Abstract
Background
Cholecystectomy is one of the most commonly performed general surgery procedures in the USA. It is most frequently performed for benign biliary disease such as biliary colic or cholecystitis; however, resected specimens are frequently sent for histopathological analysis due to the perceived risk of incidental gallbladder carcinoma (iGBC). The principle aim of this study is to review the pathology results from gallbladder specimens sent for routine pathology, determine the incidence of iGBC in our population, and determine whether surgeons need to send specimens for further analysis if no preoperative or intraoperative suspicion for malignancy is present.
Methods
We performed a large single-center case-controlled retrospective study of all gallbladder specimens sent for routine histopathological analysis between 2009 and 2014. The results were tabulated, including both common and rare findings. We then analyzed patient outcomes and survival for the case group of iGBC patients and determined value in life years (LY) gained per dollar spent on pathological screening.
Results
A total of 2153 pathology reports were reviewed. After exclusion criteria, a total of 1984 were included in data analysis. The incidence of iGBC was 0.25 % (95 % CI 0.08, 0.59), and dysplasia was 0.70 % (0.39, 1.20). The most common pathological findings included chronic cholecystitis in 89 % (87.4, 90.3) and cholelithiasis in 81 % (79.1, 82.6) of specimens. Total charges for pathological screening were $65,404 per LY to date; however, two patients have ongoing disease-free survival and this figure is expected to decrease.
Conclusions
The incidence of significant pathology necessitating change in clinical management is extremely low in our population. Despite this, the cost per LY gained from routine pathological analysis appears to be of sufficient value to continue with current practice. Alternatively, selective screening based on risk factors, intraoperative findings, and on-table examination of specimen may be a more cost-effective approach.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Cholecystectomy continues to be one of the most frequent general surgery procedures and is performed for a variety of indications that are predominantly benign in nature. Historical dogma suggests that resected gallbladder specimens should be evaluated postoperatively by a pathologist; however, this tradition is not reflected in strong evidence or formalized guidelines [1]. This screening modality has been shown to detect incidental gallbladder carcinoma (iGBC) [2]. Prior studies have shown iGBC in 0.3–0.9 % of gallbladders following cholecystectomy [3]. Detection of iGBC (also referred to as unexpected gallbladder cancer in the literature) can potentially alter clinical management by necessitating a more extensive hepatic resection and lymphadenectomy [4–7]. It has shown to have improved outcomes over gallbladder carcinoma diagnosed via symptoms; however, the outcomes remain poor [3]. Little evidence exists in the literature on the patient value conferred with pathological evaluation during routine benign cases.
While gallbladder carcinoma is the most common biliary tract malignancy, it remains quite rare in Western populations with an incidence in USA of 1.2/100,000 [8, 9]. It is estimated that half of all gallbladder cancers are now found incidentally during presumed benign resections, with the other half diagnosed via local symptoms or upon metastasis [7, 10]. Unfortunately, GBC is very difficult to diagnose early by any other means and over 75 % of GBC is not resectable at the time of diagnosis due to its aggressive pathophysiology [11]. iGBC as a subset of this population boasts better outcomes due to a higher likelihood of early-stage detection [12]. However, no evidence to date justifies the global screening of benign gallbladder specimens as a cost-effective screening modality. The principal aim of this study is to review the pathology results from gallbladder specimens sent for routine pathology review and to determine whether excised and resected specimens should be sent for postoperative histopathological analysis.
Methods
The University of Vermont Institutional Review Board approved this study. Patient data were collected in a secure fashion to preserve patient confidentiality.
This is a retrospective analysis of all cholecystectomies performed at a single academic medical center (University of Vermont Medical Center) from 2009 to 2014, for a total of 2153 patients. We then excluded patients who underwent cholecystectomy for a known or suspected malignancy (n = 119, patients with a known gallbladder polyp preoperatively (n = 24) or patients who underwent cholecystectomy for a non-biliary indication such as traumatic injury (n = 26)). This resulted in a total of 1984 included patients (Fig. 1).
