• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Do the existing staging systems for primary liver cancer apply to combined hepatocellular carcinoma-intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma?

    2021-03-05 05:55:14QingZhouHoCiMingHoXuYoYeXioLongLiGuoMingShiChengHungXioDongZhuJiBinCiJinZhouJiFnYunJiHuiChunSunYingHoShen

    Qing Zhou , , Ho Ci , , Ming-Ho Xu , , Yo Ye , Xio-Long Li , Guo-Ming Shi ,Cheng Hung , Xio-Dong Zhu , Ji-Bin Ci , Jin Zhou , Ji Fn , Yun Ji ,Hui-Chun Sun , Ying-Ho Shen ,

    a Department of Liver Surgery, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, and Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion (Ministry of Education), Fudan University, Shanghai 20 0 032, China

    b Department of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 20 0 032, China

    Keywords:Hepatocellular carcinoma Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma Histological type Tumor staging system Prognosis Risk stratification

    ABSTRACT Background: The incidence of combined hepatocellular carcinoma-intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma(cHCC-ICC) is relatively low, and the knowledge about the prognosis of cHCC-ICC remains obscure. In the study, we aimed to screen existing primary liver cancer staging systems and shed light on the prognosis and risk factors for cHCC-ICC.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 206 cHCC-ICC patients who received curative surgical resection from April 1999 to March 2017. The correlation of survival measures with the histological types or with tumor staging systems was determined and predictive values of tumor staging systems with cHCC-ICC prognosis were compared.Results: The histological type was not associated with overall survival (OS) ( P = 0.338) or disease-free survival (DFS) ( P = 0.843) of patients after curative surgical resection. BCLC, TNM for HCC, and TNM for ICC stages correlated with both OS and DFS in cHCC-ICC (all P < 0.05). The predictive values of TNM for HCC and TNM for ICC stages were similar in terms of predicting postoperative OS ( P = 0.798) and DFS( P = 0.191) in cHCC-ICC. TNM for HCC was superior to BCLC for predicting postoperative OS ( P = 0.022)in cHCC-ICC.Conclusion: The TNM for HCC staging system should be prioritized for clinical applications in predicting cHCC-ICC prognosis.

    Introduction

    Combined hepatocellular carcinoma-intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-ICC) was first described in 1903 and is different from concurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) [1]. HCC or ICC is characterized with homogeneous hepatocytic or cholangiocytic cytology and architecture within the same tumor, while cHCC-ICC is classified as a distinct type of primary liver cancer [1]. Like in HCC and ICC, surgical resection remains the primary treatment option for cHCC-ICC [2]. Because the incidence of this cancer is relatively low, making up 1.0%to 4.7% of primary liver cancer [3], there is no consensus regarding risk stratification for the prognosis of cHCC-ICC after surgical resection.

    According to the 2010 World Health Organization classification,there are two histological types of cHCC-ICC, a classical type and a type with stem cell features. The stem-cell-like type is further classified into three subgroups: a cholangiocellular subtype, an intermediate subtype, and a typical subtype. One theory for the origin of cHCC-ICC suggests that either the HCC component or the ICC component within the same tumor is derived from hepatic stem cells [ 2 , 4 ]. Several gene expression profile studies show that cHCC-ICC shares more common features with ICC, not HCC [ 5 , 6 ].In 2010, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) recommended that cHCC-ICC be staged by the 7th TNM (tumor, node,metastases) staging system for ICC [7]. However, there is no clinical evidence to support this recommendation. It remains to be answered whether cHCC-ICC is more similar to HCC or ICC in its clin-ical features and survival after resection. Also, because there is no specific TNM stage system for cHCC-ICC, it is necessary to further evaluate whether the existing tumor stage system for HCC or ICC is feasible for cHCC-ICC.

    In this study, we aimed to determine a feasible tool to predict cHCC-ICC prognosis after resection, using the existing staging systems for HCC or ICC.

    Methods

    Patient inclusio n

    We retrospectively reviewed all the diagnosed cHCC-ICC patients who underwent surgical resection from April 1999 to March 2017 in Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) the tumor species for each patient was independently re-assessed by two pathologists to confirm cHCCICC diagnosis, and the tumor pathological type was re-assessed; 2)the clinicopathologic information for each patient was intact and recordable; 3) the Child-Pugh classification of the patient was A or B before surgery; 4) a curative resection was performed, and no macroscopic residual was found; and 5) the patient attended routine follow-ups. Patients with the following criteria were excluded from the study: 1) the patient died within 2 months after surgery or 2) the patient was lost to follow-up. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University.Informed consent was obtained from each patient included in the study.

    Surgical procedure

    All patients had not received anti-tumor treatment before surgery and were examined preoperatively to rule out extrahepatic metastasis and to confirm that the estimated remaining liver volume was sufficient for minimal life support (no less than 20% -40% of total liver volume, depending on the underlying liver disease) [8]. However, suspicious regional lymph node (mostly hilar lymph node) metastasis was not considered a contraindication for surgery. A total of 75 patients underwent anatomical resection and 131 underwent non-anatomical resection. Any suspicious metastasized lymph nodes (enlarged and hard in quality) were resected for a pathological examination. After sufficient exposure, the liver parenchyma was then dissected, and the passing blood vessels or bile ducts were ligated and transected. When necessary, a Pringle maneuver was used to control the hepatic inflow and reduce excessive bleeding.

    Pathological examination and stage assessment

    Hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining was performed to confirm the diagnosis of carcinoma and lymph node metastasis.Paraffin-embedded samples of the primary carcinomas from 206 patients were immunostained for HepParl, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP),CD10, carcinoembryonic antigen (pCEA), cytokeratin 7 (CK7), CK19,MOC31, neural cell adhesion molecule (NCAM1/CD56), epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) and KIT(CD117). Immunostain was carried out using a Bond Max instrument (Leica Microsystems,Wetzlar, Germany). Hepatocellular component was confirmed by immunostaining with HepParl (granular cytoplasmic staining) or specific canalicular staining with anti-CD10 and/or pCEA. The biliary component was highlighted by immunostains of CK7, CK19,MOC31 or histochemical staining of periodic acid-Schiffstain after diastase digestion.

    According to the 2010 WHO classification [9], classical type is defined as containing areas of typical HCC and areas of typical cholangiocarcinoma. The cHCC-ICC with stem cell features is defined as 1) typical subtype having tumor cells positive for CK7,CK19, CD56, CD117 and/or EpCAM; or 2) intermediate-cell subtype consisted of tumor cells showing simultaneous cytoplasmic expression of hepatocytic (HepParl or AFP) and cholangiocytic markers(CK19 or pCEA), as well as CD117; 3) cholangiocellular type, with tumor cells positive for CK19, CD56, EpCAM and CD117.

    Follow-ups

    Within the first year after surgery, patients were routinely examined at least every 2 months for AFP and cancer antigen 19-9(CA19-9) as well as by ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging scans if necessary. After that, physicians requested that patients be examined at least every 3 to 4 months. Patients also received follow-up phone calls each year. Required follow-up information included living or deceased status, the date of death (if applicable), recurrence status, and the date of recurrence (if applicable). For patients who developed tumor recurrence, the secondary treatment modalities were recorded, such as re-resection,liver transplantation, radiofrequency ablation, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. The median follow-up was 30.23 months.

    Statistical analysis

    We performed the statistical analysis using SPSS (version 18.0,IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Quantitative data with normal distributions are described as mean ±standard deviation. Quantitative data with non-normal distributions are described using medians with interquartile ranges. Qualitative data are described with frequencies and compared using the Chi-square test or Fisher exact test. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared using the Kaplan-Meier survival curve based on the logrank test. Variables withPvalue<0.05 in univariate analyses were subsequently entered into multivariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazard model. We used the receiver operating characteristic curve to assess the predictive value of selected parameters and calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). DeLong’s test was used to compare the AUCs of different parameters. APvalue<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

    Results

    Clinicopathologic information

    We identified 206 cHCC-ICC patients (159 males and 47 females) eligible for this study who were treated between April 1999 to March 2017. In the same period, 21 070 patients with HCC and 1167 patients with ICC underwent surgical resection in our institute. The patients with cHCC-ICC made up 0.92% of total primary liver cancers. Among these patients, 164 (80%) were positive for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), whereas only 66 (32%) had a HBV-DNA>103/mL. We found a background of liver cirrhosis in 91(44%) patients. Patients were categorized by the TNM staging system designed for HCC or ICC and by the BCLC staging system. Most of these patients were in early stages according to TNM for HCC(Stage I + II: 74%), TNM for ICC (Stage I + II: 91%), or BCLC staging(BCLC 0 + A: 67%). The basic demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics are shown in Table 1 .

    Of 206 patients after hepatectomy, 142 developed postoperative recurrence and/or metastasis. Among these patients, 25 developed solitary intrahepatic recurrence, 93 developed multiple intrahepatic recurrences, and 24 developed extrahepatic metastases; 24received re-resection, 13 received radiofrequency ablation, 50 received transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, 4 received radiotherapy, 11 received systemic treatment, and 40 received conservative therapy upon first diagnosis of tumor recurrence.

    Table 1 The basic clinicopathologic characteristics of the included patients ( n = 206).

    Fig. 1. Overall survival ( A ) and disease-free survival ( B ) of cHCC-ICC. cHCC-ICC: combined hepatocellular carcinoma-intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

    Survival of cHCC-ICC patients after resection

    The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates for cHCC-ICC were 78%, 56%,and 44%, respectively. The median OS time was 41.6 months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year DFS rates for cHCC-ICC were 56%, 31%, and 20%,respectively. The median DFS time was 13.0 months ( Fig. 1 ).

    Prognostic factors for cHCC-ICC

    Univariate and multivariate analysis revealed that albumin, prothrombin time, tumor size, tumor number, microvascular invasion,and hilar lymph node metastasis were independent prognostic factors for OS. We also found that sex, albumin, tumor size, tumornumber, microvascular invasion, and hilar lymph node metastasis were independent prognostic factors for DFS ( Table 2 ).

    Table 2 Univariate and multivariate analysis for the prognostic value of the clinicopathologic parameters in cHCC-ICC patients.

    The value of histological types for evaluating cHCC-ICC prognosis

    We found no correlation between the histological type and OS(P= 0.338) or DFS (P= 0.843). In a subgroup analysis of the histological subtypes of cHCC-ICC, we observed no statistical difference between any two subgroups (allP>0.05) ( Fig. 2 ). Also, the histological type did not correlate with the presence of microvascular invasion or regional lymph node metastases, which were both important independent prognostic factors for both OS and DFS (Table S1).

    Evaluating patients prognosis with cHCC-ICC using different tumor staging systems

    All cases were separately categorized by BCLC, TNM for HCC,and TMN for ICC staging systems. We identified associations for BCLC, TNM for HCC, and TNM for ICC stages with OS and DFS in cHCC-ICC (allP<0.05). For each tumor staging system, we performed pairwise comparisons for each stage. We found that the OS decreased as TNM for HCC stage in cHCC-ICC increased, although there was no statistical difference between stages II and III. We observed similar results for DFS time ( Fig. 3 ).

    For predicting postoperative OS in cHCC-ICC, the AUCs of BCLC,TNM for HCC, and TNM for ICC staging systems were 0.582 (95%CI: 0.524–0.642), 0.650 (95% CI: 0.607–0.692) and 0.647 (95% CI:0.610–0.685), respectively ( Fig. 4 A). We found that TNM for HCC was comparable to TNM for ICC staging for predicting the postoperative OS of cHCC-ICC (P= 0.798) and that TNM for HCC was superior to BCLC for predicting postoperative OS (P= 0.022).

    For predicting DFS in cHCC-ICC, the AUCs of BCLC, TNM for HCC,and TNM for ICC staging systems were 0.572 (95% CI: 0.515–0.630),0.634 (95% CI: 0.595–0.674) and 0.647 (95% CI: 0.612–0.649), respectively ( Fig. 4 B). TNM for HCC staging was comparable to TNM for ICC for predicting the DFS in cHCC-ICC (P= 0.191).

    For HCC-dominant classical cHCC-ICC, the AUC comparison showed that TNM for HCC and TNM for ICC staging were equivalent for predicting postoperative OS (P= 0.061) and DFS(P= 0.091) ( Fig. 5 A and B). For ICC-dominant classical cHCC-ICC,we found that TNM for HCC and TNM for ICC staging were equivalent for predicting the postoperative OS (P= 0.360); however, TNM for HCC was inferior to TNM for ICC for predicting DFS (P= 0.020)( Fig. 5 C and D).

    Discussion

    In this study, we found that the TNM for HCC staging system should be prioritized for clinical applications in predicting cHCCICC prognosis. Similar to a previously published study by Akiba et al. [10], we found that the histological types of cHCC-ICC did not correlate with patient prognosis. However, Jung et al. [11]found that the histological type was associated with cHCC-ICC prognosis. To rule out the effect of different tumor stages, they included cHCC-ICC patients with a solitary tumor<6 cm and without lymph node and extrahepatic metastasis in a subgroup analysis,and found that the histological type was valuable for predicting pa-tient prognosis. The different result in our study may be attributed to the use of relatively small numbers of patients who were in advanced stages, which are usually contraindicated for curative surgical resections [12]. In our study, we also found that the histological type of cHCC-ICC was not associated with microvascular invasion and regional lymph node metastasis, which were identified as independent prognostic factors in cHCC-ICC. Because histological types showed poor value in risk stratification for cHCC-ICC prognosis, we intended to identify a simple and operable parameter to assess cHCC-ICC prognosis.

    Fig. 2. Overall survival and disease-free survival for different histological subtypes of cHCC-ICC. A-B: Overall and disease-free survival of classical cHCC-ICC and cHCC-ICC with stem cell features; C-D: overall and disease-free survival of different subtypes. Type1: classical cHCC-ICC; type 2: cHCC-ICC with stem cell features; type 1a: HCC-dominant classical cHCC-ICC; type 1b: ICC-dominant cHCC-ICC; type 2a: typical subtype; type 2b: intermediate subtype; type 2c: cholangiocellular subtype. cHCC-ICC:combined hepatocellular carcinoma-intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

    In 2017, the AJCC released the latest (8th) version of TNM staging systems [13]. However, there has been no significant change in the prognostic discrimination of ICC [13]. Additionally, there has been no update on the classification of cHCC-ICC, which is still treated as ICC. In our study, we found that TNM for HCC staging was superior to the BCLC system for predicting cHCC-ICC prognosis, and the predictive values of TNM for HCC and TNM for ICC stages were similar in terms of predicting postoperative OS and DFS in cHCC-ICC. We found statistically significant differences between each stage of the TNM for HCC system, except for stage II and III. The lack of a significant significance between stage II and III may result from the intrinsic limitation of the TNM staging system and the small number of patients at stage III. We therefore recommend that TNM for HCC staging system should be prioritized for clinical applications in predicting cHCC-ICC prognosis.

    It should be noted that for predicting cHCC-ICC prognosis, the AUC of TNM for HCC and TNM for ICC were both below 0.70. It will be necessary to develop a more accurate staging system for early stage cHCC-ICC based on corresponding risk factors. Of all the independent prognostic factors for cHCC-ICC that we identified in this study, microvascular invasion and regional lymph node metastasis were important for both OS and DFS. These two prognostic factors are reflective of two metastasis pathways in cancer and are important prognostic factors for both HCC [ 14 , 15 ]and ICC [ 16 , 17 ].Macrovascular invasion, a prognostic factor of HCC and ICC [15],was not associated with cHCC-ICC prognosis, which may be due to the relatively small number of patients at the advanced stage in our study.

    A previous study reported that cHCC-ICC had a lower survival rate than HCC or ICC alone [18]. Contemporaneously published results at our institute found that the prognosis for cHCC-ICC was worse than that for HCC [19]but better than that for ICC [ 19 , 20 ].Similarly, Jung et al. reported a better prognosis for cHCC-ICC than that for ICC [11]. Moreover, Yoon et al. reported that postrecurrence survival was higher in cHCC-ICC than that in ICC but lower than that in HCC [21]. However, a recent propensity scorematched (PSM) cohort showed that before PSM, the prognosis of cHCC-ICC was superior than HCC or ICC. After PSM, there was no difference in the prognosis of the three types of liver cancer. The percentage of ICC component within cHCC-ICC did not modify the poor prognosis [22], which agreed with the finding in our study that there was no statistical difference between HCC-dominant classical cHCC-ICC and ICC-dominant classical cHCC-ICC for either OS or DFS.

    Fig. 3. Overall and disease-free survival of cHCC-ICC staged by TNM staging systems for HCC/ICC and BCLC score. A-B: Overall and disease-free survival of cHCC-ICC staged by BCLC score. C-D: Overall and disease-free survival of cHCC-ICC staged by TNM staging system designed for HCC. E-F: Overall and disease-free survival of cHCC-ICC staged by TNM staging system designed for ICC. HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; ICC: intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; cHCC-ICC: combined hepatocellular carcinoma-intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

    This study has value in potentially guiding clinical practice. Although, gene profiling by microarray had revealed many genetic characterizations of cHCC-ICC including diverse range of mutations seen in HCC and ICC, which provided information on histogenesis and prognosis, much knowledge of the cHCC-ICC genetics needs to be clarified by experiment and clinical trials. Our methods are simple and tangible. When patients with primary liver cancer are classified as cHCC-ICC on histologic examination of the surgical specimens obtained after hepatectomy, surgeons can take preventive measures if TNM for HCC staging evaluation system shows poor prognosis. Preventive measures include more frequent postoperative hematological and imaging reviews. Furthermore, in this study, TNM for HCC staging system is more suitable for clinical applications in predicting cHCC-ICC prognosis, which means that postoperative treatment plan for cHCC-ICC is also similar to that for HCC including targeted drug (sorafenib, lenvatinib) and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. On the contrary, postoperative treatment plan for ICC is based on systemic chemotherapy including capecitabine, 5-FU and mitomycin C and assisted radiotherapy. Therefore, clarifying the effectiveness of TNM for HCC staging evaluation system for prediction of cHCC-ICC prognosis could assist surgeons in choosing an appropriate treatment strategy for patients to obtain good survival rate.

    This study had some limitations. Firstly, we only included cHCCICC patients who received curative surgical resection in our analysis. Thus, these findings were limited to patients with resectable tumors at early stages. Secondly, patients in our study were retrospectively reviewed. This might introduce selection biases that could potentially weaken the conclusion of our results. Thirdly, due to a low cHCC-ICC incidence rate, the sample size of our study was relatively small. Low incidence also resulted in large time interval (18 years) which might have an impact on imaging staging techniques, surgical procedures, perioperative care, and survival as well. In the future, a multicentric prospective cohort study with more qualified cHCC-ICC cases would strengthen the conclusions of our study.

    Fig. 4. Receiver operating characteristic curve showing performance of TNM staging systems for HCC/ICC and BCLC score in predicting the OS and DFS of cHCC-ICC. A: The performance of TNM staging systems for HCC/ICC and BCLC score in predicting the OS of cHCC-ICC. B: The performance of TNM staging systems for HCC/ICC and BCLC score in predicting the DFS of cHCC-ICC. OS: overall survival; DFS: disease-free survival; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; ICC: intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; cHCC-ICC: combined hepatocellular carcinoma-intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

    Fig. 5. Comparison of TNM staging systems for HCC and ICC in predicting the survivals of HCC/ICC-dominant classical cHCC-ICC. A-B: Comparison of TNM staging systems for HCC and ICC in predicting the OS and DFS of HCC-dominant classical cHCC-ICC; C-D: comparison of TNM staging systems for HCC and ICC in predicting the OS and DFS of ICC-dominant classical cHCC-ICC. HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; ICC: intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; cHCC-ICC: combined hepatocellular carcinoma-intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; OS: overall survival; DFS: disease-free survival.

    In conclusion, TNM for HCC staging system should be prioritized for clinical applications in predicting cHCC-ICC prognosis.

    Acknowledgments

    None.

    CRediT authorship contribution statement

    Qiang Zhou:Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,Writing - original draft.Hao Cai:Data curation, Methodology, Visualization Writing - original draft.Ming-Hao Xu:Data curation, Investigation, Writing - original draft.Yao Ye:Data curation, Investigation, Methodology.Xiao-Long Li:Formal analysis,Supervision, Validation.Guo-Ming Shi:Data curation, Formal analysis, Software.Cheng Huang:Conceptualization, Investigation,Validation.Xiao-Dong Zhu:Methodology, Software, Visualization.Jia-Bin Cai:Supervision, Writing - review & editing.Jian Zhou:Conceptualization, Supervision.Jia Fan:Conceptualization, Project administration, Supervision.Yuan Ji:Methodology,Writing - review & editing.Hui-Chuan Sun:Project administration,Writing - review & editing.Ying-Hao Shen:Conceptualization,Funding acquisition, Writing - review & editing.

    Funding

    This study was supported by a grant from the Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai ( 17ZR1405400 ).

    Ethical approval

    This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University. Informed consent was obtained from each patient included in the study.

    Competing interest

    No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

    Supplementary materials

    Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.hbpd.2020.10.002 .

    日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 一本综合久久免费| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 桃花免费在线播放| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 久久中文字幕一级| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 一本综合久久免费| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 国产高清videossex| 精品国产一区二区久久| 久久久久国内视频| 午夜福利在线免费观看网站| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 蜜桃国产av成人99| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 美女大奶头黄色视频| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 在线观看人妻少妇| 老司机靠b影院| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | 9热在线视频观看99| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 久久久欧美国产精品| 国产成人系列免费观看| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 国产av国产精品国产| 免费av中文字幕在线| 久久久国产一区二区| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 成人国产av品久久久| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| www日本在线高清视频| 窝窝影院91人妻| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面 | 高清av免费在线| bbb黄色大片| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 搡老岳熟女国产| 国产野战对白在线观看| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 人人澡人人妻人| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 久久免费观看电影| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 午夜免费鲁丝| 人人澡人人妻人| 国产男女内射视频| 国产av又大| 精品福利永久在线观看| 蜜桃在线观看..| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 91字幕亚洲| 乱人伦中国视频| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 一个人免费看片子| 国产淫语在线视频| 午夜影院在线不卡| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 午夜激情av网站| 少妇 在线观看| 午夜两性在线视频| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 悠悠久久av| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 午夜视频精品福利| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 飞空精品影院首页| 999久久久国产精品视频| 自线自在国产av| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 一区福利在线观看| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 黄频高清免费视频| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 操出白浆在线播放| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| av网站免费在线观看视频| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 18在线观看网站| bbb黄色大片| 777米奇影视久久| 精品第一国产精品| 精品第一国产精品| 国产1区2区3区精品| 精品久久久精品久久久| 曰老女人黄片| 午夜激情av网站| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 国产高清视频在线播放一区 | 永久免费av网站大全| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区 | 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 日本a在线网址| 免费看十八禁软件| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频 | 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 欧美日韩黄片免| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 精品视频人人做人人爽| www.av在线官网国产| 国产成人精品在线电影| 69av精品久久久久久 | 欧美在线一区亚洲| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 性少妇av在线| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美 | 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 国产99久久九九免费精品| netflix在线观看网站| 岛国在线观看网站| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 欧美午夜高清在线| www.av在线官网国产| 99国产综合亚洲精品| a在线观看视频网站| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 搡老岳熟女国产| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 大型av网站在线播放| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| avwww免费| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 久久精品成人免费网站| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频 | 91字幕亚洲| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 国产又爽黄色视频| 黄色视频不卡| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 久久这里只有精品19| 国产片内射在线| 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 十八禁网站免费在线| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 后天国语完整版免费观看| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| www日本在线高清视频| 免费不卡黄色视频| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 两性夫妻黄色片| 成人手机av| 男女边摸边吃奶| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 91成人精品电影| 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 国产野战对白在线观看| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 久久久久久人人人人人| 精品人妻1区二区| 日韩电影二区| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| h视频一区二区三区| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 亚洲全国av大片| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 久久久久精品人妻al黑| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 国产av精品麻豆| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 男女边摸边吃奶| 国产精品成人在线| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 久久久久视频综合| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 亚洲全国av大片| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 少妇精品久久久久久久| kizo精华| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 男女免费视频国产| 三级毛片av免费| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站| 多毛熟女@视频| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频| 亚洲精品第二区| 亚洲 国产 在线| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 免费av中文字幕在线| 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 午夜91福利影院| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9 | 一进一出抽搐动态| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 性少妇av在线| 国产激情久久老熟女| 久久影院123| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 99九九在线精品视频| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频 | 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 久久狼人影院| 深夜精品福利| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲 | 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 美女主播在线视频| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频 | 91成人精品电影| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 成在线人永久免费视频| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 又大又爽又粗| bbb黄色大片| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 多毛熟女@视频| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 久久人人爽人人片av| av线在线观看网站| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 宅男免费午夜| 捣出白浆h1v1| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| av福利片在线| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 搡老乐熟女国产| 国产1区2区3区精品| 曰老女人黄片| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 视频区图区小说| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 久久久久久久精品精品| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 亚洲成人手机| 一区二区三区激情视频| 国产淫语在线视频| 亚洲国产精品999| 午夜福利在线免费观看网站| 免费观看av网站的网址| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精| 国产在线观看jvid| 深夜精品福利| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 亚洲国产av新网站| 一级毛片精品| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 18在线观看网站| 老司机福利观看| 国产在视频线精品| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 亚洲九九香蕉| 麻豆国产av国片精品| www.精华液| 免费在线观看日本一区| www日本在线高清视频| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| h视频一区二区三区| 久久精品成人免费网站| 亚洲av男天堂| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看 | 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 午夜两性在线视频| 91成人精品电影| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 男女边摸边吃奶| 中文字幕色久视频| 色播在线永久视频| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 久久99一区二区三区| 国产成人av教育| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 久久久久网色| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 性色av一级| 久久狼人影院| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看 | 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 考比视频在线观看| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 黄色a级毛片大全视频| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 欧美黑人精品巨大| cao死你这个sao货| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看 | av天堂在线播放| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频 | 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 欧美大码av| 9热在线视频观看99| av在线老鸭窝| 亚洲中文av在线| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 美国免费a级毛片| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 美女大奶头黄色视频| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 搡老岳熟女国产| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 国产区一区二久久| 搡老乐熟女国产| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| avwww免费| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 国产成人欧美在线观看 | 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 91老司机精品| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 久久这里只有精品19| 9191精品国产免费久久| 99久久人妻综合| 久久免费观看电影| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 在线观看www视频免费| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 日日夜夜操网爽| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 色94色欧美一区二区| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 999精品在线视频| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影 | 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 亚洲国产av新网站| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区 | 欧美97在线视频| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女 | 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 久久中文字幕一级| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 悠悠久久av| 国产三级黄色录像| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 91av网站免费观看| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 国产男女内射视频| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 色94色欧美一区二区| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 丁香六月欧美| 少妇 在线观看| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 国产精品免费视频内射| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 91麻豆av在线| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 亚洲 国产 在线| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 一进一出抽搐动态| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 久久中文字幕一级| 高清av免费在线| 一区二区三区激情视频| 亚洲,欧美精品.| bbb黄色大片| 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| av欧美777| 国产三级黄色录像| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 欧美日韩精品网址| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 大香蕉久久成人网| 热re99久久国产66热| av在线老鸭窝| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 99久久人妻综合| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 考比视频在线观看| 国产色视频综合| 国产在视频线精品| 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 美女大奶头黄色视频| 两个人看的免费小视频| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 永久免费av网站大全| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 国产精品免费大片| 老司机靠b影院| 午夜福利在线免费观看网站| av网站在线播放免费| 一区二区三区激情视频| 久久性视频一级片| 看免费av毛片| 搡老岳熟女国产| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 国产又爽黄色视频| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 亚洲成人手机| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 久久久久国内视频| 人妻人人澡人人爽人人| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 91精品三级在线观看| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 久久久国产成人免费| 一级黄色大片毛片| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 一区二区三区激情视频| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 我的亚洲天堂| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 香蕉国产在线看| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看 | 少妇的丰满在线观看| 天天影视国产精品| 高清av免费在线| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三 | 久热爱精品视频在线9| 中国美女看黄片| 欧美成人午夜精品| 久久九九热精品免费| 中文字幕制服av| 精品久久久久久电影网| av线在线观看网站| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 男人操女人黄网站| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 久久青草综合色| h视频一区二区三区| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频 | 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 操出白浆在线播放| 亚洲伊人色综图| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| avwww免费| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡|