The Undertreatment of Gallbladder Cancer: Gaps in Seeking, Reaching, and Receiving Care

Referral rate of patients with incidental gallbladder cancer and survival: outcomes of a multicentre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Treatment outcomes of incidental gallbladder cancer generally stem from tertiary referral centres, while many patients are initially diagnosed and managed in secondary care centres. Referral patterns of patients with incidental gallbladder cancer are poorly reported. This study aimed to evaluate incidental gallbladder cancer treatment in secondary centres, rates of referral to tertiary centres and its impact on survival.

METHODS

Medical records of patients with incidental gallbladder cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019 in 27 Dutch secondary centres were retrospectively reviewed. Patient characteristics, surgical treatment, tumour characteristics, referral pattern and survival were assessed. Predictors for overall survival were determined using multivariable Cox regression.

RESULTS

In total, 382 patients with incidental gallbladder cancer were included. Of 243 patients eligible for re-resection (pT1b-pT3, M0), 131 (53.9%) were referred to a tertiary centre. The reason not to refer, despite indication for re-resection, was not documented for 52 of 112 non-referred patients (46.4%). In total, 98 patients underwent additional surgery with curative intent (40.3%), 12 of these in the secondary centre. Median overall survival was 33 months (95% c.i. 24 to 42 months) in referred patients versus 17 months (95% c.i. 3 to 31 months) in the non-referred group (P = 0.019). Referral to a tertiary centre was independently associated with improved survival after correction for age, ASA classification, tumour stage and resection margin (HR 0.60, 95% c.i. 0.38 to 0.97; P = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

Poor incidental gallbladder cancer referral rates were associated with worse survival. Age, performance status, resection margin or tumour stage should not preclude referral of a patient with incidental gallbladder cancer to a tertiary centre.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Advanced Gallbladder Cancer: Do We have Enough Evidence? A Systematic Review

Background

Recently for advanced gallbladder carcinoma, neoadjuvant chemotherapy has emerged as an important strategy in place of adjuvant chemotherapy with the hope that it will help to improve the resectability and survival.

Aim and objective

The goal was to conduct a systematic review of published publications on the benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced gallbladder cancer treatment.

Materials and methods

This systematic review followed the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology standards. The clinical benefit rate of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, curative resectability rate, and R0 resection were the major outcomes of interest. The secondary outcomes of interest were overall and disease-free survival.

Results

Six published papers were included (n = 420). One-hundred and twenty-eight cases (30.47%) despite receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy had disease progression. Although 67.38% of patients (283 of 420) in this systematic review showed good response to the neoadjuvant chemotherapy, just 51.66% (217 of 420 cases) were operated, out of which only 171 cases were deemed to be feasible for surgical resection and had curative resection. Out of the cases that underwent curative surgery, 91.81% had R0 resection (157 out of 171 patients). The overall survival rate was found to be 18.5–50.1 months for patients in whom curative surgery was done and 5.0–10.8 months for nonsurgery patients.

Conclusion

No sufficient data exist to advocate the regular use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced gallbladder carcinoma, as data showed that only 1/3 of patients benefited and had a R0 resection. Further research should be the randomized controlled trials to further quantify the benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced gallbladder carcinoma.

How to cite this article

Naveed S, Qari H, Thau CM, et al. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Advanced Gallbladder Cancer: Do We have Enough Evidence? A Systematic Review. Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2021;11(2):87–94.