We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparison of clinicopathological characteristics and long-term survival between patients with gallbladder adenosquamous carcinoma and pure gallbladder adenocarcinoma after curative-intent surgery: a single-center experience in China and a meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the similarities and differences between gallbladder adenosquamous carcinoma (GBASC) and pure gallbladder adenocarcinoma (GBAC).
METHODS: Patients with GBASC and GBAC from 2010 to 2020 were analyzed in terms of clinicopathological features and long-term survival. Moreover, a meta-analysis was also performed for further validation.
RESULTS: Our experience: A total of 304 patients with resected GBC were identified, including 34 patients with GBASC and 270 patients with GBAC. Patients with GBASC had a significantly higher preoperative CA199 level (P <0.0001), a significantly higher incidence of liver invasion (P <0.0001), a relatively larger tumor size (P = 0.060), and a significantly higher proportion of patients with T3-4 (P <0.0001) or III-IV disease (P = 0.003). A comparable R0 rate was obtained between two groups (P = 0.328). A significantly worse overall survival (OS) (P = 0.0002) or disease-free survival (DFS) (P = 0.0002) was observed in the GBASC. After propensity score matching, comparable OS (P = 0.9093) and DFS (P = 0.1494) were obtained. Clear margin (P = 0.001), node metastasis (P <0.0001), T stage (P <0.0001), and postoperative adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (P <0.0001) were independent prognostic factors for OS for the entire cohort. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy had a survival benefit for patients with GBAC, while the survival benefit was still being validated in patients with GBASC. Meta-analysis: With our cohort incorporated, a total of seven studies involving 1,434 patients with GBASC/squamous carcinoma (SC) were identified. GBASC/SC shared a worse prognosis (P <0.00001) and more aggressive tumor biological features than GBAC.
CONCLUSION: GBASC/SC shared more aggressive tumor biological features and a much worse prognosis than those with pure GBAC.
METHODS: Patients with GBASC and GBAC from 2010 to 2020 were analyzed in terms of clinicopathological features and long-term survival. Moreover, a meta-analysis was also performed for further validation.
RESULTS: Our experience: A total of 304 patients with resected GBC were identified, including 34 patients with GBASC and 270 patients with GBAC. Patients with GBASC had a significantly higher preoperative CA199 level (P <0.0001), a significantly higher incidence of liver invasion (P <0.0001), a relatively larger tumor size (P = 0.060), and a significantly higher proportion of patients with T3-4 (P <0.0001) or III-IV disease (P = 0.003). A comparable R0 rate was obtained between two groups (P = 0.328). A significantly worse overall survival (OS) (P = 0.0002) or disease-free survival (DFS) (P = 0.0002) was observed in the GBASC. After propensity score matching, comparable OS (P = 0.9093) and DFS (P = 0.1494) were obtained. Clear margin (P = 0.001), node metastasis (P <0.0001), T stage (P <0.0001), and postoperative adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (P <0.0001) were independent prognostic factors for OS for the entire cohort. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy had a survival benefit for patients with GBAC, while the survival benefit was still being validated in patients with GBASC. Meta-analysis: With our cohort incorporated, a total of seven studies involving 1,434 patients with GBASC/squamous carcinoma (SC) were identified. GBASC/SC shared a worse prognosis (P <0.00001) and more aggressive tumor biological features than GBAC.
CONCLUSION: GBASC/SC shared more aggressive tumor biological features and a much worse prognosis than those with pure GBAC.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app