Gallbladder Cancer — Incidental Re-resection, T2 Nodal Doctrine, BILCAP Adjuvant and Jaundice Arithmetic

Definition and framing — the commonest biliary cancer, found late

Gallbladder cancer is the most common malignancy of the biliary tract, and its danger is delay: most early disease is found incidentally by the pathologist after cholecystectomy for presumed benign disease, while symptomatic presentation is usually advanced and unresectable.^[33] Resection is the only curative treatment, and cure belongs to early non-locally-advanced stages — which is why every step below exists to separate resectable from systemic disease.^[12] The global guideline spine is new: the first international Delphi consensus drew experts from 17 countries across 6 continents, agreed 92.6% of 68 clinical questions, and standardised terminology for early, incidental and advanced management, radical-resection definitions, liver-resection extent, nodal dissection, and borderline-resectable disease.^[1] Behind it sit the evidence-graded Japanese biliary-tract guideline (31 clinical questions across prophylaxis, diagnosis, drainage, surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy)^[3] and the NCCN hepatobiliary framework, whose standing instruction is multidisciplinary evaluation to set strategy.^[4]

Epidemiology — gallstones dominate, geography decides

By GLOBOCAN 2018, gallbladder cancer is 1.2% of global cancer diagnoses but 1.7% of cancer deaths; only 1 in 5 US cases is caught early, and advanced median survival is about a year.^[6] In the United States the disease is uncommon — around 5,000 cases yearly — but concentrates in North and South American Indians, women, older patients, chronic gallbladder inflammation and congenital biliary anomalies.^[5] The worldwide peaks are stark: women in Delhi 21.5 per 100,000, South Karachi 13.8, Quito 12.9, with female-to-male ratios near 3.^[7] Gallstones are the dominant cause with pooled relative risk 4.9; obesity, multiparity, Salmonella typhi and paratyphi (RR 4.8) and Helicobacter bilis and pylori (RR 4.3) are the consistent companions.^[7] The northern-India gallstone-matched case-control study adds modifiable texture: age 50 or older, illiteracy, poverty-level status, infrequent bowel habit and unsafe tap or hand-pump water carry the risk, with multiparity significant in women — poor bowel habit and unsafe water the headline modifiable risks.^[10]

Incidental prediction — the cancer hiding in benign lists

About 50 per cent of all gallbladder cancers are incidental: systematic review puts incidental cancer at 0.36% of laparoscopic cholecystectomies (range 0.19 to 1.6 per cent).^[9] The pooled predictors across 788,214 cholecystectomies are advancing age (OR 1.09), female gender (OR 1.91), elevated alkaline phosphatase (OR 1.68) and polyp over 10 mm (OR 8.63).^[8] The operational rule: radiological suspicion goes promptly to a tertiary hepatobiliary unit, because most incidentals referred late prove inoperable — and complex gallbladder disease earns MDT review with the surgeon's intraoperative assessment plus frozen section to de-escalate unnecessary radical surgery.^[32][25]

Polyps — the 10 mm line and the morphology rules

Both rulebooks meet at 10 mm: the joint European guideline recommends cholecystectomy above 10 mm with below-10 mm management by patient and polyp characteristics, and the AHPBA consensus supports resecting every polyp over 1.0 cm (plus vascular-stalked lesions).^[53][2] The evidence-fitted cutoff is exactly 10 mm with malignancy probability near zero under 4.15 mm; age over 50, sessile shape and solitary number are the independent risk factors, confirmed multivariately as age 57 or older with size 10 mm or larger.^[52][54] SRU morphology refines the call: thin-stalked or pedunculated polyps are extremely low risk, thick-stalked pedunculated low risk, sessile low risk — with immediate specialist referral when cancer features show — while multiplicity and vascularity change nothing and follow-up follows morphology alone.^[50] Head-to-head in 135 resected polyps 7 mm or larger, SRU gave sensitivity 62% with specificity 90% (AUROC 0.76) against the joint European approach at sensitivity 90% with specificity 41% (AUROC 0.66) — specificity versus sensitivity is the explicit trade.^[51] Adopting SRU in practice leaves most polyps alone: in Waikato's 251 patients with 407 polyps (96.3% under 10 mm), 88.4% required no follow-up.^[55]