The baseline characteristics regarding the patient population preoperative data were collected, which included age, sex, surgeon, preoperative diagnosis, race/ethnicity, smoking status, ASA class, comorbidities, and body mass index (Table 1). We also collected information relevant to their perioperative course, including elective or emergent nature of operation, surgeon, and surgery type (laparoscopic, open, laparoscopic converted to open, intraoperative cholangiography).
Pathology results were tabulated and quantified. Overall, a total of 55 unique pathological findings were collected and tabulated for each patient—when a finding was included in the report summary, it was included in the patient’s analysis and data set. Results were quantified as proportions with 95 % confidence intervals determined with binomial exact distribution.
Histopathological analysis of gallbladder specimens was performed by the department of surgical pathology per an existing protocol. This involves gross examination of the intraluminal and external surfaces and microscopic/histological examination of three representative slices: gallbladder fundus, middle of body, and cystic duct margin (infundibulum). If carcinoma, dysplasia, or other unanticipated findings are noted on any of the three sample slices, the pathologist proceeds with complete histological evaluation of the gallbladder. Gallbladder cancer, when discovered, was staged using the TNM staging implemented by the AJCC [13].
Patients found to have iGBC had their postoperative course followed for key outcome variables, such as follow-up extended resection or lymphadenectomy, neoadjuvant chemo-radiation, and length of hospital stay. Pathological variables gathered included tumor size, grade, stage, margin status, and concurrent pathological features. Key outcome variables collected included second operation for wide resection and lymphadenectomy, adjuvant chemotherapy and/or chemo-radiation, survival status (alive or dead at present), and cumulative survival time.
Primary outcomes used for calculation of life years (LYs) included survival time post-initial cholecystectomy compared to expected survival with simple cholecystectomy alone based on prior data. Cost data regarding the expense of pathological testing of the specimen were obtained via the Jeffords Institute for Quality and are specific to our medical center.
Baseline data for patients found to have iGBC (n = 5) were compared to patients with benign findings (n = 1979) utilizing Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables and Wilcoxon’s rank sum test for interval variables.
Results
The 1984 patients were categorized into two groups: those with benign findings (n = 1979) and those with iGBC (n = 5) (Table 1). The iGBC group had a statistically significant higher rate of open procedure (p = 0.03) and longer operative time (p = 0.01), implying greater intraoperative difficulty during cholecystectomy. The iGBC group trended toward being older (average age 61.4 vs. 48.4) and less likely elective (71.5 vs. 60 %); however, these findings were not statistically significant. We did not find differences in race or ethnicity, though traditionally gallbladder carcinoma is found to be more common in Native American and Asian populations [14]. These groups are under-represented in our hospital’s area of referral.
The observed rate of iGBC was 0.25 % of the total population (confidence interval 0.08, 0.59). The rate of dysplasia was 0.71 % (95 % CI 0.39, 1.20). More common findings included chronic cholecystitis in 89 % of gallbladder (87.4, 90.3), cholelithiasis in 81 % (79.1, 82.6), acute cholecystitis in 20.2 % (18.5, 22.0), and cholesterolosis in 17.9 % (16.3, 19.7) (Fig. 2). A comprehensive list of the incidence of all 55 noted unique pathological findings is provided in the supplemental material (Supplemental Table 1).
Of the 5 patients found to have iGBC, they varied in stage, grade, and histopathological features. The least advanced tumor stage was pT2N0, and the most advanced was pT3N1pM1. The two patients diagnosed at stage T2 have achieved ongoing disease-free survival (35+ months), and the three patients with stage T3 disease had a mean survival of 4.3 months (with one declining further surgery) (Table 2). The two long-term survivors had characteristics favorable for complete surgical cure, such as relatively early stage (T2) and minimal to no residual disease on radical re-resection.
Hospital cost for pathological evaluation per gallbladder (including hospital and provider costs, both direct and indirect) totaled $76.92 at this institution. The total cost of screening 1984 patients with presumed benign gallbladders was $152,609.28. Cumulative survival after iGBC was 84 months (7.0 years) (see Table 2). Based on previous data in the literature, expected survival without further intervention would be 16 months for T2 tumors and 8 months for T3 tumors [15], with a cumulative expected survival with simple cholecystectomy alone in this cohort being 56 months. Total charges per LY gained to date (assuming cumulative 28-month gained) were $65,403.98. The number needed to screen (NNS) to save one life from GBC was 992.
Discussion
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become an increasingly common treatment modality for various maladies of the biliary tract, most notably symptomatic cholelithiasis, cholecystitis, and biliary dyskinesia.
Previous literature reports the incidence of iGBC to range from 0.25 to 3 % [16]. Depending on the stage at the time of diagnosis, this unexpected discovery may mandate further surgical resection, including hepatic resection of segments IVb and V, as well as pericholedochic and hepatoduodenal lymphadenectomy [16].
Gallbladder carcinoma continues to have an extremely poor prognosis, with 5-year survival below 5 % [11, 17]. Further, most long-term survivors are those with early-stage carcinoma confined to the gallbladder itself. Evidence does suggest a better prognosis in patients with iGBC, rather than patients with symptomatic or preoperatively diagnosed GBC [18].
Surgical management of GBC varies depending on stage of diagnosis and remains somewhat controversial. The consensus among hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons seems to suggest that T2 and above tumors require further resection of the adjacent liver parenchyma in the gallbladder fossa (segments V and IVb), as well as lymphadenectomy to obtain regional control. T1a tumors are usually well controlled with simple cholecystectomy (assuming no bile spillage), and T1b management remains controversial. R0 resection remains key to long-term survival and disease management [10, 19]. While T3 and T4 tumors also benefit from radical resection, T2 tumors have the best outcomes after radical repeat surgery [7, 19]. We demonstrate similar findings in our data, with the T2-staged patients achieving the longest survival after definitive surgery. Previous data suggest improved outcomes when minimal or no carcinoma is present on repeat operation [7], which concurs with the pathological findings of our long-term survivors.
Little investigation has occurred thus far to determine the quality of pathological evaluation of the gallbladder as a screening modality for gallbladder carcinoma. As healthcare measures become increasingly cost-conscious, it is critical to evaluate whether interventions we provide as surgical teams (particular ones applied in a ubiquitous manner) are conferring value to the patient. Common simple measurements used to determine quality in a screening modality, such as life years (LYs) gained, have not been applied prior to this study.
Our calculation yielded a cost of $65,404 per LY gained with pathological screening. This calculation, however, makes a key assumption that almost certainly overestimates the cost. Two patients are currently still alive with no evidence of recurrence. If they are able to achieve further long-term disease-free survival, the total LY’s gained will certainly increase and cost/LY will decrease dramatically. Therefore, we can estimate that cost of screening/LY gained is at most $65,404 and likely a lower value. While the value of one LY is controversial and varies within the literature, one acceptable standard is considered to be $129,000 per QALY (quality-adjusted life year), the estimated cost of maintaining a life on hemodialysis [11, 19]. However, this figure is of debate, as others cite lower values of US $50,000/QALY as a metric of value [9].
We did not utilize more complex measures to determine values including quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Due to the extensive morbidity of hepatic resection and adjuvant chemo-radiation, leading to a low quality of life during treatment for gallbladder carcinoma, it is likely that these figures will be significantly lower than the more simple and commonly utilized LY measurement tool [9]. We also did not incorporate the economic benefit of the detection of dysplasia or adenoma (found in 14 patients within the cohort). As gallbladder cancer has known familial clustering [20], the presence of precancer within a specimen would certainly be valuable information to confer to the patient.
The data presented here appear to narrowly justify, based on LY gained per healthcare dollar spent, the universal screening of gallbladder specimens with pathological analysis. Despite this, an argument could be made for the utilization of selective screening of specimens based on patient risk factors for potential GBC (including age, sex, race/ethnicity, or intraoperative characteristics).
Routine pathological analysis will likely remain a component of benign biliary care, as it continues to be the only effective means of detecting GBC at a point in which meaningful intervention remains possible. Improved screening modalities for GBC in high-risk populations may ultimately prove more economically efficient.
