Search

Objective: To evaluate the significance of tumor locations in patients with resected gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) and to supply the indication of extra-hepatic bile duct resection (EHBDR) according to tumor locations. Methods: Patients with resected GBC from 2010 to 2020 in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Comparative analyses and a meta-analysis were performed according to different tumor locations (body/fundus/neck/cystic duct). Results: Article: A total of 259 patients were identified (neck: 71; cystic: 29; body: 51; fundus: 108). Patients with proximal tumors (neck/cystic duct) were often in a more advanced stage and had more aggressive tumor biological features as well as a worse prognosis compared with those with distal tumors (fundus/body). Moreover, the observation was even more obvious between cystic duct and non-cystic duct tumors. Cystic duct tumor was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (P = 0.01). EHBDR provided no survival advantage even in those with cystic duct tumor. Meta-analysis: With our own cohort incorporated, five studies with 204 patients with proximal tumors and 5167 patients with distal tumors were identified. Pooled results revealed that proximal tumors indicated worse tumor biological features and prognosis versus distal tumors. Conclusion: Proximal GBC had more aggressive tumor biological features, and a worse prognosis versus distal GBC and cystic duct tumor can be regarded as an independent prognostic factor. EHBDR had no obvious survival advantage even in those with cystic duct tumor and was even harmful in those with distal tumors. Upcoming more powerful well-designed studies are required for further validation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Centralization of rectal cancer surgery has been associated with high-quality oncologic care. However, several patient, disease and system-related factors can impact where patients receive care. We hypothesized that patients with low rectal tumors would undergo treatment at high-volume centers and would be more likely to receive guideline-based multidisciplinary treatment. Methods: Adults who underwent proctectomy for stage II/III rectal cancer were included from the Iowa Cancer Registry and supplemented with tumor location data. Multinomial logistic regression was employed to analyze factors associated with receiving care in high-volume hospital, while logistic regression for those associated with ≥ 12 lymph node yield, pre-operative chemoradiation and sphincter-preserving surgery. Results: Of 414 patients, 38%, 39%, and 22% had low, mid, and high rectal cancers, respectively. Thirty-two percent were > 65 years, 38% female, and 68% had stage III tumors. Older age and rural residence, but not tumor location, were associated with surgical treatment in low-volume hospitals. Higher tumor location, high-volume, and NCI-designated hospitals had higher nodal yield (≥ 12). Hospital-volume was not associated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation rates or circumferential resection margin status. Sphincter-sparing surgery was independently associated with high tumor location, female sex, and stage III cancer, but not hospital volume. Conclusions: Low tumor location was not associated with care in high-volume hospitals. High-volume and NCI-designated hospitals had higher nodal yields, but not significantly higher neoadjuvant chemoradiation, negative circumferential margin, or sphincter preservation rates. Therefore, providing educational/quality improvement support in lower volume centers may be more pragmatic than attempting to centralize rectal cancer care among high-volume centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: No studies have yet analyzed the characteristics of recurrence after resection for intraductal papillary neoplasm of bile duct (IPNB) based on tumor location. We analyzed the patterns, timing, and risk factors for recurrence.Methods: From 1994 to 2014, data from 103 patients who were diagnosed with IPNB were retrospectively reviewed. Among these, 44 were extrahepatic IPNB (E-IPNB) and 59 were intrahepatic IPNB (I-IPNB).Results: CK20, pancreaticobiliary type, tumor invasion beyond ductal wall, tumor invasion to adjacent organs, and invasive disease were more frequently found in E-IPNB than in I-IPNB (22.7 vs. 8.5%; p = 0.043, 38.6 vs. 23.7%; p = 0.050, 20.5 vs. 11.9%; p < 0.001, 4.5 vs. 1.7%; p < 0.001 and 93.2 vs. 55.9%; p < 0.001). E-IPNB has poorer 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) compared to I-IPNB (51.7 vs. 91.4%; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the rate of initial isolated locoregional recurrence and initial distant recurrence according to tumor location (14.6 in E-IPNB vs. 3.0% in I-IPNB; p = 0.123, 19.5 in E = IPNB vs. 12.0% in I-IPNB; p = 0.136). Recurrence rate according to timing was different between E-IPNB and I-IPNB: within 1 year (33.3% vs. 83.3%; p = 0.061) and 1-3 years (50.0% vs. 0%; p = 0.052). The independent prognostic factors for RFS were tumor location (p = 0.034) and lymph node metastasis (p = 0.013).Conclusions: E-IPNB has a worse prognosis than I-IPNB. Different follow-up schedules for surveillance according to tumor location are needed after surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: Gallbladder cancer; NCDB; Hepatectomy; Tumor location EN Gallbladder cancer NCDB Hepatectomy Tumor location 2104 2106 3 07/31/21 20210801 NES 210801 Felipe B Maegawa and Marah Hamdan are co-first authors. Tumor location on the peritoneal side vs. liver side had similar outcomes according to T stage for T1-T3 tumors (peritoneal vs. liver vs. both - T1: 72 months vs. 67 vs 30.8 months; I p i = 0.04; T2: 31.9 months vs. 32 months vs. 25 months; I p i = 0.02; T3: 11 months vs. 14.6 months vs. 8.6 months; I p i < 0.001; T4: 10 months vs. 9.4 months vs. 6 months, respectively; I p i = 0.6). Do hepatic-sided tumors require more extensive resection than peritoneal-sided tumors in patients with T2 gallbladder cancer?. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: The increased use of laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer requires the evaluation of hospital case volume, quality care, and training systems, considering the difficulty of this surgery for various tumor locations.Materials and Methods: We assessed the quality of this procedure in Japan, based on hospital case volume and tumor location. A total of 3,765 patients were enrolled across 567 hospitals between July and December 2007. We analyzed patient characteristics, postoperative surgical complications, the administration of stapling devices or chemotherapy, hospital volume and teaching status, postoperative length of stay, total charges, and operating room time. Hospitals were classified into four case-volume categories: high (> or =5 cases per month), intermediate to high (3-4), low to intermediate (1-2), and low (<1). Multivariate analysis was used to test the impact of hospital category and tumor location.Results: Ten high-volume hospitals performed 401 cases, while 355 low-volume hospitals did 903. Hospital case volume, operating time, and complications affected postoperative stay and total costs. Longer procedural time was an independent predictor of complications. Tumor location, case volume, and teaching status explained the variations in procedural time individually but not complications. Training systems highlighting the applicability of techniques are important to promote the quality of laparoscopic colectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We sought to elucidate the clinical value of tumor location of the remnant gastric cancer developed after partial gastrectomy for gastric cancer to determine the disease characteristics and surgical outcome. Fifty-two patients underwent a second operation with a curative intent because of remnant gastric cancer after undergoing partial gastrectomy for gastric cancer between 1995 and 2005. The clinicopathological features of their primary and recurrent diseases, surgical results, and survivals according to tumor sites within the remnant stomach were examined. Tumors that developed at the anastomotic site (n=27) in remnant stomach favored a female gender, younger age, and unfavorable histological characteristics of primary and recurrent diseases and were also associated with lower tumor resectability than those that developed in the nonanastomotic site (n=25). The overall 5-year survival rates of patients that experienced an anastomotic recurrence and nonanastomotic recurrence were 36.9 and 95.8% (p=0.001), respectively, and the overall 5-year survival rates of patients with stage I primary gastric cancer were 83.3 and 100% (p=0.018) for anastomotic and non-anastomotic recurrence. Tumor location of remnant gastric cancer is an important factor for predicting surgical outcome, but it also reflects the characteristics of primary and recurrent diseases. It is hoped that these results will assist surgeons establishing the treatment plan for remnant gastric cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]