Dataset Information

Impact of surgical strategies on the survival of gallbladder cancer patients: analysis of 715 cases.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:The aim of the study is to evaluate the impact of application of surgical strategies at different cancer stages on the survival of gallbladder cancer (GBC) patients. METHODS:The patients with GBC were divided into 3 groups according to their received surgical strategies: simple resection (full-thickness cholecystectomy for removal of primary tumor site), radical resection (gallbladder bed removal combined with partial hepatectomy), and palliative surgery (treatment at advanced stages). The overall survival (OS) of GBC patients who were received different surgical strategies was compared. RESULTS:Survival analysis showed that radical resection had a best OS at clinical stage II, and simple resection had a best OS at tumor clinical stage IV. Cox hazard proportional regression analysis showed that more advanced tumor stages, tumor location of gallbladder body or neck, and CA199 ? 27?U/mL were the major risk factors for the OS of GBC. CONCLUSIONS:At tumor stage II, radical resection should be the most effective surgical therapy for GBC. However, the effect of radical resection at advanced stages could be restricted. The utilization of radical resection should be increased at tumor stage II for a better long-term survival outcome.

SUBMITTER: Chang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7320575 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of surgical strategies on the survival of gallbladder cancer patients: analysis of 715 cases.

Chang Yigang Y Li Qiang Q Wu Qian Q Chi Limin L Bi Xiaogang X Zeng Qingmin Q Huo Huaying H

World journal of surgical oncology 20200626 1

<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of the study is to evaluate the impact of application of surgical strategies at different cancer stages on the survival of gallbladder cancer (GBC) patients.<h4>Methods</h4>The patients with GBC were divided into 3 groups according to their received surgical strategies: simple resection (full-thickness cholecystectomy for removal of primary tumor site), radical resection (gallbladder bed removal combined with partial hepatectomy), and palliative surgery (treatment at ad ...[more]

PMID: 32590998

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: to analyze the evolution of surgical techniques and strategies, and to determine their influence on the survival of patients with stage III or IV epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Methods: a retrospective data analysis was performed in two French tertiary cancer institutes. The analysis included clinical information, cytoreductive outcome (complete, optimal and suboptimal), definitive pathology, Overall Survival (OS), and Progression-Free Survival (PFS). Three surgical strategies were compared: Primary Cytoreductive Surgery (PCS), Interval Cytoreductive Surgery (ICS) after three cycles of Neo-Adjuvant Chemotherapy (NAC), and Final Cytoreductive Surgery (FCS) after at least six cycles of NAC. We analyzed four distinct time intervals: prior to 2000, between 2000 and 2004, between 2005 and 2009, and after 2009. Results: data from 1474 patients managed for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages III (80%) or IV (20%) EOC were analyzed. Throughout the four time intervals, the rate of patients who were treated only medically increased significantly (10.1% vs. 22.6% p < 0.001). NAC treatment increased from 20.1% to 52.2% (p < 0.001). Complete resection rate increased from 37% to 66.2% (p < 0.001). Of our study population, 1260 patients (85.5%) underwent surgery. OS was longer in cases of complete cytoreduction (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 2.123 CI 95% [1.816-2.481] p < 0.001) but the surgical strategy itself did not affect median OS. OS was 44.9 months, 50.3 months, and 42 months for PCS, ICS, and FCS, respectively (p = 0.410). After adjusting for surgical strategies (PCS, ICS, and FCS), all patients with complete cytoreduction presented similar OS with no significant difference. However, PFS was three months shorter when FCS was compared to PCS (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In our 30 years' experience of EOC management, complete resection rate was the only independent factor that significantly improved OS and PFS, regardless of the surgical strategy.

Project description:BackgroundIt is inconclusive whether R1 margin determined by postoperative pathological examination indicates worse long-term survival in gastric cancer (GC) patients after curative intent resection (CIR). Hence, we aimed to systematically pool the conflicting evidence to fill this gap.MethodsThe present study was performed according to the published protocol and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Published studies examining the impact of microscopic margin status on overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS rate in GC were systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct statistical analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.ResultsTwenty-three retrospective cohort studies including 19 992 patients were analyzed. The pooled hazard ratio for OS of 14 studies was 2.06 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.61-2.65, low certainty), indicating that R1 margin predicted inferior OS. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses upheld the statistical stability of this finding. The pooled odds ratio (OR) of 14 studies was .21 (95% CI: .17-.26, moderate certainty), demonstrating that the presence of R1 margins was associated with a poorer 5-year OS rate. Sensitivity analyses and most of the subgroup analyses confirmed this finding, except the "esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancers" subgroup, which included two studies with a pooled OR of .41 (95% CI: .10-1.61).ConclusionR1 margin detected by pathological examination might exhibit a high correlation with poorer OS and 5-year OS rate in GC (except EGJ cancers) patients who underwent CIR. To figure out the effect of R1 margin on survival of different stages and histological types need prospective studies with large sample sizes and standardized methods. What is the best treatment for R1 margin patients also need more in-depth and special research.

Project description:IntroductionGenerally, complete resection with cancer cell negative (R0) margin has been accepted as the most effective treatment of gastric cancer and positive resection (R1/R2) margin has been associated with decreased survival to varied degrees. However, the independent impact of microscopical positive (R1) margin on long-term survival may be confounded. No meta-analysis has worked at the association between R1 margin and outcomes of gastric cancer and the available evidence are scant. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively explore the role of R1 margin on gastric (including oesophagogastric junction) cancer survival after curative intent resection.Methods and analysisThe protocol was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be performed from their inceptions to 30 April 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case-control studies focusing on the impact of R1 margin on survival of gastric cancer after curative intent resection. The primary outcome will be the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) and the secondary outcomes will be 5-year OS rate and 5-year DFS rate. The Cochrane tool for bias assessment in randomised trials and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-I for the assessment of bias in non-randomised studies (NRS) will be used. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and measured using the I2 statistics. A fixed-effect model will be used when heterogeneity is low, otherwise, a random-effect model will be chosen. Publication bias will be assessed by funnel plots, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed in the right context. For each outcome, we will perform data synthesis separately for RCTs and NRS using Rev Man V.5.3 software and compile 'summary of findings' tables separately for RCTs and NRS using GRADEpro software. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations considerations will also be used to make an overall assessment of the quality of evidence.Ethics and disseminationThere is no requirement for ethics approval because no patient data will be collected at an individual level in this systematic review and meta-analysis.The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences, any deviations from the protocol will be clearly documented and explained in its final report.Prospero registration numberCRD42020165110.

Dataset Information

Impact of surgical strategies on the survival of gallbladder cancer patients: analysis of 715 cases.

Publications

Impact of surgical strategies on the survival of gallbladder cancer patients: analysis of 715 cases.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure