39.6)	0.461³
Age	60.75 ± 10.20	61.31 ± 10.58	0.687²
BMI	23.27 ± 3.23	22.93 ± 3.27	0.551¹
Hepatitis
None	31 (86.1)	342 (94.7)	0.049⁴
HBV	4 (11.1)	11 (3.0)
HCV	1 (2.8)	8 (2.2)
DM	5 (13.9)	53 (14.7)	0.893³
HT	5 (13.9)	66 (18.4)	0.503³
CA19-9, minimum	176.00 ± 463.47	11.96 ± 15.65	0.010²
CA19-9 > UNL	7 (19.4)	7 (1.9)	< 0.001⁴
CEA, minimum	8.23 ± 29.45	1.96 ± 1.32	0.332²
CEA > UNL	5 (13.9)	7 (1.9)	0.002⁴
Location
Lt & both	31 (86.1)	253 (70.1)	0.042³
Rt	5 (13.9)	108 (29.9)
Multiple stone	30 (83.3)	254 (70.4)	0.100³
Stone size > duct diameter	19 (52.8)	173 (47.9)	0.578³
Focal atrophy	19 (52.8)	97 (26.9)	0.001³
Duct stricture	17 (47.2)	90 (24.9)	0.004³
IHD stone removal	12 (33.3)	228 (63.2)	< 0.001³
Complete removal & no recurrence	8 (22.2)	165 (45.7)	0.007³
Complete removal & recurrence	2 (5.6)	29 (8.0)	10.000⁴
Incomplete removal	2 (5.6)	34 (9.4)	0.759⁴
Removal method
Non-surgery, PTCS, ERCP	6 (50.0)	128 (56.1)	0.676³
Surgery	6 (50.0)	100 (43.9)
Medication
Aspirin	0 (0.0)	14 (3.9)	0.626⁴
UDCA	28 (77.8)	265 (73.4)	0.570³
Metformin	3 (8.3)	19 (5.3)	0.4374
Statin	2 (5.6)	23 (6.4)	1.000⁴
Recurrent cholangitis	20 (55.6)	185 (51.2)	0.622³
F/U period, mean ± SD	96.33 ± 59.06	83.93 ± 60.38	0.164²

¹P values were derived from independent t-test.

²P values were derived from Mann-Whitney U test.

³P values were derived by χ² test.

⁴P values were derived from Fisher’s exact test. Shapiro-Wilk test was employed for test of normality assumption. Values are either frequency with percentage in parentheses or mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median (interquartile range). BMI: Body mass index; CA19-9: Carbohydrate antigen 19-9; CCC: Cholangiocarcinoma; CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; DM: Diabetes mellitus; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; F/U: Follow up; HBV: Hepatitis B virus; HCV: Hepatitis C virus; IHD: Intrahepatic duct; HT: Hypertension; PTCS: Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy; UDCA: Ursodeoxycholic acid; UNL: Upper normal limit.

Table 2 Risk factor analysis for cholangiocarcinoma

Variable	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
Variable	OR	95%CI	P value	OR	95%CI	P value¹
Male sex	0.76	0.37-1.57	0.463
Age	0.99	0.96-1.03	0.761
BMI	1.03	0.93-1.15	0.550
Hepatitis
None	Reference
HBV	4.01	1.21-13.35	0.023
HCV	1.38	0.17-11.39	0.765
DM	0.93	0.35-2.51	0.893
HT	0.72	0.27-1.91	0.505
CA19-9, minimum	1.01	1.00-1.02	0.013
CA19-9 > UNL	12.21	4.01-37.19	0.000	15.85	3.79-66.31	0.000
CEA, minimum	1.28	1.03-1.59	0.026
CEA > UNL	8.16	2.44-27.21	0.001	8.12	1.87-35.35	0.005
Location, Lt and both	2.65	1.00-6.99	0.049	4.37	1.37-13.94	0.013
Multiple stone	2.11	0.85-5.21	0.107
Stone size > duct diameter	1.21	0.61-2.41	0.579
Focal atrophy	3.04	1.52-6.09	0.002	2.59	1.13-5.94	0.025
Duct stricture	2.69	1.34-5.41	0.005	2.24	0.96-5.23	0.061
IHD stone removal
Complete removal and no recurrence	0.34	0.15-0.76	0.009	0.21	0.09-0.50	0.000
Complete removal and recurrence	0.67	0.15-2.95	0.600
Incomplete removal	0.57	0.13-2.46	0.447
Removal method
None	Reference
Non-surgery, PTCS, ERCP	0.26	0.10-0.66	0.004	0.33	0.07-1.45	0.141
Surgery	0.33	0.13-0.84	0.021	0.37	0.08-1.70	0.200
Medication
Aspirin	0.00	0.00-0.00	0.999
UDCA	1.27	0.56-2.88	0.570
Metformin	1.64	0.46-5.82	0.447
Statin	0.86	0.20-3.83	0.848

¹Effect of independent variables on response variable was analyzed using multivariate logistic regression, and the statistically significant variables were included in the univariate logistic regression with 0.05 alpha level. BMI: Body mass index; CA19-9: Carbohydrate antigen 19-9; CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; CI: Confidence interval; DM: Diabetes mellitus; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; HBV: Hepatitis B virus; HCV: Hepatitis C virus; HT: Hypertension; IHD: Intrahepatic duct; OR: Odds ratio; PTCS: Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy; UNL: Upper normal limit; UDCA: Ursodeoxycholic acid.

Table 3 Comparison of results according to stone removal method, n = 240

Removal method	Surgery, n = 106	Non-surgery, n = 134	P value
Cholangiocarcinoma	6 (5.7)	6 (4.5)	0.676
Remnant stone	9 (8.5)	27 (20.1)	0.012
Recurrent stone	12 (11.3)	52 (38.8)	< 0.001
Recurrent cholangitis	37 (34.9)	96 (71.6)	< 0.001

Citation: Kim TI, Han SY, Lee J, Kim DU. Removal of intrahepatic bile duct stone could reduce the risk of cholangiocarcinoma: A single-center retrospective study in South Korea. World J Clin Cases 2024; 12(5): 913-921
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v12/i5/913.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v12.i5.913