• <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 .

    在线天堂最新版资源| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 六月丁香七月| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 中文资源天堂在线| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 久久午夜福利片| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图 | av网站免费在线观看视频| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 97在线人人人人妻| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 日本wwww免费看| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| tube8黄色片| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 久久青草综合色| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www | 亚洲图色成人| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 亚洲电影在线观看av| av视频免费观看在线观看| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 最黄视频免费看| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 午夜免费鲁丝| 色吧在线观看| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 韩国av在线不卡| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 有码 亚洲区| av国产免费在线观看| 日本免费在线观看一区| 中文资源天堂在线| 国产成人a区在线观看| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 99久久精品热视频| 在线观看一区二区三区| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 午夜免费观看性视频| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 内地一区二区视频在线| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 天堂8中文在线网| 大码成人一级视频| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 免费观看av网站的网址| 国产成人精品福利久久| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 99热这里只有是精品50| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 简卡轻食公司| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频 | 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 欧美3d第一页| 亚洲国产色片| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 99久久精品热视频| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| h日本视频在线播放| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 精品亚洲成国产av| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 久久久久久伊人网av| 中文欧美无线码| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 色网站视频免费| 91狼人影院| 成人综合一区亚洲| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频| 91精品国产九色| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 久久久精品94久久精品| 成人国产av品久久久| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 多毛熟女@视频| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 日韩中字成人| 久久精品人妻少妇| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 国产毛片在线视频| 色5月婷婷丁香| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| h视频一区二区三区| 久热这里只有精品99| 熟女av电影| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| av专区在线播放| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 一级爰片在线观看| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 亚洲av福利一区| 中国三级夫妇交换| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 成人国产麻豆网| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| av免费在线看不卡| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91 | 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 国产av码专区亚洲av| av天堂中文字幕网| 成人免费观看视频高清| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 高清av免费在线| 免费av中文字幕在线| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 久久久久久久精品精品| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 欧美另类一区| 久久久成人免费电影| 日本色播在线视频| av免费在线看不卡| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 日韩强制内射视频| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 日本一二三区视频观看| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 亚洲综合精品二区| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| av黄色大香蕉| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 在线观看人妻少妇| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 伊人久久国产一区二区| av在线老鸭窝| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看 | 极品教师在线视频| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| av线在线观看网站| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 成人综合一区亚洲| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 在线播放无遮挡| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 国产黄片美女视频| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 久久精品夜色国产| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 岛国毛片在线播放| 全区人妻精品视频| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 午夜福利在线在线| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 老司机影院成人| 韩国av在线不卡| 老熟女久久久| av视频免费观看在线观看| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| av.在线天堂| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 精品国产三级普通话版| 久久久久视频综合| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 毛片女人毛片| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| av在线app专区| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 精品午夜福利在线看| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的 | 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 日本免费在线观看一区| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 国产高清三级在线| 欧美+日韩+精品| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 亚洲综合色惰| 中国国产av一级| 春色校园在线视频观看| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 亚洲精品一二三| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| av在线播放精品| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 亚洲图色成人| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 久久精品人妻少妇| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 少妇的逼水好多| 亚洲成色77777| 久久精品人妻少妇| av免费在线看不卡| 嫩草影院新地址| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 亚洲性久久影院| 日本黄大片高清| 精品国产三级普通话版| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 久久久欧美国产精品| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 亚洲不卡免费看| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 国产成人aa在线观看| 成人综合一区亚洲| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 黄色日韩在线| 国产 一区精品| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| kizo精华| av网站免费在线观看视频| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 久久精品久久久久久久性| 99热这里只有是精品50| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 亚洲欧美精品专区久久| 多毛熟女@视频| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 亚洲精品一二三| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 精品久久久久久久末码| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 久久av网站| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91 | 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 国产色婷婷99| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 如何舔出高潮| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 97在线视频观看| 国产 精品1| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 国内精品宾馆在线| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 亚洲国产av新网站| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 永久免费av网站大全| 久久久久人妻精品一区果冻| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 精品亚洲成国产av| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 久久影院123| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 久热这里只有精品99| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 舔av片在线| 极品教师在线视频| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 中文欧美无线码| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 国产在线视频一区二区| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 国产在线视频一区二区| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 高清欧美精品videossex| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| av一本久久久久| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 日本wwww免费看| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 免费av不卡在线播放| 亚洲国产av新网站| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 中文天堂在线官网| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| a级毛色黄片| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 99久久精品热视频| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 午夜免费观看性视频| 只有这里有精品99| 亚洲,一卡二卡三卡| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 久久国产精品大桥未久av | 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 久久 成人 亚洲| 在线观看人妻少妇| 国产高潮美女av| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91 | av卡一久久| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 成年av动漫网址| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 激情 狠狠 欧美| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 国产av精品麻豆| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 一本久久精品| 少妇的逼水好多| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 国产精品无大码| 高清欧美精品videossex| 97超碰精品成人国产| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 国内精品宾馆在线| 日韩成人伦理影院| 在线观看一区二区三区| 一本一本综合久久| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 在线观看一区二区三区| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频 | 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| av一本久久久久| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 熟女电影av网| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 男女边摸边吃奶| 六月丁香七月| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 日韩伦理黄色片| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 777米奇影视久久| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 免费观看无遮挡的男女| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 在线播放无遮挡| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 久久久久国产网址| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片 | 午夜免费观看性视频| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片 | 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 日韩强制内射视频| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 美女主播在线视频| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 九九在线视频观看精品| 综合色丁香网| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 少妇高潮的动态图| 激情 狠狠 欧美| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 亚洲国产av新网站| 成年免费大片在线观看| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区 | 日韩大片免费观看网站| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 七月丁香在线播放| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 男女边摸边吃奶| 亚洲四区av| 免费av不卡在线播放| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| av专区在线播放| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 国产91av在线免费观看| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 老熟女久久久| 日韩伦理黄色片| 成年免费大片在线观看| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 精品久久久精品久久久| .国产精品久久| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 在线观看人妻少妇| 在线观看一区二区三区| 日本黄色片子视频| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 久久久色成人| 日本免费在线观看一区| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 亚洲性久久影院| 伦理电影免费视频| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 亚州av有码| av在线app专区| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 香蕉精品网在线| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 大香蕉久久网| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 亚洲无线观看免费| 国产精品三级大全| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 精品一区二区免费观看| 高清毛片免费看| 在线观看一区二区三区| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美 | 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 精品久久久精品久久久| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 嫩草影院入口| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| videossex国产| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 久久午夜福利片| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频 | 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 美女中出高潮动态图| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 一级av片app| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 日本黄色片子视频| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 观看av在线不卡| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 极品教师在线视频| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 欧美bdsm另类| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 亚洲av.av天堂| 一级爰片在线观看| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频| 97在线视频观看| 日韩成人伦理影院| 久久久久久久精品精品| 少妇高潮的动态图| 好男人视频免费观看在线|