BACKGROUND: Radical resection is recommended for selected patients with gallbladder (GB) cancer. We sought to determine whether radical resection improves survival for patients with early-stage cancer and to evaluate surgeon compliance with current treatment recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage 0, I, or II GB cancer who underwent surgical resection were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) tumor registry from 1988 through 2004. Patients were classified by surgical procedure performed (simple vs. radical resection) and adjuvant treatment given (radiation therapy [RT] vs. no RT). Unadjusted and adjusted overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared. RESULTS: Of the 4,631 patients who underwent surgery for early-stage GB cancer from 1988 through 2004, 4,188 (90.4%) underwent cholecystectomy alone and 443 (9.6%) underwent radical surgery including hepatic resection. The proportion of patients having radical surgery for T1b, T2, and T3 cancers was 4.5%, 5.6%, and 16.3%, respectively. For patients with T1b/T2 cancer, radical resection was associated with significant improvement in adjusted CSS (p = 0.01) and OS (p = 0.03). For patients with T3 cancers, we noted no improvement in CSS or OS. Survival for patients with node-positive disease (stage 2b) was universally poor and not improved by radical resection. For all patients who underwent radical resection, node negativity, female sex, age <70, low grade, and RT predicted improved CSS and OS. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a significant survival advantage for patients with T1b/T2 GB cancer who undergo radical resection, this treatment is significantly underutilized. Ensuring delivery of recommended surgical treatment is vital to improving outcomes for patients with this disease.
BACKGROUND: Radical resection is recommended for selected patients with gallbladder (GB) cancer. We sought to determine whether radical resection improves survival for patients with early-stage cancer and to evaluate surgeon compliance with current treatment recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage 0, I, or II GB cancer who underwent surgical resection were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) tumor registry from 1988 through 2004. Patients were classified by surgical procedure performed (simple vs. radical resection) and adjuvant treatment given (radiation therapy [RT] vs. no RT). Unadjusted and adjusted overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared. RESULTS: Of the 4,631 patients who underwent surgery for early-stage GB cancer from 1988 through 2004, 4,188 (90.4%) underwent cholecystectomy alone and 443 (9.6%) underwent radical surgery including hepatic resection. The proportion of patients having radical surgery for T1b, T2, and T3 cancers was 4.5%, 5.6%, and 16.3%, respectively. For patients with T1b/T2 cancer, radical resection was associated with significant improvement in adjusted CSS (p = 0.01) and OS (p = 0.03). For patients with T3 cancers, we noted no improvement in CSS or OS. Survival for patients with node-positive disease (stage 2b) was universally poor and not improved by radical resection. For all patients who underwent radical resection, node negativity, female sex, age <70, low grade, and RT predicted improved CSS and OS. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a significant survival advantage for patients with T1b/T2 GB cancer who undergo radical resection, this treatment is significantly underutilized. Ensuring delivery of recommended surgical treatment is vital to improving outcomes for patients with this disease.
Authors: Al B Benson; Tanios Bekaii-Saab; Edgar Ben-Josef; Leslie Blumgart; Bryan M Clary; Steven A Curley; Rene Davila; Craig C Earle; William D Ensminger; John F Gibbs; Daniel Laheru; Alan N Langnas; Sean J Mulvihill; Albert A Nemcek; James A Posey; Elin R Sigurdson; Mika Sinanan; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Alan P Venook; Lawrence D Wagman; Timothy J Yeatman Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Jason M Foster; Hisakazu Hoshi; John F Gibbs; Renuka Iyer; Miland Javle; Quyen Chu; Boris Kuvshinoff Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-11-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: John J Kresl; Steven E Schild; George T Henning; Leonard L Gunderson; John Donohue; Henry Pitot; Michael G Haddock; David Nagorney Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Samuel P Shih; Richard D Schulick; John L Cameron; Keith D Lillemoe; Henry A Pitt; Michael A Choti; Kurtis A Campbell; Charles J Yeo; Mark A Talamini Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Javier C Lendoire; Luis Gil; Fernando Duek; Carlos Quarin; Verónica Garay; Gabriel Raffin; Marcelo Rivaldi; Oks Alejandra; Oscar Imventarza Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2012-06-08 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Juan C Roa; Oscar Tapia; Carlos Manterola; Miguel Villaseca; Pablo Guzman; Juan Carlos Araya; Pelin Bagci; Burcu Saka; Volkan Adsay Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Al B Benson; Thomas A Abrams; Edgar Ben-Josef; P Mark Bloomston; Jean F Botha; Bryan M Clary; Anne Covey; Steven A Curley; Michael I D'Angelica; Rene Davila; William D Ensminger; John F Gibbs; Daniel Laheru; Mokenge P Malafa; Jorge Marrero; Steven G Meranze; Sean J Mulvihill; James O Park; James A Posey; Jasgit Sachdev; Riad Salem; Elin R Sigurdson; Constantinos Sofocleous; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Alan P Venook; Laura Williams Goff; Yun Yen; Andrew X Zhu Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Dong Hyun Kim; Sung Hoon Kim; Gi Hong Choi; Chang Moo Kang; Kyung Sik Kim; Jin Sub Choi; Woo Jung Lee Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 3.352