肝门部胆管癌根治性切除术48例临床分析

不同肝切除技术的根治切除率和远期疗效.结果 术前19例行经皮经肝胆道引流术,2例行对侧门静脉栓塞术.手术方式包括未切肝或少量肝方叶组织切除8例,中央区域限量肝切除10例,扩大左半肝切除17例,扩大右半肝切除11例,肝中叶切除2例.术后病理显示远端胆管均获得阴性切缘,近端胆管阳性切缘5例.手术死亡1例.总体术后1、3和5年生存率分别为93.5%、51.8%和36.5%.扩大肝切除术后患者长期生存率显著高于限量肝切除和局部切除术(P=0.034).结论 扩大的肝切除术治疗肝门部胆管癌可以获得更好的预后.     

肝门部胆管癌的手术治疗及预后的多因素分析:附41例

目的 探讨肝门部胆管癌的手术治疗及生存预后的影响因素.方法 回顾性分析中南大学湘雅二医院1999年1月至2007年2月手术治疗的41例肝门部胆管癌的临床特点,手术方式,及随访结果.COX比例风险模型进行预后的多因素分析.结果 41例手术治疗中,切除手术21例,其中R0根治性切除11例,R1切除6例.R2切除4例,手术切除率51.2%(21/41),根治性切除率52.4%(11/21).该组病例总体1、3、5年生存率分别为41.5%,14.6%,4.9%.切除术组1、3、5年生存率分别为71.3%,28.6%,9.5%.R0,R1,R2切除术后1、3、5年生存率分别为81.8%,45.5%,18.2%;66.7%,16.7%,0;50%,0,0.结论 手术切除仍然是治疗HCC惟一有可能获得治愈和长期生存的有效手段.切缘无瘤.联合肝叶切除及肿瘤分期是影响预后的重要因素.     

60例肺多形性癌的外科治疗

目的 探讨肺多形性癌的外科治疗并分析影响预后的因素,以期提高对肺多形性癌的认识.方法 回顾性分析上海市胸科医院胸外科1999年至2011年收治的60例肺多形性癌临床资料,男性55例,女性5例；年龄45～77岁.周围型肺癌55例,中央型5例.54例行完全切除(R0)；6例行肉眼根治切除,但镜下显示切缘阳性(R1).术后均随访.Kaplan-Meier法计算生存率,Logrank法进行生存率显著性检验,Cox比例风险回归模型进行多因素分析.结果 全组无手术死亡.1例手术当日因血胸行再次开胸止血；1例右上叶支气管袖形切除术后半年因吻合口瘢痕增生导致右余肺不张而行右余肺切除术.60例患者3年、5年生存率分别为47.2％、25.6％.本组患者中无淋巴结转移患者(25例)3年、5年生存率分别为57.3％、32.5％,淋巴结转移者(35例)3、5年生存率为25.4％、17.1％,有无淋巴结转移的患者3年、5年生存率差异有有统计学意义(P=0.017).根治性切除(R0)3年、5年生存率51.5％、30.3％,非根治性切除3年、5年生存率12.5％、0.多因素分析显示,影响预后的独立因素是手术根治程度(P=0.041)及有无淋巴结转移(P =0.029).结论 肺多形性癌预后差,应早期手术.手术根治程度和有无淋巴结转移是患者预后的独立预测因子.     

肝门部胆管癌的外科治疗和预后相关因素分析

目的 探讨肝门部胆管癌的外科治疗策略及预后相关因素.方法 对1990年1月至2005年12月144例行手术切除治疗的肝门部胆管癌患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析.144例患者中,男性102例,女性42例;年龄36～74岁,平均63岁.根治性切除(R0组)86例(59.7%),镜下切缘阳性(R1组)34例(23.6%),肉眼切缘阳性(R2组)24例(16.7%).R0组和R1组的120例患者中,Bismuth-Corlette分型Ⅰ型28例(23.3%),Ⅱ型49例(40.8%),ⅢA型10例(8.3%),ⅢB型19例(15.8%),Ⅳ型14例(11.7%);TNM分期Ⅰ期19例(15.8%),Ⅱ期80例(66.7%),Ⅲ期16例(13.3%),Ⅳ期5例(4.2%);组织病理学分级:高分化(G1)41例(34.2%),中低分化(G2、G3、G4)79例(65.8%);无淋巴结转移者(N0)62例(51.7%),有淋巴结转移者(N1、N2)58例(48.3%);T1分期42例,T2～3分期78例;无血管侵犯者86例,有血管侵犯者34例.R0组和R1组120例患者均施行伴部分肝切除+区域淋巴结清扫术.结果 中位生存期:R0组46.8个月,R1组18.3个月,R2组11.2个月.生存率:R0组和R1组的120例患者术后1、3、5年总生存率分别为60.2%、36.1%、29.4%,R0组预后好于R1组(P<0.01),R1组预后好于R2组(P=0.031);高分化癌患者预后较好(P=0.003);有淋巴结转移患者预后极差(P<0.01);T1期患者的预后好于T2～3分期患者(P=0.030).有血管侵犯者预后较差(P=0.047).结论 肝门部胆管癌的病理类型、临床分期以及是否行根治性切除是影响预后的主要因素.联合不同范围的肝切除及淋巴结清扫术对提高肝门部胆管癌的根治率和生存率有重要的意义.     

58例肝外胆管癌的临床治疗及预后因素分析

目的分析肝外胆管癌治疗方法及预后影响因素。方法回顾性分析58例肝外胆管癌患者的临床病理资料,应用Kaplan-Meier法计算生存率,对可能影响患者预后的因素分别进行单因素分析(log-rank检验),应用Cox比例风险模型进行多因素统计分析。结果 58例患者中位生存期为33个月,1、3和5年疾病特异性生存率分别为78.6%、39.3%和17.8%。根治性手术组与非根治性手术组患者1、3、5年疾病特异性生存率分别为88.2%、70.1%、37.4%和71.7%、23.0%、7.8%(P=0.001);行辅助化疗和未行辅助化疗两组3和5年疾病特异性生存率分别为69.1%、39.8%和40.1%、9.3%(P=0.029)。单因素分析的结果显示患者治疗前血清总胆红素、白蛋白水平、组织分化程度、是否行根治术、切缘有无残存肿瘤、有无脉管侵犯、有无淋巴结转移、肝转移以及是否行辅助化疗等因素对生存的影响有统计学意义(P<0.05)。多因素分析结果示根治术、切缘阳性、淋巴转移是影响肝外胆管癌患者生存的重要因素(P<0.05)。结论根治术、淋巴结转移、切缘阳性等因素对肝外胆管癌患者的生存产生重要影响;在肝外胆管癌诊治中,根治术仍是改善预后的重要措施,辅助化疗可能改善生存,但不是独立预后因素。     

腹腔镜下中下段胆管癌根治术中联合肝动脉切除重建的疗效与安全性：附3例报告（附视频）

背景与目的：中下段胆管癌临床上主要以下段胆管癌多见,下段胆管癌一般采用胰十二指肠切除术,中段胆管癌可以采用胰十二指肠切除术或胆管癌根治、胆肠吻合术。中下段胆管癌因胆管紧邻肝动脉和门静脉,因此更容易发生门静脉侵犯,因肝动脉有动脉外鞘,因此肝动脉受侵犯相对较少,但一旦侵犯,因为涉及肝动脉切除吻合重建,具有较高技术难度,常需联合肝动脉切除重建才能实现R0切除。目前肝动脉切除重建在临床逐渐成熟,但腹腔镜下完成肝动脉切除重建经验缺乏,需要进一步积累。因此,本研究对3例完成腹腔镜下联合肝动脉切除重建的胆管癌患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析并评估短期结果,以期为临床实践提供初步经验。方法：回顾性分析2021年11月—2022年11月中国人民解放军陆军军医大学第二附属医院肝胆外科的3例行联合肝动脉切除重建的中下段胆管癌根治术患者的临床资料。结果：3例患者中女性1例,男性2例,年龄分别为61、65、69岁;病例1为胆管中段癌,因肿瘤侵犯右肝动脉和门静脉,且胆管下端切缘阴性,行联合右肝动脉切除重建、门静脉切除重建、胆管癌切除、胆肠吻合术、肝门部胆管整形术、淋巴结清扫术;病例2为胆管下段癌,因肿瘤侵犯替代右肝动...     

肝门部胆管癌切除术后的预后分析

目的 探讨肝门部胆管癌切除术的疗效并分析影响预后的因素。方法 选取2012-01—2016-06间在郑州大学第一附属医院肝胆外科接受肝门部胆管癌切除术的53例肝门部胆管癌患者,对其临床资料、随访结果、预后因素进行回顾性分析。结果 53例患者中,R0切除31例,R1切除22例。中位生存时间22个月,术后1、2、3 a生存率分别为78%、47%、20%。术后发生并发症36例。死亡2例(3.8%),其中1例死于急性肝功能衰竭、1例死于MODS。单因素Log-Rank检测结果显示,RO切除、淋巴结转移、TNM分期、CA19-9、AST、血管侵犯影响预后。多因素分析显示手术切缘阳性、TNM分期、淋巴结转移为影响预后的独立危险因素。结论 肝门部胆管癌的预后与TNM分期、淋巴转移、是否根治性切除有关。选择适宜的治疗方式,有望获得良好的效果。     

肝门部胆管癌的外科治疗体会

目的总结肝门部胆管癌的外科治疗经验。方法回顾性分析2009年1月至2011年7月期间哈尔滨医科大学附属第二医院胆胰外科收治的87例肝门部胆管癌患者的临床和随访资料。结果本组87例肝门部胆管癌患者手术切除率为67.8%(59/87),其中根治性切除率即R0切除率为48.3%(42/87),R1切除率为11.5%(10/87),姑息性切除即R2切除率为8.0%(7/87)。本组无围手术期死亡患者。42例获得R0切除的患者术后1、3、5年生存率分别为92.9%(39/42)、31.0%(13/42)、19.0%(8/42);R2切除和内外引流患者均无超过3年的患者,10例R1切除者1年生存率为70.0%(7/10)、2年生存率为20.0%(2/10),7例R2切除者1年生存率为57.1%(4/7),28例内外引流患者1年生存率为35.7%(10/28)。R1、R2切除患者的1、3、5年生存率均明显低于R0切除者(P0.05)。结论对于肝门部胆管癌,根治性手术是唯一可能治愈的方法,术前精确评估、经皮经肝穿刺胆管引流解除胆管梗阻、合理的肝脏切除、术中行切缘冰冻病理检查是根治性切除的重要保障;姑息性切除仍可延长患者生存期及提高生活质量。     

肝外胆管癌的手术治疗效果分析

目的探讨肝外胆管癌的外科治疗。方法回顾分析我院外科手术收治的61例肝外胆管癌临床资料。结果其中胆管中段癌28例、胆管下段癌33例。胆管中段癌根治性切除率为64.29%,手术并发症14.28%,5年生存率38.89%;胆管下段癌根治性切除率为75.76%,手术并发症36%,5年生存率24%,两组间均无统计学差异。结论肝外胆管癌缺乏有效的早期诊断方法,手术仍是治疗肝外胆管癌的首选方法,胆管中段癌和胆管下段癌不需要区别讨论。     

110例壶腹周围癌胰十二指肠切除术后预后分析

目的：探讨壶腹周围癌中不同类型肿瘤的临床病理特征及与手术、预后的关系。方法：回顾性分析行胰十二指肠切除术的110例壶腹周围癌临床病理及生存时间。结果：全组包括胰头癌60例(54.5%),胆总管下端癌19例(17.3%), Vater壶腹部癌24例（21.8%）和十二指肠乳头癌7例(6.4%);胰腺癌组与非胰腺癌组患者在手术时间、术中出血量、切缘阳性率及淋巴结转移阳性率之间差异有统计学意义,肿瘤分期、阳性切缘及淋巴结转移均是影响患者Whipple术后生存率的独立危险因素;胰腺癌患者与非胰腺癌患者Whipple术后5年生存率差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论：肿瘤分期与阳性切缘、淋巴结转移是影响Whipple术后生存的独立危险因素,非胰腺癌较胰腺癌术后预后更好。     

