Abstract
Gallbladder carcinoma is the commonest malignancy of the hepatobiliary system. It is plagued by the dismal outcome in terms of 5-year survival and high recurrence rate. The varying presentation from an incidental surprise during routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallstone disease to presentation in advance stage. Surgical resection remains the only curative alternative; however, it is only possible in few patients at the time of diagnosis. Although, radical cholecystectomy is said to be the standard of surgical care, yet the extent of liver resection, lymphadenectomy, bile duct resection, adjacent organ resection, and palliative surgical treatment needs to be elaborately discussed. The resection of tumor with R0 margin with appropriate lymphadenectomy is the only hope for long-term survival. Revision surgery should be considered in patients who underwent simple cholecystectomy with incidentally diagnosed gallbladder carcinoma that invaded muscularis propria or beyond. The advance lesions are treated non-operatively with palliative intension. This review discusses the current surgical treatment options in patients with gallbladder cancer depending on the stage of disease.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) is the most frequent biliary malignancy worldwide and ranks fifth in GI tract malignancy [1]. It is usually detected in advance stage due to vague sign and symptoms and has poor prognosis. Surgical resection is only amenable in 15–47% of preoperatively diagnosed GBC [2]. GBC may be diagnosed as incidental findings during cholecystectomy in 0.09–2% patients [3]. The outcome of gallbladder carcinoma is poor, and the overall 5-year survival rate is less than 5% [4]. In early-stage disease, a 5-year survival rate of 75% can be achieved if stage-adjusted therapy is performed [5].
The cancer of the gallbladder has a very diverse geographical variation both worldwide as well as within India [6]. Globally, there is an increased incidence of gallbladder cancer seen in Asia, South America, and some parts of central Europe (Hungary, Germany, and Poland) [1]. Data from Mapuche Indians from Valdivia, Chile, South America, shows the rate of gallbladder cancer as 12.3/100000 for males and 27.3/100000 for females [1]. Although the worldwide occurrence of gallbladder cancer is less than 2/100000 individuals, this has been recorded with extensive variance [7]. In Asia, high incidence is seen among the residents of Indo-Gangetic belt particularly females of northern India (21.5/100000) and south Karachi in Pakistan (13.8/100000) which has been reported as one of the highest affected regions in the whole world [8]. Gallbladder cancer is also found in high frequency in Eastern Europe including Poland (14/100000 in Poland), Czech Republic, and Slovakia and Asia, whereas South Americans of Indian descent (3.7 to 9.1 per 100,000), Israel (5/100000), and Japan (7/100000) have shown intermediate prevalence of gallbladder cancer [7, 8]. The residents of Andean area, North American Indians and Mexican-Americans, are especially predisposed of GBC [9].
The incidence increases with age and is significantly higher in women (3:1) [7]. Although gallbladder cancer is more common in females still in some countries like Korea, Iceland, and Costa Rica, higher mortality rate has been reported for males as compared to females [10]. It is diagnosed in the seventh decade of life, with a median age of 62–66 years [8]. The incidence of GBC is based on important etiological factors as cholelithiasis; however, its incidence also varies with geography and race. Most patients of GBC have advance disease at the time of diagnosis except for patients diagnosed incidentally intraoperatively or at histopathological examination. With the advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the incidence of incidentally diagnosed gallbladder carcinoma (IGBC) has increased despite the increasing incidence of gallbladder cancer in the last 20 years, laparoscopic cholecystectomy has permitted earlier detection and improved survival of what was once considered a disease associated with a dismal prognosis [11, 12].
Risk Factors
The development of gallbladder cancer has been linked to various genetic and environmental factors. The most common risk factors for developing gallbladder cancer are gallbladder stones, advanced age, female sex, tobacco and alcohol abuse, multiple pregnancies, low physical activity, obesity, and infectious diseases. Chronic infection of the gallbladder or/and environmental exposure to specific chemicals, heavy metals, and even many dietary factors have been found to be associated with GBC formation. Ample literature exists to suggest the association of GBC with female gender and certain geographical regions (mostly developing countries) has been proposed to be influenced by various female hormones, cholesterol cycling and salmonella infections [13, 14].
Cholelithiasis is the best-known risk factor; it results in chronic mucosal inflammation, dysplasia, and subsequent malignant transformation [15]. The incidence of GBC correlates with the prevalence of cholelithiasis [16]. The risk of GBC is four to five times higher in patients with cholelithiasis than in a calculus gallbladder. The large stone size and duration of gallstone symptoms are associated with the development of gallbladder neoplasia. It is reported that stone larger than 3 cm are associated with tenfold higher of developing GBC [17, 18]. The type of gallstone also affects the development of GBC and cholesterol stone is a reported higher risk of developing cancer [4]. A review article by Shrikhande et al. [19] has also supported the fact that for populations reporting high incidence of gallbladder cancer with associated gallstones, prophylactic cholecystectomy should be done only after correlating with the epidemiological profile of the place. The common pathogens implicated in the development of gallbladder cancer are Salmonella typhi, Salmonella paratyphi, and Helicobacter [20, 21].
Worldwide GBC affects females 2–3 times more commonly than males, but this bias varies greatly in different parts of the world mostly in high prevalent regions of GBC [8]. To some extent, the female hormone estrogen causes increased cholesterol super saturation in bile and hence can be implicated in gallstone-mediated GBC pathogenesis; however, the association of female hormone receptor expression to tumor differentiation has still not been established [22]. So the extent of female hormones contribution in gallbladder cancer is still not certain and requires more investigation. Gallbladder polyps, the porcelain gallbladder, and anatomical abnormalities of the ampulla of Vater, which causes bile reflux, are also predisposing factors [4]. The adenoma-carcinoma progression has been stipulated in gallbladder cancer with increased incidence of cancer seen in isolated, broad-based sessile adenomatous polyps, particularly of size more than 1 cm in patients > 60 years of age, are considered higher risk, and these patients should undergo cholecystectomy [4, 13]. Primary sclerosing cholangitis is also an increased factor for development of GBC [23].
Family history of gallstones, tobacco consumption, chemical exposure, residence in Gangetic belt and high concentrations of secondary bile acids and excessive intake of fried foods (reused oil) increases the risk for GBC [24]. Comorbid diseases associated with western diet such as obesity and diabetes are also associated with gallbladder cancer [25, 26]. Diet is an important risk factor in the development of gallbladder cancer; increased intake of fried foods, consumption of red meat, or those that cause constipation increases the risk [27]. On the other hand, the intake of boiled beans or fish, fibers, and vitamins C and E lowers the incidence of gallbladder cancer [28, 29]. Some drugs, such as methyldopa and isoniazid, have been implicated as the risk agents while [30] any association between oral contraceptives and gallbladder cancer is unclear [7]. The involvement of environmental factors such as heavy metals (high levels of nickel, cadmium, manganese, copper, chromium, and lead, as well as low levels of selenium or zinc) is not yet fully understood and needs prospective studies conducted on large groups of patients [4, 31]. Tobacco consumption is a significant risk factor [24]. Miners are often exposed to radon, an inhaled gas, which has been associated with cancer of the gallbladder [32].
The loss of genetic heterozygosity in 2.1–47.8% of preneoplastic lesions at 8 different loci for several tumor suppressor genes is associated with gallbladder cancer compared to its absence in normal gallbladder [33]. P53 gene mutation is an important role in progression of atypia to dysplasia, to carcinoma in situ and finally invasive carcinoma. Mutations of K-ras or p53 are studied in gallbladder carcinoma [34]. The reported prevalence of p53 gene mutation is in the range from 35 to 92%. Both K-ras and p53 mutations are reported in gallbladder cancer patients with abnormal junction of pancreatic and biliary duct [35]. In one study, it was seen that high incidence of carcinoma of the gall bladder observed in patients with blood groups A and AB [36].
Pathology
The dysplasia-carcinoma sequence has also been proposed in gallbladder cancer. The estimated time of progression from dysplasia to carcinoma is approximately 10–15 years [37]. It is not typically present with adenomatous polyp; however, it is commonly seen with chronic mucosal inflammation. Gallbladder cancer most often presents as monocentric lesions and multifocal forms are extremely rare. The most common localization is at the fundus of the gallbladder (60%), followed by the body (30%) and the infundibulum/neck (10%) [38].
The most common histological type of gallbladder malignant tumor is adenocarcinoma. The papillary form of adenocarcinoma has the best prognosis because this type of tumor tends to be noninvasive or minimally invasive [38]. The other histological types are squamous cell or adenosquamous carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, signet ring cell carcinoma, lymphomas, and neuroendocrine tumors [39]. The rare forms are represented by melanomas or secondary tumors localized at the level of the gallbladder.
Gallbladder cancers most commonly metastasize to the lymph node and adjacent liver in gallbladder bed [40]. The gallbladder lymphatic is drained by lymphatic plexus into the first level of lymph nodes i.e. cystic duct, and pericholedochal lymph nodes [40]. The spread then occurs down into the pancreaticoduodenal lymph nodes and nodes along the common hepatic artery and celiac axis. The nodes in interaortocaval regions are considered as metastatic disease [41].
The venous drainage of the gallbladder occurs through veins draining directly to segment IV b or V or via venous collaterals along the bile duct [42]. The majority of venous drainage occurs into the right lobe (2/3); however, in 28% to left lobe only and in 28% it occurs to both lobes of the liver. The close proximity of the gallbladder to the liver, the connective tissue of the gallbladder is continuous with the interlobular connective tissue of the liver, and venous drainage explains the predisposition of the gallbladder cancer to involve liver bed. The perineural invasion is also reported in approximately 25% patients [43].
Advanced cases of the disease determine enlarged lymph nodes at the level of the hepatic hilum, which erode and invade the portal vein wall, causing thrombosis and all the consequences of portal hypertension. Spreading to the peritoneum, which determines the occurrence of paraneoplastic ascites, as well as pulmonary and hepatic metastases, determines the infaust evolution of terminal cases.
Clinical Presentation and Workup
Gallbladder cancer can be diagnosed either preoperatively or intraoperatively during surgical treatment for another disease and even as a histopathological surprise of the specimen resulting from cholecystectomy for gallbladder stones. The patients with early-stage disease are usually asymptomatic or may be diagnosed as acute or chronic cholecystitis [44]. However, most common symptom in gallbladder cancer is pain and jaundice. The other symptoms include weight loss, palpable mass, and ascites. The less common presentations are duodenal obstruction, gastrointestinal bleeding, or hemobilia. In spite of these, many lesions are diagnosed as incidental findings during surgery [45].
Incidental gallbladder cancer is detected in approximately 0.2% to 1.1% of all laparoscopic cholecystectomy [46]. Imaging is crucial for diagnosing and staging of gallbladder cancer. Ultrasound is usually the first imaging performed in patients presenting with biliary tract disease. On USG, it is difficult to differentiate gallbladder cancer from chronic cholecystitis especially in early lesions of GBC. However, its sensitivity for detection of GBC increases with tumor infiltration to the liver or lymph node. The features on ultrasonography that may raise suspicion of malignancy are mass in the gallbladder, irregular and thickened gallbladder wall, a polyp > 10 mm in size, suspicious invasion into the liver, and enlarged pericholedochal nodes [47]. Kim et al. [48] reported gallbladder wall thickening > 1 cm and hypoechoic internal echogenicity to be independent predictive factors for neoplastic gallbladder thickening.
Contrast-enhanced CT scan of the abdomen is the most important and reliable imaging for the staging and detection of extent of locoregional spread. It strongly suggests the presence of lymph node metastases, local invasion of the liver and vascular involvement. In early lesions of gallbladder carcinoma or wall thickening, the accuracy increases in dual-phase CT [47]. This modality enhances visualization of gallbladder wall in arterial and venous phase and helps to differentiate malignancy from chronic cholecystitis. Kim et al. [49] reported CT scan findings in differentiating T1 versus T2 lesions, T2 versus T3 lesions, and T3 versus T4 lesions with sensitivity of 79.3%, 92.7%, and 100%, respectively and corresponding specificity were 98.8%, 86%, and 100%, respectively. CT provided details about the local extent of carcinomas of the gallbladder with accuracy of 83 to 86% [50]. It has acceptable sensitivity and specificity for the T2 and more advanced lesions but poor sensitivity for the T1 lesions. The overall accuracy of CT scan in predicting the stage in GBC was 71%, 79% for T1 and T2 tumors, 46% for T3 tumors, and 73% for T4 tumors [50]. Combining CT with multiplayer reconstruction (MPR) can differentiate T-stage with > 80% accuracy [30]. MRI has better sensitivity for both identifying possible lymph node metastases and for revealing any invasion at the level of the adjacent hepatic parenchyma. This is best evidenced by MRI T2 sections [30].
Color Doppler may detect high flow within the lesions reported in malignant lesions. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has been incorporated in preoperative staging of GBC. The EUS staging was used to report the macroscopic tumor appearance (pedunculated versus sessile), the wall thickness (localized versus diffuse), and the layer structures of the gallbladder (maintenance or disruption of the outer hyperechoic layer). EUS-guided FNAC may be one from primary tumor, enlarge lymph nodes or liver metastases, where the diagnostic accuracy approaches up to 100% [30]. ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) allows tissue biopsy in selected patients identifies AJPBD and also used to place stent for palliation of jaundice.
The relevant tumor markers in GBC are CEA and CA 19-9 [51]. A high level of CEA has a specificity of 90% for malignant tumors of the gallbladder but has a low sensitivity (50%) when it is used for screening because it is also elevated by benign tumors. The tumor markers have a low utility for gallbladder cancer’s diagnosis but they are extremely important for the follow-up of these patients. As a single tumor marker for GBC diagnosis, CA 19-9 has a sensitivity of 71.7%. Diagnostic accuracy with a combination of CA199, CA242, and CA125 diagnostic accuracy was 69.2% [52].
These tumors are considered highly aggressive and rapidly involve hepatic parenchyma, mostly segments IVb and V. The tumor extension can occur towards the cystic duct and its confluence with the common hepatic duct and may have presentation similar to a Klatskin tumor. Malignant tumors of the gallbladder can invade the branches of the hepatic artery or portal vein, which leads to the atrophy of the ipsilateral lobe and compensatory hypertrophy of the contralateral lobe.
FDG PET is an emerging modality that may be used for the diagnosis of ambiguous primary lesions and detection of residual disease in gallbladder bed in post-cholecystectomy patients and distant metastases not diagnosed by conventional imaging studies. FDG PET causes change in management in 31% of patients. Anderson et al. [53] evaluated 14 patients of GBC with after cholecystectomy and reported sensitivity and specificity of 78% and 80% respectively. The addition of PET to standard staging CT may be helpful in 17% of patients to improve classification of equivocal lesions by CT or MRI and identify distant metastatic disease [54].
Diagnostic laparoscopy is superior in identifying possible peritoneal spread and small liver metastases, which are difficult to detect on standard imaging modality. These are absolute contraindications for radical surgery [55]. Diagnostic laparoscopy combined with intraoperative ultrasound techniques, with or without contrast, has better sensitivity in identifying liver metastases and allows for a more precise evaluation of tumor-adjacent blood vessel involvement. The invasion of adjacent organs (liver, stomach, duodenum, pancreas, colon, greater omentum, and abdominal wall) can also be revealed through laparoscopy [56]. The preoperative histopathological diagnosis is not considered necessary as biopsy may cause peritoneal or biopsy tract seedlings. In addition, the rate of false-negative results of biopsies is significant.
