Abstract
Purpose
The treatment of advanced gallbladder cancer (GBC) remains controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore treatment choices for advanced GBC.
Methods
We identified four different treatments from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database: surgery, chemotherapy (CT), surgery and chemotherapy (Surgery + CT), and no surgery/no chemotherapy (No surgery/No CT). Kaplan‐Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression method were used to determine the risk factors for overall survival (OS) and cancer‐specific survival (CSS). In addition, patients in AJCC stages III and IV stage were matched with 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) for diagnosis age, race, marital status, histological type, tumor grade, and treatment pattern to decrease the possibility of selection bias.
Results
A total of 288 AJCC stage III patients and 4239 AJCC stage IV patients with advanced GBC were identified from the SEER database between 2004 and 2015. Treatment pattern was an independent risk factor for patients with advanced GBC. For all patient, AJCC stage III patients and AJCC stage IV patients, “Surgery + CT” treatment minimized the OS and CSS in advanced GBC patients. In addition, after the PSM analysis, the “Surgery + CT” treatment still significantly decreased patient OS and CSS.
Conclusions
“Surgery + CT” treatment can provide survival benefits for patients with advanced GBC. In addition, “Surgery + CT” treatment was not fully utilized and may further improve the survival rate of GBC patients.
Keywords: advanced gallbladder cancer, chemotherapy, SEER, surgery, survival
Surgery and chemotherapy (Surgery + CT) can provide survival benefits for patients with advanced gallbladder cancer (GBC). The treatment of “Surgery + CT” is not fully utilized, and the combined use of “Surgery + CT” can improve the survival rate of GBC patients.
Abbreviations
- AJCC
American Joint Committee on Cancer
- CI
confidence interval
- CSS
cancer‐specific survival
- CT
chemotherapy
- GBC
gallbladder cancer
- HR
hazard ratios
- OS
overall survival
- PSM
propensity score matching
- RT
radiotherapy
- SEER
surveillance, epidemiology, and end results
1. INTRODUCTION
Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is a common malignant tumor in the biliary system, accounting for approximately 2/3 of biliary system tumors, and its incidence is increasing.1, 2 Although relatively uncommon, it is the sixth common form of digestive system cancer. In 2019, an estimated 12 360 new cases were diagnosed, and 3960 patients died from GBC and other biliary cancer in the United States.3 Because of the insidious onset, rapid progression, and early asymptomatic characteristics of GBC, diagnosis is usually not made until intraoperative and postoperative pathological examinations, when the disease is already in moderate and advanced stages, and the therapeutic effect are poor.4
The median survival time of patients with GBC is less than 1 year, the overall survival (OS) is approximately 17.8%‐21.7%, and the 5‐year OS is only 5%.1, 5 GBC treatments include surgery, chemotherapy (CT), radiotherapy (RT), and other immunotherapy.6, 7, 8 Although GBC has high invasiveness and metastasis, surgical resection remains recognized as the best treatment.9, 10 The 5‐year survival rate of early T1 GBC patients is as high as 95%‐100%. However, for patients with T3 stage and T4 stage, the 5‐year survival rate is only 23% and 12%, respectively.11
Both in China and abroad, most diagnosed GBC patients are in moderate and advanced stages. The treatment of GBC still confuses many physicians, even experienced surgeons. The treatment of patients with advanced GBC remains especially controversial. In our study, we used data from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) cancer registration database to explore the treatment options for patients with advanced GBC.
2. PATIENTS AND METHODS
2.1. Patients selection
The SEER database is currently the largest publicly available cancer database, covering approximately 28% of the US population.12 All cases are from the SEER Program (http://www.seer.cancer.gov) SEER*Stat database released in November 2017: version 8.3.5; SEER 18 Regs Custom Data (with additional treatment field), Nov 2017 Sub (1973‐2015 varying) database. The SEER database contains information about patient demographics and cancer characteristics, such as sex, age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, race, marital status, tumor grade and stage, histological type, treatment, and patient survival time.
Using the "Primary Site—labeled" variable, we selected tumor cases from the primary site of the gallbladder diagnosed between 2004 and 2015. The study included only patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage III and IV cancer. According to the 2004 AJCC staging principle, stage III is defined as “T4M0, any N,” and stage IV is defined as “M1, any T or any N.” Only patients above 18 years of age were included in this study. Patients with any of the following criteria were also excluded: unknown treatment, not the first tumor, unknown survival time, and unknown marital status. Finally, 4527 eligible patients diagnosed with GBC remained.
