Method for adequate macroscopic gallbladder examination after cholecystectomy

Safety and cost of selective histopathological analysis for detecting cancer in surgical specimens: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Due to limited healthcare resources, there is global incentive to maximize efficacy while minimizing patient harm. Given the low rate of cancer diagnoses made via routine histopathological analysis of surgical specimens, a selective approach has been proposed as a viable alternative. This systematic review aimed to evaluate effectiveness of cancer detection and costs with a selective approach.

METHODOLOGY

This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022346535) and conducted according to PRISMA 2020 and MOOSE guidelines. Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed were searched from earliest result (1973) to 30 July 2022 for studies evaluating selective histopathology for surgical specimens. Screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were completed in duplicate. Statistical analysis used a random effects model.

RESULTS

Searches identified 4194 records, with 11 studies included consisting of 26 126 patients. Eight studies analysed patients who underwent cholecystectomy while three analysed patients who underwent appendectomy, vertical laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and neurectomy. In total, 295 neoplasms were detected: 196 malignant, 99 benign. Overall mean proportion of malignant neoplasms is 0.01 (95% confidence interval 0.00, 0.01). Weighted mean projected cost savings were calculated in varying formats, ranging from 6891 Euros per year within one hospital, 712 748 Euros per 10 000 patients, to 875 077 Euros per year within one country.

CONCLUSION

A selective approach is not associated with a significant proportion of missed cancer diagnoses, and provides considerable cost savings, particularly demonstrated for cholecystectomy samples. Further discussion is required regarding how surgeons will be protected medicolegally without the safety net of routine analysis.

Is systematic histological examination of the cholecystectomy specimen always necessary?

INTRODUCTION

The histological examination (HE) of all cholecystectomy specimens removed for cholelithiasis is a widespread practice to rule out unrecognized gallbladder cancer. (GBC). But this dogmatic practice has been called into question by recent published data. The aim of this literature review was to answer two questions: (1) can HE be omitted in specific cases; (2) under what conditions is a selective strategy indicated?

METHODS

A review of the literature was carried out that included selected multicenter studies, registry studies, or meta-analyses. A reliable technique for the surgeon's macroscopic examination of the specimen would allow the selection of dubious cases for HE. The cost-effectiveness of selective HE was discussed. The PICO methodology (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) was used in the selection of articles that compared routine and selective histological examination.

RESULTS

If cases from countries with a high prevalence of gallbladder cancer are excluded and in the absence of high-risk situations (advanced age, female gender, calcified or porcelain gallbladder, acute cholecystitis, polyps, abnormalities noted intra-operatively), the macroscopic examination of the gallbladder in the operating room has a reliability approaching 100% in the majority of published studies. This would make it possible to omit systematic HE without compromising the diagnosis and prognosis of patients with unsuspected GBC and with a very favorable cost-effectiveness ratio.

CONCLUSION

Through a selection of patients at very low risk of incidentally-discovered cancer and a routine macroscopic examination of the opened gallbladder, the strategy of selective HE could prove useful in both clinical and economic terms.

A Dutch prediction tool to assess the risk of incidental gallbladder cancers after cholecystectomies for benign gallstone disease

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing implementation of selective histopathologic policies for post-cholecystectomy evaluation of gallbladder specimens in low-incidence countries, the fear of missing incidental gallbladder cancer (GBC) persists. This study aimed to develop a diagnostic prediction model for selecting gallbladders that require additional histopathological examination after cholecystectomy.

METHODS

A registration-based retrospective cohort study of nine Dutch hospitals was conducted between January 2004 and December 2014. Data were collected using a secure linkage of three patient databases, and potential clinical predictors of gallbladder cancer were selected. The prediction model was validated internally by using bootstrapping. Its discriminative capacity and accuracy were tested by assessing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), Nagelkerke's pseudo-R², and Brier score.

RESULTS

Using a cohort of 22,025 gallbladders, including 75 GBC cases, a prediction model with the following variables was developed: age, sex, urgency, type of surgery, and indication for surgery. After correction for optimism, Nagelkerke's R² and Brier score were 0.32 and 88%, respectively, indicating a moderate model fit. The AUC was 90.3% (95% confidence interval, 86.2%-94.4%), indicating good discriminative ability.

CONCLUSION

We developed a good clinical prediction model for selecting gallbladder specimens for histopathologic examination after cholecystectomy to rule out GBC.

Safety and economic analysis of selective histopathology following cholecystectomy: multicentre, prospective, cross-sectional FANCY study

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing debate concerning the necessity of routine histopathological examination following cholecystectomy. In order to reduce the pathology workload and save costs, a selective approach has been suggested, but evidence regarding its oncological safety is lacking.

METHODS

In this multicentre, prospective, cross-sectional study, all gallbladders removed for gallstone disease or cholecystitis were systematically examined by the surgeon for macroscopic abnormalities indicative of malignancy. Before sending all specimens to the pathologist, the surgeon judged whether histopathological examination was indicated. The main outcomes were the number of patients with hypothetically missed malignancy with clinical consequences (upper limit two-sided 95 per cent c.i. below 3:1000 considered oncologically safe) and potential cost savings of selective histopathological examination.

RESULTS

Twenty-two (2.19:1000) of 10 041 specimens exhibited malignancy with clinical consequences. In case of a selective policy, surgeons would have held back 7846 of 10041 (78.1 per cent) gallbladders from histopathological examination. Malignancy with clinical consequences would have been missed in seven of 7846 patients (0.89:1000, upper limit 95% c.i. 1.40:1000). No patient benefitted from the clinical consequences, while two were harmed (futile additional surgery). Of 15 patients in whom malignancy with clinical consequences would have been diagnosed, one benefitted (residual disease radically removed), two potentially benefitted (palliative systemic therapy), and four experienced harm (futile additional surgery). Estimated cost savings established by replacing routine for selective histopathological examination were €703 500 per 10 000 patients.

CONCLUSION

Selective histopathological examination following cholecystectomy is oncologically safe and could reduce pathology workload, costs, and futile re-resections.