• Surgery · Oct 2009

    Lymph node evaluation is associated with improved survival after surgery for early stage gallbladder cancer.

    • Eric H Jensen, Anasooya Abraham, Stephanie Jarosek, Elizabeth B Habermann, Waddah B Al-Refaie, Selwyn A Vickers, Beth A Virnig, and Todd M Tuttle.
    • Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. jense893@umn.edu
    • Surgery. 2009 Oct 1;146(4):706-11; discussion 711-3.

    BackgroundGuidelines for the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend radical cholecystectomy, including hepatic resection and portal lymph node (LN) dissection, for patients with early stage gallbladder (GB) cancer. We sought to determine the survival benefit conferred by adequate LN evaluation.MethodsWe used the surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) neoplasm registry to identify patients who had an operation for GB cancer between 1988 and 2004. Patients were classified by stage of disease, operative procedure performed (cholecystectomy alone or radical resection), number of LNs evaluated (0, 1, >1), and receipt of radiation (RT). We included patients with T1B, T2, and T3 neoplasms who were LN positive or negative. Patients with T4 neoplasms and those with metastatic disease were excluded. Multivariate analysis included adjustment for age, race, sex, neoplasm grade, stage, operation performed, receipt of RT, and neoplasm registry.ResultsWe identified 4,614 patients who underwent operative treatment for stage 1-2B GB (including T1B-T3 and LN positive or negative) cancer between 1988 and 2004. Of 4,614 patients, 9.6% (442) had radical resection, whereas 90.4% (4,172) had cholecystectomy alone. Among patients undergoing radical resection, 56% had LNs evaluated as compared with 28% of patients after cholecystectomy. For patients with T1B and T2 neoplasms who underwent radical resection, pathologic evaluation of at least 1 LN was associated with a significant improvement in median overall survival (OS) compared with those who had no LN evaluated (123 months vs 22 months; P < .0001). Radical resection with no LN evaluation provided similar OS compared with cholecystectomy alone (22 months vs 23 months; P = NS). For patients with T3 neoplasms, radical resection, including pathologic evaluation of at least 1 LN, was also associated with improved OS compared with radical resection with no LN evaluation (12 months vs 7 months; P = .0014). Again, individuals who had radical resection without LN evaluation had similar OS compared with those who had cholecystectomy alone (7 months vs 6 months; P = NS). Individuals who had radical resection with LN evaluation were more likely to receive RT than those who had radical resection without LN evaluation (33.1% vs 19.1%; P = .002). In multivariate analysis (including adjustment for RT), however, LN evaluation was still associated with a decrease in mortality compared with no LN evaluated (HR = 0.611; 95% CI = 0.484, 0.770). The pathologic evaluation of additional LN (>1) did not provide any additional benefit compared with the evaluation of a single node (HR = 0.795; 95% CI = 0.571, 1.107). Radical resection alone (without LN evaluation) did not provide any benefit over cholecystectomy alone (HR = 1.098; 95% CI = 0.971, 1.241).ConclusionLN evaluation is a critical component of radical resection for GB cancer. In the absence of LN evaluation, radical resection provides no benefit over cholecystectomy alone.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…