Dataset Information

Re-resection in Incidental Gallbladder Cancer: Survival and the Incidence of Residual Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Re-resection for incidental gallbladder cancer (iGBC) is associated with improved survival but little is known about residual disease (RD) and prognostic factors. In this study, survival after re-resection, RD, and prognostic factors are analyzed.

Methods

Patients with iGBC were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, and pathology reports of re-resected patients were reviewed. Survival and prognostic factors were analyzed.

Results

Overall, 463 patients were included; 24% (n = 110) underwent re-resection after a median interval of 66 days. RD was present in 35% of patients and was most frequently found in the lymph nodes (23%). R0 resection was achieved in 93 patients (92%). Median overall survival (OS) of patients without re-resection was 13.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.6-15.6), compared with 52.6 months (95% CI 36.3-68.8) in re-resected patients (p < 0.001). After re-resection, median OS was superior in patients without RD versus patients with RD (not reached vs. 23.1 months; p < 0.001). In patients who underwent re-resection, RD in the liver (hazard ratio [HR] 5.54; p < 0.001) and lymph nodes (HR 2.35; p = 0.005) were the only significant prognostic factors in multivariable analysis. Predictive factors for the presence of RD were pT3 stage (HR 25.3; p = 0.003) and pN1 stage (HR 23.0; p = 0.022).

Conclusion

Re-resection for iGBC is associated with improved survival but remains infrequently used and is often performed after the optimal timing interval. RD is the only significant prognostic factor for survival after re-resection and can be predicted by pT and pN stages.

SUBMITTER: de Savornin Lohman EAJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7060151 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Re-resection in Incidental Gallbladder Cancer: Survival and the Incidence of Residual Disease.

de Savornin Lohman Elise A J EAJ van der Geest Lydia G LG de Bitter Tessa J J TJJ Nagtegaal Iris D ID van Laarhoven Cornelis J H M CJHM van den Boezem Peter P van der Post Chella S CS de Reuver Philip R PR

Annals of surgical oncology 20191118 4

<h4>Background</h4>Re-resection for incidental gallbladder cancer (iGBC) is associated with improved survival but little is known about residual disease (RD) and prognostic factors. In this study, survival after re-resection, RD, and prognostic factors are analyzed.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with iGBC were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, and pathology reports of re-resected patients were reviewed. Survival and prognostic factors were analyzed.<h4>Results</h4>Overall, 463 patients ...[more]

PMID: 31741109

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe safety and oncological efficacy of laparoscopic re-resection of incidental gallbladder cancer have not been studied. This study aimed to compare laparoscopic with open re-resection of incidentally discovered gallbladder cancer while minimizing selection bias.MethodsThis was a multicentre retrospective observational cohort study of patients with incidental gallbladder cancer who underwent re-resection with curative intent at four centres between 2000 and 2017. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analysed by intention to treat. Inverse probability of surgery treatment weighting using propensity scoring was undertaken.ResultsA total of 255 patients underwent re-resection (190 open, 65 laparoscopic). Nineteen laparoscopic procedures were converted to open operation. Surgery before 2011 was the only factor associated with conversion. Duration of hospital stay was shorter after laparoscopic re-resection (median 4 versus 6 days; P < 0·001). Three-year OS rates for laparoscopic and open re-resection were 87 and 62 per cent respectively (P = 0·502). Independent predictors of worse OS were residual cancer found at re-resection (hazard ratio (HR) 1·91, 95 per cent c.i. 1·17 to 3·11), blood loss of at least 500 ml (HR 1·83, 1·23 to 2·74) and at least four positive nodes (HR 3·11, 1·46 to 6·65). In competing-risks analysis, the RFS incidence was higher for laparoscopic re-resection (P = 0·038), but OS did not differ between groups. Independent predictors of worse RFS were one to three positive nodes (HR 2·16, 1·29 to 3·60), at least four positive nodes (HR 4·39, 1·96 to 9·82) and residual cancer (HR 2·42, 1·46 to 4·00).ConclusionLaparoscopic re-resection for selected patients with incidental gallbladder cancer is oncologically non-inferior to an open approach. Dissemination of advanced laparoscopic skills and timely referral of patients with incidental gallbladder cancer to specialized centres may allow more patients to benefit from this operation.

Project description:Peeyush VarshneyBackground Histopathology of gallbladder removed for stones may reveal incidental gallbladder cancer (iGBC). We conducted this online e-survey to document the knowledge and practices of management of iGBC among surgeons in India. Methods A 38-question online e-survey Results Two-hundred thirty responses were recorded. Ninety-eight out of two-hundred (49%) responses were general surgeons. Two-hundred ten out of two-hundred twenty-one (95%) saw at least one iGBC per year, but only 74/225 (32%) correctly defined true iGBC. One-hundred seventy-eight out of two hundred twenty-two (80%) did computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for thick-walled gallbladder (GB) detected on ultrasound, while 25/222 (11%) did laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 14/222 (6%) did open cholecystectomy. For GB mass on laparoscopy, 16/222 (7%) responses went ahead with simple cholecystectomy. Seventy-four out of two-hundred twenty-five (32%) responses routinely used bag while extracting GB. One-hundred ninety-one out of two-hundred twenty-five (86%) mentioned about stone/bile spill, 121/220 (55%) mentioned about use of bag for extraction while 137/220 62% mentioned port used for extraction of GB in operation notes. One-hundred sixty-six out of two-hundred twenty-seven (73%) always cut open GB after cholecystectomy. On encountering a mass/lesion on cut open GB, 111/225 (49%) sent it for frozen section, 89/225 (40%) sent for routine histopathology while 10% (22/225) directly proceeded for extended cholecystectomy. Ten out of two-hundred twenty-seven (4.4%) did not consider it important to send GB for histopathology. T stage on histopathology is most important factor for deciding reoperation by 205/223 (91%). Conclusion There are lacunae in understanding and deficiencies in management of iGBC in India-a high GBC incidence country. The situation is likely to be worse in low GBC incidence areas. There is need for more awareness and knowledge for proper management of iGBC among surgeons.

Dataset Information

Re-resection in Incidental Gallbladder Cancer: Survival and the Incidence of Residual Disease.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Re-resection in Incidental Gallbladder Cancer: Survival and the Incidence of Residual Disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets