Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Metastasis in Gallbladder Cancer: As Bad as Distant Metastasis.

IF 0.6 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Nalini Kanta Ghosh, Rahul Rahul, Ashish Singh, Supriya Sharma, Ashok Kumar, Rajneesh Kumar Singh, Anu Behari, Ashok Kumar, Vinay Kumar Kapoor, Rajan Saxena
{"title":"Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Metastasis in Gallbladder Cancer: As Bad as Distant Metastasis.","authors":"Nalini Kanta Ghosh,&nbsp;Rahul Rahul,&nbsp;Ashish Singh,&nbsp;Supriya Sharma,&nbsp;Ashok Kumar,&nbsp;Rajneesh Kumar Singh,&nbsp;Anu Behari,&nbsp;Ashok Kumar,&nbsp;Vinay Kumar Kapoor,&nbsp;Rajan Saxena","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1742595","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ashish Singh<b>Background</b>  Regarding gallbladder cancer (GBC) there is conflicting evidence in the literature whether retroperitoneal lymph nodal metastases (RLNM) should be considered as regional nodal metastasis or as distant metastasis (DM) and the jury is out on radical curative surgery in presence of RLNM. This is an analysis of GBC patients, to see the effect of RLNM on survival and to compare with that of patients with DMs. <b>Methods</b>  A retrospective analysis of a prospective database of patients of GBC with RLNM (interaortocaval and paraaortic) or DM on frozen section biopsy at surgery, between January 2013 and December 2018. Data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (version 22.0). Survival in these two groups (RLNM and DM) was compared with log-rank test. A <i>p</i> -value of < 0.05 was considered significant. <b>Results</b>  A total of 235 patients with ostensibly resectable GBC underwent surgical exploration. The planned curative resection was abandoned in 91 (39%) patients because of RLNM ( <i>n</i>  = 20, 9%) or DM ( <i>n</i>  = 71, 30%) on frozen section biopsy. Demographic profile and blood parameters were similar. The median survival for RLNM and DM groups were 5 (range 2-26) and 6 (range 2-24) months, respectively, with no significant difference on log-rank test ( <i>p</i>  = 0.64). There was no 3-year or longer survivor in either group. <b>Conclusion</b>  Due to similar poor survival in presence of RLNM or DM, RLNM should be considered as the equivalent of DM. This study strengthens evidence to avoid curative surgery in patients with RLNM. These lymph nodes should be sampled preoperatively, if suspicious on imaging, for fine-needle aspiration cytology and at surgery, as a routine for frozen section histological examination before initiating curative resection to avert a futile exercise.</p>","PeriodicalId":22053,"journal":{"name":"South Asian Journal of Cancer","volume":"11 3","pages":"195-200"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c9/29/10-1055-s-0042-1742595.PMC9803534.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South Asian Journal of Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1742595","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Ashish SinghBackground  Regarding gallbladder cancer (GBC) there is conflicting evidence in the literature whether retroperitoneal lymph nodal metastases (RLNM) should be considered as regional nodal metastasis or as distant metastasis (DM) and the jury is out on radical curative surgery in presence of RLNM. This is an analysis of GBC patients, to see the effect of RLNM on survival and to compare with that of patients with DMs. Methods  A retrospective analysis of a prospective database of patients of GBC with RLNM (interaortocaval and paraaortic) or DM on frozen section biopsy at surgery, between January 2013 and December 2018. Data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (version 22.0). Survival in these two groups (RLNM and DM) was compared with log-rank test. A p -value of < 0.05 was considered significant. Results  A total of 235 patients with ostensibly resectable GBC underwent surgical exploration. The planned curative resection was abandoned in 91 (39%) patients because of RLNM ( n  = 20, 9%) or DM ( n  = 71, 30%) on frozen section biopsy. Demographic profile and blood parameters were similar. The median survival for RLNM and DM groups were 5 (range 2-26) and 6 (range 2-24) months, respectively, with no significant difference on log-rank test ( p  = 0.64). There was no 3-year or longer survivor in either group. Conclusion  Due to similar poor survival in presence of RLNM or DM, RLNM should be considered as the equivalent of DM. This study strengthens evidence to avoid curative surgery in patients with RLNM. These lymph nodes should be sampled preoperatively, if suspicious on imaging, for fine-needle aspiration cytology and at surgery, as a routine for frozen section histological examination before initiating curative resection to avert a futile exercise.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

胆囊癌腹膜后淋巴结转移:与远处转移一样严重。
背景:关于胆囊癌(GBC),文献中关于腹膜后淋巴结转移(RLNM)应该被认为是区域淋巴结转移还是远处转移(DM)的证据相互矛盾,对于存在RLNM的根治性手术也没有定论。这是对GBC患者的分析,以观察RLNM对生存的影响,并与DMs患者进行比较。方法回顾性分析2013年1月至2018年12月手术冷冻切片活检的GBC合并RLNM(主动脉间腔和主动脉旁腔)或DM患者的前瞻性数据库。数据分析使用统计软件包的社会科学软件(版本22.0)。两组(RLNM组和DM组)的生存率比较采用log-rank检验。结果共有235例表面可切除的GBC患者接受了手术探查。91例(39%)患者因冷冻切片活检发现RLNM (n = 20,9%)或DM (n = 71,30%)而放弃了计划的治愈性切除。人口统计资料和血液参数相似。RLNM组和DM组的中位生存期分别为5个月(2-26个月)和6个月(2-24个月),log-rank检验差异无统计学意义(p = 0.64)。两组均无3年及以上存活者。结论由于RLNM和DM存在相似的低生存率,RLNM应等同于DM。本研究加强了RLNM患者避免根治性手术的证据。如果影像学上有可疑,术前应对这些淋巴结取样,进行细针穿刺细胞学检查,并在手术中作为常规的冷冻切片组织学检查,然后开始治疗性切除,以避免徒劳的练习。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
80
审稿时长
35 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信