Prognostic factors of surgical resection in middle and distal bile duct cancer: an analysis of 55 patients concerning the significance of ductal and radial margins

BACKGROUND: The surgical outcome of middle and/or distal bile duct cancer remains unsatisfactory. Although the resectional margin is known to be a predictive factor, the prognostic significance of a positive ductal margin and other radial margin has never been evaluated independently. METHODS: The clinicopathologic data of 55 patients who had undergone surgical resection for middle and/or distal bile duct cancer between 1987 and 2003 were reviewed retrospectively. The surgical procedures consisted of pancreatoduodenectomy in 42 patients (76%), extrahepatic bile duct resection in 8 patients (15%), major hemihepatectomy (Hx) in 3 patients (5%), and pancreatoduodenectomy plus Hx in 2 patients (4%). In all the patients, intraoperative diagnosis of the ductal margins was performed using frozen sections. Twenty-one clinicopathologic factors, including the status of the ductal margins and of other radial margins, were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The overall 5-year survival rate and the median survival time were 24% and 38 months, respectively. There were 4 (7%) postoperative deaths. Fifteen of the remaining 51 patients (29%) were determined to have positive hepatic-side ductal margins during operation, and 14 of them underwent additional resection of the bile duct (1.6[range, 1-3] times, on average). As a result, hepatic-side ductal margin (hm) and duodenal-side ductal margin were found to be positive in 6 and 0 patients on the final pathologic analysis, respectively. Two of the 6 patients (33%) with positive hm have developed ductal recurrence so far, but the status of hm was not found to be a significant predictor. The depth of neoplastic invasion into the bile duct wall, pancreatic invasion, radial margin, and blood transfusion were significant prognostic factors by the univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis revealed that the depth of neoplastic invasion and blood transfusion were the independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of middle and distal bile duct cancer, it is of importance to secure a negative radial margin, although it may be less beneficial to obtain a negative hm. Surgeons should make efforts to obtain negative radial margins and to avoid blood transfusion.     

Significance of Ductal Margin Status in Patients Undergoing Surgical Resection for Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine whether carcinoma in situ at the bile duct margin is prognostically different from residual invasive carcinoma in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Although there are many reports that the ductal margin status at bile duct resection stumps is a prognostic indicator in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, some patients who undergo resection with microscopic tumor involvement of the bile duct margin survive longer than expected. METHODS: A retrospective clinicopathological analysis of 128 patients who had undergone surgical resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma was conducted. The status of the bile duct resection margin was classified as negative in 105 patients (82.0%), positive for carcinoma in situ in 12 patients (9.4%), and positive for invasive carcinoma in 11 patients (8.6%). RESULTS: Ductal margin status was an independent prognostic indicator by both univariate (p = 0.0022) and multivariate (p = 0.0105) analyses, along with lymph node metastasis. There was no significant difference between patients with a negative ductal margin and those with a positive ductal margin with carcinoma in situ (p = 0.5247). The 5-year survival rate of patients with a positive ductal margin with carcinoma in situ (22.2%) was significantly better (p = 0.0241) than with invasive carcinoma (0%). There was a significant relationship between local recurrence and ductal margin status (p = 0.0401). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing surgical resection for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, invasive carcinoma at the ductal resection margins appears to have a significant relation to local recurrence and also a significant negative impact on survival, whereas residual carcinoma in situ does not. Discrimination whether carcinoma in situ or invasive carcinoma is present is important in clinical setting in which the resection margin at the ductal stump is positive.     

Carcinoma of the distal and middle bile duct: surgical results, prognostic factors, and long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Carcinoma of the distal bile duct is associated with poor prognosis. Surgical resection remains the only potentially curative treatment. We conducted a retrospective study to identify prognostic factors determining longterm survival. METHODS: From 1990 to 2006, 95 patients with distal and/or middle bile duct carcinoma had resections. Fifty-four patients underwent pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (57%) and 41 patients underwent standard Kausch-Whipple pancreaticoduodenectomy (43%). Nine patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy including portal vein resection (9%). RESULTS: Overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 60%, 36%, and 29%, respectively. Five-year survival after R0 resection was 34%, and after R1 resection it was 0%. Four patients died during their hospital stay (4%). Multivariate analysis showed negative resection margins (P = 0.040), lymphatic vessel invasion (P = 0.036), and portal vein infiltration (P = 0.027) as strong predictors for survival, whereas the location of the tumor (distal bile duct vs middle bile duct) and lymph node status were not identified as independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Five-year survival depends strongly on negative resection margins, independent of nodal status. Portal vein resections in patients with portal vein involvement fail to ameliorate long-term survival. Primary tumor site--middle bile duct or distal bile duct--did not determine prognosis.     

Prognostic factors after pancreatoduodenectomy for distal bile duct cancer

Prognostic factors influencing long-term survival after radical resection for distal bile duct cancer have not been well established because of the rarity of this malignancy. The goal of this study was to identify main prognostic factors in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for distal bile duct carcinoma. A retrospective study consisting of 122 patients with distal bile duct cancer who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy in three major university hospitals was performed to identify the main prognostic factors. Major surgical complications occurred in 40 patients (32.8%), of whom eight died (6.6%) in the hospital. Overall actuarial survival (excluding hospital deaths) at 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up was 82.9, 49.4, and 32.7 per cent, respectively, with a median survival of 36 months. Univariate analysis showed that papillary tumor (P = 0.045), negative surgical margin (R0 resection, P = 0.005), earlier pT (P = 0.005), pTNM stage (P < 0.001), and absence of lymph node involvement (P < 0.0001) were significant predictors of survival. On multivariate analysis, only lymph node metastasis was shown to be an independent prognostic factor of survival (P = 0.036). Lymph node involvement was the most important survival predictor after a Whipple resection in patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma.     

远端胆管癌切除患者术后生存的影响因素分析

目的 研究影响远端胆管癌手术预后的因素,为远端胆管癌手术方式的选择和治疗提供依据.方法 对北京世纪坛医院、北京大学人民医院和北京大学第一医院1995-2009年具有完整随访资料的103例远端胆管癌病例进行回顾性分析,应用Kaplan-Meier单因素分析法和Cox比例风险模型多因素分析法对10个可能对预后产生影响的因素进行分析.结果 1、3、5年总体生存率分别为72%、41%和25%,中位生存期为24.13个月;单因素方差分析结果表明手术方式、淋巴结转移、TNM分期和切缘情况与远端胆管癌术后生存有关;Cox比例风险模型多因素分析结果表明切缘情况、淋巴结转移和TNM分期是影响远端胆管癌切除术后预后的独立因素.结论 切缘情况、淋巴结转移和TNM分期为远端胆管癌切除术后有关生存影响的独立因素,胰十二指肠切除术为远端胆管癌首选的手术方式.     

远端胆管癌切除患者术后生存的影响因素分析

目的 研究影响远端胆管癌手术预后的因素,为远端胆管癌手术方式的选择和治疗提供依据.方法 对北京世纪坛医院、北京大学人民医院和北京大学第一医院1995-2009年具有完整随访资料的103例远端胆管癌病例进行回顾性分析,应用Kaplan-Meier单因素分析法和Cox比例风险模型多因素分析法对10个可能对预后产生影响的因素进行分析.结果 1、3、5年总体生存率分别为72%、41%和25%,中位生存期为24.13个月;单因素方差分析结果表明手术方式、淋巴结转移、TNM分期和切缘情况与远端胆管癌术后生存有关;Cox比例风险模型多因素分析结果表明切缘情况、淋巴结转移和TNM分期是影响远端胆管癌切除术后预后的独立因素.结论 切缘情况、淋巴结转移和TNM分期为远端胆管癌切除术后有关生存影响的独立因素,胰十二指肠切除术为远端胆管癌首选的手术方式.     

