Next Article in Journal
Contemporary Advances in Cardiac Remote Monitoring: A Comprehensive, Updated Mini-Review
Next Article in Special Issue
The Role of Lymph Node Downstaging Following Neoadjuvant Treatment in a Group of Patients with Advanced Stage Cervical Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
Recurrences after Pulsed Field Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: Incidence, Mechanisms, Predictors, and Comparison with Thermal Energy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (NAC) on Biomarker Expression in Breast Cancer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Medicina
Volume 60
Issue 5
10.3390/medicina60050818
medicina-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Clinicopathologic Analysis and Prognostic Factors for Survival in Patients with Operable Ampullary Carcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Experience

by
Nebi Serkan Demirci
1,*,
Eyyup Cavdar
2,
Nuriye Yildirim Ozdemir
3,
Sinemis Yuksel
4,
Yakup Iriagac
5,
Gokmen Umut Erdem
1,
Hatice Odabas
4,
Ilhan Hacibekiroglu
6,
Mustafa Karaagac
7,
Mahmut Ucar
8,
Banu Ozturk
9 and
Yakup Bozkaya
10
1
Department of Medical Oncology, Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, 34098 Istanbul, Türkiye
2
Department of Medical Oncology, Adiyaman Training and Research Hospital, Adiyaman University, 02000 Adiyaman, Türkiye
3
Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Yıldırım Beyazıt University, 06010 Ankara, Türkiye
4
Department of Medical Oncology, Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Kartal Education and Research Hospital, 34865 Istanbul, Türkiye
5
Department of Medical Oncology, Balikesir Ataturk City Hospital, 10100 Balikesir, Türkiye
6
Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, 54050 Sakarya, Türkiye
7
Department of Medical Oncology, Meram Medical Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42090 Konya, Türkiye
8
Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Erciyes University, 38039 Kayseri, Türkiye
9
Department of Medical Oncology, Akdeniz University, 07058 Antalya, Türkiye
10
Department of Medical Oncology, Yeniyuzyil University-Gaziosmanpasa Hospital, 34098 Istanbul, Türkiye
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Medicina 2024, 60(5), 818; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60050818
Submission received: 4 May 2024 / Revised: 10 May 2024 / Accepted: 13 May 2024 / Published: 16 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Cancer Multimodal Approaches: Biomarkers, Mechanisms, Surgical Procedures and Oncological Therapies, 2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background and Objectives: In ampullary cancer, 5-year survival rates are 30–50%, even with optimal resection and perioperative systemic therapies. We sought to determine the important clinicopathological features and adjuvant treatments in terms of the prognosis of patients with operable-stage ampullary carcinomas. Materials and Methods: We included 197 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy to treat ampullary carcinomas between December 2003 and May 2019. Demographics, clinical features, treatments, and outcomes/survival were analyzed. Results: The median disease-free survival (mDFS) and median overall survival (mOS) were 40.9 vs. 63.4 months, respectively. The mDFS was significantly lower in patients with lymphovascular invasion (p < 0.001) and lymph node involvement (p = 0.027). Potential predictors of decreased OS on univariate analysis included age ≥ 50 years (p = 0.045), poor performance status (p = 0.048), weight loss (p = 0.045), T3–T4 tumors (p = 0.018), surgical margin positivity (p = 0.01), lymph node involvement (p = 0.001), lymphovascular invasion (p < 0.001), perineural invasion (p = 0.007), and poor histological grade (p = 0.042). For the multivariate analysis, only nodal status (hazard ratio [HR]1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08–3.65; p = 0.027) and surgical margin status (HR 2.61; 95% CI, 1.09–6.24; p = 0.03) were associated with OS. Conclusions: Nodal status and a positive surgical margin were independent predictors of a poor mOS for patients with ampullary carcinomas. Additional studies are required to explore the role of adjuvant therapy in patients with ampullary carcinomas.

1. Introduction

Periampullary tumors are neoplasms arising in close proximity to the papillary ampulla of the duodenum but can also originate in the distal regions of the pancreatic and common bile ducts. Although ampullary carcinomas (ACs) comprise only 0.2% of all gastrointestinal malignancies, they are the second most common periampullary tumors following pancreatic carcinomas of the head [1,2]. Primary ACs are extremely rare, with an incidence of approximately four to six cases per million but have tended to increase in the last three decades [3,4,5]. They cause 20% of malignant obstructions of the bile passage [5]. The most common histopathological type is adenocarcinoma, followed (in order) by neuroendocrine tumors and lymphoma [3].
Ampullary carcinomas are associated with relatively good prognoses compared to those of pancreatic and biliary carcinomas, given their high resection rates (90% in a recent series) [6]. The survival rates after AC resection are 30–50% at 5 years but less than 10% at 2 years for pancreatic carcinomas [7,8,9,10]. The main curative approach is resection with negative margins; the optimal management in terms of adjuvant treatment is controversial [11]. Surgeons also perform local excisions to avoid mortality and morbidity caused by major resections. Although the method remains very controversial, transduodenal excision can serve as a treatment option in selected patient groups (e.g., older patients, those with other comorbid conditions, patients with tumors < 2 cm in diameter, and those with polypoid tumors) [12]. Unfortunately, this procedure increases the risk of positive margins and, therefore, local recurrence. Also, local lymph node dissection is not performed when local resection is chosen, but T1 tumors may be associated with lymph node metastasis [13,14].
Despite the different prognoses, adjuvant treatment generally views the tumors as pancreatic carcinomas, not small intestinal cancers [15,16]. In the current study, we sought to define significantly prognostic clinicopathological factors and useful adjuvant treatment strategies for resected-stage ACs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patients

We interrogated a retrospective database and enrolled 197 patients with histologically proven non-metastatic ACs treated in seven oncology departments in Türkiye between December 2003 and May 2019. All underwent curative intent pancreaticoduodenectomy, including R0 and R1 resections. All were postoperatively monitored using chest radiography and computed tomography; routine blood tests and tumor marker assays were performed during follow up. Patients were followedup regularly every 6 months. This study was approved by our institute’s Ethics Committee.

2.2. Clinical and Histopathologic Features

We collected patient gender, age at diagnosis, performance status, and disease characteristics [stage, nodal status, degree of differentiation, and lymphovascular (LVI) and perineural invasion (PNI) status]. Stage and performance status were defined using the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system (AJCC, 8th edition of the TNM classification) and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), respectively. Data on adjuvant treatments, like chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, were recorded in detail. Recurrence and survival information were obtained from medical charts and the governmental civil registry.

2.3. Statistics

All data were evaluated using the Statistical Package for Statistical Sciences (SPSS 26.0) for Windows 18. We obtained Kaplan–Meier estimates of overall and disease-free survival (OS and DFS) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). OS was the time from the 1st day after surgery to death from any cause and DFS the time from the 1st day after surgery to the date of first recurrence (local or systemic). Univariate Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% CIs for OS and DFS. Variables with p-values < 0.1 or those that were clinically significant on univariate Cox regression analysis were subjected to multivariate analysis using stepwise selection The ratios of individuals surviving for up to 3 and 5 years were calculated using life tables. HRs with 95% CIs were calculated employing Cox’s proportional hazards model. The distributions of prognostic variables among treatment groups were compared using the chi-squared test. p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic Data

Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. The median age at diagnosis was 60 years (min-max, 29–90 years) with a slight male (60.9%) predominance. ECOG performance status was 0–1 in 78% of patients. Most (66%) presented with TNM stage 2 and 3 disease and half with nodal involvement (45.6%). The surgical margins were positive in 6.6% of patients. The LVI and PNI rates were 35% and 25.3% respectively. The vast majority (86.2%) exhibited adenocarcinoma histology. Approximately 1/3 of the patients did not receive adjuvant therapy (29.9%), 1/3 received only chemotherapy (CT) (37.6%), and the remaining 1/3 received chemoradiotherapy (CRT) (32.5%). In all patients who received adjuvant therapy, the agents were gemcitabine or fluoropyrimidine in varying proportions.

3.2. Recurrence and Life Data

At a median follow up of 32.1 months (min-max, 1.6–186.1 months), the median DFS (mDFS) and OS (mOS) were 40.9 (95% CI, 24.59–57.34 months) and 63.4 (95% CI, 24.56–102.31 months), respectively. Age ≥ 50 years (p = 0.045), ECOG performance status ≥ 2 (p = 0.048), nodal involvement (p = 0.001), advanced histological grade (p = 0.042), higher T stage (p = 0.018), LVI (p < 0.001), and PNI (p = 0.007) were found to be related to a poor mOS in the univariate analysis. In addition, stage 2 and 3 disease tended to be associated with a poorer mOS (p = 0.06) (Table 2). For the univariate analysis, the mDFS was significantly worse in patients with LVI (p < 0.001) and lymph node involvement (p = 0.027). Surgical margin positivity (p = 0.058) also tended to be associated with a poor mDFS. In our study, 60% of patients had jaundice at the time of diagnosis, but this had no effect on survival. (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.61–1.49; p = 0.845)
There were statistically insignificant but clinically significant mOS and mDFS differences between cohorts who did and did not receive adjuvant treatment (Table 2 and Figure 1). Most patients with advanced T stages who were lymph node positive (83%, p < 0.001) and had LVI (78.3%, p = 0.052) and positive surgical margins (76.9%, p = 0.180) received adjuvant treatment.
The mOS was 53.8 months in the adjuvant CT group and 44 months in the CRT group compared to a median of 108.5 months in the observation group. There was no statistically significant mOS difference among the three arms (p = 0.348) (Table 2 and Figure 1). CRT did not afford a statistically significant mOS benefit but was clinically significant (44 vs. 108.5 months, p = 0.348), and this did not differ, regardless of whether gemcitabine or 5-fluorouracil was employed (p = 0.99) (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Although the mOS and mDFS did not differ significantly in statistical terms among patients with ampullary cancer treated or adjuvant therapy, clinically significant increases in OS (108.5 vs. 53.1 months, 95% CI, 34.70–71.54 months; p = 0.166) and DFS (100.5 vs. 39.2 months, 95% CI, 25.1–53.48 months; p = 0.296) were observed in patients who did not receive adjuvant therapy (Figure 1).
The multivariate Cox proportional hazard survival analyses of prognostic factors are shown in Table 3. The only independent factors negatively impacting the mOS were nodal metastasis (N stage; HR, 1.98, 95% CI, 1.08–3.65, p = 0.027) and surgical margin positivity (HR, 2.61, 95% CI, 1.09–6.24, p = 0.03) (Figure 3). Also, the advanced T stage was nearly significant (HR, 1.76, 95% CI, 0.96–3.2, p = 0.064).

4. Discussion

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (the Whipple procedure) remains the most important curative approach but has a high operative mortality rate of 15–23% [17,18]. At the time of diagnosis, 80% of patients are eligible for resection, but approximately half experience recurrences [19]. In an older series, those lacking adjuvant treatments, the figure was nearly 75% [20,21]. However, in a recent series, it was 12–40%, which was lower than our 49.7% in the surgery-only group [22,23]. Apart from suboptimal resection, subclinical nodal and regional disease are the main causes of frequent recurrence. Other factors that are prognostic of recurrence at diagnosis have also been defined [11,24,25,26,27]. Our rate of 47.9% is similar to those of other series.
Some researchers argue that AC patients have better prognoses because AC causes jaundice in the respectable stage of disease [28]. This may be true; obstructive jaundice is the most common presenting symptom (70–80% of patients) [2,29,30]. However, in other series, jaundice at diagnosis was found to be correlated with a worse prognosis [31,32,33]. Also, Kamisawa et al. found no correlation between survival and jaundice status in a series of 61 ampullary carcinoma patients [34]. In our study, 60% of patients had jaundice at the time of diagnosis, but this had no effect on survival. ECOG performance status at diagnosis can also be a valuable prognostic feature; this is the case for patients with a variety of solid tumors [35]. In our series, ECOG 2 and 3 status were associated with a worse prognosis.
Adenocarcinoma is the most frequent histological subtype of periampullary carcinomas [35,36]. We found that adenocarcinomas (85.9%), followed by mucinous carcinomas (9.5%), were the most common histological types. Previous data have indicated that (usually) poor tumor differentiation was associated with negative effects on survival [37,38,39]. In our series, poorly differentiated histology was indeed associated with worse survival. Several histopathologically prognostic factors have been reported to negatively affect the outcomes of patients with resected ampullary carcinomas. These include nodal metastasis, pancreatic invasion, PNI and LVI, positive surgical margins, advanced tumor grade, and a higher T stage [40,41,42,43,44]. Not all were identified in all series. The most important factor in terms of life expectancy is lymph node status. Metastasis in the nodal area is strongly associated with poor survival [42,43,45,46,47,48]. Roder et al. were the first to report that nodal metastasis was a negative prognostic factor [46]. Kim et al. showed that lymph node positivity was an independent (negative) predictive factor [49]. Various series reported lymph node positivity in 10 to 46% of patients, similar to our result (45.6%) [4,39,42]. Recent series reported median and 5-year survival rates of 16–24 months and 0–50% in lymph node-positive patients and 39–101.8 months and 39–81% in lymph node-negative patients [4,42,45,46,47]. We found a statistically significant mOS difference between the node-positive and -negative groups.
Lymph node status is associated with tumor size, grade, PNI, LVI, and T stage [39,46]. In a series of 450 patients treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital, nodal metastasis was directly related to the T stage; the nodal involvement percentage increased as the T stage rose [39]. Similar results were found in the present study; lymph node metastasis was more common in patients with stage T3–T4 than T1–T2 tumors. Outcomes are poor if the pancreas is involved. In a study from the Mayo Clinic, a statistically significant OS difference was apparent between those with stage T1–2 and T3–4 tumors [18]. About half of our cohort exhibited pancreatic involvement; our findings confirmed the relationship between pancreatic invasion and poor outcomes.
Most studies have shown that PNI adversely affects overall survival, but conflicting results have been reported [43,50,51,52]. Ghazzaway et al. found no correlation between PNI and survival in a series of 123 patients [53]. We observed that PNI negatively affected overall survival. LVI is a predictor of poor prognosis in patients with ampullary carcinomas [54]. Not surprisingly, in the present study, patients with LVI exhibited a shorter mOS and mDFS. Negative surgical margins correlated positively with better outcomes [4,54,55]; our surgically positive margin rate was similar to those of other series (3–9%) with lower mOS rates.
Although pancreaticoduodenectomy is potentially curative for patients with ampullary carcinomas, approximately half die from recurrences. Adjuvant strategies are required, but no consensus treatment is yet available because of the rarity of the disease and the lack of data on the benefits afforded by postoperative CT or CRT [15,16,56,57,58]. The ESPAC-3 trial enrolled principally ampullary carcinoma patients and sought to define the need for and the optimal type of adjuvant treatment. On subgroup analysis, the mOS values were 40.6, 57.8, and 70.8 months for the observation, FUFA (5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid), and gemcitabine arms, respectively, in those with ampullary carcinomas, irrespective of histology [56]. In our study, the mOS was 53.8 months in the adjuvant CT group and 44 months in the adjuvant CRT group compared to a median of 108.5 months in the observation group. There were no statistically significant mOS differences among the three arms. Further, local treatments are also controversial. In a series of 125 patients treated at the Mayo Clinic, the 5-year survival was 48% in a CRT group receiving FUFA compared to 11% in a no-treatment group. It was concluded that CRT significantly prolonged the mOS in patients with nodal metastasis [22]. In a joint study conducted by the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins Hospital, no significant OS difference was apparent between an adjuvant CRT and a no-treatment group [18]. However, in a subgroup analysis of lymph node-positive patients, CRT was associated with a statistically significant OS difference. In one recent study, adjuvant therapy did not affect the mOS or mDFS [59]. We also found no statistically significant mOS benefits. Although there were no statistically significant differences in the OS or DFS among patients with ampullary cancer who received adjuvant therapy and those who did not, clinically significant increases in OS and DFS were observed in patients who did not receive adjuvant therapy. The shorter survival of patients receiving adjuvant treatment probably reflects the fact that patients on adjuvant therapy were more likely to be of a higher T stage, to be lymph node positive, to exhibit LVI, and to have more poorly differentiated tumors than others.
The AJCC staging systems for ampullary carcinoma do not consider many factors that affect prognosis, such as tumor differentiation and age. The systems predict outcomes in populations rather than in individuals. In a recent study, Li et al. developed and validated an accurate nomogram that predicted tumor recurrence probability in patients with non-metastatic ampullary carcinomas after surgical treatment [60]. The accuracy of the nomogram in terms of predicting disease-specific survival was 0.70 (95% CI 0.68–0.72), better than that of the AJCC staging systems [0.64 (95% CI 0.62–0.66; p < 0.001]. The nomogram should be used to help clinicians and patients assess the recurrence risk and choose appropriate adjuvant treatment.
The limitations of our study are that it was both retrospective and multicenter in nature. Also, subgroups with histological pancreaticobiliary and intestinal cancers were not distinguished. Thus, any differences in the survival of such subgroups could not be determined. Some histological grade and LVI data were missing. This may bias the results. However, we evaluated a large number of patients with a rare disease; we examined many clinicopathological features and the role of adjuvant therapy.

