Indian Journal of Cancer
Home  ICS  Feedback Subscribe Top cited articles Login 
Users Online :2247
Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Navigate here
Resource links
 »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »  Article in PDF (241 KB)
 »  Citation Manager
 »  Access Statistics
 »  Reader Comments
 »  Email Alert *
 »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
 »  References

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded237    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal


  Table of Contents  
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 57  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 2-3

Should every cholecystectomy specimen be sent for histopathology to identify incidental gall bladder cancer?

1 Consultant HPB and GI Surgical Oncologist, P D Hinduja Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2 Fellow in HPB and Liver Transplant Surgery, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom

Date of Submission20-Nov-2019
Date of Decision23-Nov-2019
Date of Acceptance04-Jan-2020
Date of Web Publication26-Feb-2020

Correspondence Address:
Ganesh Nagarajan
Consultant HPB and GI Surgical Oncologist, P D Hinduja Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_1027_19

Rights and Permissions

Keywords: Gall bladder cancer, laparoscopic cholecystectomy

How to cite this article:
Nagarajan G, Kundalia K. Should every cholecystectomy specimen be sent for histopathology to identify incidental gall bladder cancer?. Indian J Cancer 2020;57:2-3

How to cite this URL:
Nagarajan G, Kundalia K. Should every cholecystectomy specimen be sent for histopathology to identify incidental gall bladder cancer?. Indian J Cancer [serial online] 2020 [cited 2022 Oct 4];57:2-3. Available from:

Gall bladder cancer (GBC) is the fifth most common gastrointestinal cancer. It is a common cancer in India especially in the Northern belt with a reported incidence of 7–10 per 100,000[1] in some areas unlike the Western world where the incidence is to the tune of 1.2 per 100,000.[2] GBC is known to have an extremely poor prognosis with overall 5-year survival across all stages being about 5%.[3]

Among all cases of gall bladder cancer, the only ones with a good chance of long-term survival are the early-stage cancers. In pT2 cases, the overall survival jumps from 20% to 70% with a radical re-surgery. Hence, it is of paramount importance that all early-stage GBC receive the optimal surgery to give them the best chance at long-term survival.

It is interesting to note that many cases of gall bladder cancer are seen to have concomitant gall stone disease.[4],[5] Most published literature on the subject report a concomitant presence of gall stones in 60-70% of all cases of GBC. In all such cases, the gall bladder is seen on ultrasound to have a thickened wall, which may not be too different as compared to chronic cholecystitis on ultrasound or even cross-sectional imaging.

It is uncommon for surgeons in India to carry out a CT scan or MRI for a gall stone disease.

Hence, many early gall bladder cancers may be missed on ultrasound, which is purely operator dependent and passed off as chronic cholecystitis with gall stone disease. In fact, even during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, it would be very difficult for the surgeon to identify a T1 OR T2 disease. Many studies have looked at the incidence of incidental gall bladder cancer, which is defined as a 'pathological surprise' finding of a gall bladder cancer in a cholecystectomy specimen. According to Cavallaro et al., only 30% of GBC cases are suspected preoperatively in early cases and the other 70% are detected incidentally by the pathologist on the cholecystectomy specimen performed for benign conditions like gall stones, cholecystitis and polyps.[6]

The overall incidence of incidental GBC in reported literature varies from 0.3–3%. With the increasing use of ultrasound in urban and rural settings, the incidence of incidental GBC is only going to see an increasing trend. Indian studies have also reported similar rates of incidental GBC. In a country like India, where patient follow-up is erratic and stringent data maintenance is a rarity, the reported incidental GBC may be just the tip of the iceberg, especially in semiurban or rural settings.[4],[7]

In an interesting publication by Agarwal et al.,[7] they compared outcomes of those Incidental GBCs who were promptly referred as the histopathology reporting was done for the cholecystectomy specimens to those who came in late after manifestations of symptoms of the GBC as routine histopathology was not done. The R0 resectability rate was 69.9% among those who presented early while it was a dismal 7.8% among those who presented late. This emphasizes the role of histopathological examination of the routine cholecystectomy specimens for the detection of incidental GBC.

Incidental gall bladder cancer is an entity that clearly cannot be taken lightly. According to a study published by the MSKCC group,[2] 47% of their GBCs were incidentally detected at laparoscopic cholecystectomy.[2] Most of these incidental GBCs are early-stage diseases and are the T1 and T2 GBCs who have the best chance of long term survival with a 5-year overall survival upwards of 70%.[8]

It is hence of paramount importance that every specimen of cholecystectomy is examined by a pathologist. The Royal College of Pathologist guidelines clearly states the need for routine histopathology examination of all cholecystectomy specimens.[7]

Any irregular area must be sectioned and examined for the presence of cancer.

Identification of a focus of cancer facilitates prompt referral to a specialized center for revision radical cholecystectomy, which involves complete portal lymphadenectomy, excision of a 2 cm liver wedge or segment 4B-5 resection as per the requirement and a revision of the cystic duct stump.

There have been some suggestions to avoid routine histopathology examination of all cholecystectomy specimens for cholelithiasis.[9],[10] This edition of the Indian Journal of Cancer carries a interesting article by Yadav et al. eluding to the same issue of whether or not all cholecystectomy specimens should be sent for histopathology.[11] They have concluded that only gall bladder specimens with a macroscopic lesion should be sent for histopathology.

While these studies may justify their recommendation because of the low rate of incidental gall bladder cancer associated with cholelithiasis, it seems to be highly unfair to the small percentage of patients who would miss a good chance of curative surgery and cure. Some of these papers are from western centers that have a very aware patient population and well-established follow up systems. Systems like the NHS can analyze the total costs saved or the person-hours saved by not performing routine histopathology examination of the cholecystectomy specimens as the state pays for the costs. The system in India is much more complex with most of the work done in the private sector and patients being less likely to follow-up as there is no centralization.

Moreover, in today's era of litigations, would we be able to justify missing an early GBC and a more than 70% chance of cure just because we want to save the cost of histopathology which would amount to about INR 4,000–5,000 ($50–70) in most centers. If some centers want to make it a policy to avoid routine histopathology for cholecystectomy specimens, they may want to consider taking the consent of the patient accordingly.

In a study, which looked at incidental GBC, they found that only 30% had an irregular thickening on preoperative ultrasound and only 55% had macroscopic features suggestive of a malignancy. That means about 45% of patients will be missed if routine histopathology is not performed.[4] The paper by Yadav et al. in this edition has suggested a gross examination by a pathologist and performing a microscopic examination only if found suspicious. I wonder how many pathologists would want to sign out a report with only a gross examination!

Patients from northern India where gall bladder cancer is endemic are settled or travel to all parts of the country for surgical treatment and this group may have a much higher incidence of incidental gall bladder cancer concomitant with cholelithiasis.

In conclusion, in a country where some parts are highly endemic for gall bladder cancer, we can ill afford to miss incidental GBC. It would be dangerous to suggest doing away with histopathology examination of cholecystectomy specimens.

 » References Top

Murthy NS, Rajaram D, Gautham MS, Shivraj NS, Prithivish S, George PS, et al. Trends in incidence of gall bladder cancer - The Indian scenario. Gastrointest Cancer 2011;1:1-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
Duffy A, Capanu M, Abou-Alfa GK, Huitzil D, Jarnagin W, Fong Y, et al. Gallbladder cancer (GBC): 10-Year experience at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC). J Surg Oncol 2008;98:485-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
Shaffer EA. Gallbladder cancer: The basics. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;4:737-41.  Back to cited text no. 3
Jha V, Sharma P, Mandal Ka. Incidental gallbladder carcinoma: Utility of histopathological evaluation of routine cholecystectomy specimens. South Asian J Cancer 2018;7:21.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Shrikhande SV, Barreto SG, Singh S, Udwadia TE, Agarwal AK. Cholelithiasis in gallbladder cancer: Coincidence, cofactor, or cause! Eur J Surg Oncol 2010;36:514-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
Cavallaro A, Piccolo G, Di Vita M, Zanghì A, Cardì F, Di Mattia P, et al. Managing the incidentally detected gallbladder cancer: Algorithms and controversies. Int J Surg 2014;12:S108-19.  Back to cited text no. 6
Agarwal AK, Kalayarasan R, Singh S, Javed A, Sakhuja P. All cholecystectomy specimens must be sent for histopathology to detect inapparent gallbladder cancer. HPB 2012;14:269-73.  Back to cited text no. 7
Tian YH, Ji X, Liu B, Yang GY, Meng XF, Xia HT, et al. Surgical treatment of incidental gallbladder cancer discovered during or following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. World J Surg 2015;39:746-52.  Back to cited text no. 8
Olthof PB, Metman MJ, de Krijger RR, Scheepers JJ, Roos D, Dekker JW. Routine pathology and postoperative follow-up are not cost-effective in cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease. World J Surg 2018;42:3165-70.  Back to cited text no. 9
Darmas B, Mahmud S, Abbas A, Baker AL. Is there any justification for the routine histological examination of straightforward cholecystectomy specimens? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2007;89:238-41.  Back to cited text no. 10
Butti AK, Yadav SK, Verma A, Das A, Naeem R, Chopra R, et al. Chronic calculus cholecystitis: Is histopathology essential postcholecystectomy? Indian J Cancer 2020;57:89-92.  Back to cited text no. 11
  [Full text]  

This article has been cited by
1 Incidental gallbladder cancer: a retrospective clinical study of 40 cases
Merih Altiok, Hanife Gülnihal Özdemir, Feyzi Kurt, Mehmet Onur Gul, Serdar Gumus
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research. 2022; 102(4): 185
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Incidental Gallbladder Carcinoma in North Indian Population: Importance of Routine Histopathological Examination of All Benign Gallbladder Specimens
Rita Yadav, Mala Sagar, Sanjeev Kumar, Shyam Kumar Maurya
Cureus. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]


Print this article  Email this article


  Site Map | What's new | Copyright and Disclaimer | Privacy Notice
  Online since 1st April '07
  © 2007 - Indian Journal of Cancer | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow