P9. Incidental gallbladder cancer: Incidence and outcomes

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (11) ◽  
pp. 1108
Author(s):  
Nicholas Gill ◽  
Rhiannon Harries ◽  
Kirk Bowling ◽  
Graham Whiteley
2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. 849
Author(s):  
R.L. Harries ◽  
N. Gill ◽  
K.B. Bowling ◽  
G.S.W. Whiteley

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 547-550
Author(s):  
Rajesh Poudel ◽  
Anita Shah

Background: Gallbladder cancer is the most common biliary tract cancer. Incidence rate of gall bladder cancer varies worldwide.  Most of the patient with gall bladder cancer remained asymptomatic until late. Preoperative early diagnosis of carcinoma of gallbladder is rare, occurring in fewer than 20% of patients. Role of routine histopathology for cholecystectomy specimen is debatable. Aim of this study is to find the incidence of incidental gall bladder cancer and determine whether routine histopathology of cholecystectomy specimen is required or not. Methods: This is a retrospective descriptive study carried out in Universal College of Medical Sciences, Bhairahawha, Nepal. Histopathology reports of all patients who had undergone cholecystectomies from June 2014 to September 2018 were reviewed. Patients’ information regarding inpatient number, age, sex, year of diagnosis, preoperative diagnosis, intraoperative findings, histopathology report and pathological staging were recorded. Data were entered and analyzed using Microsoft Excel version 14. Results: Total of 418 routine cholecystectomies were performed during this period. Seven cases of incidental gall bladder cancer were diagnosed. None of the patients had preoperative suspicion for malignancy. One patient had intraoperative suspicion of lesion. Conclusions: Incidence of incidental gallbladder cancer is 1.67%. It is recommended that routine histopathology of cholecystectomy specimen should be sent for early diagnosis and improve survival of patient with gall bladder cancer. Keywords: Cholecystectomy; gall bladder cancer; incidence, routine histopathology


2021 ◽  
Vol 07 (01) ◽  
pp. e22-e25
Author(s):  
Andrew Alabi ◽  
A D. Arvind ◽  
Nikhil Pawa ◽  
Shakir Karim ◽  
Jason Smith

Abstract Background Incidental gallbladder cancer is relatively rare, with an incidence ranging between 0.19 and 5.5% of all the cholecystectomies for benign disease, and carries a poor prognosis. Currently, in the literature, there appears to be some controversy about whether all gallbladder specimens should be sent for routine histopathology. The aim of this study was to investigate the need for either routine or selective histopathological evaluation of all gallbladder specimens following cholecystectomy in our institution. Methods The records of all patients who underwent a cholecystectomy (laparoscopic and open) for gallstone disease over a 5-year period (between January 2011 and January 2016) were reviewed retrospectively in a single university teaching hospital. Patients with radiological evidence of gallbladder cancer preoperatively were excluded. The notes of patients with incidental gallbladder cancer were reviewed and data were collected for clinical presentation and preoperative investigations including blood tests and radiological imaging. Results A total of 1,473 specimens were sent for histopathological evaluation, with two patients being diagnosed with an incidental gallbladder cancer (papillary adenocarcinoma in situ and moderately differentiated invasive adenocarcinoma [stage IIIa]). The incidence rate was 0.14%. All patients with incidental gallbladder cancer had macroscopically abnormal specimens. Conclusion Both patients in our study who were diagnosed with incidental gallbladder cancer had macroscopic abnormalities. A selective rather than routine approach to histological evaluation of gallbladder specimens especially in those with macroscopic abnormalities should be employed. This will reduce the burden on the pathology department with potential cost savings.


HPB ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. S186
Author(s):  
J.M. Creasy ◽  
M.E. Lidsky ◽  
K.N. Shah ◽  
G.S. Herbert ◽  
P.J. Allen ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (9) ◽  
pp. 1319-1326 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Jane Henley ◽  
Hannah K. Weir ◽  
Melissa A. Jim ◽  
Meg Watson ◽  
Lisa C. Richardson

2017 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 673 ◽  
Author(s):  
RajeevKumar Malhotra ◽  
Nalliah Manoharan ◽  
NK Shukla ◽  
GourvaKishore Rath

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document