Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023
Comparative analyses between radically re-resected incidental gallbladder carcinoma and primary radically resected gallbladder carcinoma: a single-center experience in China.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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, Liu Fei, Jin Yan-Wen, Li Fu-Yu
Аннотация
PURPOSES: The current study was performed to comparatively evaluate the similarities and differences between cases with radically re-resected incidental gallbladder carcinoma (RRIGBC) and those with primary radically resected gallbladder carcinoma (PRGBC).
METHODS: Comparative analysis between patients with RRIGBC and those with PRGBC were performed in terms of clinic-pathological features and long-terms survival.
RESULTS: A total of 330 surgically treated GBC patients with 110 patients with IGBC were identified. PRGBCs were generally in a more advanced tumor stage, sharing more aggressive tumor biological features and worse prognosis than those with RRIGBC. Subgroup analyses indicated a comparable prognosis among T1-2 patients between RRIGBC and PRGBC groups. However, among T3-4 patients, patients in the PRGBC group shared a much worse prognosis. Moreover, IGBC itself can be regarded as a prognostic factor but cannot be regarded as an independent prognostic factor. It is the tumor stage which really determined the overall prognosis.
CONCLUSION: Patients with RRIGBC were generally in a much earlier tumor stage and shared a much better prognosis than those with PRGBC. IGBC itself can be regarded as a prognostic factor but cannot be regarded as the independent prognostic factors. It is the tumor stage which really determine the overall prognosis.
METHODS: Comparative analysis between patients with RRIGBC and those with PRGBC were performed in terms of clinic-pathological features and long-terms survival.
RESULTS: A total of 330 surgically treated GBC patients with 110 patients with IGBC were identified. PRGBCs were generally in a more advanced tumor stage, sharing more aggressive tumor biological features and worse prognosis than those with RRIGBC. Subgroup analyses indicated a comparable prognosis among T1-2 patients between RRIGBC and PRGBC groups. However, among T3-4 patients, patients in the PRGBC group shared a much worse prognosis. Moreover, IGBC itself can be regarded as a prognostic factor but cannot be regarded as an independent prognostic factor. It is the tumor stage which really determined the overall prognosis.
CONCLUSION: Patients with RRIGBC were generally in a much earlier tumor stage and shared a much better prognosis than those with PRGBC. IGBC itself can be regarded as a prognostic factor but cannot be regarded as the independent prognostic factors. It is the tumor stage which really determine the overall prognosis.