Comparison of incidental and preoperative diagnosed gallbladder cancer

BACKGROUND: Gallbladder cancers are extremely rare, but carry high risk for mortality with poor diagnosis. Unfortunately, late diagnosis remains the major obstacle for successful treatment, due to anatomical variations and location, and uncertain and nonspecific symptoms. In this present study, we aimed to evaluate clinical features and follow-up results of the patients, diagnosed for gallbladder cancer incidentally and received surgeries with cancer suspicion preoperatively. METHODS: All patients underwent surgical procedures and diagnosed preoperatively with gallbladder cancer between 2010-2020 in Lutfi Kirdar State Hospital were included in this study. Data was collected retrospectively from patient files. End point information, regarding patients’ status was received from cases and family members via phone calls. Two groups were randomized. group A; patients diagnosed incidentally, and group B; patients diagnosed preoperatively. Demographic data, diagnostic methods, status for incidentality, surgical methods, postoperatively early results, pathological findings and late survival results were analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-six patients diagnosed for gallbladder cancer is included in our study. About 78.3% (N.=36) of cases were female. Mean age was 70.6±13.2. Twenty-seven (58.7%) patients were in group A and 19 (41.3%) in group B. There was no statistical significance between groups regarding, age, gender and follow-up times. There was statistical significance in group A regarding gallbladder stones, whereas acalculeous Wall thickening was detected in group B. There was statistical significance between two groups according to 5-year survival prediction and survival rates. CONCLUSIONS: Gallbladder cancers are extremely rare, but carry high risk for mortality with poor diagnosis. These cancers are most frequently diagnosed during gallstone work-up incidentally. it was shown that the difference in survival between the groups was directly related to the stage of the patients in the groups, thus the survival of the patients in the same stages was similar in both groups. There were important limitations in our study. We believe that the most important of which is that the mortality of the patients reflects the general mortality due to the fact that our study was a retrospective study. Further studies are required to make a detailed analysis.