Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023
The Significance of Tumor Locations in Patients with Gallbladder Carcinoma After Curative-Intent Resection.
МетаанализСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lv Tian-Run, Wang Jun-Ke, Hu Hai-Jie, Ma Wen-Jie, Li Fu-Yu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the significance of tumor locations in patients with resected gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) and to supply the indication of extra-hepatic bile duct resection (EHBDR) according to tumor locations.
METHODS: Patients with resected GBC from 2010 to 2020 in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Comparative analyses and a meta-analysis were performed according to different tumor locations (body/fundus/neck/cystic duct).
RESULTS: Article: A total of 259 patients were identified (neck: 71; cystic: 29; body: 51; fundus: 108). Patients with proximal tumors (neck/cystic duct) were often in a more advanced stage and had more aggressive tumor biological features as well as a worse prognosis compared with those with distal tumors (fundus/body). Moreover, the observation was even more obvious between cystic duct and non-cystic duct tumors. Cystic duct tumor was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (P = 0.01). EHBDR provided no survival advantage even in those with cystic duct tumor.
META-ANALYSIS: With our own cohort incorporated, five studies with 204 patients with proximal tumors and 5167 patients with distal tumors were identified. Pooled results revealed that proximal tumors indicated worse tumor biological features and prognosis versus distal tumors.
CONCLUSION: Proximal GBC had more aggressive tumor biological features, and a worse prognosis versus distal GBC and cystic duct tumor can be regarded as an independent prognostic factor. EHBDR had no obvious survival advantage even in those with cystic duct tumor and was even harmful in those with distal tumors. Upcoming more powerful well-designed studies are required for further validation.
METHODS: Patients with resected GBC from 2010 to 2020 in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Comparative analyses and a meta-analysis were performed according to different tumor locations (body/fundus/neck/cystic duct).
RESULTS: Article: A total of 259 patients were identified (neck: 71; cystic: 29; body: 51; fundus: 108). Patients with proximal tumors (neck/cystic duct) were often in a more advanced stage and had more aggressive tumor biological features as well as a worse prognosis compared with those with distal tumors (fundus/body). Moreover, the observation was even more obvious between cystic duct and non-cystic duct tumors. Cystic duct tumor was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (P = 0.01). EHBDR provided no survival advantage even in those with cystic duct tumor.
META-ANALYSIS: With our own cohort incorporated, five studies with 204 patients with proximal tumors and 5167 patients with distal tumors were identified. Pooled results revealed that proximal tumors indicated worse tumor biological features and prognosis versus distal tumors.
CONCLUSION: Proximal GBC had more aggressive tumor biological features, and a worse prognosis versus distal GBC and cystic duct tumor can be regarded as an independent prognostic factor. EHBDR had no obvious survival advantage even in those with cystic duct tumor and was even harmful in those with distal tumors. Upcoming more powerful well-designed studies are required for further validation.