Cecilia G Ethun1, Lauren M Postlewait1, Nina Le1, Timothy M Pawlik2,3, George Poultsides4, Thuy Tran4, Kamran Idrees5, Chelsea A Isom5, Ryan C Fields6, Bradley A Krasnick6, Sharon M Weber7, Ahmed Salem7, Robert C G Martin8, Charles R Scoggins8, Perry Shen9, Harveshp D Mogal9, Carl Schmidt3, Eliza Beal3, Ioannis Hatzaras10, Rivfka Shenoy10, Kenneth Cardona1, Shishir K Maithel1. 1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Division of Surgical Oncology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 4. Department of Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California. 5. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. 6. Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 7. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. 8. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky. 9. Department of Surgery, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 10. Department of Surgery, New York University, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current data on the utility of port-site excision (PSE) during re-resection for incidentally discovered gallbladder cancer (IGBC) in the US are conflicting and limited to single-institution series. METHODS: All patients with IGBC who underwent curative re-resection at 10 institutions from 2000 to 2015 were included. Patients with and without PSE were compared. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 449 pts with GBC, 266 were incidentally discovered, of which 193(73%) underwent curative re-resection and had port-site data; 47 pts(24%) underwent PSE, 146(76%) did not. The PSE rate remained similar over time (2000-2004: 33%; 2005-2009: 22%; 2010-2015:22%; P = 0.36). Both groups had similar demographics, operative procedures, and post-operative complications. There was no difference in T-stage (T1: 9 vs. 11%; T2: 52 vs. 52%; T3: 39 vs. 38%; P = 0.96) or LN involvement (36 vs. 41%; P = 0.7) between groups. A 3-year OS was similar between PSE and no PSE groups (65 vs. 43%; P = 0.07). On univariable analysis, residual disease at re-resection (HR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.3; P = 0.001), high tumor grade, and advanced T-stage were associated with decreased OS. Only grade and T-stage, but not PSE, persisted on multivariable analysis. Distant disease recurrence-rate was identical between PSE and no PSE groups (80 vs. 81%; P = 1.0). CONCLUSION: Port-site excision during re-resection for IGBC is not associated with improved overall survival and has the same distant disease recurrence compared to no port-site excision. Routine port-site excision is not recommended.
BACKGROUND: Current data on the utility of port-site excision (PSE) during re-resection for incidentally discovered gallbladder cancer (IGBC) in the US are conflicting and limited to single-institution series. METHODS: All patients with IGBC who underwent curative re-resection at 10 institutions from 2000 to 2015 were included. Patients with and without PSE were compared. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 449 pts with GBC, 266 were incidentally discovered, of which 193(73%) underwent curative re-resection and had port-site data; 47 pts(24%) underwent PSE, 146(76%) did not. The PSE rate remained similar over time (2000-2004: 33%; 2005-2009: 22%; 2010-2015:22%; P = 0.36). Both groups had similar demographics, operative procedures, and post-operative complications. There was no difference in T-stage (T1: 9 vs. 11%; T2: 52 vs. 52%; T3: 39 vs. 38%; P = 0.96) or LN involvement (36 vs. 41%; P = 0.7) between groups. A 3-year OS was similar between PSE and no PSE groups (65 vs. 43%; P = 0.07). On univariable analysis, residual disease at re-resection (HR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.3; P = 0.001), high tumor grade, and advanced T-stage were associated with decreased OS. Only grade and T-stage, but not PSE, persisted on multivariable analysis. Distant disease recurrence-rate was identical between PSE and no PSE groups (80 vs. 81%; P = 1.0). CONCLUSION: Port-site excision during re-resection for IGBC is not associated with improved overall survival and has the same distant disease recurrence compared to no port-site excision. Routine port-site excision is not recommended.
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: Cecilia G Ethun; Lauren M Postlewait; Nina Le; Timothy M Pawlik; Stefan Buettner; George Poultsides; Thuy Tran; Kamran Idrees; Chelsea A Isom; Ryan C Fields; Linda X Jin; Sharon M Weber; Ahmed Salem; Robert C G Martin; Charles Scoggins; Perry Shen; Harveshp D Mogal; Carl Schmidt; Eliza Beal; Ioannis Hatzaras; Rivfka Shenoy; Nipun Merchant; Kenneth Cardona; Shishir K Maithel Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ajay V Maker; Jean M Butte; Jacqueline Oxenberg; Deborah Kuk; Mithat Gonen; Yuman Fong; Ronald P Dematteo; Michael I D'Angelica; Peter J Allen; William R Jarnagin Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-06-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: David Fuks; Jean Marc Regimbeau; Yves-Patrice Le Treut; Philippe Bachellier; Artivas Raventos; François-René Pruvot; Laurence Chiche; Olivier Farges Journal: World J Surg Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Cecilia G Ethun; Lauren M Postlewait; Nina Le; Timothy M Pawlik; Stefan Buettner; George Poultsides; Thuy Tran; Kamran Idrees; Chelsea A Isom; Ryan C Fields; Linda X Jin; Sharon M Weber; Ahmed Salem; Robert C G Martin; Charles Scoggins; Perry Shen; Harveshp D Mogal; Carl Schmidt; Eliza Beal; Ioannis Hatzaras; Rivfka Shenoy; David A Kooby; Shishir K Maithel Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Danielle M Hari; J Harrison Howard; Anna M Leung; Connie G Chui; Myung-Shin Sim; Anton J Bilchik Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Jean M Butte; T Peter Kingham; Mithat Gönen; Michael I D'Angelica; Peter J Allen; Yuman Fong; Ronald P DeMatteo; William R Jarnagin Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-05-16 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: D Fuks; J-M Regimbeau; P Pessaux; P Bachellier; A Raventos; G Mantion; J-F Gigot; L Chiche; G Pascal; D Azoulay; A Laurent; C Letoublon; E Boleslawski; M Rivoire; J-Y Mabrut; M Adham; Y-P Le Treut; J-R Delpero; F Navarro; A Ayav; K Boudjema; G Nuzzo; M Scotte; O Farges Journal: J Visc Surg Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 2.043
Authors: Mohammad Y Zaidi; Ghassan K Abou-Alfa; Cecilia G Ethun; Shailesh V Shrikhande; Mahesh Goel; Bruno Nervi; John Primrose; Juan W Valle; Shishir K Maithel Journal: Chin Clin Oncol Date: 2019-08-05
Authors: T Peter Kingham; Victoria G Aveson; Alice C Wei; Jason A Castellanos; Peter J Allen; Daniel P Nussbaum; Yinin Hu; Michael I D'Angelica Journal: Curr Probl Surg Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: Eduardo A Vega; Sebastian Mellado; Omid Salehi; Richard Freeman; Claudius Conrad Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 6.639