Advertisement

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 63, Issue 12, pp 3376–3381 | Cite as

An Increased Chromosome 7 Copy Number in Endoscopic Bile Duct Biopsy Specimens Is Predictive of a Poor Prognosis in Cholangiocarcinoma

  • Akihisa Kato
  • Itaru NaitohEmail author
  • Katsuyuki Miyabe
  • Kazuki Hayashi
  • Michihiro Yoshida
  • Yasuki Hori
  • Makoto Natsume
  • Naruomi Jinno
  • Go Asano
  • Hiroyuki Kato
  • Toshiya Kuno
  • Satoru Takahashi
  • Hiromi Kataoka
Original Article
  • 84 Downloads

Abstract

Background

The ability of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays in endoscopic transpapillary bile duct biopsy specimens to predict the prognosis of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) has not been elucidated.

Aims

We aimed to clarify the association between the results of UroVysion FISH assays and the prognosis of CCA.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 49 specimens obtained by transpapillary forceps biopsy from consecutive patients with CCA. The copy numbers of chromosomes 3, 7, and 17 were evaluated by FISH assay using UroVysion. We compared the overall survival (OS) of CCA patients with and without increased copy numbers of chromosomes 3, 7, and 17. Furthermore, we evaluated the association between OS and the clinicopathological parameters of CCA patients.

Results

The OS was significantly shorter in patients with than without an increased chromosome 7 copy number (log-rank p = 0.015; median OS 11.9 vs. 20.7 months). In the univariate analyses, age (p = 0.012), ECOG performance status (p = 0.046), tumor stage (p = 0.046), surgery (p = 0.006), and an increased chromosome 7 copy number (p = 0.017) were significantly associated with OS. The multivariate analysis revealed that an increased chromosome 7 copy number (hazard ratio, 2.46; 95% CI 1.15–5.27; p = 0.021) and advanced clinical stage (hazard ratio, 2.26; 95% CI 1.11–4.63; p = 0.025) were independently predictive of a poor OS.

Conclusions

Detection by FISH assay of an increased chromosome 7 copy number in transpapillary forceps biopsy specimens is predictive of a poor prognosis in CCA patients.

Keywords

Biomarker Cholangiocarcinoma Chromosome 7 copy number Fluorescence in situ hybridization Transpapillary forceps biopsy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Culture and Science of Japan (26461046).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Blechacz B, Gores GJ. Cholangiocarcinoma: advances in pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. Hepatology. 2008;48:308–321.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rizvi S, Gores GJ. Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of cholangiocarcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2013;145:1215–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berretta M, Cavaliere C, Alessandrini L, et al. Serum and tissue markers in hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma: clinical and prognostic implications. Oncotarget. 2017;8:14192–14220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wardell CP, Fujita M, Yamada T, et al. Genomic characterization of biliary tract cancers identifies driver genes and predisposing mutations. J Hepatol. 2018;68:959–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kipp BR, Stadheim LM, Halling SA, et al. A comparison of routine cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of malignant bile duct strictures. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:1675–1681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barr Fritcher EG, Caudill JL, Blue JE, et al. Identification of malignant cytologic criteria in pancreatobiliary brushings with corresponding positive fluorescence in situ hybridization results. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;136:442–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gonda TA, Glick MP, Sethi A, et al. Polysomy and p16 deletion by fluorescence in situ hybridization in the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:74–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boldorini R, Paganotti A, Andorno S, et al. A multistep cytological approach for patients with jaundice and biliary strictures of indeterminate origin. J Clin Pathol. 2015;68:283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nanda A, Brown JM, Berger SH, et al. Triple modality testing by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2015;8:56–65.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chaiteerakij R, Barr Fritcher EG, Angsuwatcharakon P, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization compared with conventional cytology for the diagnosis of malignant biliary tract strictures in Asian patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83:1228–1235.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kato A, Naitoh I, Miyabe K, et al. Differential diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma and IgG4-related sclerosing cholangitis by fluorescence in situ hybridization using transpapillary forceps biopsy specimens. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25:188–194.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1471–1474.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miyabe K, Hori Y, Nakazawa T, et al. Locus/chromosome aberrations in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms analyzed by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39:512–520.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barr Fritcher EG, Voss JS, Brankley SM, et al. An optimized set of fluorescence in situ hybridization probes for detection of pancreatobiliary tract cancer in cytology brush samples. Gastroenterology. 2015;149:1813–1824.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gonda TA, Viterbo D, Gausman V, et al. Mutation profile and fluorescence in situ hybridization analyses increase detection of malignancies in bliary strictures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15:913–919.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chang YT, Chang MC, Huang KW, Tung CC, Hsu C, Wong JM. Clinicopathological and prognostic significances of EGFR, KRAS and BRAF mutations in biliary tract carcinomas in Taiwan. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;29:1119–1125.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yoshikawa D, Ojima H, Iwasaki M, et al. Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of EGFR, VEGF, and HER2 expression in cholangiocarcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2008;98:418–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nakazawa K, Dobashi Y, Suzuki S, Fujii H, Takeda Y, Ooi A. Amplification and overexpression of c-erbB-2, epidermal growth factor receptor, and c-met in biliary tract cancers. J Pathol. 2005;206:356–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miyamoto M, Ojima H, Iwasaki M, et al. Prognostic significance of overexpression of c-Met oncoprotein in cholangiocarcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:131–138.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akihisa Kato
    • 1
  • Itaru Naitoh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katsuyuki Miyabe
    • 1
  • Kazuki Hayashi
    • 1
  • Michihiro Yoshida
    • 1
  • Yasuki Hori
    • 1
  • Makoto Natsume
    • 1
  • Naruomi Jinno
    • 1
  • Go Asano
    • 1
  • Hiroyuki Kato
    • 2
  • Toshiya Kuno
    • 2
  • Satoru Takahashi
    • 2
  • Hiromi Kataoka
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Graduate School of Medical SciencesNagoya City UniversityNagoyaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Experimental Pathology and Tumor Biology, Graduate School of Medical SciencesNagoya City UniversityNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations