4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

The role of laparoscopic staging in patients with incidental gallbladder cancer

Journal

HPB
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages 463-472

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2011.00325.x

Keywords

incidental gallbladder cancer; laparoscopic staging; re-exploration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

dBackground: The role of staging laparoscopy (SL) in patients with incidental gallbladder cancer (IGBC) is ill defined. This study evaluates the utility of SL with the aim of identifying variables associated with disseminated disease (DD). Methods: Consecutive patients with IGBC who underwent re-exploration between 1998 and 2009 were identified from a prospective database. The yield and accuracy of SL were calculated. Demographics, tumour- and treatment-related variables were correlated with findings of DD. Results: Of the 136 patients submitted to re-exploration for possible definitive resection, 19 (14.0%) had DD. Staging laparoscopy was carried out in 46 (33.8%) patients, of whom 10 (21.8%) had DD (peritoneal disease [n = 6], liver metastases [n = 3], retroperitoneal disease [n = 1]). Disseminated disease was identified by SL in two patients (yield = 4.3%), whereas eight were diagnosed after conversion to laparotomy (accuracy = 20.0%). The likelihood of DD correlated closely with T-stage (T1b, n = 0; T2, n = 5 [7.0%], T3, n = 14 [26.0%]; P = 0.004). A positive margin at initial cholecystectomy (odds ratio [OR] 5.44, 95% confidence interval [Cl] 1.51-24.37; P = 0.004) and tumour differentiation (OR 7.64, 95% CI 1.1-NA; P = 0.006) were independent predictors of DD on multivariate analysis. Discussion: Disseminated disease is relatively uncommon in patients with IGBC and SL provides a very low yield. However, patients with poorly differentiated, T3 or positive-margin gallbladder tumours are at high risk for DD and targeting these patients may increase the yield of SL.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available