ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2025
Extended versus simple cholecystectomy in stage I gallbladder cancer: a SEER-based competing risk analysis with external validation.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal surgical strategy for early-stage gallbladder cancer (GBC) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the long-term survival outcomes of simple cholecystectomy (SC) and extended cholecystectomy (EC) in patients with stage I GBC.
methodsPatients diagnosed with stage I GBC between 2010 and 2015 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and categorized into SC and EC groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses, propensity score matching (PSM), and competing risk models were applied. Competing risk nomograms were subsequently constructed and externally validated.
resultsA total of 902 patients were included, along with 33 patients from Hangzhou TCM Hospital as the external validation cohort. After 1:1 PSM, the EC group demonstrated lower cancer-specific death (CSD) rates at 1, 3, and 5 years compared with the SC group (1-year: 6.43% vs. 11.5%; 3-year: 12.5% vs. 24.4%; 5-year: 15.3% vs. 28.9%; P = 0.002). Subgroup analyses indicated that SC was associated with increased CSD in patients with T1b disease, grade II-IV tumors, and adenocarcinoma. Nomograms incorporating grade, T stage, tumor size, and chemotherapy accurately predicted individualized 1-, 3-, and 5-year CSD probabilities. The models exhibited strong discriminative ability (AUC values) and good calibration performance.
conclusionsCompeting risk analysis suggested that EC should be recommended for patients with T1b GBC, whereas SC alone may be sufficient for T1a disease. The proposed nomograms demonstrated robust predictive performance and may aid clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.