4.4 Review

Cholangiocarcinoma: from molecular biology to treatment

期刊

MEDICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 32, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12032-015-0692-x

关键词

Cholangiocarcinoma; Molecular biology; IL-6; Diagnosis; Treatment

类别

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [SFRH/BD/61378/2009]
  2. Center of Investigation on Environmental, Genetics and Oncobiology [09/12]
  3. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, Portugal [PEst-C/SAU/UI3282/2013, UID/NEU/04539/2013]
  4. COMPETE-FEDER
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/61378/2009] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare tumor originating in the bile ducts, which, according to their anatomical location, is classified as intrahepatic, extrahepatic and hilar. Nevertheless, incidence rates have increased markedly in recent decades. With respect to tumor biology, several genetic alterations correlated with resistance to chemotherapy and radiotherapy have been identified. Here, we highlight changes in KRAS and TP53 genes that are normally associated with a more aggressive phenotype. Also IL-6 and some proteins of the BCL-2 family appear to be involved in the resistance that the cholangiocarcinoma presents toward conventional therapies. With regard to diagnosis, tumor markers most commonly used are CEA and CA 19-9, and although its use isolated appears controversial, their combined value has been increasingly advocated. In imaging terms, various methods are needed, such as abdominal ultrasound, computed tomography and cholangiopancreatography. Regarding therapy, surgical modalities are the only ones that offer chance of cure; however, due to late diagnosis, most patients cannot take advantage of them. Thus, the majority of patients are directed to other therapeutic modalities like chemotherapy, which, in this context, assumes a purely palliative role. Thus, it becomes urgent to investigate new therapeutic options for this highly aggressive type of tumor.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据