Purpose: To identify factors associated with outcome after surgical management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and examine the impact of lymph node (LN) assessment on survival.Patients and Methods: From an international multi-institutional database, 449 patients who underwent surgery for ICC between 1973 and 2010 were identified. Clinical and pathologic data were evaluated using uni- and multivariate analyses.Results: Median tumor size was 6.5 cm. Most patients had a solitary tumor (73%) and no vascular invasion (69%). Median survival was 27 months, and 5-year survival was 31%. Factors associated with adverse prognosis included positive margin status (hazard ratio [HR], 2.20; P < .001), multiple lesions (HR, 1.80; P = .001), and vascular invasion (HR, 1.59; P = .015). Tumor size was not a prognostic factor (HR, 1.03; P = .23). Patients were stratified using the American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer T1, T2a, and T2b categories (seventh edition) in a discrete step-wise fashion (P < .001). Lymphadenectomy was performed in 248 patients (55%); 74 of these (30%) had LN metastasis. LN metastasis was associated with worse outcome (median survival: N0, 30 months v N1, 24 months; P = .03). Although patients with no LN metastasis were able to be stratified by tumor number and vascular invasion (N0; P < .001), among patients with N1 disease, multiple tumors and vascular invasion, either alone or together, failed to discriminate patients into discrete prognostic groups (P = .34).Conclusion: Although tumor size provides no prognostic information, tumor number, vascular invasion, and LN metastasis were associated with survival. N1 status adversely affected overall survival and also influenced the relative effect of tumor number and vascular invasion on prognosis. Lymphadenectomy should be strongly considered for ICC, because up to 30% of patients will have LN metastasis.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is the second most common primary liver malignant tumor after hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It represents 10% to 20% of all primary liver malignant tumors, with an estimated 3100 new cases of ICC occurring every year in the United States.¹ A relatively uncommon disease with a poor prognosis for survival, the incidence of ICC has been increasing during the last 3 decades.^2,3 Surgical resection is the mainstay of curative intent treatment for ICC and is associated with improved survival in selected patients.^2,3 We previously published data on a large, multi-institutional, multinational cohort of patients and noted that 5-year survival after surgical resection was 30% to 35%.³

Objectives: To critically assess centralization policies for highly specialized surgeries in Europe and North America and propose recommendations. Background/Methods: Most countries are increasingly forced to maintain quality medicine at a reasonable cost. An all-inclusive perspective, including health care providers, payers, society as a whole and patients, has ubiquitously failed, arguably for different reasons in environments. This special article follows 3 aims: first, analyze health care policies for centralization in different countries, second, analyze how centralization strategies affect patient outcome and other aspects such as medical education and cost, and third, propose recommendations for centralization, which could apply across continents. Results: Conflicting interests have led many countries to compromise for a health care system based on factors beyond best patient-oriented care. Centralization has been a common strategy, but modalities vary greatly among countries with no consensus on the minimal requirement for the number of procedures per center or per surgeon. Most national policies are either partially or not implemented. Data overwhelmingly indicate that concentration of complex care or procedures in specialized centers have positive impacts on quality of care and cost. Countries requiring lower threshold numbers for centralization, however, may cause inappropriate expansion of indications, as hospitals struggle to fulfill the criteria. Centralization requires adjustments in training and credentialing of general and specialized surgeons, and patient education. Conclusion/Recommendations: There is an obvious need in most areas for effective centralization. Unrestrained, purely “market driven” approaches are deleterious to patients and society. Centralization should not be based solely on minimal number of procedures, but rather on the multidisciplinary treatment of complex diseases including well-trained specialists available around the clock. Audited prospective database with monitoring of quality of care and cost are mandatory.