Diagnosis and imaging — ultrasound opens, CT stages, MRI maps

There are no specific clinical or serological markers, so imaging carries the diagnosis.^[11] Ultrasound is the initial test of choice for risk-stratifying wall thickening and polypoidal lesions; CT is the staging test of choice across lesion, liver, nodes, peritoneum and distant sites; MRI with MRCP delineates biliary involvement; PET stages selected cases.^[11] Expect asymmetric wall thickening, polyps over 1.0 cm, or a solid mass replacing the lumen in localized disease — and work to establish the lesion's origin, because large infiltrative tumours confuse gallbladder against liver or bile-duct primary.^[12] Respect the nodal blind spot: CT sensitivity for nodal metastases spans 0.25 to 0.93, MRI summarises at sensitivity 0.75 with specificity 0.83, and nodes under 10 mm are the most frequently missed — negative imaging never excludes nodal disease.^[13]

Staging — AJCC 8th, six nodes, and what nodes cost

Stage with the 8th edition: in 240 curative-intent resections, moving from 7th to 8th upstaged 3.33% from IIIB to IVB and down-staged 5% the other way, with reclassified survival tracking the new stage.^[14] Dissect to count: guidelines require at least 6 nodes from portal lymphadenectomy in T1b or higher disease for staging and prognostication — yet a specialist centre met that bar in only 20% of cases, with concomitant liver resection the independent predictor of higher yield.^[2][15] Nodes decide prognosis: across 214 resected patients, nodal metastasis raised death risk (HR 1.87) and recurrence (HR 2.28), and the 11,502-patient meta-analysis ranks advanced T stage (HR 3.09), nodal metastasis (HR 2.78), poor differentiation (HR 3.22), positive margin (HR 2.90) and hepatic-side location (HR 1.85).^[16][17]

T1 disease — mucosa stays simple, muscularis goes back

T1a (mucosal) disease is cured by simple cholecystectomy; T1b (muscularis) disease is not — all five locoregional failures in the early-cancer series were pT1b tumours treated by simple cholecystectomy, so T1b requires extended resection.^[18] Any T1b, T2 or T3 cancer found incidentally in the specimen returns for re-resection unless advanced disease or poor fitness forbids it, with bile-duct resection only to secure a negative margin.^[2] When cancer is suspected but unproven at operation, frozen section is a safe arbiter: it matched final histopathology in every case and directed radical surgery in a quarter of sampled patients, at the price of doubled operating time.^[25]

T2 surgery — dissect nodes, debate liver, ignore technique fashion

Primary resection of T1b to T2 disease includes en bloc adjacent liver parenchyma by consensus — but the matched data question how much liver matters.^[2] Propensity-matched T2 extended cholecystectomy with versus without liver resection (100 against 50) showed 5-year disease-free survival 82.7% against 77.9% with no difference in either T2a or T2b subgroups; nodal metastasis (HR 4.80) and perineural invasion (HR 2.61) drove recurrence while liver resection did not (HR 0.68).^[19] The multicentre T1b/T2 analysis agrees: nodal resection improved overall and disease-free survival while liver resection moved neither endpoint — and extended nodal dissection without liver resection has held 5-year disease-specific survival at 97% for T2 disease.^[20][21] When liver is resected, the randomised comparison settles the technique: anatomic segment 4b/5 against wedge (163 randomised intraoperatively) cost longer surgery (318 against 287 minutes) and more blood loss (265 against 223 mL) for identical morbidity, mortality, R0 rates, disease-free survival (HR 0.8) and overall survival (HR 0.6) — the resection type does not move oncology.^[22]

Incidental cancer — re-resect, mind residual disease, fear T2b done badly

Incidental disease wants radical completion: liver bed plus regional nodes is the best examined option.^[33] The Dutch registry (463 incidental cancers, 110 re-resected at median 66 days) gives the headline: median overall survival 52.6 months with re-resection against 13.7 without; residual disease in 35% (nodes 23%); survival not reached without residual disease against 23.1 months with it; liver residual HR 5.54 and nodal residual HR 2.35 the only multivariable prognostic factors.^[26] Sweden concurs nationally (249 patients, 92 re-resected): disease-specific survival 12.4 to 44.1 months for pT2 and 9.7 to 23.0 for pT3 with re-resection, with residual disease in 53% of re-resected pT2.^[27] The American database adds the adjuvant interaction across 6,825 pT2/T3 resections: extended resection with adjuvant therapy (23.3 months) beats simple resection with adjuvant therapy (16.4 months), which beats either operation alone (12.4 and 10.7 months).^[29] Two timing cautions: delayed staging at 3 months selected half of referred pT2-T3 patients to radical resection with 54.8 against 9.7 months survival — biology declares itself — and the T2b trap is real, with index cholecystectomy before oncologic surgery leaving 3-year survival at 31% against 85% for single planned radical surgery (hepatic-side HR 2.9, N1 HR 2.4).^[30][28] The older single-centre series still frames the principle: radical resection median survival not reached against 17 months for simple cholecystectomy in T2/T3 disease, with re-resected incidentals matching primarily resected cases.^[31]

Radical resection and nodal extent — how far, with what return

The rational lymphadenectomy covers first- and second-echelon nodes: in 152 patients with 3,352 nodes (median 19), node-negative 5-year survival reached 80% with median unreached, while node-positive patients still achieved 43% at 5 years with median 37 months — a substantial minority of node-positive patients gain years from aggressive dissection.^[23] The extended-radical series (52 patients) reports 65% overall survival at 5 years and 53% at 10, with nodal disease in 47% of T2 or higher tumours.^[24] N2 disease is the fence: confirmed N2 metastases get systemic or palliative treatment, not radical resection.^[2]

Adjuvant therapy — BILCAP standard with real-world static

BILCAP randomised 447 resected biliary-tract cancers to capecitabine (1250 mg per square metre twice daily, days 1 to 14 of a 21-day cycle, eight cycles) or observation.^[34] Intention-to-treat median overall survival read 51.1 against 36.4 months (adjusted HR 0.81, P = 0.097), with the protocol-specified adjusted analysis at HR 0.71 (P = 0.010) and per-protocol 53 against 36 months (HR 0.75, P = 0.028); recurrence-free survival 24.4 against 17.5 months; grade 3 toxicity in 44% with hand-foot syndrome in 20%.^[34] Long-term follow-up at median 106 months holds the line: overall survival 49.6 against 36.1 months (adjusted HR 0.84) with fully adjusted HR 0.74 — capecitabine as the standard of care after resected disease.^[35] Two counterweights keep the viva honest. GECCOR-GB randomised 90 resected gallbladder cancers to gemcitabine-cisplatin or capecitabine-based chemoradiation in a pick-the-winner phase 2: 1-year disease-free survival 88.9% against 77.8% — a signal to test further, not a standard to change.^[36] And the French BILCAP-Real cohort (320 patients, weighted analysis) found no significant recurrence-free (HR 0.81, P = 0.304) or overall survival (HR 0.94, P = 0.798) advantage, with dose reductions in 49% and discontinuation in 35.7% — real-world tolerance tempers trial efficacy, and the UK CAPBIL matched analysis likewise found no adjuvant survival benefit.^[37][58]

Advanced disease — GEMCIS numbers inside a Cochrane fence

Unresectable gallbladder cancer takes gemcitabine plus cisplatin (cisplatin 25 mg per square metre with gemcitabine 1000 mg per square metre on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks): across 173 patients, disease control 59.5% with overall survival 8.1 months and progression-free survival 5.6 months; liver metastases (HR 1.63), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio 3 or higher (HR 1.65), CEA 5 or higher (HR 1.50) and CA19-9 500 or higher (HR 1.59) independently worsened survival.^[38] Quote those numbers inside their fence: the Cochrane set holds only 7 randomised trials with 600 participants, all at high risk of bias and very-low-quality evidence.^[39] For the immunotherapy era, cisplatin-gemcitabine-durvalumab is standard first-line advanced biliary-tract therapy — but the 513-patient real-world genomic analysis found no gene alteration linked to outcomes in the gallbladder-cancer subgroup, so no GBC-specific genomic selection claim survives.^[40]

Jaundice — resectability collapses, access decides, drainage costs

Jaundice is the strongest bedside predictor of inoperability: across 400 surgically managed patients (108 jaundiced), curative-intent resection fell from 75% to 30%, and post-resection median survival from 32 to 14 months — with low CA19-9 under 50 (40 against 12 months) and absent lymphovascular invasion (40 against 14 months) marking the jaundiced patients who still gain years.^[41] In high-incidence North India (1,409 evaluable), curative surgery was feasible in 7.9% with obstructive jaundice against 29.1% without (RR 0.27), and jaundice predicted treatment non-initiation with adjusted odds 11.2 alongside metastases, rural residence and illiteracy.^[42] Palliation by percutaneous drainage buys patency at a price: in 60 prospective patients, 68% suffered at least one complication, 30% more than one, 53% needed reintervention, quality of life fell significantly, and median survival was 12 weeks — technical success without quality-of-life gain.^[43]

Operative approach — laparoscopy in its lane, robotics on the scoreboard

The port-site fear is historical: 14% port-site metastases at 7 months after laparoscopy with similar numbers after open surgery — abdominal-wall recurrence is not laparoscopy-specific.^[44] In early (stage 0/I) disease, laparoscopic cholecystectomy showed no port-site recurrences with 87.1% 5-year survival and no difference against open surgery; laparoscopic radical cholecystectomy matched open surgery on morbidity, mortality and nodal yield (median 10 nodes) with no port-site recurrences; and the Seoul expert consensus finds no survival decrement for early-stage disease with definitive resection.^[45][46][47] The modern scoreboard is textbook outcome: 30.7% of 667 T1b-T3 resections across 41 hospitals, no different between open and minimally invasive — with robotics independently raising textbook outcome (OR 4.297), clearing 6 or more nodes more often than laparoscopy, and converting less; textbook outcome itself halved mortality (HR 0.506).^[48] For incidental re-resection, approach is scenery: minimally invasive matched open surgery at 64.3% cancer-specific and 55.8% recurrence-free survival at 5 years, with T stage 3 or higher, nodal positivity, perineural or lymphovascular invasion and residual disease — not the incision — deciding prognosis.^[49]

Selection and the older adult — who not to operate, who not to refuse

Up-front surgery is futile in about one in seven: across 788 patients at 18 centres, 13.6% recurred within 5 months or died within 90 days with median survival 6.8 against 57.4 months — driven by T3-T4 stage (OR 2.20), nodal involvement (OR 1.91) and multivisceral resection (OR 2.25), while incidental diagnosis protected (OR 0.41).^[57] Age alone is not the veto: among 3,676 resected patients, age 75 or older carried poorer overall survival (HR 1.31 to 1.34) with no excess complications and no recurrence-free difference — fit older adults keep curative intent, noting they already receive less extensive surgery and less adjuvant therapy in practice.^[56] State the examined limits and stop: NCCN numbers in this set are HCC-weighted and carry no gallbladder claim; molecular and nomogram slices carry no management claim; and confirmed N2 disease takes systemic or palliative care.^[4][2]

Revision summary

Gallbladder cancer is uncommon but lethal geography-dependent disease — gallstones (RR 4.9) first, half of cases incidental (0.36% of laparoscopic cholecystectomies), polyps over 10 mm resected, ultrasound first with CT staging and MRI mapping bile, nodes under 10 mm missed so six nodes harvested.^{[7][9][53][11][13][15]} Mucosa stays simple while muscularis and beyond go radical: T1b needs extended resection, T2 needs nodal dissection with liver resection debated and technique irrelevant (segment 4b/5 equals wedge), incidental T1b-T3 returns for re-resection with residual disease (35%, nodes commonest) deciding survival — except T2b after index cholecystectomy, which loses badly.^{[18][19][22][26][28]} Capecitabine after resection is standard (BILCAP 51.1 against 36.4 months, long-term HR 0.74 fully adjusted) with real-world static acknowledged; unresectable disease takes gemcitabine-cisplatin (8.1 months) inside a very-low-quality fence; jaundice quarters resectability and percutaneous drainage costs quality of life; laparoscopy is safe early, robotics leads textbook outcomes, and futility arithmetic — not age — selects who avoids up-front surgery.^{[34][35][38][39][41][43][44][48][57][56]}

pooled RR 4.9 (95% CI 3.3-7.4) for gallstones — the strongest risk factor — with obesity, multiparity, Salmonella typhi/paratyphi (RR 4.8) and Helicobacter bilis/pylori (RR 4.3) as consistent associations (PMID 16397865).^[7] in suspected cancer, frozen section matched final histopathology in all cases and directed radical surgery in 25% of those sampled, at the cost of doubled operating time — a safe de-escalation tool, not a substitute for MDT selection (PMID 34689332).^[25] lymph-node resection improved OS and DFS; liver resection changed neither OS (68.2 vs 78.5 mo P=0.72) nor DFS (PMID 40287299); extended LND without liver resection held 5-year disease-specific survival 97.1% for T2 (PMID 31769244).^[21] Quote GEMCIS in unresectable GBC (173 pts, cisplatin 25 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 days 1+8 q3w): disease control 59.5%, OS 8.1 months, PFS 5.6 months; liver metastases HR 1.63, NLR ≥3 HR 1.65, CEA ≥5 HR 1.50, CA19-9 ≥500 HR 1.59 (PMID 30611225).^[28]

References58ShowHide

1. [1]Palepu J, Endo I, Chaudhari VA, et al. 'IHPBA-APHPBA clinical practice guidelines': international Delphi consensus recommendations for gallbladder cancer. HPB (Oxford), 2024.PMID 39191539
2. [2]Aloia TA, Járufe N, Javle M, et al. Gallbladder cancer: expert consensus statement. HPB (Oxford), 2015.PMID 26172135
3. [3]Nagino M, Hirano S, Yoshitomi H, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers 2019: The 3rd English edition. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci, 2021.PMID 33259690
4. [4]Benson AB, D'Angelica MI, Abbott DE, et al. Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2021.PMID 34030131
5. [5]Stinton LM, Shaffer EA Epidemiology of gallbladder disease: cholelithiasis and cancer. Gut Liver, 2012.PMID 22570746
6. [6]Rawla P, Sunkara T, Thandra KC, et al. Epidemiology of gallbladder cancer. Clin Exp Hepatol, 2019.PMID 31501784
7. [7]Randi G, Franceschi S, La Vecchia C Gallbladder cancer worldwide: geographical distribution and risk factors. Int J Cancer, 2006.PMID 16397865
8. [8]Ramamoorthy T, Kulothungan V, Vijayakumar S, et al. Risk Factors and Clinical Predictors Associated with Incidental Gallbladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Gastrointest Cancer, 2025.PMID 41460407
9. [9]Kellil T, Chaouch MA, Aloui E, et al. Incidence and Preoperative Predictor Factors of Gallbladder Cancer Before Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: a Systematic Review. J Gastrointest Cancer, 2021.PMID 32964323
10. [10]Mishra K, Behari A, Shukla P, et al. Risk factors for gallbladder cancer development in northern India: A gallstones-matched, case-control study. Indian J Med Res, 2021.PMID 35532588
11. [11]Rana P, Kalage D, Soundararajan R, et al. Update on the Role of Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging, and Prognostication of Gallbladder Cancer. Indian J Radiol Imaging, 2025.PMID 40297115
12. [12]Lopes Vendrami C, Magnetta MJ, Mittal PK, et al. Gallbladder Carcinoma and Its Differential Diagnosis at MRI: What Radiologists Should Know. Radiographics, 2021.PMID 33306452
13. [13]de Savornin Lohman EAJ, de Bitter TJJ, van Laarhoven CJHM, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI for the detection of lymph node metastases in gallbladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol, 2019.PMID 30599854
14. [14]Gupta S, Verma A, Chaturvedi A, et al. Comparison of Prognostic Performance of 8th and 7th Edition of AJCC Staging System for Patients With Gallbladder Cancer Undergoing Curative Intent Surgery. J Surg Oncol, 2025.PMID 39257217
15. [15]Leigh NL, Solomon D, Feingold D, et al. Staging gallbladder cancer with lymphadenectomy: the practical application of new AHPBA and AJCC guidelines. HPB (Oxford), 2019.PMID 31010632
16. [16]Amini N, Kim Y, Wilson A, et al. Prognostic Implications of Lymph Node Status for Patients With Gallbladder Cancer: A Multi-Institutional Study. Ann Surg Oncol, 2016.PMID 27150440
17. [17]Lv TR, Wang JK, Li FY, et al. Prognostic factors for resected cases with gallbladder carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg, 2024.PMID 38537060
18. [18]Wagholikar GD, Behari A, Krishnani N, et al. Early gallbladder cancer. J Am Coll Surg, 2002.PMID 11848630
19. [19]Park Y, Lee JS, Lee B, et al. Prognostic Effect of Liver Resection in Extended Cholecystectomy for T2 Gallbladder Cancer Revisited: A Retrospective Cohort Study With Propensity Score-matched Analysis. Ann Surg, 2023.PMID 37218510
20. [20]Gao Q, Li YC, You YN, et al. Prognostic analysis of lymph node resection and liver resection for T1b and T2 gallbladder cancer: a multi-center retrospective study. HPB (Oxford), 2025.PMID 40287299
21. [21]Chong JU, Lee WJ Oncologic Outcomes of Extended Lymphadenectomy without Liver Resection for T1/T2 Gallbladder Cancer. Yonsei Med J, 2019.PMID 31769244
22. [22]Singh S, Aggarwal A, Goel S, et al. Segment 4b/5 Versus Wedge Resection for Gallbladder Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg, 2026.PMID 40996213
23. [23]Shirai Y, Wakai T, Sakata J, et al. Regional lymphadenectomy for gallbladder cancer: rational extent, technical details, and patient outcomes. World J Gastroenterol, 2012.PMID 22719185
24. [24]Shirai Y, Sakata J, Wakai T, et al. "Extended" radical cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer: long-term outcomes, indications and limitations. World J Gastroenterol, 2012.PMID 23002343
25. [25]Chan BKY, Carrion-Alvarez L, Telfer R, et al. Surgical management of suspected gallbladder cancer: The role of intraoperative frozen section for diagnostic confirmation. J Surg Oncol, 2022.PMID 34689332
26. [26]de Savornin Lohman EAJ, van der Geest LG, de Bitter TJJ, et al. Re-resection in Incidental Gallbladder Cancer: Survival and the Incidence of Residual Disease. Ann Surg Oncol, 2020.PMID 31741109
27. [27]Lundgren L, Muszynska C, Ros A, et al. Management of incidental gallbladder cancer in a national cohort. Br J Surg, 2019.PMID 31259388
28. [28]Vega EA, Vinuela E, Okuno M, et al. Incidental versus non-incidental gallbladder cancer: index cholecystectomy before oncologic re-resection negatively impacts survival in T2b tumors. HPB (Oxford), 2019.PMID 30711243
29. [29]Kasumova GG, Tabatabaie O, Najarian RM, et al. Surgical Management of Gallbladder Cancer: Simple Versus Extended Cholecystectomy and the Role of Adjuvant Therapy. Ann Surg, 2017.PMID 28692469
30. [30]Ausania F, Tsirlis T, White SA, et al. Incidental pT2-T3 gallbladder cancer after a cholecystectomy: outcome of staging at 3 months prior to a radical resection. HPB (Oxford), 2013.PMID 23458168
31. [31]Foster JM, Hoshi H, Gibbs JF, et al. Gallbladder cancer: Defining the indications for primary radical resection and radical re-resection. Ann Surg Oncol, 2007.PMID 17103074
32. [32]Yip VS, Gomez D, Brown S, et al. Management of incidental and suspicious gallbladder cancer: focus on early referral to a tertiary centre. HPB (Oxford), 2014.PMID 24279377
33. [33]Feo CF, Ginesu GC, Fancellu A, et al. Current management of incidental gallbladder cancer: A review. Int J Surg, 2022.PMID 35074510
34. [34]Primrose JN, Fox RP, Palmer DH, et al. Capecitabine compared with observation in resected biliary tract cancer (BILCAP): a randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol, 2019.PMID 30922733
35. [35]Bridgewater J, Fletcher P, Palmer DH, et al. Long-Term Outcomes and Exploratory Analyses of the Randomized Phase III BILCAP Study. J Clin Oncol, 2022.PMID 35316080
36. [36]Ostwal V, Patkar S, Engineer R, et al. Adjuvant Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin and Chemoradiation in Patients With Gallbladder Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol, 2024.PMID 38958997
37. [37]Noé C, Henriques J, Chanez B, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine in resected biliary tract cancer: a real-world data from the BILCAP-Real study (ACABi multicentre cohort). JHEP Rep, 2026.PMID 42520930
38. [38]You MS, Ryu JK, Choi YH, et al. Therapeutic outcomes and prognostic factors in unresectable gallbladder cancer treated with gemcitabine plus cisplatin. BMC Cancer, 2019.PMID 30611225
39. [39]Abdel-Rahman O, Elsayed Z, Elhalawani H Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract carcinomas. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2018.PMID 29624208
