Adverse Outcomes After Bile Spillage in Incidental Gallbladder Cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of bile spillage during cholecystectomy on oncological outcomes in incidental gallbladder cancers. BACKGROUND: Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is rare, but lethal. Achieving complete resection offers the best chance of survival. About 30% of GBCs are discovered incidentally after cholecystectomy for benign pathology. There is an anecdotal association between peritoneal dissemination and bile spillage during the index cholecystectomy. However, no population-based studies are available that measure the consequences of bile spillage on patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort comparison of patients with incidental GBC. All cholecystectomies and cases of GBC in Alberta, Canada, from 2001 to 2015, were identified. GBCs discovered incidentally were included. Operative events leading to bile spillage were reviewed. Patient outcomes were compared between cases of bile spillage versus no contamination. RESULTS: In all, 115,484 cholecystectomies were performed, and a detailed analysis was possible in 82 incidental GBC cases. In 55 cases (67%), there was bile spillage during the index cholecystectomy. Peritoneal carcinomatosis occurred more frequently in those with bile spillage (24% vs 4%; P = 0.0287). Patients with bile spillage were less likely to undergo a radical re-resection (25% vs 56%; P = 0.0131) and were less likely to achieve an R0 resection margin [odds ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06-0.55]. On Cox regression modeling, bile spillage was an independent predictor of shorter disease-free survival (hazard ratio 1.99, 95% CI 1.07-3.67). CONCLUSION: For incidentally discovered GBC, bile spillage at the time of index cholecystectomy has measureable adverse consequences on patient outcomes. Early involvement of a hepatobiliary specialist is recommended where concerning features for GBC exist.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".