2.2. Study variables
Definition and information about the variables of sex, diagnosis age, year of diagnosis, race, marital status, tumor grade, histological type, and survival time can be found in the SEER database. OS and cancer‐specific survival (CSS) were the primary study endpoints. For OS, death from any cause was considered as an event, and the survivor was regarded as censored. For the CSS analysis, deaths caused by GBC were considered events, and deaths from other causes or survivors were censored.
For the diagnosis age, we divided all patients into three groups: less than 60 years old, 60‐80 years old, and older than 80 years old.
For marital status, patients were divided into a Married group, an Unmarried group, and an Unknown marital status group. Unmarried patients include Single, Separated, Divorced, and Widowed.
For race, patients were divided into a Non‐Hispanic White group, a Non‐Hispanic Black group, a Hispanic group, and an Others group.
The ICD‐0‐3 site/histology validation list was used to distinguish adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and other histological types.
Grade was defined by the following codes: well differentiated (Grade I); moderately differentiated (Grade II); poorly differentiated (Grade III); undifferentiated (Grade IV); and unknown grade.
2.3. Statistical analysis
Pearson's chi‐square analysis was used to analyze and evaluate the different clinical characteristics between different treatment patterns. The Kaplan‐Meier curve was used to estimate the OS and CSS in different groups, and the differences between the curves were analyzed by log‐rank test. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were performed to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to analyze the independent prognostic factors associated with OS and CSS in GBC patients.
According to AJCC stage, the patients were divided into AJCC stage III and IV groups. 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was to reduce the selection bia of the two groups of baseline variables, including age, race, marital status, histological type, grade, and treatment pattern seven variables. After PSM, the clinicopathological features of the patients were reevaluated according to AJCC stage. All statistical analyses were conducted with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (version 24.0; IBM Corporation). A P value ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Demographic and clinical characteristics
From 2004 to 2015, our study cohort included a total of 4527 eligible GBC patients. Among them, 1575 patients with “No surgery/No CT,” 938 patients with “Surgery”, 1222 patients with “CT” and 792 patients with “Surgery + CT”. The demographic and clinical characteristics of GBC patients with different treatment patterns are shown in Table 1. Male patients accounted for 30.7%, and female patients accounted for 69.3%. Moreover, there were 288 patients with AJCC stage III and 4239 with AJCC stage IV. Chi‐square test showed significant differences in some variables and treatment patterns, including diagnosis age, sex, race, marital status, histological type, tumor grade, and AJCC stage (All P < .05).
Table 1.
Characteristics for different metastasis in our study
| Characteristic | Total | No surgery/No CT | Surgery | CT | Surgery + CT | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 4527 | n = 1575 (%) | n = 938 (%) | n = 1222 (%) | n = 792 (%) | ||
| Sex | ||||||
| Female | 1391 | 509 (32.3) | 272 (29.0) | 403 (33.0) | 207 (26.1) | .003 |
| Male | 3136 | 1066 (67.7) | 666 (71.0) | 819 (67.0) | 585 (73.9) | |
| Age at diagnosis | ||||||
| <60 y | 1057 | 210 (13.3) | 164 (17.5) | 405 (33.1) | 278 (35.1) | <.001 |
| 60‐80 y | 2551 | 825 (52.4) | 540 (57.6) | 718 (58.8) | 468 (59.1) | |
| >80 y | 919 | 540 (34.3) | 234 (24.9) | 99 (8.1) | 46 (5.8) | |
| Race | ||||||
| Non‐Hispanic White | 2543 | 873 (55.4) | 530 (56.5) | 689 (56.4) | 451 (56.9) | .007 |
| Non‐Hispanic Black | 580 | 190 (12.1) | 99 (10.6) | 189 (15.5) | 102 (12.9) | |
| Hispanic | 922 | 329 (20.9) | 216 (23.0) | 214 (17.5) | 163 (20.6) | |
| Others | 482 | 183 (11.6) | 93 (9.9) | 130 (10.6) | 76 (9.6) | |
| Marital status | ||||||
| Married | 2352 | 651 (41.3) | 473 (50.4) | 741 (60.6) | 487 (61.8) | <.001 |
| Divorced/separated | 483 | 159 (10.1) | 88 (9.4) | 145 (11.9) | 91 (11.5) | |
| Windowed | 1066 | 516 (32.8) | 259 (27.6) | 185 (15.1) | 106 (13.4) | |
| Single | 626 | 249 (15.8) | 118 (12.6) | 151 (12.4) | 108 (13.6) | |
| Histological type | ||||||
| Adenocarcinoma | 3278 | 923 (58.6) | 773 (82.4) | 914 (74.8) | 668 (84.3) | <.001 |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 167 | 44 (2.8) | 54 (5.8) | 31 (2.5) | 38 (4.8) | |
| Others | 1082 | 608 (38.6) | 111 (11.8) | 277 (22.7) | 86 (10.9) | |
| Grade | ||||||
| Grade I | 157 | 20 (1.3) | 62 (6.6) | 23 (1.9) | 52 (6.6) | <.001 |
| Grade II | 804 | 105 (6.7) | 281 (30.0) | 121 (9.9) | 297 (37.5) | |
| Grade III | 1219 | 221 (14.0) | 477 (50.9) | 184 (15.1) | 337 (42.6) | |
| Grade IV | 86 | 15 (1.0) | 35 (3.7) | 12 (1.0) | 24 (3.0) | |
| Unknown | 2261 | 1214 (77.1) | 83 (8.8) | 882 (72.2) | 82 (10.4) | |
| AJCC stage | ||||||
| III | 288 | 84 (5.3) | 72 (7.7) | 56 (4.6) | 76 (9.6) | <.001 |
| IV | 4239 | 1491 (94.7) | 866 (92.3) | 1166 (95.4) | 716 (90.4) | |
Percentages may not total 100 because of rounding.
Abbreviations: AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; CT, chemotherapy; Grade I, well differentiated; Grade II, moderately differentiated; Grade III, poorly differentiated; Grade IV, undifferentiated.
3.2. Trend in different treatment patterns
As shown in Table 2, the proportion of patients who accepted the "No surgery/No CT" or "Surgery + CT" models remained relatively stable between 2004 and 2015. Simultaneously, the number and proportion of patients receiving the "CT" model increased each year. The proportion of the "Surgery" treatment was significantly lower in patients with advanced GBC compared with the increase in "CT" mode (Figure 1).
Table 2.
Changes in the number and proportion of the four treatment methods between 2004 and 2015
| Characteristic | Total | No surgery/No CT | Surgery | CT | Surgery + CT | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 4527 | n = 1575 (%) | n = 938 (%) | n = 1222 (%) | n = 792 (%) | ||
| Year of diagnosis | ||||||
| 2004 | 315 | 104 (33.0) | 87 (27.6) | 64 (20.3) | 60 (19.0) | <.001 |
| 2005 | 347 | 123 (35.4) | 104 (30.0) | 61 (17.6) | 59 (17.0) | |
| 2006 | 322 | 120 (37.3) | 79 (8.4) | 64 (19.9) | 59 (18.3) | |
| 2007 | 332 | 126 (38.0) | 81 (24.4) | 79 (23.8) | 46 (13.9) | |
| 2008 | 311 | 112 (36.0) | 76 (24.4) | 64 (20.6) | 59 (19.0) | |
| 2009 | 374 | 119 (31.8) | 83 (22.2) | 92 (24.6) | 80 (21.4) | |
| 2010 | 396 | 149 (37.6) | 78 (19.7) | 114 (28.8) | 55 (13.9) | |
| 2011 | 398 | 131 (32.9) | 71 (17.8) | 111 (27.9) | 85 (21.4) | |
| 2012 | 427 | 142 (33.3) | 83 (19.4) | 132 (30.9) | 70 (16.4) | |
| 2013 | 439 | 154 (35.1) | 62 (14.1) | 153 (34.9) | 70 (15.9) | |
| 2014 | 421 | 139 (33.0) | 72 (17.1) | 139 (33.0) | 71 (16.9) | |
| 2015 | 445 | 156 (35.1) | 62 (13.9) | 149 (33.5) | 78 (17.5) | |
Percentages may not total 100 because of rounding.
Abbreviation: CT, chemotherapy.
Figure 1.
Trends in the proportion of four treatment modes in patients with advanced gallbladder cancer between 2004 and 2015
3.3. Identification of prognostic factors of OS and CSS in patients with advanced GBC
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression were used to analyze the factors associated with OS and CSS in patients with advanced GBC. Before matching, as shown in Table 3, the age at diagnosis, histological type, tumor grade, AJCC stage, and treatment pattern affected the OS and CSS in patients with advanced GBC. Multivariate Cox regression showed that “surgery” (vs “No surgery/No CT”; HR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.55‐0.66, P < .001), “CT” (vs “No surgery/No CT”; HR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.40‐0.48, P < .001), and “Surgery + CT” (vs “No surgery/No CT”; HR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.26‐0.33, P < .001) were associated with OS (Figure 2A). Similarly, in terms of CSS, multivariate Cox regression analysis also indicated that treatment pattern was a prognostic factor for patients with advanced GBC (“surgery” vs “No surgery/No CT”; HR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.57‐0.74, P < .001; “CT” vs “No surgery/No CT”; HR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.39‐0.50, P < .001; “Surgery + CT” vs “No surgery/No CT”; HR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.29‐0.39, P < .001) (Figure 2B).
Table 3.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of OS and CSS rates before propensity score matching
| Characteristic | OS | CSS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysisa | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysisb | |||||
| Hazard ratio (95% CI) | P value | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | P value | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | P value | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | P value | |
| Sex | ||||||||
| Female | Reference | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Male | 0.94 (0.88‐1.00) | .049 | — | .243 | 1.02 (0.94‐1.12) | .624 | ||
| Age at diagnosis | ||||||||
| <60 y | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||
| 60‐80 y | 1.28 (1.19‐1.38) | <.001 | 1.21 (1.12‐1.30) | <.001 | 1.27 (1.14‐1.40) | <.001 | 1.18 (1.06‐1.31) | .003 |
| >80 y | 2.15 (1.96‐2.36) | <.001 | 1.55 (1.41‐1.71) | <.001 | 2.22 (1.96‐2.52) | <.001 | 1.58 (1.37‐1.81) | <.001 |
| Race | ||||||||
| Non‐Hispanic White | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Non‐Hispanic Black | 0.96 (0.87‐1.05) | .349 | 0.98 (0.86‐1.11) | .740 | ||||
| Hispanic | 0.95 (0.88‐1.03) | .251 | 0.98 (0.88‐1.09) | .712 | ||||
| Others | 0.96 (0.86‐1.06) | .372 | 1.06 (0.93‐1.21) | .366 | ||||
| Marital status | ||||||||
| Married | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Divorced/separated | 1.11 (1.00‐1.23) | .046 | — | .204 | 1.17 (1.02‐1.34) | .022 | 1.16 (1.01‐1.33) | .033 |
| Windowed | 1.44 (1.33‐1.55) | <.001 | — | .397 | 1.57 (1.42‐1.74) | <.001 | 1.17 (1.05‐1.31) | .005 |
| Single | 1.17 (1.07‐1.28) | .001 | — | .255 | 1.23 (1.08‐1.39) | .001 | 1.14 (1.01‐1.30) | .039 |
| Histological type | ||||||||
| Adenocarcinoma | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 1.21 (1.03‐1.42) | .019 | 1.25 (1.06‐1.47) | .007 | 1.35 (1.11‐1.66) | .003 | 1.39 (1.13‐1.70) | .002 |
| Others | 1.31 (1.22‐1.40) | <.001 | 1.01 (0.94‐1.09) | .721 | 1.04 (0.94‐1.15) | .459 | 0.83 (0.74‐0.92) | .001 |
| Grade | ||||||||
| Grade I | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Grade II | 1.13 (0.04‐1.35) | .204 | 1.24 (1.03‐1.49) | .022 | 1.10 (0.87‐1.39) | .446 | 1.21 (0.96‐1.54) | .105 |
| Grade III | 1.64 (1.37‐1.96) | <.001 | 1.68 (1.41‐2.01) | <.001 | 1.56 (1.24‐1.96) | <.001 | 1.66 (1.32‐2.08) | <.001 |
| Grade IV | 1.44 (1.09‐1.91) | .010 | 1.54 (1.16‐2.04) | .003 | 1.49 (1.05‐2.13) | .027 | 1.77 (1.24‐2.54) | .002 |
| Unknown | 1.85 (1.56‐2.20) | <.001 | 1.46 (1.22‐1.75) | <.001 | 1.56 (1.25‐1.95) | <.001 | 1.38 (1.09‐1.74) | .008 |
| AJCC stage | ||||||||
| III | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||
| IV | 1.40 (1.23‐1.59) | <.001 | 1.38 (1.21‐1.57) | <.001 | 1.45 (1.21‐1.72) | <.001 | 1.44 (1.21‐1.72) | <.001 |
| Treatment pattern | ||||||||
| No surgery/No CT | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Surgery | 0.58 (0.53‐0.63) | <.001 | 0.60 (0.55‐0.66) | <.001 | 0.67 (0.60‐0.75) | <.001 | 0.65 (0.57‐0.74) | <.001 |
| CT | 0.41 (0.38‐0.44) | <.001 | 0.44 (0.40‐0.48) | <.001 | 0.41 (0.37‐0.46) | <.001 | 0.44 (0.39‐0.50) | <.001 |
| Surgery + CT | 0.26 (0.24‐0.29) | <.001 | 0.29 (0.26‐0.33) | <.001 | 0.32 (0.28‐0.36) | <.001 | 0.33 (0.29‐0.39) | <.001 |
Abbreviations: AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; CSS, cancer‐specific survival; CT, chemotherapy; Grade I, well differentiated; Grade II, moderately differentiated; Grade III, poorly differentiated; Grade IV, undifferentiated; OS, overall survival.
Model was adjusted by sex, age, marital status, histological type, grade, AJCC stage, and treatment pattern.
Model was adjusted by age, marital status, histological type, grade, AJCC stage, and treatment pattern.
Figure 2.
Overall survival and cancer‐specific survival curves of advanced gallbladder cancer patients. A, Overall survival; B, Cancer‐specific survival
To better characterize the influence of treatment pattern on OS and CSS in patients with advanced GBC, we performed AJCC stage stratification on all patient parameters on the basis of multivariate analysis. We found that the treatment pattern was also an independent risk factor for patients with AJCC stage III and AJCC stage IV (Table 4). “Surgery,” “CT,” and “Surgery + CT” improve the AJCC stage III and AJCC stage IV patient OS and CSS. In particular, “Surgery + CT” could significantly improve OS and CSS in both AJCC stage III (HR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.22‐0.60, P < .001) and AJCC stage IV (HR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.29‐0.39, P < .001) groups (Figure 3).
Table 4.
Multivariate analysis of OS and CSS rates in AJCC stage III and stage IV before propensity score matching
| Characteristic | AJCC stage III (n = 288) | AJCC stage IV (n = 4239) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OSa | CSSb | OSc | CSSd | |||||
| Hazard ratio (95% CI) | P value | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | P value | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | P value | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | P value | |
| Sex | ||||||||
| Female | Reference | |||||||
| Male | — | .108 | ||||||
| Age at diagnosis | ||||||||
| <60 y | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||
| 60‐80 y | 1.10 (0.79‐1.54) | .574 | 0.97 (0.63‐1.49) | .877 | 1.22 (1.13‐1.32) | <.001 | 1.20 (1.08‐1.34) | .001 |
| >80 y | 1.99 (1.28‐3.07) | .002 | 1.92 (1.09‐3.35) | .023 | 1.54 (1.39‐1.70) | <.001 | 1.59 (1.38‐1.84) | <.001 |
| Race | ||||||||
| Non‐Hispanic White | ||||||||
| Non‐Hispanic Black | ||||||||
| Hispanic | ||||||||
| Others | ||||||||
| Marital status | ||||||||
| Married | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Divorced/separated | — | .264 | — | .916 | — | .240 | 1.17 (1.02‐1.34) | .030 |
| Windowed | — | .473 | — | .006 | — | .596 | 1.14 (1.02‐1.28) | .025 |
| Single | — | .913 | — | .750 | — | .228 | 1.15 (1.01‐1.31) | .037 |
| Histological type | ||||||||
| Adenocarcinoma | Reference | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 1.80 (1.07‐3.05) | .028 | — | .029 | 1.30 (1.04‐1.62) | .021 | ||
| Others | 0.65 (0.40‐1.05) | .076 | — | .607 | 0.84 (0.75‐0.94) | .003 | ||
| Grade | ||||||||
| Grade I | Reference | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Grade II | 1.18 (0.64‐2.16) | .598 | 1.26 (1.04‐1.53) | .018 | 1.24 (0.97‐1.59) | .090 | ||
| Grade III | 1.80 (0.99‐3.27) | .053 | 1.71 (1.42‐2.07) | <.001 | 1.69 (1.33‐2.15) | <.001 | ||
| Grade IV | 1.30 (0.49‐3.48) | .602 | 1.59 (1.19‐2.14) | .002 | 1.83 (1.26‐2.66) | .002 | ||
| Unknown | 1.05 (0.56‐1.95) | .888 | 1.51 (1.25‐1.83) | <.001 | 1.40 (1.10‐1.79) | .007 | ||
| Treatment pattern | ||||||||
| No surgery/No CT | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Surgery | 0.69 (0.48‐1.01) | .058 | 0.72 (0.44‐1.16) | .171 | 0.60 (0.54‐0.66) | <.001 | 0.64 (0.56‐0.74) | <.001 |
| CT | 0.58 (0.39‐0.87) | .008 | 0.51 (0.29‐0.90) | .019 | 0.43 (0.40‐0.47) | <.001 | 0.44 (0.39‐0.49) | <.001 |
| Surgery + CT | 0.32 (0.21‐0.48) | <.001 | 0.36 (0.22‐0.60) | <.001 | 0.29 (0.26‐0.33) | <.001 | 0.33 (0.29‐0.39) | <.001 |
Abbreviations: AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; CSS, cancer‐specific survival; CT, chemotherapy; Grade I, well differentiated; Grade II, moderately differentiated; Grade III, poorly differentiated; Grade IV, undifferentiated; OS, overall survival.
