Published online Aug 15, 2023. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v15.i8.1436
Peer-review started: March 25, 2023
First decision: May 22, 2023
Revised: June 3, 2023
Accepted: June 19, 2023
Article in press: June 19, 2023
Published online: August 15, 2023
Processing time: 138 Days and 4.6 Hours
Gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) is the most common biliary tract cancer worldwide and the sixth most common gastrointestinal tumor. GBC is widely regarded as a highly aggressive malignancy with a poor overall 5-year survival rate of less than 5% and median overall survival (OS) of only six months. The biological features, clinical manifestations, and prognoses are obviously different in various histological subtypes of GBC. Gallbladder mucinous adenocarcinoma (MAC) (GBMAC) is an uncommon subtype of gallbladder adenocarcinoma (GBAC) and has unique clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis.
Due to the rarity of GBMAC, there are few large randomized clinical studies of GBMAC, and characterization of clinicopathological features, prognosis, and clinical risk factors have been limited to individual case reports or small retrospective series. With limited understanding, clinical practices in typical GBAC are also applied to GBMAC. However, GBMAC has distinct histologic, clinical, and molecular features, thus making a differential approach necessary. The clinical prognosis of GBMAC compared to typical GBAC remains unknown.
We performed a retrospective analysis to investigate clinicopathologic characteristics, prognostic factors, and treatment outcomes for GBMAC by comparing GBMAC patients and typical GBAC patients using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.
This retrospective study was conducted using data from the SEER database. Cases of GBMAC and typical GBAC diagnosed between January 2010 and December 2017 were included in this study. Finally, 187 GBMAC patients and 4524 typical GBAC were included in the study. To analyze the prognostic factors of GBMAC, the clinicopathological features and OS of these GBMAC patients were compared with a large cohort of typical GBAC patients. The Pearson chi-square test or Fisher exact test was used to examine the differences between these two cohorts. In addition, a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the differences and biases between the GBMAC and typical GBAC groups. The PSM model was based on race, marital status, radiotherapy status, and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage. The baseline characteristics of the GBMAC and typical GBAC were also determined in the matched data. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze associations of different variables with OS and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Only variables significantly associated with survival in the univariate Cox analysis were included in the multivariate Cox analysis. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and the univariate and multivariate Cox analyses were applied to the whole and matched data set. Moreover, the Kaplan-Meier method was used to establish the survival curves, and the log-rank test was used to assess any significant differences in OS and CSS stratified by histology before and after PSM. The univariable survival analysis applied the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test to identify statistically significant covariates associated with CSS. Statistical analyses were performed using the R software (version 4.1.2).
In our study, compared with typical GBAC, GBMAC was significantly associated with unmarried status, advanced AJCC stage, higher T stage, higher N1 stage rate, and lower N0 and N2 stage rates. After PSM analysis, there were no significant differences in the characteristics between these two groups. After univariate and multivariate analyses, only surgery, chemotherapy, and AJCC stage IV were independent risk factors for OS of GBMAC patients. Similar results were observed in multivariate analysis of CSS. Surgery, chemotherapy, and AJCC stage III and IV were independent prognostic indicators for CSS of GBMAC patients. As for OS and CSS, there was no significant difference between GBMAC and typical GBAC patients in the whole cohort. In the PSM cohort, patients with GBMAC also had similar OS and CSS to matched typical GBAC patients.
Compared with typical GBAC, GBMAC showed different demographical and clinicopathological features with aggressive biological behaviors. The OS and CSS were not worse for patients with GBMAC than those with typical GBAC. Furthermore, we explored the correlation between various variables and the survival time of GBMAC patients. Finally, three prognostic predictors for GBMAC patients were identified, including surgery status, chemotherapy status, and AJCC stage.
A further prospective study with large sample size and more comprehensive prognostic information is desired to verify our findings.