Background The prevalent location and incidence of intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile duct (IPNB) and invasive carcinoma associated with them have varied markedly among studies due to differences in diagnostic criteria and tumor location. Methods IPNBs were classified into two types: Type 1 IPNB, being histologically similar to intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas, and Type 2 IPNB, having a more complex histological architecture with irregular papillary branching or foci of solid‐tubular components. Medical data were evaluated. Results Among 694 IPNB patients, 520 and 174 had Type 1 and Type 2, respectively. The levels of AST, ALT, ALP, T. Bil, and CEA were significantly higher in patients with Type 2 than in those with Type 1. Type 1 IPNB was more frequently located in the intrahepatic bile duct than Type 2, whereas Type 2 was more frequently located in the distal bile duct than Type 1 IPNB (P < 0.001). There were significant differences in 5‐year cumulative survival rates (75.2% vs 50.9%; P < 0.0001) and 5‐year cumulative disease‐free survival rates (64.1% vs 35.3%; P < 0.0001) between the two groups. Conclusion Type 1 and Type 2 IPNBs differ in their clinicopathological features and prognosis. This classification may help to further understand IPNB.

CAR is a useful predictor of postoperative survival among HCC patients with Child-Pugh class A.

ALR confers a survival benefit for HCC patients with pPVI.

Background The concept of intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile duct (IPNB) has been proposed to be the biliary equivalent of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas. While the classification of IPMNs is based on their location of duct involvement, such classification has not been fully evaluated for IPNBs. The aim of this study is to investigate the value of IPNB classification based on its location. Methods A total of 306 consecutive patients who underwent surgical resection with a diagnosis of bile duct tumor were enrolled. Among these patients, 21 were diagnosed as having IPNB. The IPNBs were classified into two groups as follows: extrahepatic IPNB, which located in the distal or perihilar bile duct, and intrahepatic IPNB, which located more peripherally than the hilar bile duct. The clinicopathological features of the two groups were then compared. Results Extrahepatic IPNB tended to show more invasive characteristics than intrahepatic IPNB (presence of invasive component: 40.0 vs. 9.1%, p = 0.084). Moreover, patients with extrahepatic IPNB showed significantly poorer relapse-free survival (RFS) than those with intrahepatic IPNB [5-year RFS rate (%): 81.8 vs. 16.2, p = 0.014]. Conclusion Patients with intrahepatic IPNB show more favorable pathological characteristics and postoperative survival outcomes than those with extrahepatic IPNB.

The GAR is a useful predictor of postoperative survival among patients with HCC undergoing potentially curative LR.