Model was adjusted by age, marital status, grade, and treatment pattern.
Model was adjusted by age, marital status, histological type, and treatment pattern.
Model was adjusted by sex, age, marital status, histological type, grade, and treatment pattern.
Model was adjusted by age, marital status, histological type, grade, and treatment pattern.
Figure 3.
Overall survival and cancer‐specific survival curves of advanced gallbladder cancer patients according to different American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage. A and B, Overall survival and cancer‐specific survival of AJCC stage III patients; C and D, Overall survival and cancer‐specific survival of AJCC stage IV patients
3.4. Identification of prognostic factors of OS and CSS in 1:1 PSM sample
To better balance the patients with AJCC stage III or AJCC stage IV GBC, we performed a 1:1 PSM for variables such as diagnosis age, race, marital status, tumor grade, and treatment pattern to decrease the selection bias and further examine the relationship between treatment patterns and OS and CSS, as assessed with the Cox regression model.
First, we performed univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis of all patients after PSM, and found that only diagnosis age and treatment pattern were independent risk factors (Table S1). “Surgery + CT” significantly improved the OS (vs “No surgery/No CT”; HR = 0.28, 95% CI 0.21‐0.37, P < .001) and CSS (vs “No surgery/No CT”; HR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.22‐0.43, P < .001) (Figure S1).
Moreover, we performed AJCC stage stratification on patient parameters after PSM on the basis of multivariate analysis. We found that the treatment pattern was also an independent risk factor for AJCC stage IV patients (Table S2), and “Surgery + CT” significantly improved the OS (vs “No surgery/No CT”; HR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.15‐0.35, P < .001) and CSS (vs “No surgery/No CT”; HR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.19‐0.52, P < .001) of AJCC stage IV patients after PSM (Figure S2).
4. DISCUSSION
Currently, the treatment of patients with advanced GBC remains controversial. Radical surgical resection is the only possible cure treatment for patients with GBC. However, most patients with GBC are at an advanced stage at the time of discovery, thus limiting the opportunity for radical resection; even in the moderate stage, the prognosis of patients undergoing radical resection is highly unsatisfactory. Therefore, clinicians have been exploring the application and combination of adjuvant treatments, including RT, CT, and other treatments, to improve the prognosis of patients with GBC.
Radical surgical resection remains the most important treatment for improving the survival rate of patients with GBC.13 Surgeons have long been pessimistic about the treatment of advanced GBC. In recent years, owing to the development of GBC radical surgery, the long‐term survival rate has significantly improved. Nakamura et al14 have reported that in 33 GBC patients with Nevin V stage, 13 patients underwent extended radical resection, and the 1‐year and 3‐year survival rates were 46% and 23%, respectively, whereas the 1‐year survival rate of 20 patients without resection was only 15%. Matsumoto et al15 reported that the average survival time of 15 patients undergoing extended radical resection was 26 months, whereas that of patients who did not undergo resection was only 10 months.
Patients in stage IV are generally considered unable to undergo surgical resection,1 but many clinical studies have supported more aggressive surgical treatment of patients with advanced GBC.16, 17 Kang's17 study has shown that radical surgery in stage IV GBC patients can prolong survival time. Christina et al18 have further confirmed this conclusion, suggesting that radical surgery can be performed in stage IV patients as long as the lesion is local and can reach the R0 margin. Studies from Japan also suggest that if the tumor is relatively limited and strictly screened, even if the lesion is large and has invaded adjacent organs, stage IV patients are expected to achieve long‐term survive after radical resection.19, 20, 21, 22 However, increased surgical complications and mortality have hampered the adoption of these radical surgical approaches as a standard treatment for GBC.23 Similarly, big data research from Japan does not support radical surgical resection in patients in stage IV, and some studies have indicated that radical surgery does not improve prognosis in patients in stage IV.24, 25
According to the 7th edition of AJCC guidelines, patients with stage T4 are usually considered unresectable and should be treated with palliative care.26 Groot et al27 have suggested that patients with stage T4 GBC are unlikely to benefit from surgical resection. However, there is currently no consensus regarding the factors indicating unresectable advanced GBC.28 Recent reports have shown that radical resection and arteriotomy in advanced GBC, or enlarged right trifoliate resection and hepatopancreatic duodenectomy (HPD) can improve patient prognosis.29, 30 Nishio et al31 have suggested that radical resection also has value for GBC invading the extrahepatic bile duct also. Anil et al32 have indicated that even duodenal infiltration of GBC does not indicate that surgical removal is impossible. Our study also shows that the surgery improves OS and CSS in patients with AJCC stage III or AJCC stage IV GBC.
Although surgical radical resection of the GBC is currently extensively performed, the rate of radical resection is only 25%‐30%. After radical resection, nearly half of patients still have a risk of recurrence of GBC. Therefore, to decrease the postoperative recurrence of GBC patients and improve the prognosis of patients with advanced disease, some patients are given CT treatment. At present, gemcitabine combined with oxaliplatin (GEMOX) or cisplatin and tegafur combined with oxaliplatin (SOX) are widely used and recognized as effective chemotherapy regimens for GBC patients.33, 34
In this large population‐based study, we used the SEER database to analyze the best treatment options for patients with advanced GBC. Through univariate and multivariate Cox survival regression analysis, in all patients, AJCC stage III patients and AJCC stage IV patients, we found that the “Surgery + CT” treatment significantly increase the OS (vs “No surgery/No CT”; HR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.26‐0.33, P < .001) and CSS (vs “No surgery/No CT”; HR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.29‐0.39, P < .001). The results of 1:1 PSM analysis also showed that the “Surgery + CT” treatment significantly decreased the risk of death in patients with advanced GBC. In addition, the proportion of patients with “Surgery + CT” remained relatively stable over the past 12 years, and “Surgery + CT” may not currently be fully utilized. The combination of surgery and CT may improve the survival rate of patients with advanced GBC.
This study has several limitations. First, it was a retrospective study and thus had clear inherent limitations. Second, the SEER database lacked information about the physical condition and complications of patients, and older patients may be more likely to choose conservative treatment. In addition, the sequence of surgery and CT, as well as the specific regimen of CT was unknown. Nonetheless, the study remains convincing given the large demographics.
5. CONCLUSIONS
We found that the “Surgery + CT” treatment model provided greater survival benefits for patients with advanced GBC. Because this was a retrospective analysis, further prospective studies are needed to provide verification.
AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS
WM, FD, and XS designed the research. WM, FD, and DW performed the research and analyzed results. WM and DW wrote the paper. WM, LG, and XS edited the manuscript and provided critical comments. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS
DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
We declare that there is no conflict of interest between authors.
RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN PARTICIPANTS AND/OR ANIMALS
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Supporting information
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful for the invaluable support and useful discussions with other members of the general surgery department.
Mao W, Deng F, Wang D, Gao L, Shi X. Treatment of advanced gallbladder cancer: A SEER‐based study. Cancer Med. 2020;9:141–150. 10.1002/cam4.2679
Weipu Mao, Fang Deng, Dongyan Wang are contributed equally.
REFERENCES
- 1. Hundal R, Shaffer EA. Gallbladder cancer: epidemiology and outcome. Clin Epidemiol. 2014;6:99‐109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Lee M‐H, Gao Y‐T, Huang Y‐H, et al. A metallomic approach to assess associations of serum metal levels with gallstones and gallbladder cancer. Hepatology. 2019;1:2174–2183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal AC. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:7‐34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Zhong Y, Wu X, Li Q, et al. Long noncoding RNAs as potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets in gallbladder cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Cancer Cell Int. 2019;19:169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Shen H, He M, Lin R, et al. PLEK2 promotes gallbladder cancer invasion and metastasis through EGFR/CCL2 pathway. J Exp Clin Canc Res. 2019;38:247–260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Wistuba II, Gazdar AF. Gallbladder cancer: lessons from a rare tumour. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:695‐706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Park JO, Oh D‐Y, Hsu C, et al. Gemcitabine plus cisplatin for advanced biliary tract cancer: a systematic review. Cancer Res Treat. 2015;47:343‐361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Wang J, Narang AK, Sugar EA, et al. Evaluation of adjuvant radiation therapy for resected gallbladder carcinoma: a multi‐institutional experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(Suppl 3):1100‐1106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Aloia TA, Járufe N, Javle M, et al. Gallbladder cancer: expert consensus statement. HPB (Oxford). 2015;17:681‐690. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:E359‐E386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Shindoh J, de Aretxabala X, Aloia TA, et al. Tumor location is a strong predictor of tumor progression and survival in T2 gallbladder cancer an international multicenter study. Ann Surg. 2015;261:733‐739. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Mao W, Zhang Z, Huang X, Fan J, Geng J. Marital status and survival in patients with penile cancer. J Cancer. 2019;10:2661‐2669. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Fong Y, Jarnagin W, Blumgart LH. Gallbladder cancer: comparison of patients presenting initially for definitive operation with those presenting after prior noncurative intervention. Ann Surg. 2000;232:557‐569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Nakamura S, Sakaguchi S, Suzuki S, Muro H. Aggressive surgery for carcinoma of the gallbladder. Surgery. 1989;106:467‐473. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Matsumoto Y, Fujii H, Aoyama H, Yamamoto M, Sugahara K, Suda K. Surgical treatment of primary carcinoma of the gallbladder based on the histologic analysis of 48 surgical specimens. Am J Surg. 1992;163:239‐245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Shimizu H, Kimura F, Yoshidome H, et al. Aggressive surgical approach for stage IV gallbladder carcinoma based on Japanese Society of Biliary Surgery classification. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2007;14:358‐365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Kang MJ, Song Y, Jang JY, Han IW, Kim SW. Role of radical surgery in patients with stage IV gallbladder cancer. HPB (Oxford). 2012;14:805‐811. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Koh CY, Demirjian AN, Chen WP, McLaren CE, Imagawa DK. Validation of revised American Joint Committee on Cancer staging for gallbladder cancer based on a single institution experience. Am Surg. 2013;79:1045‐1049. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Kondo S, Nimura Y, Kamiya J, et al. Five‐year survivors after aggressive surgery for stage IV gallbladder cancer. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2001;8:511‐517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Lim CS, Jang JY, Lee SE, Kang MJ, Kim SW. Reappraisal of hepatopancreatoduodenectomy as a treatment modality for bile duct and gallbladder cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:1012‐1018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Sakamoto Y, Nara S, Kishi Y, et al. Is extended hemihepatectomy plus pancreaticoduodenectomy justified for advanced bile duct cancer and gallbladder cancer? Surgery. 2013;153:794‐800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Kai M, Chijiiwa K, Ohuchida J, Nagano M, Hiyoshi M, Kondo K. A curative resection improves the postoperative survival rate even in patients with advanced gallbladder carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:1025‐1032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. D'Angelica M, Dalal KM, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, Blumgart LH, Jarnagin WR. Analysis of the extent of resection for adenocarcinoma of the gallbladder. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:806‐816. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Kayahara M, Nagakawa T. Recent trends of gallbladder cancer in Japan: an analysis of 4770 patients. Cancer. 2007;110:572‐580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Ercan M, Bostanci EB, Cakir T, et al. The rationality of resectional surgery and palliative interventions in the management of patients with gallbladder cancer. Am Surg. 2015;81:591‐599. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Miller G, Jarnagin WR. Gallbladder carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:306‐312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Groot Koerkamp B, Fong Y. Outcomes in biliary malignancy. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110:585‐591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Miyazaki M, Yoshitomi H, Miyakawa S, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers 2015: the 2nd English edition. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2015;22:249‐273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Lim H, Seo DW, Park DH, et al. Prognostic factors in patients with gallbladder cancer after surgical resection: analysis of 279 operated patients. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2013;47:443‐448. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Scoazec JY, Couvelard A, TENpath R. The new WHO classification of digestive neuroendocrine tumors. Ann Pathol. 2011;31:88‐92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Nishio H, Ebata T, Yokoyama Y, Igami T, Sugawara G, Nagino M. Gallbladder cancer involving the extrahepatic bile duct is worthy of resection. Ann Surg. 2011;253:953‐960. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Agarwal AK, Mandal S, Singh S, Sakhuja P, Puri S. Gallbladder cancer with duodenal infiltration: Is it still resectable? J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:1722‐1727. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Malik IA, Aziz Z, Zaidi SHM, Sethuraman G. Gemcitabine and cisplatin is a highly effective combination chemotherapy in patients with advanced cancer of the gallbladder. Am J Clin Oncol. 2003;26:174‐177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Komaki H, Onizuka Y, Mihara K, Seita M, Maeda M, Nakamura S. [Successful treatment with tegafur and PSK in a patient with gallbladder cancer]. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 1988;15:2801‐2804. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials