Vor Luvira, Supot Kamsa-ard, Siriporn Kamsa-ard, Varisara Luvira, Tharatip Srisuk, Ake Pugkhem, Chawalit Pairojkul, Vajarabhongsa Bhudhisawasdi
Introduction and aim. The carcinogenesis of tubular and papillary cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) differ. The available epidemiologic studies about risk factors for CCA do not differentiate between the tubular and papillary type. The current study investigated the relationship between the number of repeated use of Praziquantel (PZQ) treatments and each type of CCA. Material and methods. This was a hospital-based, matched, case-control study of patients admitted to Srinagarind Hospital, Khon Kaen University. The patients were 210 pathologically-confirmed cases of CCA, while the controls were 840 subjects diagnosed with other diseases. The 4 controls were individually matched with each case by sex, age, and date of admission. The cases were classified according to location (intrahepatic vs. extrahepatic) and cell type (papillary vs. tubular). Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used for the analysis. Results. After adjusting for confounders, there were statistically significant associations between intrahepatic and papillary CCA and repeated use of PZQ treatment. The respective odds of developing intrahepatic CCA for those who used PZQ once, twice, or more was 1.54 (95%CI:0.92-2.55 ), 2.28 (95%CI:0.91-5.73), and 4.21 (95%CI:1.61-11.05). The respective odds of developing papillary CCA for those who used PZQ once, twice, or more was 1.45 (95%CI:0.80-2.63), 2.96 (95%CI:1.06-8.24), and 3.24 (95%CI:1.09-9.66). There was no association between number of uses of PZQ treatment and developing extrahepatic or tubular CCA. Conclusion. The current study found an association between papillary and intrahepatic CCA and repeated use of PZQ treatment. We suggest further study on the risk factors for papillary and tubular CCA should be performed separately.
Key words. Intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile duct, Risk factors, Bile duct tumor