40. [40]Rimini M, Fornaro L, Lo Prinzi F, et al. The impact of molecular alterations in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer receiving cisplatin, gemcitabine, and durvalumab: a large, real-life, worldwide population. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2025.PMID 40608977
41. [41]Tran TB, Norton JA, Ethun CG, et al. Gallbladder Cancer Presenting with Jaundice: Uniformly Fatal or Still Potentially Curable? J Gastrointest Surg, 2017.PMID 28497252
42. [42]Vineet K, Tripathi M, Vadodaria DR, et al. Impact of Obstructive Jaundice and Socioeconomic Determinants on Outcomes in Gallbladder Cancer: A Prospective Cohort Study. J Gastrointest Cancer, 2026.PMID 41617936
43. [43]Subramani VN, Avudaiappan M, Yadav TD, et al. Outcome Following Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD) in Carcinoma Gallbladder: A Prospective Observational Study. J Gastrointest Cancer, 2022.PMID 34173180
44. [44]Paolucci V Port site recurrences after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg, 2001.PMID 11956905
45. [45]Chan KM, Yeh TS, Jan YY, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for early gallbladder carcinoma: long-term outcome in comparison with conventional open cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc, 2006.PMID 17031747
46. [46]Agarwal AK, Javed A, Kalayarasan R, et al. Minimally invasive versus the conventional open surgical approach of a radical cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer: a retrospective comparative study. HPB (Oxford), 2015.PMID 25727091
47. [47]Han HS, Yoon YS, Agarwal AK, et al. Laparoscopic Surgery for Gallbladder Cancer: An Expert Consensus Statement. Dig Surg, 2019.PMID 29339660
48. [48]Cremona S, Ielpo B, di Martino M, et al. Textbook Outcomes and Minimally Invasive Techniques in Resectable Gallbladder Cancer: A Global Cohort Study. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2025.PMID 40913941
49. [49]De Rose AM, Panettieri E, Taliente F, et al. From open to minimally invasive: evolving surgical approach for incidental gallbladder cancer (with video). Surg Endosc, 2025.PMID 40854995
50. [50]Knight J, Kamaya A, Fetzer D, et al. Management of incidentally detected gallbladder polyps: a review of clinical scenarios using the 2022 SRU gallbladder polyp consensus guidelines. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2024.PMID 38411693
51. [51]Nanda BP, Moloney BM, Gershon A, et al. Resected gallbladder polyps: comparison of the 2022 Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound and Joint European Societies Guidelines' diagnostic performance. Eur Radiol, 2026.PMID 40711552
52. [52]Bhatt NR, Gillis A, Smoothey CO, et al. Evidence based management of polyps of the gall bladder: A systematic review of the risk factors of malignancy. Surgeon, 2016.PMID 26825588
53. [53]Wiles R, Thoeni RF, Barbu ST, et al. Management and follow-up of gallbladder polyps : Joint guidelines between the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), European Association for Endoscopic Surgery and other Interventional Techniques (EAES), International Society of Digestive Surgery - European Federation (EFISDS) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Eur Radiol, 2017.PMID 28185005
54. [54]Park JK, Yoon YB, Kim YT, et al. Management strategies for gallbladder polyps: is it possible to predict malignant gallbladder polyps? Gut Liver, 2008.PMID 20485616
55. [55]Jeans M, Dragh M, Necas M, et al. Size and Morphology of Ultrasound Detected Gallbladder Polyps and the Surveillance Implications of Adopting the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Recommendations: A Waikato Experience. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol, 2025.PMID 40146883
56. [56]Balakrishnan A, Barmpounakis P, Demiris N, et al. Perioperative outcomes and long-term survival following resection of gallbladder cancer in older adults: retrospective study. BJS Open, 2026.PMID 42536426
57. [57]Serenari M, Berti D, Rivera B, et al. Optimizing Outcomes in Gallbladder Cancer: Identifying Predictors of Futile Up-Front Surgery in a Global Multi-center Study. Ann Surg Oncol, 2025.PMID 40050485
58. [58]McClements J, Lee WT, Lucocq J, et al. Surgical outcomes in gallbladder cancer: evidence from the UK nationwide CAPBIL study. HPB (Oxford), 2026.PMID 42399203