Analysis of neoadjuvant therapy effect on 30-day postoperative outcomes in gallbladder cancer

IF 1.4 Q3 SURGERY Surgery open science Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.sopen.2024.08.001
{"title":"Analysis of neoadjuvant therapy effect on 30-day postoperative outcomes in gallbladder cancer","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.sopen.2024.08.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The role of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in gallbladder cancer (GBC) is not well established. We sought to evaluate the effect of NAT on postoperative outcomes following surgical resection of GBC. We hypothesized that patients receiving NAT would have similar rates of 30-day mortality, readmission, and postoperative complications (e.g. bile leakage and liver failure) compared to those who did not receive NAT.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The 2014–2017 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Procedure-Targeted Hepatectomy database was queried for patients that underwent surgery for GBC. Propensity scores were calculated to match patients in a 1:2 ratio based on age, comorbidities, functional status, and tumor staging.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 37 patients undergoing NAT were matched to 74 patients without NAT. There was no difference in any matched characteristics. Compared to the NAT group, the no NAT cohort had similar rates of postoperative bile leakage (NAT 13.5 % vs. no NAT 10.8 %, <em>p</em> = 0.31), postoperative liver failure (5.4 %, vs. 8.1 %, <em>p</em> = 0.60), 30-day readmission (10.8 % vs. 10.8 %, <em>p</em> = 1.00), and 30-day mortality (10.8 % vs. 2.7 %, <em>p</em> = 0.075). All 30-day complications were similar except for a higher rate of postoperative blood transfusion (NAT 32.4 % vs. no NAT 10.8 %, <em>p</em> = 0.005).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In patients undergoing surgical resection for GBC, those with and without NAT had similar rates of readmission and 30-day mortality, however NAT was associated with an increased risk for transfusion. Despite use of a large national database, this study may be underpowered to adequately assess the effect of NAT on perioperative GBC outcomes and thus warrants further investigation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74892,"journal":{"name":"Surgery open science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845024001118/pdfft?md5=9aa8a8ec2d9b1d9f6e321b27db3ed5ec&pid=1-s2.0-S2589845024001118-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery open science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845024001118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The role of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in gallbladder cancer (GBC) is not well established. We sought to evaluate the effect of NAT on postoperative outcomes following surgical resection of GBC. We hypothesized that patients receiving NAT would have similar rates of 30-day mortality, readmission, and postoperative complications (e.g. bile leakage and liver failure) compared to those who did not receive NAT.

Methods

The 2014–2017 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Procedure-Targeted Hepatectomy database was queried for patients that underwent surgery for GBC. Propensity scores were calculated to match patients in a 1:2 ratio based on age, comorbidities, functional status, and tumor staging.

Results

A total of 37 patients undergoing NAT were matched to 74 patients without NAT. There was no difference in any matched characteristics. Compared to the NAT group, the no NAT cohort had similar rates of postoperative bile leakage (NAT 13.5 % vs. no NAT 10.8 %, p = 0.31), postoperative liver failure (5.4 %, vs. 8.1 %, p = 0.60), 30-day readmission (10.8 % vs. 10.8 %, p = 1.00), and 30-day mortality (10.8 % vs. 2.7 %, p = 0.075). All 30-day complications were similar except for a higher rate of postoperative blood transfusion (NAT 32.4 % vs. no NAT 10.8 %, p = 0.005).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing surgical resection for GBC, those with and without NAT had similar rates of readmission and 30-day mortality, however NAT was associated with an increased risk for transfusion. Despite use of a large national database, this study may be underpowered to adequately assess the effect of NAT on perioperative GBC outcomes and thus warrants further investigation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新辅助治疗对胆囊癌术后 30 天预后的影响分析
背景新辅助治疗(NAT)在胆囊癌(GBC)中的作用尚未明确。我们试图评估 NAT 对 GBC 手术切除术后预后的影响。我们假设,与未接受 NAT 治疗的患者相比,接受 NAT 治疗的患者的 30 天死亡率、再入院率和术后并发症(如胆汁渗漏和肝功能衰竭)发生率相似。方法查询 2014-2017 年美国外科学院国家外科质量改进计划(ACS-NSQIP)手术目标肝切除术数据库,以了解接受 GBC 手术治疗的患者情况。根据年龄、合并症、功能状态和肿瘤分期,计算倾向得分,以 1:2 的比例匹配患者。配对特征无差异。与 NAT 组相比,无 NAT 组的术后胆汁渗漏率(NAT 13.5% vs. 无 NAT 10.8%,p = 0.31)、术后肝功能衰竭率(5.4% vs. 8.1%,p = 0.60)、30 天再入院率(10.8% vs. 10.8%,p = 1.00)和 30 天死亡率(10.8% vs. 2.7%,p = 0.075)相似。除了术后输血率较高(NAT 32.4% vs. 无 NAT 10.8%,p = 0.005)外,所有 30 天并发症的发生率相似。尽管该研究使用了一个大型国家数据库,但它可能不足以充分评估 NAT 对 GBC 围手术期结果的影响,因此值得进一步研究。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
66 days
期刊最新文献
Analysis of neoadjuvant therapy effect on 30-day postoperative outcomes in gallbladder cancer The application of ERAS in the perioperative period management of patients for lung transplantation Could virtual reality be a solution in surgical trainings in resource-restricted settings? A perspective Appendectomy: Cross-sectional study of the effects of COVID-19 in a hospital in South Brazil Surgical skill analysis focused on tissue traction in laparoscopic wet lab training
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1