BACKGROUND: Most gallbladder cancers are diagnosed after cholecystectomy for presumed benign disease, and nodal staging to inform subsequent treatment is therefore often lacking. We evaluated the association of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) with regional lymph node involvement in gallbladder adenocarcinoma and its impact on survival. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried to identify patients with resected gallbladder adenocarcinoma and with available staging and LVI status. Patients with pT4 and M1 disease were excluded. Univariable and multivariable regression identified factors associated with positive lymph nodes. Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 1649 patients with available LVI status, 1142 (69.7%) had at least one positive lymph node and 765 (46.4%) had LVI. On multivariable regression, presence of LVI was the strongest predictor of positive lymph nodes (odds ratio, 3.69; P < .001). The positive predictive value of LVI for positive lymph nodes in pT2 and pT3 tumors was 80.1% and 90.5%, respectively. LVI was independently associated with decreased OS (hazard ratio, 1.21; P = .001), as were node-positive disease and increasing T stage. CONCLUSION: In patients with gallbladder adenocarcinoma, LVI is independently associated with regional lymph node metastases and abbreviated OS. LVI status may help risk-stratify patients following initial cholecystectomy and inform subsequent treatment.
BACKGROUND: Most gallbladder cancers are diagnosed after cholecystectomy for presumed benign disease, and nodal staging to inform subsequent treatment is therefore often lacking. We evaluated the association of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) with regional lymph node involvement in gallbladder adenocarcinoma and its impact on survival. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried to identify patients with resected gallbladder adenocarcinoma and with available staging and LVI status. Patients with pT4 and M1 disease were excluded. Univariable and multivariable regression identified factors associated with positive lymph nodes. Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 1649 patients with available LVI status, 1142 (69.7%) had at least one positive lymph node and 765 (46.4%) had LVI. On multivariable regression, presence of LVI was the strongest predictor of positive lymph nodes (odds ratio, 3.69; P < .001). The positive predictive value of LVI for positive lymph nodes in pT2 and pT3 tumors was 80.1% and 90.5%, respectively. LVI was independently associated with decreased OS (hazard ratio, 1.21; P = .001), as were node-positive disease and increasing T stage. CONCLUSION: In patients with gallbladder adenocarcinoma, LVI is independently associated with regional lymph node metastases and abbreviated OS. LVI status may help risk-stratify patients following initial cholecystectomy and inform subsequent treatment.
Authors: Sameer H Patel; David A Kooby; Charles A Staley; Juan M Sarmiento; Shishir K Maithel Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: John N Primrose; Richard P Fox; Daniel H Palmer; Hassan Z Malik; Raj Prasad; Darius Mirza; Alan Anthony; Pippa Corrie; Stephen Falk; Meg Finch-Jones; Harpreet Wasan; Paul Ross; Lucy Wall; Jonathan Wadsley; Jeff T R Evans; Deborah Stocken; Raaj Praseedom; Yuk Ting Ma; Brian Davidson; John P Neoptolemos; Tim Iveson; James Raftery; Shihua Zhu; David Cunningham; O James Garden; Clive Stubbs; Juan W Valle; John Bridgewater Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Andrew M Blakely; Kelly J Lafaro; Daneng Li; Jonathan Kessler; Sue Chang; Philip H G Ituarte; Byrne Lee; Gagandeep Singh Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 4.914
Authors: S Jane Henley; Hannah K Weir; Melissa A Jim; Meg Watson; Lisa C Richardson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Georgios Antonios Margonis; Faiz Gani; Stefan Buettner; Neda Amini; Kazunari Sasaki; Nikolaos Andreatos; Cecilia G Ethun; George Poultsides; Thuy Tran; Kamran Idrees; Chelsea A Isom; Ryan C Fields; Bradley Krasnick; Sharon M Weber; Ahmed Salem; Robert C G Martin; Charles Scoggins; Perry Shen; Harveshp D Mogal; Carl Schmidt; Eliza Beal; Ioannis Hatzaras; Rivfka Shenoy; Shishir K Maithel; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-08-13 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Tae Hyun Kim; Sang Myung Woo; Woo Jin Lee; Eun Sang Oh; Sang Hee Youn; Sung Ho Moon; Sang Soo Kim; Sung Sik Han; Sang-Jae Park; Dae Yong Kim Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Melanie Biesinger; Nele Eicken; Alexander Varga; Michael Weber; Milos Brndiar; Georg Erd; Peter Errhalt; Klaus Hackner; Sarah Hintermair; Alexander Petter-Puchner; Axel Scheed; Elisabeth Stubenberger; Bahil Ghanim Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 6.575