5. Conclusions

We suggest that ampullary carcinomas (especially the intestinal type) should be viewed as distinct from pancreatic carcinomas because, histologically, the former mimic intestinal tumors and survival is better than that associated with pancreatic carcinomas. Patients on adjuvant therapy exhibited poorer survival, probably because such patients exhibited worse clinicopathological features than others. Nodal and surgical margin status were independent predictors of the mOS in patients with carcinomas of the ampulla of Vater. Therefore, randomized multicenter studies that specifically address carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater are required to define the best treatment strategy for patients with nodal involvement and positive surgical margins.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.S.D., E.C. and S.Y.; methodology, N.S.D., E.C., N.Y.O., Y.I. and G.U.E.; software, N.S.D., H.O. and I.H.; validation, N.S.D., E.C., Y.I., M.K., M.U. and B.O.; formal analysis, N.S.D., Y.B., M.U. and B.O.; investigation, N.S.D., H.O. and I.H.; resources, N.S.D., E.C., M.K., M.U. and B.O.; data curation, N.S.D., E.C. and S.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, N.S.D., E.C., N.Y.O., Y.I. and G.U.E.; writing—review and editing, N.S.D., E.C. and Y.B.; visualization, N.S.D. and E.C.; supervision, N.S.D.; project administration, N.S.D., E.C., H.O. and M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital (IRB approval number 91/2019, approval date 13 February 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data sets used in the present study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rosenberg, R.; Friederichs, J.; Schuster, T.; Gertler, R.; Maak, M.; Becker, K.; Grebner, A.; Ulm, K.; Höfler, H.; Nekarda, H.; et al. Prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer is associated with lymph node ratio: A single-center analysis of 3026 patients over a 25-year time period. Ann. Surg. 2008, 248, 968–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Yamaguchi, K.; Enjoji, M. Carcinoma of the ampulla of vater. A clinicopathologic study and pathologic staging of 109 cases of carcinoma and 5 cases of adenoma. Cancer 1987, 59, 506–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Albores-Saavedra, J.; Schwartz, A.M.; Batich, K.; Henson, D.E. Cancers of the ampulla of vater: Demographics, morphology, and survival based on 5625 cases from the SEER program. J. Surg. Oncol. 2009, 100, 598–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Howe, J.R.; Klimstra, D.S.; Moccia, R.D.; Conlon, K.C.; Brennan, M.F. Factors predictive of survival in ampullary carcinoma. Ann. Surg. 1998, 228, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Palazzo, L. Staging of ampullary carcinoma by endoscopic ultrasonography. Endoscopy 1998, 30 (Suppl. S1), A128–A131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Panzeri, F.; Crippa, S.; Castelli, P.; Aleotti, F.; Pucci, A.; Partelli, S.; Zamboni, G.; Falconi, M. Management of ampullary neoplasms: A tailored approach between endoscopy and surgery. World J. Gastroenterol. 2015, 21, 7970–7987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bettschart, V.; Rahman, M.Q.; Engelken, F.J.F.; Madhavan, K.K.; Parks, R.W.; Garden, O.J. Presentation, treatment and outcome in patients with ampullary tumours. Br. J. Surg. 2004, 91, 1600–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Morris-Stiff, G.; Alabraba, E.; Tan, Y.M.; Shapey, I.; Bhati, C.; Tanniere, P.; Mayer, D.; Buckels, J.; Bramhall, S.; Mirza, D.F. Assessment of survival advantage in ampullary carcinoma in relation to tumour biology and morphology. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. J. Eur. Soc. Surg. Oncol. Br. Assoc. Surg. Oncol. 2009, 35, 746–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Sommerville, C.; Limongelli, P.; Pai, M.; Ahmad, R.; Stamp, G.; Habib, N.; Williamson, R.; Jiao, L. Survival analysis after pancreatic resection for ampullary and pancreatic head carcinoma: An analysis of clinicopathological factors. J. Surg. Oncol. 2009, 100, 651–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Yeo, C.J.; Sohn, T.A.; Cameron, J.L.; Hruban, R.H.; Lillemoe, K.D.; Pitt, H.A. Periampullary adenocarcinoma: Analysis of 5-year survivors. Ann. Surg. 1998, 227, 821–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Palta, M.; Patel, P.; Broadwater, G.; Willett, C.; Pepek, J.; Tyler, D.; Zafar, S.Y.; Uronis, H.; Hurwitz, H.; White, R.; et al. Carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater: Patterns of failure following resection and benefit of chemoradiotherapy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2012, 19, 1535–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Nappo, G.; Gentile, D.; Galvanin, J.; Capretti, G.; Ridolfi, C.; Petitti, T.; Spaggiari, P.; Carrara, S.; Gavazzi, F.; Repici, A.; et al. Trans-duodenal ampullectomy for ampullary neoplasms: Early and long-term outcomes in 36 consecutive patients. Surg. Endosc. 2020, 34, 4358–4368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Tran, T.C.; Vitale, G.C. Ampullary tumors: Endoscopic versus operative management. Surg. Innov. 2004, 11, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Posner, S.; Colletti, L.; Knol, J.; Mulholland, M.; Eckhauser, F. Safety and long-term efficacy of transduodenal excision for tumors of the ampulla of Vater. Surgery 2000, 128, 694–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Neoptolemos, J.P.; Stocken, D.D.; Friess, H.; Bassi, C.; Dunn, J.A.; Hickey, H.; Beger, H.; Fernandez-Cruz, L.; Dervenis, C.; Lacaine, F.; et al. A randomized trial of chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 350, 1200–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Oettle, H.; Post, S.; Neuhaus, P.; Gellert, K.; Langrehr, J.; Ridwelski, K.; Schramm, H.; Fahlke, J.; Zuelke, C.; Burkart, C.; et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine vs observation in patients undergoing curative-intent resection of pancreatic cancer: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2007, 297, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Arkadopoulos, N.; Kyriazi, M.A.; Papanikolaou, I.S.; Vasiliou, P.; Theodoraki, K.; Lappas, C.; Oikonomopoulos, N.; Smyrniotis, V. Preoperative biliary drainage of severely jaundiced patients increases morbidity of pancreaticoduodenectomy: Results of a case-control study. World J. Surg. 2014, 38, 2967–2972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Narang, A.K.; Miller, R.C.; Hsu, C.C.; Bhatia, S.; Pawlik, T.M.; Laheru, D.; Hruban, R.H.; Zhou, J.; Winter, J.M.; Haddock, M.G.; et al. Evaluation of adjuvant chemoradiation therapy for ampullary adenocarcinoma: The Johns Hopkins Hospital-Mayo Clinic collaborative study. Radiat. Oncol. Lond. Engl. 2011, 6, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. O’Connell, J.B.; Maggard, M.A.; Manunga, J.; Tomlinson, J.S.; Reber, H.A.; Ko, C.Y.; Hines, O.J. Survival after resection of ampullary carcinoma: A national population-based study. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2008, 15, 1820–1827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kopelson, G.; Galdabini, J.; Warshaw, A.L.; Gunderson, L.L. Patterns of failure after curative surgery for extra-hepatic biliary tract carcinoma: Implications for adjuvant therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1981, 7, 413–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Willett, C.G.; Warshaw, A.L.; Convery, K.; Compton, C.C. Patterns of failure after pancreaticoduodenectomy for ampullary carcinoma. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 1993, 176, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  22. Bhatia, S.; Miller, R.C.; Haddock, M.G.; Donohue, J.H.; Krishnan, S. Adjuvant therapy for ampullary carcinomas: The Mayo Clinic experience. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2006, 66, 514–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kim, K.; Chie, E.K.; Jang, J.-Y.; Kim, S.W.; Oh, D.-Y.; Im, S.-A.; Kim, T.-Y.; Bang, Y.-J.; Ha, S.W. Role of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy for ampulla of Vater cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2009, 75, 436–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sikora, S.; Balachandran, P.; Dimri, K.; Rastogi, N.; Kumar, A.; Saxena, R.; Kapoor, V. Adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy in ampullary cancers. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. J. Eur. Soc. Surg. Oncol. Br. Assoc. Surg. Oncol. 2005, 31, 158–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Valsangkar, N.P.; Ingkakul, T.; Correa-Gallego, C.; Mino-Kenudson, M.; Masia, R.; Lillemoe, K.D.; Castillo, C.F.-D.; Warshaw, A.L.; Liss, A.S.; Thayer, S.P. Survival in ampullary cancer: Potential role of different KRAS mutations. Surgery 2015, 157, 260–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kawaida, H.; Kono, H.; Amemiya, H.; Hosomura, N.; Watanabe, M.; Saito, R.; Maruyama, S.; Shimizu, H.; Furuya, S.; Akaike, H.; et al. Stratification of Prognosis in Patients with Ampullary Carcinoma After Surgery by Preoperative Platelet-to-lymphocyte Ratio and Conventional Tumor Markers. Anticancer. Res. 2019, 39, 6923–6929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Sun, B.; Liu, H.; Wang, S.; Xiang, J.; Liu, X. Prognostic impact of circulating tumor cells in patients with ampullary cancer. J. Cell Physiol. 2018, 233, 5014–5022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. John, T.G.; Greig, J.D.; Carter, D.C.; Garden, O.J. Carcinoma of the pancreatic head and periampullary region. Tumor staging with laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasonography. Ann. Surg. 1995, 221, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Yamaguchi, K.; Enjoji, M.; Kitamura, K. Non-icteric ampullary carcinoma with a favorable prognosis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 1990, 85, 994–999. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  30. Makipour, H.; Cooperman, A.; Danzi, J.T.; Farmer, R.G. Carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater: Review of 38 cases with emphasis on treatment and prognostic factors. Ann. Surg. 1976, 183, 341–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Carter, J.T.; Grenert, J.P.; Rubenstein, L.; Stewart, L.; Way, L.W. Tumors of the ampulla of vater: Histopathologic classification and predictors of survival. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2008, 207, 210–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Klempnauer, J.; Ridder, G.J.; Maschek, H.; Pichlmayr, R. Carcinoma of the ampulla of vater: Determinants of long-term survival in 94 resected patients. HPB Surg. World J. Hepatic Pancreat. Biliary Surg. 1998, 11, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Uchida, H.; Shibata, K.; Iwaki, K.; Kai, S.; Ohta, M.; Kitano, S. Ampullary cancer and preoperative jaundice: Possible indication of the minimal surgery. Hepatogastroenterology 2009, 56, 1194–1198. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Kamisawa, T.; Tu, Y.; Egawa, N.; Nakajima, H.; Horiguchi, S.-I.; Tsuruta, K.; Okamoto, A. Clinicopathologic features of ampullary carcinoma without jaundice. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2006, 40, 162–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Pamukcuoglu, M.; Oksuzoglu, B.; Abali, H.; Akoglu, M.; Atalay, F.; Budakoglu, B.; Uncu, D.; Ozdemir, N.Y.; Guler, T.; Zengin, N. Prognostic factors and clinicopathological characteristics of carcinoma of ampulla Vateri. Int. Surg. 2008, 93, 214–219. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Kimura, W.; Futakawa, N.; Zhao, B. Neoplastic diseases of the papilla of Vater. J. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Surg. 2004, 11, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kim, R.D.; Kundhal, P.S.; McGilvray, I.D.; Cattral, M.S.; Taylor, B.; Langer, B.; Grant, D.R.; Zogopoulos, G.; Shah, S.A.; Greig, P.D.; et al. Predictors of failure after pancreaticoduodenectomy for ampullary carcinoma. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2006, 202, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Outcome of Pancreaticoduodenectomy and Impact of Adjuvant Therapy for Ampullary Carcinomas—PubMed [Internet]. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10863064-outcome-of-pancreaticoduodenectomy-and-impact-of-adjuvant-therapy-for-ampullary-carcinomas/?from_term=Outcome+of+pancreaticoduodenectomy+and+impact+of+adjuvant+therapy+for+ampullary+carcinomas (accessed on 11 March 2020).
