Advertisement

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 686–689 | Cite as

Dysplasia in Gallbladder: What Should We Do?

  • Rehan RaisEmail author
  • Iván González
  • Deyali Chatterjee
2018 SSAT Poster Presentation

Abstract

Introduction

On occasional cholecystectomies, pathologists encounter incidental dysplasia in the gallbladder mucosa in the sections submitted per protocol for histologic examination. If dysplasia is identified, additional sections are taken and/or the gallbladder is entirely submitted to rule out underlying adenocarcinoma. The aim of our study was to assess the incidence of subsequent identification of invasive adenocarcinoma on additional sections, after an incidentally detected dysplasia was noted on a routine cholecystectomy section. We also aimed to study the significance of the incidental detection of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma, as well as showing the association of gallbladder dysplasia to synchronous or metachronous dysplasia/neoplasia in the biliary tract.

Material and Methods

Our study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. We retrospectively identified 41 consecutive cases of routine cholecystectomies from 1991 to 2017, which had no clinical suspicion of neoplasia, and did not have any identifiable mass lesion, but on histopathologic analysis, had neoplasia (adenocarcinoma in 4 cases, and dysplasia in 37 cases). The pathologies of all cases were reviewed, and the diagnosis and grade of dysplasia were confirmed. The clinical information was obtained from the electronic medical records.

Results

Of the 37 cases with dysplasia, 10 (27%) had high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and the remaining showed low-grade dysplasia (LGD). All 4 cases of adenocarcinoma had some gross abnormalities (such as porcelain gallbladder, or ruptured, thickened, and roughened walls, or a granular mucosa). In contrast, none of the 37 cases with dysplasia had any gross abnormality. In 24 (of 37) cases of dysplasia, additional sections were submitted (median 8; ranging from 2 to 29), and in 11 cases, the gallbladder was entirely submitted. None of these cases showed any additional pathologic finding on the extra sections. Interestingly, 7 cases with dysplasia (18.9%; 6 LGD and 1 HGD) were associated with a concomitant pancreatobiliary malignancy. For the remaining 30 cases, follow-up information was available in 16 cases (53.3%) with a mean follow-up of 76.5 months (ranging from 12 to 204 months). None of these showed any subsequent development of pancreatobiliary neoplasms.

Conclusion

Incidentally detected gallbladder dysplasia in a cholecystectomy specimen, without any gross abnormality, has almost no risk of a hidden invasive carcinoma. Although cholecystectomy is sufficient treatment for gallbladder dysplasia, in our study cohort, 18.9% of cases with incidental dysplasia in gallbladder had an associated pancreatobiliary carcinoma, which supports the hypothesis of multifocal neoplastic potential in the pancreatobiliary tree (also known as field effect). Although follow-up on 16 cases shows no subsequent development of any other pancreatobiliary neoplasm, this number is probably not enough to rule out a serial imaging follow-up of patients who have reported dysplasia in their gallbladder, to assess for subsequent development of neoplasia elsewhere in the pancreaticobiliary tree.

Keywords

Gallbladder Incidental dysplasia Hepatobiliary malignancies Follow-up 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Albores-Saavedra J, Henson DE, Klimstra DS. In: Rosai J, ed. Tumors of the Gallbladder, Extrahepatic Bile Ducts and Ampulla of Vater. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wrenn SM, Callas PW, Abu-Jaish W. Histopathological examination of specimen following cholecystectomy: Are we accepting resect and discard?. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(2):586–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sasatomi E, Tokunaga O, Miyazaki K. Precancerous conditions of gallbladder carcinoma: overview of histopathologic characteristics and molecular genetic findings. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2000;7:556–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fairweather M, Balachandran VP, D'Angelica MI. Surgical management of biliary tract cancers. Chin Clin Oncol. 2016;5(5):63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Argon A, Barbet FY, Nart D. The Relationship Between Intracholecystic Papillary-Tubular Neoplasms and Invasive Carcinoma of the Gallbladder. Int J Surg Pathol. 2016;24(6):504–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duarte I, Llanos O, Domke H, Harz C, Valdivieso V. Metaplasia and precursor lesions of gallbladder carcinoma. Frequency, distribution, and probability of detection in routine histologic samples. Cancer. 1993;72(6):1878–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dowling GP, Kelly JK. The histogenesis of adenocarcinoma of the gallbladder. Cancer 1986; 58:1702–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bivins BA, Meeker WR Jr, Weiss DL. Carcinoma in situ of the gallbladder: a dilemma. South Med J. 1975;68:297–300.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hartman Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Submitting the entire gallbladder in cases of dysplasia is not justified. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;138(3):374–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee SE, Jang JY, Lim CS, Kang MJ, Kim SW. Systematic review on the surgical treatment for T1 gallbladder cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17(2):174–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benoist S, Panis Y, Fagniez PL. Long-term results after curative resection for carcinoma of the gallbladder. French University Association for Surgical Research. Am J Surg 1998; 175: 118–122Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    You DD, Lee HG, Paik KY, Heo JS, Choi SH, Choi DW. What is an adequate extent of resection for T1 gallbladder cancers?. Ann Surg 2008; 247: 835–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ogura Y, Mizumoto R, Isaji S, Kusuda T, Matsuda S, Tabata M. Radical operations for carcinoma of the gallbladder: present status in Japan. World J Surg 1991; 15: 337–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pathology and ImmunologyWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations