4.6 Article

Prognostic value of jaundice in patients with gallbladder cancer by the AFC-GBC-2009 study group

Journal

EJSO
Volume 37, Issue 6, Pages 505-512

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.03.135

Keywords

Gallbladder carcinoma; Jaundice; Extended Liver resection; Morbidity; Mortality; Long-term survival

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Jaundice is frequent in patients with gallbladder cancer (GBC) and indicates advanced disease and, according to some teams, precludes routine operative exploration. The present study was designed to re-assess the prognostic value of jaundice in patients with GBC. Methods: Patients with GBC operated from 1998 to 2008 were included in a retrospective multicenter study (AFC). The main outcome measured was the prognostic value of jaundice in patients with GBC focusing on morbidity, mortality and survival. Results: A total of 110 of 429 patients with GBC presented with jaundice, with a median age of 66 years (range: 31-88). The resectability rate was 45% (n = 50) and the postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were 16% and 62%, respectively; 71% had R0 resection and 46% had lymph node involvement. Overall 1- and 3-year survivals of the 110 jaundiced patients were 41% and 15%, respectively. For the 50 resected patients, 1- and 3-year survivals were 48% and 19%, respectively (real 5-year survivors it = 4) which were significantly higher than that of the 60 non-resected patients (31%, 0%, p = 0.001). Among the resected jaundiced patients, T-stage, N and M status were found to have a significant impact on survival. R0 resection did not increase the overall survival in all resected patients, but R0 increased median survival in the subgroup of NO patients (20 months versus 6 months, p = 0.01). Conclusion: This series confirms that jaundice is a poor prognostic factor. However, the presence of jaundice does not preclude resection, especially in highly selected patients (N0). (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available