  39. Winter, J.M.; Cameron, J.L.; Olino, K.; Herman, J.M.; De Jong, M.C.; Hruban, R.H.; Wolfgang, C.L.; Eckhauser, F.; Edil, B.H.; Choti, M.A.; et al. Clinicopathologic analysis of ampullary neoplasms in 450 patients: Implications for surgical strategy and long-term prognosis. J. Gastrointest. Surg. Off. J. Soc. Surg. Aliment Tract. 2010, 14, 379–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Chen, J.W.C.; Bhandari, M.; Astill, D.S.; Wilson, T.G.; Kow, L.; Brooke-Smith, M.; Toouli, J.; Padbury, R.T.A. Predicting patient survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignancy: Histopathological criteria based on perineural infiltration and lymphovascular invasion. HPB 2010, 12, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Pomianowska, E.; Westgaard, A.; Mathisen, Ø.; Clausen, O.P.F.; Gladhaug, I.P. Prognostic relevance of number and ratio of metastatic lymph nodes in resected pancreatic, ampullary, and distal bile duct carcinomas. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2013, 20, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Qiao, Q.; Zhao, Y.; Ye, M.; Yang, Y.; Zhao, J.; Huang, Y.; Wan, Y. Carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater: Factors influencing long-term survival of 127 patients with resection. World J. Surg. 2007, 31, 137–143; discussion 144–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Sudo, T.; Murakami, Y.; Uemura, K.; Hayashidani, Y.; Hashimoto, Y.; Ohge, H.; Shimamoto, F.; Sueda, T. Prognostic impact of perineural invasion following pancreatoduodenectomy with lymphadenectomy for ampullary carcinoma. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2008, 53, 2281–2286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. El Nakeeb, A.; El Sorogy, M.; Ezzat, H.; Said, R.; El Dosoky, M.; El Gawad, M.A.; Elsabagh, A.M.; El Hanafy, E. Predictors of long-term survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for peri-ampullary adenocarcinoma: A retrospective study of 5-year survivors. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Dis. Int. HBPD Int. 2018, 17, 443–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Balachandran, P.; Sikora, S.S.; Kapoor, S.; Krishnani, N.; Kumar, A.; Saxena, R.; Kapoor, V.K. Long-term survival and recurrence patterns in ampullary cancer. Pancreas 2006, 32, 390–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Roder, J.D.; Schneider, P.M.; Stein, H.J.; Siewert, J.R. Number of lymph node metastases is significantly associated with survival in patients with radically resected carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater. Br. J. Surg. 1995, 82, 1693–1696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Schmidt, C.M.; Powell, E.S.; Yiannoutsos, C.T.; Howard, T.J.; Wiebke, E.A.; Wiesenauer, C.A.; Baumgardner, J.A.; Cummings, O.W.; Jacobson, L.E.; Broadie, T.A.; et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A 20-year experience in 516 patients. Arch. Surg. 1960. 2004, 139, 718–725; discussion 725–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Chen, S.-C.; Shyr, Y.-M.; Chou, S.-C.; Wang, S.-E. The role of lymph nodes in predicting the prognosis of ampullary carcinoma after curative resection. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 13, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kim, W.S.; Choi, D.W.; Choi, S.H.; Heo, J.S.; You, D.D.; Lee, H.G. Clinical significance of pathologic subtype in curatively resected ampulla of vater cancer. J. Surg. Oncol. 2012, 105, 266–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Lowe, M.C.; Coban, I.; Adsay, N.V.; Sarmiento, J.M.; Chu, C.K.; Staley, C.A.; Galloway, J.R.; Kooby, D.A. Important prognostic factors in adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of Vater. Am. Surg. 2009, 75, 754–760; discussion 761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Nakai, T.; Koh, K.; Kawabe, T.; Son, E.; Yoshikawa, H.; Yasutomi, M. Importance of microperineural invasion as a prognostic factor in ampullary carcinoma. Br. J. Surg. 1997, 84, 1399–1401. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  52. Yamaguchi, K.; Nishihara, K. Long- and short-term survivors after pancreatoduodenectomy for ampullary carcinoma. J. Surg. Oncol. 1992, 50, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. el-Ghazzawy, A.G.; Wade, T.P.; Virgo, K.S.; Johnson, F.E. Recent experience with cancer of the ampulla of Vater in a national hospital group. Am. Surg. 1995, 61, 607–611. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  54. Klein, F.; Jacob, D.; Bahra, M.; Pelzer, U.; Puhl, G.; Krannich, A.; Andreou, A.; Gül, S.; Guckelberger, O. Prognostic factors for long-term survival in patients with ampullary carcinoma: The results of a 15-year observation period after pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB Surg. World J. Hepatic Pancreat. Biliary Surg. 2014, 2014, 970234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Beger, H.G.; Treitschke, F.; Gansauge, F.; Harada, N.; Hiki, N.; Mattfeldt, T. Tumor of the ampulla of Vater: Experience with local or radical resection in 171 consecutively treated patients. Arch. Surg. 1999, 134, 526–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Neoptolemos, J.P.; Moore, M.J.; Cox, T.F.; Valle, J.W.; Palmer, D.H.; McDonald, A.C.; Carter, R.; Tebbutt, N.C.; Dervenis, C.; Smith, D.; et al. Effect of adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid or gemcitabine vs observation on survival in patients with resected periampullary adenocarcinoma: The ESPAC-3 periampullary cancer randomized trial. JAMA 2012, 308, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Zhou, J.; Hsu, C.C.; Winter, J.M.; Pawlik, T.M.; Laheru, D.; Hughes, M.A.; Donehower, R.; Wolfgang, C.; Akbar, U.; Schulick, R.; et al. Adjuvant chemoradiation versus surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of Vater. Radiother. Oncol. J. Eur. Soc. Ther. Radiol. Oncol. 2009, 92, 244–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Acharya, A.; Markar, S.R.; Sodergren, M.H.; Malietzis, G.; Darzi, A.; Athanasiou, T.; Khan, A.Z. Meta-analysis of adjuvant therapy following curative surgery for periampullary adenocarcinoma. Br. J. Surg. 2017, 104, 814–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Doepker, M.P.; Thompson, Z.J.; Centeno, B.A.; Kim, R.D.; Wong, J.; Hodul, P.J. Clinicopathologic and survival analysis of resected ampullary adenocarcinoma. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 114, 170–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, H.-B.; Zhao, F.-Q.; Zhou, J. Prognostic Nomogram for Disease-Specific Survival in Patients with Non-metastatic Ampullary Carcinoma After Surgery. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 26, 1079–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Medicina 60 00818 g001
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier curves comparing survival among patients who received adjuvant chemoradiation and chemotherapy and those treated with surgery alone. Adjuvant therapy was clinically significant but not statistically insignificantly associated with worse overall survival (p = 0.166) and was not significantly associated with disease-free survival (p = 0.296) in the univariate analysis.
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier curves comparing survival among patients who received adjuvant chemoradiation and chemotherapy and those treated with surgery alone. Adjuvant therapy was clinically significant but not statistically insignificantly associated with worse overall survival (p = 0.166) and was not significantly associated with disease-free survival (p = 0.296) in the univariate analysis.
Medicina 60 00818 g001
Medicina 60 00818 g002
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curves comparing survival among patients who received adjuvant chemoradiation. The median disease-free survival times for fluoropyrimidine was 27 months and 39.2 months for gemcitabine (p = 0.807). The median overall survival time for fluoropyrimidine was 44 months and was NR for gemcitabine (p = 0.99). Abbreviation: NR, not reached.
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curves comparing survival among patients who received adjuvant chemoradiation. The median disease-free survival times for fluoropyrimidine was 27 months and 39.2 months for gemcitabine (p = 0.807). The median overall survival time for fluoropyrimidine was 44 months and was NR for gemcitabine (p = 0.99). Abbreviation: NR, not reached.
Medicina 60 00818 g002
Medicina 60 00818 g003
Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier curves for the multivariate analysis of overall survival. The results demonstrated that the only independent factors with a negative effect on the mOS were nodal metastasis and surgical margin positivity.
Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier curves for the multivariate analysis of overall survival. The results demonstrated that the only independent factors with a negative effect on the mOS were nodal metastasis and surgical margin positivity.
Medicina 60 00818 g003
Table 1. Baseline patient demographics and clinical characteristics.
Table 1. Baseline patient demographics and clinical characteristics.
CharacteristicsNo. of Patients, n = 197 (%)
Age, years
Median60
Range29–90
5039 (19.8)
≥50158(80.2)
Sex
Mele120 (60.9)
Female77 (39.1)
Performance status
0–1154 (78.1)
2–343 (21.9)
TNM stage
I67 (34)
II103 (52.2)
III27 (13.8)
T stage
1–299 (50.2)
3–498 (49.8)
N stage
Positive90 (45.6)
Negative107 (54.4)
Histological grade
Well differentiated58 (29.4)
Moderately differentiated75 (38)
Poorly differentiated17 (8.6)
Pathological subtype
Adenocarcinoma170 (86.2)
Mucinous18 (9.1)
Other9 (4.6)
Lymphovascular invasion
Yes69 (35)
No101 (51.2)
Perineural invasion
Yes50 (25.3)
No120 (60.9)
Surgical margin
Positive13 (6.5)
Negative184 (93.5)
Adjuvant treatment
CT74 (37.5)
Gemcitabine43
Fluoropyrimidine31
CRT64 (32.4)
Gemcitabine39
Fluoropyrimidine25
Observation59 (29.9)
Jaundice at diagnosis
Yes119 (60.5)
No78 (39.5)
Abbreviations: CT, chemotherapy; CRT, chemoradiotherapy.
Table 2. Univariate survival analysis according to clinicopathological parameters.
Table 2. Univariate survival analysis according to clinicopathological parameters.
Patientsn (%)3-Year Survival, %5-Year Survival, %mOS
(mo)		pmDFS
(mo)		p
All patient groups197655163.4 40.9
Age, years
<5039 (19.8)916678.80.04554.30.270
≥50158 (80.2)584853.130.5
Performance status
0–1154 (78.2)6655108.50.04841.60.1
2–343 (21.8)59374628.4
Nodal involvement
Positive90 (45.6)533238.80.00128.40.027
Negative107 (54.4)7562141.967.8
Histological grade
Well differentiated58 (29.4)7161NR0.04254.30.082
Moderately differentiated75 (38)585163.138.3
Poorly differentiated17 (8.6)512636.926.9
Lymphovascular invasion
Yes69 (35)513736.9<0.00127<0.001
No101 (51.2)7566NR108.5
Perineural invasion
Yes50 (25.3)553939.20.00738.80.089
No120 (60.9)7061108.867.8
T stage
1–299 (50.2)7359108.50.01854.30.116
3–498 (49.8)564239.330.6
TNM stage
I67 (34)7564108.50.0667.80.192
II103 (52.2)614753.134.4
III27 (13.8)553638.826.3
Surgical margin
Negative184 (93.5)675420.10.0141.60.058
Positive13 (6.6)383878.815.5
Adjuvant treatment
None59 (29.9)7171108.50.348100.50.564
CRT64 (32.5)58444429
CT74 (37.6)644653.841.6
Abbreviations: CT, chemotherapy; CRT, chemoradiotherapy; NR, not reached.
Table 3. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard survival analysis of prognostic factors.
Table 3. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard survival analysis of prognostic factors.
FactorsRelative Risk95% CIp-Value
Nodal Status
Positive1.981.08–3.650.027
Negative
Surgical Margin
Positive2.611.09–6.240.03
Negative
Tumor Stage
T1–T21.760.96–3.20.064
T3–T4
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Demirci, N.S.; Cavdar, E.; Ozdemir, N.Y.; Yuksel, S.; Iriagac, Y.; Erdem, G.U.; Odabas, H.; Hacibekiroglu, I.; Karaagac, M.; Ucar, M.; et al. Clinicopathologic Analysis and Prognostic Factors for Survival in Patients with Operable Ampullary Carcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Experience. Medicina 2024, 60, 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60050818

AMA Style

Demirci NS, Cavdar E, Ozdemir NY, Yuksel S, Iriagac Y, Erdem GU, Odabas H, Hacibekiroglu I, Karaagac M, Ucar M, et al. Clinicopathologic Analysis and Prognostic Factors for Survival in Patients with Operable Ampullary Carcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Experience. Medicina. 2024; 60(5):818. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60050818

Chicago/Turabian Style

Demirci, Nebi Serkan, Eyyup Cavdar, Nuriye Yildirim Ozdemir, Sinemis Yuksel, Yakup Iriagac, Gokmen Umut Erdem, Hatice Odabas, Ilhan Hacibekiroglu, Mustafa Karaagac, Mahmut Ucar, and et al. 2024. "Clinicopathologic Analysis and Prognostic Factors for Survival in Patients with Operable Ampullary Carcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Experience" Medicina 60, no. 5: 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60050818

APA Style

Demirci, N. S., Cavdar, E., Ozdemir, N. Y., Yuksel, S., Iriagac, Y., Erdem, G. U., Odabas, H., Hacibekiroglu, I., Karaagac, M., Ucar, M., Ozturk, B., & Bozkaya, Y. (2024). Clinicopathologic Analysis and Prognostic Factors for Survival in Patients with Operable Ampullary Carcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Experience. Medicina, 60(5), 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60050818

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop