A Trial of Percutaneous vs. Endoscopic Drainage of Suspected Klatskin Tumors

Both percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) are accepted approaches in the management of patients with malignant obstruction at the biliary hilum. In routine clinical practice, ERC is generally favored on the basis of: 1) high technical and clinical success rates for other (non-hilar) indications; 2) the perceived safety of ERC relative to PTBD; 3) the perceived ability to perform more comprehensive tissue sampling at the time of ERC compared to PTBD; 4) the avoidance of external tubes which are often needed for PTBD; and 5) because patients with suspected malignant hilar obstruction (MHO) typically present to and are managed by gastroenterologists. However: 1) observational data suggest that PTBD is superior for achieving complete drainage of MHO1 and some guidelines recommend the percutaneous approach over ERC for Bismuth type 3 \& 4 hilar strictures; 2) the generally quoted risks of PTBD are based on outdated studies and may be exaggerated; and 3) endoscopic diagnosis of indeterminate biliary strictures remains suboptimal despite the use of cholangioscopy and multi-modal sampling. Although many patients who undergo initial ERC require subsequent PTBD for adequate drainage, no randomized trials comparing the two modalities for suspected MHO have been published. The main hypothesis is that even though PTBD will be more effective than ERC for decompression of suspected MHO, this advantage will be offset by the favorable safety profile and superior diagnostic capability of ERC. If, however, PTBD is found to be substantially superior (by a pre-specified margin) in terms of drainage, or if the potential advantages of ERC are not realized, then the existing clinical approach to MHO must be reappraised. Moreover, identifying patient and stricture characteristics that predict response to PTBD or ERC may be important for informing clinical decision-making and guidelines.