BACKGROUND: Carcinoma of the gall bladder (GB) is the most common malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract. One percent of cholecystectomy specimens show incidental gall bladder cancers (GBCs). AIM: Our aim of the study to was evaluate the utility of routine histopathology of cholecystectomy specimens removed with a diagnosis of gall bladder diseases (GBD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was done reviewing the histopathological records of 906 patients who underwent cholecystectomy. Demographic details, gross findings, and microscopic findings noted. All the cases were categorized into two groups, A and B. Group A included the cases with any gross abnormality including wall thickness ≥4 mm and group B included rest of the cases. RESULTS: Majority of the patients were in the age group of 31-40 years of age. Out of 906 patients studied, majority of them were females with F:M ratio of 6.14:1. Of the 47 cases which were included in group A (with macroscopic abnormality), six cases had gall bladder carcinoma on microscopy. One case from group B with macroscopically normal-appearing GB had invasive carcinoma on microscopy. In our study, we found a sensitivity of 85.71% and specificity of 95.44%, while positive predictive value (PPV) was 91.11% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.65% of macroscopic abnormality in the diagnosis of invasive carcinoma. CONCLUSION: All cholecystectomy specimens must be examined by histopathologists who must decide whether processing for microscopy is needed. Microscopic examination may be reserved for the specimen with a macroscopic lesion. This will result in a reduction of costs and pathology workload without compromising patient management.
BACKGROUND: Carcinoma of the gall bladder (GB) is the most common malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract. One percent of cholecystectomy specimens show incidental gall bladder cancers (GBCs). AIM: Our aim of the study to was evaluate the utility of routine histopathology of cholecystectomy specimens removed with a diagnosis of gall bladder diseases (GBD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was done reviewing the histopathological records of 906 patients who underwent cholecystectomy. Demographic details, gross findings, and microscopic findings noted. All the cases were categorized into two groups, A and B. Group A included the cases with any gross abnormality including wall thickness ≥4 mm and group B included rest of the cases. RESULTS: Majority of the patients were in the age group of 31-40 years of age. Out of 906 patients studied, majority of them were females with F:M ratio of 6.14:1. Of the 47 cases which were included in group A (with macroscopic abnormality), six cases had gall bladder carcinoma on microscopy. One case from group B with macroscopically normal-appearing GB had invasive carcinoma on microscopy. In our study, we found a sensitivity of 85.71% and specificity of 95.44%, while positive predictive value (PPV) was 91.11% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.65% of macroscopic abnormality in the diagnosis of invasive carcinoma. CONCLUSION: All cholecystectomy specimens must be examined by histopathologists who must decide whether processing for microscopy is needed. Microscopic examination may be reserved for the specimen with a macroscopic lesion. This will result in a reduction of costs and pathology workload without compromising patient management.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cholecystectomy; gall bladder cancer; gall stone disease; health economics