The IGBC on histopathological examination of specimen needs high-resolution imaging to evaluate for the residual disease, nodal metastases, and identification of distant metastases. Both CT/MRI provide crucial information and restaging of the disease. Recently, 18 FDG PET-CT has been reported to improve the sensitivity for detecting non-clinically evident metastatic disease in GBC. FDG PET causes a change in management in 13% patients with incidental GBC [54]. Thus, 18 FDG PET-CT is not established in the evaluation of this incidental diagnosed GBC. Shukla et al. [57] evaluated IGBC with PET-CT in 24 patients and reported a sensitivity of 100% in predicting resectability, which was not significantly superior to conventional CT. The residual disease was demonstrated with a sensitivity of 28.5% and specificity of 80.9% [57]. PET-CT scan is useful to stratify patients with incidentally diagnosed gallbladder cancer for effective treatment. Goel M et al. [58] reported that patients with pT1b lesions and wedge liver resection should be avoided in PET negative and patients may be observed as chance of relapse is low.
Surgical Treatment of Gallbladder Cancer
The treatment of GBC is a multimodal one and implicates a multidisciplinary team. The aim of surgical resection is to achieve Ro resection, thus extent of resection required to achieve may vary with the disease extent [59, 60]. The R1 or R2 resection in gallbladder carcinoma has no long-term survival [61]. The radical (extended) cholecystectomy involves wedge resection of liver segment IVb and V to at least a 3-cm depth from gallbladder bed along with regional lymphadenectomy [62]. Stage I and II carcinoma gallbladder is potentially resectable with curative intent. However, stage III indicates mostly unresectable disease from vascular invasion or multiple adjacent organ involvement. Stage IV is an unresectable disease secondary to distant metastases [63].
Surgical resection remains the only curative alternative; however, it is only possible in 15–47% patients at the time of diagnosis [2].
It is necessary to identify the absolute contraindications for radical surgery and these are the following non-contiguous liver metastases, peritoneal nodule, encasement of main portal vein or proper hepatic artery, gross para-aortic lymphadenopathy or malignant ascites [64]. The invasion of adjacent organs (colon, duodenum, and liver) does not represent an absolute contraindication to radical surgery as en bloc resection of the tumor and invaded organs could be performed [7]. The presence of jaundice in gallbladder carcinoma patients occur due to extension of disease into the lumen of common bile duct, engulfment or invasion of the bile duct by the gallbladder cancer, pressure or invasion of the bile duct by lymph nodes in the hepatoduodenal ligament, or the presence of associated stone in the bile duct. Thus, the presence of jaundice is not always considered as a sign of unresectability. In all patients with resectable lesions, staging laparoscopy helps to assess for the presence of peritoneal and discontiguous liver disease [7, 65].
Extent of Hepatic Resection
The primary aim of surgical treatment for carcinoma gallbladder is to achieve Ro resection as R1 or R2 resections have survival similar to patients not undergoing surgery [64, 66]. The extent of hepatic resection includes extended cholecystectomy or Glenn resection (approximately 2–3 cm from gallbladder bed) or anatomical resection of liver segment IV b and V. Both wedge and segmental resection are accepted as long as tumor-free margin (R0) is achieved in the liver parenchyma [64]. Pawlik et al. [67] reported that patients with major hepatic resection (anatomical segmentectomy of IVa and V or hemihepatectomy) had a similar risk of specific death to patients who have undergone hepatic wedge resection. Thus, it is not the type of hepatic resection but the Ro resection margin is the important factor in determining the final outcome.
The extensive liver invasion may require major hepatectomy in the form of extended right hepatectomy. The decision for such major liver resection in locoregionally advanced disease requires careful judgment and is only recommended when R0 resection is achieved. Extended hepatic resection is also useful in providing negative resection margins for patients with inflammation near the cystic plate following cholecystectomy [68]. Thus, in the absence of right portal pedicle involvement, segmental resection is adequate. The various margins have been proposed in wedge resection of the liver varying from 1 to 5 cm and have shown similar results [69].
There are no conclusive data to show that routine resection of segments IV and V is mandatory in patients with Tis, T1, or T2 disease if negative margin has been achieved with wedge hepatic resection [70]. However, hepatic wedge resection (2–3 cm) has problem of maintaining constant thickness around gallbladder. The non-anatomical hepatic resections are also associated with high risk of bleeding and bile leak. In the patients with extended hepatic resection, portal vein embolization (PVE) is indicated if future liver remnant is less than 25% of original liver volume [68].
Lymph Node Dissection
The extent of nodal disease in GBC patients is also an important concern. The regional lymph nodes of the gallbladder include the cystic duct, pericholedochal, posterior superior pancreaticoduodenal, retroportal, right celiac, and hepatic artery node groups. The cystic duct and pericholedochal node groups have been regarded as the first echelon nodes of the gallbladder, whereas the second echelon lymph nodes were located posterosuperior to the head of the pancreas (the posterosuperior pancreaticoduodenal nodes) or posterior to the portal vein (the retroportal nodes) and common hepatic artery (the right celiac nodes) [71, 72]. The lymph from the gallbladder flows in hepatofugal direction around the common bile duct, into the first echelon nodes then reaching to the second echelon nodes (other than hilar node), and finally to the para-aortic nodes [71, 72].
Glenn and Hays [73] first described the procedure of radical cholecystectomy in 1954 with portal lymph node dissection referred as “skeletonization of the lesser omentum”. In 2005, Dixon and colleagues [74] described complete portal lymph node dissection with skeletonization of the portal structures up to the suprapyloric region. This dissection does not include the second echelon lymph nodes of the gallbladder and is practiced in most western countries. Extended portal lymph node dissection includes resection of both the first and second echelon nodes en bloc [71]. Lymph nodes in the hepatoduodenal ligament are dissected if they are not infiltrating the vascular structures. However, enlarged nodes behind the head of the pancreas or behind the duodenum are dissected with good kocherization. This extended dissection clears both the first and second echelon lymph node groups of the gallbladder and is widely practiced among Japanese surgeons [71, 72]. The extended regional lymphadenectomy may combine with pancreaticoduodenectomy in selected group of patients in the presence of peripancreatic (head only) nodal disease adherent to or invading the pancreatic parenchyma [75, 76].
The advantage of nodal dissection on long-term survival has been proven [72, 75]. It is the most important prognostic information in the absence of distant metastases. The T stage is the ultimate predictor of nodal involvement. The frequency of nodal status with T stage includes 0–4% in T1a, 12.5–20% in T1b, 20–60% in T2, and 60–81% in T3/T4 lesions [77, 78]. The prognosis of GBC correlates with the lymph node involvement than the depth of infiltration [77, 79]. Recent reports by Western groups have uniformly suggested that radical resection with portal lymphadenectomy provides a survival benefit for patients with pN0 disease [80, 81]. Japanese groups have suggested that a considerable proportion of patients with pN1 disease survive for 5 years after potentially curative (R0) resection with extended portal lymphadenectomy [77, 78]. However, the majority of these long-term survivors have nodal disease restricted to the first echelon lymph nodes [77, 79].
Assessment of the nodal status in GBC is a critical issue. The three conventional parameters of nodal status include anatomical location of positive lymph nodes, number of positive lymph nodes, and lymph node ratio (LNR, ratio of number of positive nodes to the number of nodes (TLNC) evaluated). Shirai et al. [82] reported only the number of positive lymph nodes as potent parameter in assessing the nodal status in GBC and not the anatomical location of lymph node or LNR. However, Negi et al. [83] found LNR as independent prognostic factor rather than number of positive nodes in study cohort of 57 patients with relatively small TLNC (median of 5 in node-negative and 6 in node-positive patients). In a study published from the USA, 122 patients underwent portal lymph node dissection for GBC and reported a median TLNC of 3 nodes only [84]. In contrast, Japanese studies reported retrieval of a large number of nodes (median of 14 nodes), showing proved 5-year survival statistics [82]. The studies suggest that retrieval and evaluation of at least six lymph nodes improve risk stratification in node-negative patients [83, 84].
It is important to note that lymph node metastasis is present in 19–25% of patients [85]. The radical resection with para-aortic lymphadenectomy does not provide survival advantage in patients with GBC [85]. Studies have reported that interaortocaval nodes (16b1) are considered as final abdominal nodal station and metastases to this LN has poor survival similar to patients with hepatic or peritoneal metastases [85]. Thus, frozen section of interaortocaval LN is recommended and radical surgical procedure should be deferred on histological confirmation of metastases [86].
Bile Duct Resection
Extrahepatic bile duct resection has not shown improvement in survival in patients with GBC, it rather increases morbidity [67, 87]. Its resection is performed if the cystic duct stump margin is positive with tumor or lesion in neck of gallbladder infiltrating directly into the common bile duct. Intraoperative frozen section of cystic stump margin should be done and resection bile duct may be required if negative margin is not achieved [88]. The surgeons who are proponent of bile duct excision propose to have better lymph node yield however, it is not proven [87, 88]. Pawlik et al. [67] showed that the median number of lymph nodes harvested at the time of lymphadenectomy was the same with or without common bile duct excision. Araida et al. [89] reported that patients with advanced GBC, in absence of hepatoduodenal ligament and/or of the cystic duct invasion, and resection of bile duct showed no differences in terms of recurrence and overall survival. However, it also predisposes these patients with bilioenteric anastomosis complications. The other reason for bile duct excision is to avoid occurrence of ischemic biliary stricture after aggressive periductal nodal dissection. The studies have shown that patients with microscopically positive cystic duct stump margin were more likely to have a disease in the common bile duct (42% versus 4%) and bile duct excision may require to achieve R0 margin [67]. A few studies from Japan proposed survival advantage with resection of extrahepatic biliary tree [89, 90]. In contrast, other studies have shown no additional survival benefit [91, 92]. The malignant invasion of cystic duct is an indicator of poor prognosis because of high incidence of concomitant perineural invasion and lymph node metastasis. The two important indications for bile duct resection are positive cystic duct margin and as part of extended right hemihepatectomy because of the concern about encroachment of tumor to right main or posterior sectoral ducts compromising Ro resection [67, 90, 91].
Adjacent Organ Involvement
The involvement of portal vein and hepatic artery are not amenable for resection. The direct involvement of the colon, duodenum, or liver is not a contraindication for surgery. There are several reports of extended resections like extended right hepatectomy or combined hepatic and pancreatic resections as pancreaticoduodenectomy with improved long-term survival [3, 93]. However, major resection for the pancreas or duodenal involvement such as pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with high morbidity and mortality [94]. Duodenal infiltration can also be treated with duodenal sleeve resection or distal gastrectomy with resection of first part of duodenum. Similarly, colonic involvement may need segmental resection or right hemicolectomy [95, 96]. It should be emphasized that multiple liver metastases are a contraindication for radical procedure as it represents disseminated disease.
Surgical Management of IGBC
In patients where diagnosis of GBC is made intraoperatively during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, it is paramount not to violate the oncological principles during first operation, if a two-stage approach is necessary. The accidental opening of the gallbladder or bile leak has worse prognosis [97, 98]. Intraoperative staging should be done as it identifies the occult disseminated disease. The suspected metastatic disease or lymph node may be sent for frozen section procedure. The procedure, extended cholecystectomy, should be performed after conversion to an open procedure or if expertise is not available then surgery should be differed. The patient should be transferred to an experienced center. In incidental diagnosed GBC, the extent of surgery depends on the depth of invasion (T-stage) of tumor [46]. The reoperation for incidentally diagnosed gallbladder carcinoma has two fundamental objectives: Ro resection of liver parenchyma and clearance of locoregional lymph nodes. Re-exploration of incidentally diagnosed GBC patients on histology reveals residual tumor in 40–76% cases [46].
In cases of carcinoma in situ or tumor invading the mucosa (Tis and T1a), simple cholecystectomy alone is the curative procedure and no further treatment is required [46, 77]. No data support re-exploring these patients for lymphadenectomy. With negative margins, cure rate following simple cholecystectomy ranged between 85 and 100% [77]. However, if the tumor invades the muscle layer (pT1b), the incidence of lymph node metastasis reported is 10–20%; lymphatic, venous, or perineural infiltration is up to 50%; and future risk of recurrence up to the tune of 20–50% [11, 99]. In contrast to some series, no lymphatic, venous, or perineural invasion has been reported in the patients with T1b. Thus, some controversy exists for the management of T1b lesion. The simple cholecystectomy in pT1b lesion has shown 1-year survival rate of 40–50% [100, 101]. On re-exploration of these patients, residual disease was found in liver bed in 10% [102]. There are reports of an increase in 5-year survival after radical cholecystectomy for T1b tumors is 62–100%) [101,102,103]. Thus, radical re-resection as radical cholecystectomy is needed as a second procedure.
In cases where tumor invaded the muscularis propria (T2 and beyond), a radical cholecystectomy is mandatory. In these cases, simple cholecystectomy was performed with dissection in subserosal plane that resulted in positive margins and increased risk of liver involvement. Various studies have compared 5-year survival of patients following simple cholecystectomy and radical re-do surgery. The marked difference in 5-year survival has been reported for T2 lesion (30–40% vs 80–90%) [11, 99, 104]. Radical cholecystectomy is also recommended for T2 as occult lymphatic metastases reported in range of 30–50% [67, 102].
Recently, Shindoh et al. [105] have analyzed T2 disease with tumor location and categorized into hepatic side or peritoneal side of the gallbladder. They reported that patients with tumors on the hepatic side had higher rates of vascular invasion, neural invasion, and nodal metastases when compared with tumors located on the peritoneal side (51% vs. 19%, 33% vs. 8%, and 40% vs. 17%, respectively). The 5-year survival of patients for hepatic and peritoneal tumors was also different (42.6% versus 64.7%). Thus, based on poor survival of patients with tumor on hepatic side of the gallbladder, 8th edition AJCC staging system on carcinoma gallbladder has divided T2 into separate categories as T2a (stage IIA) and T2b (stage IIB).
In T3 lesions, incidence of residual disease and lymph node metastases are 36% and 46% respectively [67]. In patients after complete resection, the outcome ranges between 30 and 40% [74, 80]. Thus, redo-surgery as radical cholecystectomy is recommended. With advanced disease stage, the need for more extensive hepatic and bile duct resections are often indicated in the attainment of negative surgical margins [106]. T4 classified tumors are in most cases unresectable without any oncologic radicality pretention. In this stage, the palliative surgical approach combined with chemoradiotherapy is the only therapeutic alternative [7]. In exceptional cases, with main portal vein invasion, resection and reconstruction of the portal vein can be performed. However, the survival benefit of these procedures is unclear. The operative morbidity and mortality associated with extensive reconstructions generally outweigh any survival benefit, thus it is generally not recommended [46].
The GBC diagnosed incidentally during laparoscopic cholecystectomy are usually T1–3 lesions. However, T4 tumors are mostly diagnosed in preoperative work-up. The tumor of the neck of the gallbladder or patients with positive cystic duct margin requires bile duct excision and hepaticojejunostomy [67]. In patients with IGBC on histology following laparoscopic cholecystectomy, cystic duct stump was positive in 29.6% and residual disease in bile duct reported in 42.1% [67]. It is an important consideration to look for the cystic stump margin in patients presenting with simple cholecystectomy performed previously and reported as malignant on histology.
In post-cholecystectomy patients with incidental diagnosed GBC, resection of previous port sites during reresection is not performed routinely. As port site resection was not associated with increased overall survival or recurrence-free survival when Ro resections patients are compared with adjusted T and N stage [106, 107]. An associated increased incidence of incisional hernia is reported with port site excision. Thus routine port site resection is not performed in redo surgery.
Laparoscopic radical cholecystectomy has been performed in a few centers [108,109,110]. Port site recurrence and peritoneal dissemination are the major concern with the laparoscopic technique. It has been proposed that these complications occur due to inadequate manipulation of the gallbladder, gallbladder perforation during the procedure, and CO2 pneumoperitoneum. Prevention of the gallbladder perforation, bile leak during surgical procedure, and the retrieval of the gallbladder specimen in plastic bag can avoid dissemination. The 5-year survival rate following laparoscopic radical cholecystectomy for T1b and T2 was similar to an open procedure (100 and 83.3% versus 100 and 90% respectively) [108]. Robotic radical cholecystectomy has also emerged as a feasible alternative to open or laparoscopic resection. However, oncological adequacy of the procedure is unknown [108, 111].
Palliative Treatment
In patients with unresectable GBC, it is important to aid palliative treatment to improve quality of life. Patients in an advanced stage of the disease are often presenting with jaundice, pruritus, pain in the right upper abdomen, or bowel obstruction [112]. The optimal palliative procedure is one that provides the remission of symptoms with minimum morbidity [112]. The palliation for jaundice can be performed either endoscopically or surgically, although surgical palliation for jaundice has higher rate of complications compared to the endoscopic approach [113]. In unresectable disease on exploration, segment III bypass can be done for palliation of jaundice, however, higher complication rate is reported. In small bowel obstruction, commonly seen in advance peritoneal disease intestinal bypass should be undertaken with caution because of higher morbidity.
Adjuvant Treatment
The data on the use of adjuvant therapy for GBC are conflicting, thus consensus regarding the optimal adjuvant therapy has not been reached. However, due to a high rate of recurrence, adjuvant treatment comes in the form of radiotherapy, possibly combined with chemotherapy [114]. Gemcitabine-based therapies have shown improved efficacy over 5 fluorouracil (5-FU) regimens. Sharma et al. [115] have shown improved median overall survival in GBC with the use of gemcitabine when compared with 5FU and best supportive care. Phase III trial from Japan showed improved year survival by adjuvant mitomycin and 5 FU versus resection alone (20.3% versus 11.6%) [116]. Few trials have also reported a beneficial effect of combining gemcitabine with oxaliplatin or cisplatin [117, 118].
In the case of patients who have positive resection margins, combined treatment (chemotherapy and radiotherapy) is recommended. An option is to perform intraoperative radiotherapy. This is meant to improve the prognosis but there is little evidence indicating a real benefit of this treatment [119]. One advantage of intraoperative radiotherapy is the possibility of targeted administration of a high dosage of radiation directly on the tumor, while protecting the adjacent, highly radiosensitive tissues [119]. Houry et al. [120] have shown slight improvement with radiation therapy in GBC and future of incorporating gemcitabine-based radiation regimens. The data on neoadjuvant therapies in GBC are limited. However, few studies have reported the beneficial effect of gemcitabine-based combination in neoadjuvant setting [121, 122].
In cases of unresectable tumors, palliative chemoradiotherapy can be performed. In the past, the used chemotherapeutic treatment was 5-FU, methotrexate, mitomycin C, and doxorubicin, with a response rate of 10–20% [63]. More recently, the use of gemcitabine and cisplatin has improved the response rate up to 64% [123]. On the other hand, radiotherapy has a palliative effect for locally advanced tumors (stages T3 and above) and is usually well-tolerated and ensures the remission of symptoms [63]. Radiotherapy is most commonly used in combination with chemotherapy.
Outcomes
The perioperative risk depends on the stage of the disease and the biological status of the patient. It is important to balance the risk of surgery to the risk of the untreated disease. Surgery should be performed with curable intent just when the patient is capable to support it. If the biological status of the patient does not support a radical approach it should be ameliorated preoperatively. Gallbladder cancer surgery is accompanied by a lot of possible complications, some of them very difficult to manage. Most feared complications are postoperative bleeding, bile leak, and perihepatic abscess. The perioperative mortality rate is significantly higher in patients with extended hepatic resections compared with those who underwent limited resections (resection of segments IVb and V), radical cholecystectomy, or simple cholecystectomy [124]. An improvement in the outcome of patients who underwent extended liver resection has been obtained by the progress made in the field of surgical techniques, anesthetic and intensive care management. Long-term outcome is extremely poor due to the highly aggressive nature of this type of cancer. Only patients staged T1 have better long-term outcome, but unfortunately only approximately 10% of symptomatic patients present with T1 disease with up to 20% of the incidentally diagnosed patients having T1 tumors.
The survival rate of patients undergoing surgery for gallbladder cancer depends of the disease’s stage. For T1a tumors limited to the lamina propria, the 5-year overall survival rate is reported to range between 85 and 100% [77]. For T1b after radical cholecystectomy, 5-year survival is 62–100% [101,102,103]. Patients with T2 lesion, the oncologic radicality is easy to obtain by performing a liver resection including segments IVb and V, combined with lymphadenectomy at the level of the lesser omentum. The 5-year survival rate ranges between 80 and 90%. [11, 104]. The survival of the patients with T2 tumors depends on the lymph node status and negative margin achieved during resection or not. Now, difference in the survival is reported in T2 lesions present on hepatic versus peritoneal side of the gallbladder, with worse for hepatic side. For T3 and T4 tumors, it becomes challenging to balance the surgical risk of an extensive resection with the possible benefit. It is known that if a more extensive liver resection is performed, a higher rate of complications may occur. However, by recent improvement of the surgical techniques, the rate of complications after major liver surgery has decreased and more extensive resections can be made with a diminished morbidity and mortality rate. The 5-year survival rate in T3 lesions after complete resection ranges between 30 and 40% [74, 80]. The outcome of the T4 tumors is disappointing with survival of few months.
Patients presenting unresectable gallbladder tumors benefit from palliative treatment to increase their quality of life. The overall survival rate is not significantly improved by palliative treatment, but there may be some benefits of chemoradiotherapy. Advanced gallbladder cancer has a very poor survival rate without any treatment even if the patient has a good performance status. The overall survival is 4.4 months for unresectable and untreated gallbladder cancers [125]. The presence of metastases at the moment of the diagnosis appeared to decrease the survival rate.
Gallbladder carcinoma is the most frequent biliary tract malignancy and mostly diagnosed in advance stage. Surgical resection is the only curative treatment; however, it is only possible in 15–47% patients at the time of diagnosis. The early-stage GBC is mostly diagnosed as incidental finding. The resection of tumor with Ro margin with lymphadenectomy is the only hope for the long-term survival. Multicentric randomized controlled trials are needed to address the various surgical issues to generate sufficient evidence to adopt uniform and standard surgical technique related to the stage of disease. The benefit of chemotherapy is to be explored further as adjuvant treatment to improve outcome in GBC.
References
Hundal R, Shaffer EA (2014) Gallbladder cancer: epidemiology and outcome. Clin Epidemiol 6:99–109
Mekeel KL, Hemming AW (2007) Surgical management of gallbladder carcinoma: a review. J Gastrointest Surg 11:1188–1193
Toyonaga T, Chijiiwa K, Nakano K, Noshiro H, Yamaguchi K, Sada M, Terasaka R, Konomi K, Nishikata F, Tanaka M (2003) Completion radical surgery after cholecystectomy for accidentally undiagnosed gallbladder carcinoma. World J Surg 27:266–271
TO G (2015) Gallbladder carcinoma: prognostic factors and therapeutic options. World J Gastroenterol 21(43):12211–12217
TO G, Paolucci V (2010) Adequate extent in radical re-resection of incidental gallbladder carcinoma: analysis of the German registry. Surg Endosc 24:2156–2164
Nandakumar A, Gupta PC, Gangadharan P, Visweswara RN, Parkin DM (2005) Geographic pathology revisited: development of an atlas of cancer in India. J Cancer 116:740–754
Shaffer EA (2008) Gallbladder cancer: the basics. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 4:737–741
Randi G, Franceschi S, La Vecchia C (2006) Gallbladder cancer worldwide: geographical distribution and risk factors. Int J Cancer 118:1591–1602
Lazcano-Ponce EC, Miquel JF, Muñoz N, Herrero R, Ferrecio C, Wistuba II, Alonso de Ruiz P, AristiUrista G, Nervi F (2001) Epidemiology and molecular pathology of gallbladder cancer. CACancer J Clin 51:349–364
Hariharan D, Saied A, Kocher HM (2008) Analysis of mortality rates for gallbladder cancer across the world. HPB (Oxford) 10:327–331
Hueman MT, Vollmer CM Jr, Pawlik TM (2009) Evolving treatment strategies for gallbladder cancer. Ann SurgOncol 16:2101–2115
Steinert R, Nestler G, Sagynaliev E, Müller J, Lippert H, Reymond MA (2006) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and gallbladder cancer. J Surg Oncol 93(8):682–689
Pilgrim CH, Groeschl RT, Christians KK, Gamblin TC (2013) Modern perspectives on factors predisposing to the development of gallbladder cancer. HPB (Oxford) 15:839–844
Iyer P, Barreto SG, Sahoo B, Chandrani P, Ramadwar MR, Shrikhande SV, Dutt A (2016) Non-typhoidal Salmonella DNA traces in gallbladder cancer. Infect Agent Cancer 11:12
Hsing AW, Gao YT, Han TQ et al (2007) Gallstones and the risk for biliary tract cancer: a population-based study in China. Br J Cancer 97(11):1577–1582
Zatonski WA, Lowenfels AB, Boyle P, Maisonneuve P, Bueno de Mesquita HB, Ghadirian P, Jain M, Przewozniak K, Baghurst P, Moerman CJ, Simard A, Howe GR, McMichael AJ, Hsieh CC, Walker AM (1997) Epidemiologic aspects of gallbladder cancer: a case control study of the SEARCH program of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:1132–1138
Lowenfels AB, Walker AM, Althaus DP, Townsend G, Domellöf L (1989) Gallstone growth, size, and risk of gallbladder cancer: an interracial study. Int J Epidemiol 18:50–54
Diehl AK (1983) Gallstone size and the risk of gallbladder cancer. JAMA 250:2323–2326
Shrikhande SV, Barreto SG, Singh S, Udwadia TE, Agarwal AK (2010) Cholelithiasis in gallbladder cancer: coincidence, cofactor, or cause! Eur J SurgOncol 36:514–519
Kumar S, Kumar S, Kumar S (2006) Infection as a risk factor for gallbladder cancer. J Surg Oncol 93:633–639
Gonzalez-Escobedo G, Marshall JM, Gunn JS (2011) Chronic and acute infection of the gall bladder by Salmonella Typhi: understanding the carrier state. Nat Rev Microbiol 9:9–14
Barreto SG, Haga H, Shukla PJ (2009) Hormones and gallbladder cancer in women. Indian J Gastroenterol 28:126–130
Lewis JT, Talwalkar JA, Rosen CB, Smyrk TC, Abraham SC (2007) Prevalence and risk factors for gallbladder neoplasia in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis: evidence for a metaplasia-dysplasia carcinoma sequence. Am J Surg Pathol 31:907–913
Jain K, Sreenivas V, Velpandian T, Kapil U, Garg PK (2013) Risk factors for gallbladder cancer: a case-control study. Int J Cancer 132:1660–1666
Schlesinger S, Aleksandrova K, Pischon T et al (2013) Diabetes mellitus, insulin treatment, diabetes duration, and risk for biliary tract cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma in a European cohort. Ann Oncol 24(9):2449–2455
Ren HB, Yu T, Liu C, Li YQ (2011) Diabetes mellitus and increased risk for biliary tract cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Causes Control 22(6):837–847
Pandey M, Shukla VK (2002) Diet and gallbladder cancer: a case control study. Eur J Cancer Prev 11(4):365–368
Tominaga S, Kuroishi T, Ogawa H, Shimizu H (1979) Epidemiologic aspects of biliary tract cancer in Japan. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 53:25–34
Zatonski WA, Vecchia CL, Przewozniak K et al (1992) Risk factor for gallbladder carcinoma - a polish case control study. Int J Cancer 51:707–711
Ejaz A, Sachs T, Kamel IR et al (2013) Gallbladder cancer—current management options. Oncology&HematologyReview(US) 9(2):102–108
Basu S, Singh MK, Singh TB, Bhartiya SK, Singh SP, Shukla VK (2013) Heavy and trace metals in carcinoma of the gallbladder. World J Surg 37(11):2641–2646
Darby SC, Whitley E, Howe GR, Hutchings SJ, Kusiak RA, Lubin JH et al (1995) Radon and cancers other than lung cancer in underground miners: a collaborative analysis of 11 studies. Journal of the Cancer Institute 87(5):378–384
Jain K, Mohapatra T, Das P, Misra MC, Gupta SD, Ghosh M, Kabra M, Bansal VK, Kumar S, Sreenivas V, Garg PK (2014) Sequential occurrence of preneoplastic lesions and accumulation of loss of heterozygosity in patients with gallbladder stones suggest causal association with gallbladder cancer. Ann Surg 260(6):1073–1080
Kumari N, Corless CL, Warrick A et al (2014) Mutation profiling in gallbladder cancer in Indian population. Indian journal of pathology & microbiology 57(1):9–12
Hanazaki K, Munekage M, Kitagawa H, Kosaki T, Saibara T, Namikawa T (2018) Molecular diagnosis and targeting of biliary tract cancer. In: Shimada Y, Yanaga K (eds) Molecular diagnosis and targeting for thoracic and gastrointestinal malignancy. Current Human Cell Research and Applications. Springer, Singapore
Pandey M, Gautam A, Shukla VK (1995) ABO and Rh blood groups in cholelithiasis and carcinoma of the gallbladder. Br Med J 310:1639
Roa I, Araya JC, Villaseca M, De Aretxabala X, Riedemann P, Endoh K, Roa J (1996) Preneoplastic lesions and gallbladder cancer: an estimate of the period required for progression. Gastroenterology 111(1):232–236
Goldin RD, Roa JC (2009) Gallbladder cancer: a morphological and molecular update. Histopathology 55(2):218–229
Wong HH, Chu P (2012) Immunohistochemical features of the gastrointestinal tract tumors. Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology 3(3):262–284
Lin H-T, Liu G-J, Wu D, Lou J-Y (2005) Metastasis of primary gallbladder carcinoma in lymph node and liver. World Journal of Gastroenterology : WJG 11(5):748–751
Ito M, Mishima Y (1994) Lymphatic drainage of gallbladder. J Hep Bil Pancr Surg 1:309–313
Castaing D (2008) Surgical anatomy of the biliary tract. HPB 10(2):72–76
Kanthan R, Senger J-L, Ahmed S, Kanthan SC (2015) Gallbladder cancer in the 21st century. Journal of Oncology 967472
Misra S, Chaturvedi A, Misra NC, Sharma ID (2003) Carcinoma of the gallbladder. Lancet Oncol 4(3):167–176
Shukla VK, Khandelwal C, Roy SK, Vaidya MP (1985) Primary carcinoma of the gall bladder: a review of a 16-year period at the University Hospital. J Surg Oncol 28(1):32–35
Qadan M, Kingham TP (2016) Technical aspects of gallbladder cancer surgery. Surg Clin North Am 96(2):229–245
Levy AD, Murakata LA, Rohrmann CA Jr (2001) Gallbladder carcinoma: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 21(2):295–314
Kim HJ, Park JH, Park DI et al (2012) Clinical usefulness of endoscopic ultrasonography in the differential diagnosis of gallbladder wall thickening. Dig Dis Sci 57(2):508–515
Kim SJ, Lee JM, Lee JY et al (2008) Accuracy of preoperative T-staging of gallbladder carcinoma using MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:74–80
Yoshimitsu K, Honda H, Shinozaki K et al (2002) Helical CT of the local spread of carcinoma of the gallbladder: evaluation according to the TNM system in patients who underwent surgical resection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:423–428
Shukla VK, Gurubachan SD, Dixit VK, Usha (2006) Diagnostic value of serum CA242, CA 19-9, CA 15-3 and CA 125 in patients with carcinoma of the gallbladder. Trop Gastroenterol 27(4):160–165
Wang YF, Feng FL, Zhao XH, Ye ZX, Zeng HP, Li Z, Jiang XQ, Peng ZH (2014) Combined detection tumor markers for diagnosis and prognosis of gallbladder cancer. World J Gastroenterol 20(14):4085–4092
Anderson CD, Rice MH, Pinson CW, Chapman WC, Chari RS, Delbeke D (2004) Fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging in the evaluation of gallbladder carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 8(1):90–97
Leung U, Pandit-Taskar N, Corvera CU, D'Angelica MI, Allen PJ, Kingham TP, DeMatteo RP, Jarnagin WR, Fong Y (2014 Nov) Impact of pre-operative positron emission tomography in gallbladder cancer. HPB (Oxford) 16(11):1023–1030
Tian Y, Liu L, Yeolkar NV, Shen F, Li J, He Z (2017 Jan) Diagnostic role of staging laparoscopy in a subset of biliary cancers: a meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg 87(1–2):22–27
Tan-Tam C, Chung SW (2014) Minireview on laparoscopic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery. World J Gastrointest Endosc 6(3):60–67
Shukla PJ, Barreto SG, Arya S et al (2008) Does PET-CT scan have a role prior to radical re-resection for incidental gallbladder cancer? HPB 10:439–445
Goel M, Tamhankar A, Rangarajan V, Patkar S, Ramadwar M, Shrikhande SV (2016) Role of PET CT scan in redefining treatment of incidental gall bladder carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 113(6):652–658
Kang CM, Lee WJ, Choi GH et al (2007) Does “clinical” R0 have validity in the choice of simple cholecystectomy for gallbladder carcinoma? J Gastrointest Surg 11(10):1309–1316
Chan SY, Poon RT, Lo CM, Ng KK, Fan ST (2008) Management of carcinoma of the gallbladder: a single-institution experience in 16 years. J Surg Oncol 97(2):156–164
Kondo S, Takada T, Miyazaki M et al (2008) Guidelines for the management of biliary tract and ampullary carcinomas: surgical treatment. J Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Surg 15(1):41–54
Reddy SK, Clary BM (2009) Surgical management of gallbladder cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 18(2):307–324
Miller G, Jarnagin WR (2008) Gallbladder carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 34(3):306–312
Pilgrim CH, Usatoff V, Evans P (2009) Consideration of anatomical structures relevant to the surgical strategy for an aging gallbladder carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 35(11):1131–1136
de Aretxabala X, Oppliger F, Solano N, Rencoret G, Vivanco M, Carvajal D, Hepp J, Roa I (2018) Laparoscopic management of incidental gallbladder cancer. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6173-5
Goere D, Wagholikar GD, Pessaux P, Carrère N, Sibert A, Vilgrain V, Sauvanet A, Belghiti J (2006) Utility of staging laparoscopy in subsets of biliary cancers: laparoscopy is a powerful diagnostic tool in patients with intrahepatic and gallbladder carcinoma. Surg Endosc 20(5):721–725
Pawlik TM, Gleisner AL, Vigano L, Kooby DA, Bauer TW, Frilling A, Adams RB, Staley CA, Trindade EN, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Capussotti L (2007) Incidence of finding residual disease for incidental gallbladder carcinoma: implications for re-resection. J Gastrointest Surg 11(11):1478–1487
Reddy SK, Marroquin CE, Kuo PC, Pappas TN, Clary BM (2007) Extended hepatic resection for gallbladder cancer. Am J Surg 194(3):355–361
Endo I, Shimada H, Takimoto A, Fujii Y, Miura Y, Sugita M, Morioka D, Masunari H, Tanaka K, Sekido H, Togo S (2004) Microscopic liver metastasis: prognostic factor for patients with pT2 gallbladder carcinoma. World J Surg 28(7):692–696
Sicklick JK, Choti MA (2005) Controversies in the surgical management of cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer. Semin Oncol 32(6 Suppl 9):S112–S117
Shirai Y, Sakata J, Wakai T, Ohashi T, Hatakeyama K (2012) Extended radical cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer: long-term outcomes, indications and limitations. World J Gastroenterol 18(34):4736–4743
Shirai Y, Wakai T, Sakata J, Hatakeyama K (2012) Regional lymphadenectomy for gallbladder cancer: rational extent, technical details, and patient outcomes. World J Gastroenterol 18(22):2775–2783
Glenn F, Hays DM (1954) The scope of radical surgery in the treatment of malignant tumors of the extrahepatic biliary tract. Surg Gynecol Obstet 99:529–541
Dixon E, Vollmer CM, Sahajpal A, Cattral M, Grant D, Doig C, Hemming A, Taylor B, Langer B, Greig P, Gallinger S (2005) An aggressive surgical approach leads to improved survival in patients with gallbladder cancer: a 12-year study at a North American Center. Ann Surg 241:385–394
Sakata J, Shirai Y, Wakai T, Ajioka Y, Hatakeyama K (2010) Number of positive lymph nodes independently determines the prognosis after resection in patients with gallbladder carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1831–1840
Sasaki R, Itabashi H, Fujita T, Takeda Y, Hoshikawa K, Takahashi M, Funato O, Nitta H, Kanno S, Saito K (2006) Significance of extensive surgery including resection of the pancreas head for the treatment of gallbladder cancer--from the perspective of mode of lymph node involvement and surgical outcome. World J Surg 30:36–42
Shirai Y, Yoshida K, Tsukada K et al (1992) Radical surgery for gallbladder carcinoma: long-term results. Ann Surg 216:565–568
Shirai Y, Wakai T, Hatakeyama K (2007) Radical lymph node dissection for gallbladder cancer: indications and limitations. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 16(1):221–232
Shimada H, Endo I, Togo S et al (1997) The role of lymph node dissection in the treatment of gallbladder carcinoma. Cancer 79:892–899
Fong Y, Jarnagin W, Blumgart LH (2000) Gallbladder cancer: comparison of patients presenting initially for definitive operation with those presenting after prior noncurative intervention. Ann Surg 232:557–569
Muratore A, Polastri R, Bouzari H et al (2000) Radical surgery for gallbladder cancer: a worthwhile operation? Eur J Surg Oncol 26:160–163
Shirai Y, Sakata J, Wakai T, Ohashi T, Ajioka Y, Hatakeyama K (2012) Assessment of lymph node status in gallbladder cancer: location, number, or ratio of positive nodes. World J Surg Oncol 10:87
Negi SS, Singh A, Chaudhary A (2011) Lymph nodal involvement as prognostic factor in gallbladder cancer: location, count or ratio? J Gastrointest Surg 15:1017–1025
Ito H, Ito K, D’Angelica M, Gonen M, Klimstra D, Allen P, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, Blumgart LH, Jarnagin WR (2011) Accurate staging for gallbladder cancer: implications for surgical therapy and pathological assessment. Ann Surg 254:320–325
Kondo S, Nimura Y, Hayakawa N, Kamiya J, Nagino M, Uesaka K (2000) Regional and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in radical surgery for advanced gallbladder carcinoma. Br J Surg 87(4):418–422
Agarwal AK, Kalayarasan R, Javed A, Sakhuja P (2014) Role of routine 16b1 lymph node biopsy in the management of gallbladder cancer: an analysis. HPB (Oxford) 16(3):229–234
D'Angelica M, Dalal KM, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, Blumgart LH, Jarnagin WR (2009) Analysis of the extent of resection for adenocarcinoma of the gallbladder. Ann Surg Oncol 16(4):806–816
Gani F, Buettner S, Margonis GA, Ethun CG, Poultsides G, Tran T, Idrees K, Isom CA, Fields RC, Krasnick B, Weber SM, Salem A, Martin RC, Scoggins C, Shen P, Mogal HD, Schmidt C, Beal E, Hatzaras I, Shenoy R, Maithel SK, Pawlik TM (2016) Assessing the impact of common bile duct resection in the surgical management of gallbladder cancer. J Surg Oncol 114(2):176–180
Araida T, Higuchi R, Hamano M, Kodera Y, Takeshita N, Ota T, Yoshikawa T, Yamamoto M, Takasaki K (2009) Should the extrahepatic bile duct be resected or preserved in R0 radical surgery for advanced gallbladder carcinoma? Results of a Japanese Society of Biliary Surgery Survey: a multicenter study. Surg Today 39:770–779
Tsukada K, Hatakeyama K, Kurosaki I et al (1996) Outcome of radical surgery for carcinoma of the gallbladder according to the TNM stage. Surgery 120:816–821
Choi SB, Han HJ, Kim WB et al (2013) Surgical strategy for T2 and T3 gallbladder cancer: is extrahepatic bile duct resection always necessary? Langenbeck's Arch Surg 398:1137–1144
Kosuge T, Sano K, Shimada K et al (1999) Should the bile duct be preserved or removed in radical surgery for gallbladder cancer? Hepatogastroenterology 46:2133–2137
Fuks D, Regimbeau JM, Le Treut YP et al (2011) Incidental gallbladder cancer by the AFC-GBC-2009 Study Group. World J Surg 35:1887–1897
Frena A, La Guardia G, Martin F (2004) Outcome of radical surgery for carcinoma of the gallbladder according to the tumor node metastasis and Japanese Society of Biliary Surgery stages. J Gastrointest Surg 8(5):580–590
Tsukada K, Yoshida K, Aono T, Koyama S, Shirai Y, Uchida K, Muto T (1994 Jan) Major hepatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy for advanced carcinoma of the biliary tract. Br J Surg 81(1):108–110
Miyazaki M, Itoh H, Ambiru S, Shimizu H, Togawa A, Gohchi E, Nakajima N, Suwa T (1996) Radical surgery for advanced gallbladder carcinoma. Br J Surg 83(4):478–481
Agarwal AK, Mandal S, Singh S, Sakhuja P, Puri S (2007) Gallbladder cancer with duodenal infiltration: is it still resectable? J Gastrointest Surg 11(12):1722–1727
TO G, Paolucci V (2009) Use of retrieval bags in incidental gallbladder cancer cases. World J Surg 33:2161–2165
Lee HY, Kim YH, Jung GJ et al (2012) Prognostic factors for gallbladder cancer in the laparoscopy era. J Korean Surg Soc 83:227–236
de Aretxabala X, Roa I, Burgos L et al (1992) Gallbladder cancer in Chile. A report on 54 potentially resectable tumors. Cancer 69:60–65
Principe A, Del GM, Ercolani G et al (2006) Radical surgery for gallbladder carcinoma: possibilities of survival. Hepatogastroenterology 53:660–664
Chijiiwa K, Kai M, Nagano M, Hiyoshi M, Ohuchida J, Kondo K (2007) Outcome of radical surgery for stage IV gallbladder carcinoma. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 14(4):345–350
Cavallaro A, Piccolo G, Panebianco V, Lo Menzo E, Berretta M, Zanghì A, Di Vita M, Cappellani A (2012) Incidental gallbladder cancer during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: managing an unexpected finding. World J Gastroenterol 18(30):4019–4027
Park YJ, Hwang S, Kim KH, Lee YJ, Ahn CS, Moon DB, Park KM, Ha TY, Song GW, Jung DH, Park GC, Lee JH, Lee SG (2013) Prognosis of patients with pT1b/T2 gallbladder carcinoma who have undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy as an initial operation. Korean J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 17(3):113–117
Bartlett DL, Fong Y, Fortner JG et al (1996) Long-term results after resection for gallbladder cancer. Implications for staging and management. Ann Surg 224:639–646
Shindoh J, de Aretxabala X, Aloia TA, Roa JC, Roa I, Zimmitti G et al (2015) Tumor location is a strong predictor of tumor progression and survival in T2 gallbladder cancer: an international multicenter study. Ann Surg 261:733–739
Shoup M, Fong Y (2002) Surgical indications and extent of resection in gallbladder cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 11:985–994
Fuks D, Regimbeau JM, Pessaux P et al (2013) Is port-site resection necessary in the surgical management of gallbladder cancer? J Visc Surg 150:277–284
Sinagra E, Garritano S, Iacopinelli SM, Messina M, Raimondo D, Rossi F, Spada M, Martorana G, Spampinato MG (2018) Minimally invasive surgical approach for radicalization of incidental post-cholecystectomy gallbladder carcinoma: safety, feasibility and outcomes. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 27(4):217–220
Agarwal AK, Javed A, Kalayarasan R, Sakhuja P (2015) Minimally invasive versus the conventional open surgical approach of a radical cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer: a retrospective comparative study. HPB (Oxford) 17(6):536–541
Palanisamy S, Patel N, Sabnis S, Palanisamy N, Vijay A, Palanivelu P, Parthasarthi R, Chinnusamy P (2016) Laparoscopic radical cholecystectomy for suspected early gall bladder carcinoma: thinking beyond convention. Surg Endosc 30(6):2442–2448
Khan S, Beard RE, Kingham PT, Fong Y, Boerner T, Martinie JB, Vrochides D, Buell JF, Berber E, Kahramangil B, Troisi R, Vanlander A, Molinari M, Tsung A (2018) Long-term oncologic outcomes following robotic liver resections for primary hepatobiliary malignancies: a multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol 25(9):2652–2660
Kakaei F, Beheshtirouy S, Nejatollahi S, Zarrintan S, Mafi M (2015) Surgical treatment of gallbladder carcinoma: a critical review. Updat Surg 67(4):339–351
Buettner S, Wilson A, Margonis G, Gani F, Ethun C, Poultsides G et al (2016) Assessing trends in palliative surgery for extrahepatic biliary malignancies: a 15-year multicenter study. J Gastrointest Surg 20(8):1444–1452
Horgan A, Amir E, Walter T, Knox J (2012) Adjuvant therapy in the treatment of biliary tract cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 30(16):1934–1940
Sharma A, Dwary AD, Mohanti BK, Deo SV, Pal S, Sreenivas V, Raina V, Shukla NK, Thulkar S, Garg P, Chaudhary SP (2010) Best supportive care compared with chemotherapy for unresectable gall bladder cancer: a randomized controlled study. J Clin Oncol 28(30):4581–4586
Takada T, Amano H, Yasuda H, Nimura Y, Matsushiro T, Kato H, Nagakawa T, Nakayama T (2002) Is postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy useful for gallbladder carcinoma? A phase III multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial in patients with resected pancreaticobiliary carcinoma. Cancer 95(8):1685–1695
Sharma A, Mohanti B, Raina V, Shukla N, Pal S, Dwary A, Deo S, Sahni P, Garg P, Thulkar S, DattaGupta S, Rath G (2010) A phase II study of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (Oxigem) in unresectable gall bladder cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 65(3):497–502
Valle J, Wasan H, Palmer DH, Cunningham D, Anthoney A, Maraveyas A, Madhusudan S, Iveson T, Hughes S, Pereira SP, Roughton M, Bridgewater J (2010) Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer. N Engl J Med 362(14):1273–1281
Kim W, Choi D, You D, Ho C, Heo J, Choi S (2010) Risk factors influencing recurrence, patterns of recurrence, and the efficacy of adjuvant therapy after radical resection for gallbladder carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 14(4):679–687
Houry S, Barrier A, Huguier M (2001) Irradiation therapy for gallbladder carcinoma: recent advances. J Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Surg 8(6):518–524
Sirohi B, Mitra A, Jagannath P, Singh A, Ramadvar M, Kulkarni S, Goel M, Shrikhande SV (2015) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced gallbladder cancer. Future Oncol 11(10):1501–1509
Selvakumar VP, Zaidi S, Pande P, Goel A, Kumar K (2015) Resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced carcinoma of the gallbladder: a retrospective study. Indian J Surg Oncol 6(1):16–19
Malik IA, Aziz Z, Zaidi SH, Sethuraman G (2003) Gemcitabine and cisplatin is highly effective combination chemotherapy in patients with advanced cancer of the gallbladder. Am J Clin Oncol 26(2):174–177
Jin L, Pitt S, Hall B, Pitt H (2013) Aggressive surgical management of gallbladder cancer: at what cost? J Surg Res 179(2):192
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Srivastava, V., Verma, K. & Puneet Surgical Management of Gallbladder Carcinoma. Indian J Surg 83 (Suppl 3), 625–636 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-019-02050-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-019-02050-8