远端胆管癌切除患者术后生存的影响因素分析

目的 研究影响远端胆管癌手术预后的因素,为远端胆管癌手术方式的选择和治疗提供依据.方法 对北京世纪坛医院、北京大学人民医院和北京大学第一医院1995-2009年具有完整随访资料的103例远端胆管癌病例进行回顾性分析,应用Kaplan-Meier单因素分析法和Cox比例风险模型多因素分析法对10个可能对预后产生影响的因素进行分析.结果 1、3、5年总体生存率分别为72%、41%和25%,中位生存期为24.13个月;单因素方差分析结果表明手术方式、淋巴结转移、TNM分期和切缘情况与远端胆管癌术后生存有关;Cox比例风险模型多因素分析结果表明切缘情况、淋巴结转移和TNM分期是影响远端胆管癌切除术后预后的独立因素.结论 切缘情况、淋巴结转移和TNM分期为远端胆管癌切除术后有关生存影响的独立因素,胰十二指肠切除术为远端胆管癌首选的手术方式.     

The proximal margin of resected hilar cholangiocarcinoma: the effect of microscopic positive margin on long-term survival

Achieving an R0 resection can be difficult for hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HC) because of the anatomic structures of the hepatic hilum and frequent tumor infiltration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the margin status of bile duct resected in HC and prognostic impact of R1 resection. Between 2000 and 2009, 245 patients underwent operation for HC at Asan Medical Center. We retrospectively analyzed the clinicopathologic features and surgical outcomes, focusing on the proximal margin status, of 162 cases of patients with curative intention. Curative resections were achieved in 125 (52.1%) patients, and R1 resections were performed in 43 (26.5%). Proximal ductal margin states were classified as free margin (73.5%), carcinoma in situ (3.7%), and invasive carcinoma (22.8%). The 3- and 5-year survival rates of the R1 group (39.5% and 34.9%) were not significantly different from the rates of the R0 group (55.5% and 44.5%, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed lymph node metastasis (P = 0.001) and histologic differentiation (P = 0.001) were independent predictors of patient survival. The aggressive surgical approach based on liver resection including caudate lobe may increase the number of patients eligible for a curative chance and improve long-term survival even if the microscopically positive margin is still achieved.     

Histologic bile duct invasion by a mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Abstract. Background/Purpose: Although curative surgical resection provides the best chance of long-term survival for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, the presence of bile duct invasion decreases postoperative survival rates in patients with mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. We carried out this study to determine a surgical strategy for patients with bile duct invasion of these tumors. Methods: Forty-one patients with mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma were classified as either having bile duct invasion (n= 26) or not having bile duct invasion (n= 15). Clinicopathologic findings, including postoperative outcomes, were compared between these two groups. Results: Perineural invasion, lymphatic invasion, and a positive resection margin were more frequent in patients with ductal invasion. Patients with ductal invasion had lower survival rates than those without ductal invasion. Conclusions: Intraoperative frozen section examination of the bile duct stump to confirm a clear resection margin is required in patients with mass-forming tumors. Resection of the extrahepatic bile duct should be considered when tumor cells are identified at the surgical margin of the resected bile duct. Received: October 30, 2001 / accepted: November 16, 2001     

Resective operations for biliary carcinoma

Records of 25 consecutive patients who underwent resection for proximal bile duct tumor (3 extended right hepatic lobectomies, 6 left hepatic lobectomies, 16 skeletonization resections) and records of 21 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for distal bile duct carcinoma were reviewed to assess the value of resective therapy. The operative mortality rate for patients with resected proximal bile duct tumor was 4 per cent (0 per cent for liver resection) and that of distal bile duct tumor, 4.6 per cent. The 3- and 5-year actuarial survival rates for patients with proximal bile duct tumor were 44 per cent and 35 per cent, respectively; all except one patient eventually died of disease. Survival was better for patients who had curative resection (margins microscopically free of tumor). The 5-year actuarial survival rate for patients with distal bile duct carcinoma was 58±12 (SE) per cent, with patients who had negative nodes surviving longer than patients with positive nodes. When major hepatic resection and pancreatoduodenectomy can be performed in selected patients with low operative mortality, patients with bile duct carcinoma should be assessed by an experienced hepatobiliary multidisciplinary group before a decision is made in favor of palliative, endoscopic, or percutaneous techniques because surgical resection appears to offer the best possible long-term survival and probably the best quality of palliation. This report is the basis of a paper read by R.L.R. at the 90th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Surgical Society, Sapporo, Japan, 1990