Limitations of the study include the patient population associated with the single-center study, which may not reflect the demographics of other regions, nations, and medical centers. Thus, the results may not be applicable to patient populations dissimilar to our study. A second limitation is the size of the patient population—which is not optimal for calculation of LYs as the number of patients in the affected group was low (n = 5). Further, as two patients remain alive at this point, the potential life years may be underestimated. Future investigations should be directed toward applying these principles of quality to gallbladder pathological evaluation on a national (or multi-institutional) level to provide greater statistical power to the study. Finally, as no early-stage (T1a/b) disease was found in our cohort, the three histological slices protocol utilized by our pathology department may be insufficient to detect early disease.
Conclusions
The incidence of gallbladder carcinoma found on pathology following cholecystectomies performed for benign indications varies within the literature. Our results indicate that in our patient population, gallbladder carcinoma may be more rare than previously described patient pools. Despite the rarity of findings and the cost of screening, the huge benefit conferred with radical resection of tumor (particularly in T2 stage) makes pathological analysis a worthwhile endeavor.
Ultimately, the decision to send the resected specimen for pathological analysis should be left to the surgeon and the patient. Patients at higher risk of potential gallbladder carcinoma, including older patients or cases converted to open, should certainly be evaluated by a pathologist. Surgeons should strongly consider on-table evaluation of specimen to assure that there are no gross abnormalities visually and by palpation [21]. Targeted pathological analysis based on epidemiological risk factors, intraoperative findings, and on-table evaluation could be a feasible and more cost-effective alternative to universal screening. Future cost–benefit analysis studies may elucidate further whether routine pathological evaluation should be universally sought.
Abbreviations
- iGBC:
-
Incidental gallbladder carcinoma
- GBC:
-
Gallbladder carcinoma
- CI:
-
Confidence interval
- LYs:
-
Life years
- QALYs:
-
Quality-adjusted life years
- DALYs:
-
Disability-adjusted life years
- NNS:
-
Number needed to screen
- AJCC:
-
American Joint Committee on Cancer
References
Overby W, Apelgren K, Richardson W, Fanelli R (2010) SAGES guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic biliary tract surgery. Surg Endosc 24:2368–2386. doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1268-7
Suzuki K, Kimura T, Ogawa H (2000) Long-term prognosis of gallbladder cancer diagnosed after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 14:712–716. doi:10.1007/s004640000145
Kim JH, Kim WH, Kim JH, Yoo BM, Kim MW (2010) Unsuspected gallbladder cancer diagnosed after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: focus on acute cholecystitis. World J Surg 34:114–120. doi:10.1007/s00268-009-0279-9
Suzuki S, Yokoi Y, Kurachi K, Inaba K, Ota S, Azuma M, Konno H, Baba S, Nakamura S (2004) Appraisal of surgical treatment for pT2 gallbladder carcinomas. World J Surg 28:160–165. doi:10.1007/s00268-003-7080-y
Lai E, Lau W (2005) Aggressive surgical resection for carcinoma of gallbladder. ANZ J Surg 75:441–444. doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03401.x
Yildirim Celen, Gulben Berberoglu (2005) The surgical management of incidental gallbladder carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 31:45–52. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2004.09.006
Duffy A, Capanu M, Abou-Alfa GK, Huitzil D, Jarnagin W, Fong Y, D’Angelica M, Dematteo RP, Blumgart LH, O’Reilly EM (2008) Gallbladder cancer (GBC): 10-year experience at Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC). J Surg Oncol 98:485–489. doi:10.1002/jso.21141
Clemente G, Nuzzo G, De Rose AM, Giovannini I, La Torre G, Ardito F, Giuliante F (2012) Unexpected gallbladder cancer after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a worrisome picture. J Gastrointest Surg 16:1462–1468. doi:10.1007/s11605-012-1915-5
Simoens S (2009) Health economic assessment: a methodological primer. Int J Environ Res Public Health 6:2950–2966. doi:10.3390/ijerph6122950
Machado M, Makdissi F, Surjan R (2015) Totally laparoscopic hepatic bisegmentectomy (s4b + s5) and hilar lymphadenectomy for incidental gallbladder cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 22:336–339. doi:10.1245/s10434-015-4650-9
Sikora S, Singh R (2006) Surgical strategies in patients with gallbladder cancer: nihilism to optimism. J Surg Oncol 93:670–681. doi:10.1002/jso.20535
Varshney Butturini, Buttirini Gupta (2002) Incidental carcinoma of the gallbladder. Eur J Surg Oncol 28(1):4–10
Oh TG, Chung MJ, Bang S, Park SW, Chung JB, Song SY, Choi GH, Kim KS, Lee WJ, Park JY (2013) Comparison of the sixth and seventh editions of the AJCC TNM classification for gallbladder cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 17:925–930. doi:10.1007/s11605-012-2134-9
Eslick GD (2010) Epidemiology of gallbladder cancer. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 39:307–330. doi:10.1016/j.gtc.2010.02.011
Mayo SC, Shore AD, Nathan H, Edil B, Wolfgang CL, Hirose K, Herman J, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Pawlik TM (2010) National trends in the management and survival of surgically managed gallbladder adenocarcinoma over 15 years: a population-based analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 14:1578–1591. doi:10.1007/s11605-010-1335-3
Cavallaro A, Piccolo G, Panebianco V, Menzo E, Berretta M, Zanghì A, Vita M, Cappellani A (2012) Incidental gallbladder cancer during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: managing an unexpected finding. World J Gastroenterol 18:4019. doi:10.3748/wjg.v18.i30.4019
Misra M, Guleria S (2006) Management of cancer gallbladder found as a surprise on a resected gallbladder specimen. J Surg Oncol 93:690–698. doi:10.1002/jso.20537
Tian Y-H, Ji X, Liu B, Yang G-Y, Meng X-F, Xia H-T, Wang J, Huang Z-Q, Dong J-H (2015) Surgical treatment of incidental gallbladder cancer discovered during or following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Surg 39:746–752. doi:10.1007/s00268-014-2864-9
Lee CP, Chertow GM, Zenios SA (2009) An empiric estimate of the value of life: updating the renal dialysis cost-effectiveness standard. Value Health 12:80–87. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00401.x
Hemminki K, Li X (2003) Familial liver and gall bladder cancer: a nationwide epidemiological study from Sweden. Gut 52:592–596
Yi X, Long X, Zai H, Xiao D, Li W, Li Y (2013) Unsuspected gallbladder carcinoma discovered during or after cholecystectomy: focus on appropriate radical re-resection according to the T-stage. Clin Transl Oncol 15:652–658. doi:10.1007/s12094-012-0988-7
Acknowledgments
Aggregate patient data were provided by the Jeffords Institute for Quality at the University of Vermont Medical Center. We greatly appreciate the assistance from the Jeffords Institute, particularly Dr. Allison Holm (Senior Research Specialist) and Mia Nowlan (Measurement Analyst). We also appreciate the assistance of Mr. Rick West from the budget office regarding cost data. The authors would like to thank the University of Vermont Department of Surgery for providing funding for the study, the Department of Surgical Pathology for providing the aggregate pathology results, and our families, particularly Lia Nelson MD.
Funding
Funding for the study was provided by the University of Vermont Medical Center Department of Surgery.
Author contributions
Sean Wrenn is the primary author of manuscript text and major contributor to study design, and performed data collection, review of literature, and statistical analysis. Peter Callas provided critical statistical analysis and support and assisted with manuscript revisions. Wasef Abu-Jaish is principal investigator for study, devised the idea for the study, and assisted with manuscript drafting and revision.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Drs. Sean M. Wrenn, Peter W. Callas, and Wasef Abu-Jaish have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wrenn, S.M., Callas, P.W. & Abu-Jaish, W. Histopathological examination of specimen following cholecystectomy: Are we accepting resect and discard?. Surg Endosc 31, 586–593 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5002-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5002-y