ArticleScientific reports2026
Association of surgical extent with survival in locally advanced gallbladder cancer based on propensity score matching.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The treatment for locally advanced gallbladder cancer (GBC) remains controversial, particularly regarding the extent of surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the association between surgical extent and survival outcomes in patients with locally advanced GBC. Patients with locally advanced GBC were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional hazards models, competing-risk models, and landmark analyses. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimize confounding, and subgroup analyses were conducted across key clinicopathological variables. Patients in the surgery group had better OS and CSS than those in the non-surgery group (median OS, 16.0 versus 9.0 months; median CSS, 17.0 versus 10.0 months; both P < 0.001), particularly when combined with multimodal therapy. Among surgically treated patients, 388 (19.8%) received radical resection (RR), while 1567 (80.2%) underwent simple resection (SR). RR was associated with improved OS and CSS compared with SR (median OS, 19.0 versus 15.0 months; median CSS, 21.0 versus 16.0 months; both P < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, RR remained independently associated with improved OS and CSS. The survival benefit of RR remained robust in 1- and 3-year landmark analyses. These results remained consistent after PSM and in competing-risk models. Subgroup analyses demonstrated consistent survival benefits from RR across various clinicopathological variables. These findings suggest that surgical intervention is associated with a survival advantage and that RR could be considered an important component of curative-intent treatment for selected patients with locally advanced GBC.
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.