Next Article in Journal
The Perfect Timing—Immediate versus Delayed Microvascular Reconstruction of the Mandible
Next Article in Special Issue
Impact of Indoor Radon Exposure on Lung Cancer Incidence in Slovenia
Previous Article in Journal
Targeting the Cell Cycle, RRM2 and NF-κB for the Treatment of Breast Cancers
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Incidence and Observed Survival of Malignant Brain Tumors in Belgium
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/cancers16050977
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Association between Cholecystectomy and the Incidence of Pancreaticobiliary Cancer after Endoscopic Choledocholithiasis Management

by
Chi-Chih Wang
1,2,3,
Jing-Yang Huang
2,4,
Li-Han Weng
1,
Yao-Chun Hsu
5,6,
Wen-Wei Sung
2,3,
Chao-Yen Huang
3,7,
Chun-Che Lin
1,2,3,
James Cheng-Chung Wei
2,3,8,* and
Ming-Chang Tsai
1,2,3,*
1
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung City 40201, Taiwan
2
Institute of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 40201, Taiwan
3
School of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 40201, Taiwan
4
Center for Health Data Science, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 40201, Taiwan
5
Center for Liver Diseases and Center for Clinical Trials, E-Da Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
6
School of Medicine, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung 84001, Taiwan
7
Department of Emergency Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung 40201, Taiwan
8
Department of Allergy, Immunology, and Rheumatology, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung 40201, Taiwan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2024, 16(5), 977; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16050977
Submission received: 9 January 2024 / Revised: 18 February 2024 / Accepted: 26 February 2024 / Published: 28 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Cancer Data and Statistics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The majority of the current evidence shows that people who have been accepted to receive cholecystectomy have higher hepatobiliary and pancreatic cancer risk. Meanwhile, strong evidence showed that cholecystectomy can reduce recurrent biliary events after endoscopic treatment for choledocholithiasis, and we suggest on-site or interval cholecystectomy in such patients. We need to explore the true risk of the pancreaticobiliary system after the endoscopic management of choledocholithiasis.

Abstract

(1) Background: Previous studies have raised concerns about a potential increase in pancreaticobiliary cancer risk after cholecystectomy, but few studies have focused on patients who undergo cholecystectomy after receiving endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for choledocholithiasis. This study aims to clarify cancer risks in these patients, who usually require cholecystectomy, to reduce recurrent biliary events. (2) Methods: We conducted a nationwide cohort study linked to the National Health Insurance Research Database, the Cancer Registry Database, and the Death Registry Records to evaluate the risk of pancreaticobiliary cancers. All patients who underwent first-time therapeutic ERCP for choledocholithiasis from 2011 to 2017 in Taiwan were included. We collected the data of 13,413 patients who received cholecystectomy after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and used propensity score matching to obtain the data of 13,330 patients in both the cholecystectomy and non-cholecystectomy groups with similar age, gender, and known pancreaticobiliary cancer risk factors. Pancreaticobiliary cancer incidences were further compared. (3) Results: In the cholecystectomy group, 60 patients had cholangiocarcinoma, 61 patients had pancreatic cancer, and 15 patients had ampullary cancer. In the non-cholecystectomy group, 168 cases had cholangiocarcinoma, 101 patients had pancreatic cancer, and 49 patients had ampullary cancer. The incidence rates of cholangiocarcinoma, pancreatic cancer, and ampullary cancer were 1.19, 1.21, and 0.3 per 1000 person-years in the cholecystectomy group, all significantly lower than 3.52 (p < 0.0001), 2.11 (p = 0.0007), and 1.02 (p < 0.0001) per 1000 person-years, respectively, in the non-cholecystectomy group. (4) Conclusions: In patients receiving ERCP for choledocholithiasis, cholecystectomy is associated with a significantly lower risk of developing pancreaticobiliary cancer

1. Introduction

Cholecystectomy (CCY) is an important treatment [1] of choledocholithiasis after endoscopic treatment in different types of biliary events, including cholecystitis, cholangitis, and gallstone pancreatitis. This problem has become important due to obesity and is an important risk factor for cholelithiasis, which increases in prevalence in young-age people [2]. There is extensive evidence that CCY, after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) management for choledocholithiasis, can decrease future recurrent biliary events [3,4,5,6]. However, previous studies have shown that CCY might increase cancer risks in total liver cancers [7,8] hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [9,10], intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) [9], extra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) [11], ampullary cancer (AVC) [11,12], and pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDC) [7,11,12,13]. Because evidence of biliary tract malignancy could be caused by the condition of chronic inflammation resulting from cholestasis [14,15], CCY should be associated with a decreased incidence of bile duct cancers after patients undergo therapeutic ERCP for choledocholithiasis. However, conflicting results suggest a lack of direct association between CCY and hepatobiliary system cancers [16,17]. Meanwhile, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) was shown to resolve this problem in one step without destroying the structure of Ampulla of Vater in the management of choledocholithiasis compared with CCY after ERCP [18]. The current evidence for the correlation between increased cancer risks in the pancreatic and hepatobiliary system and CCY or endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) [19] is not completely clear. The problem in establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between PDAC, hepatobiliary system malignancy, and CCY is the procedure per se or the chronic inflammation environment caused by gallstone disease (i.e., the reason to perform CCY).
Biliary tract cancers, which can be divided into ICC, ECC, and AVC, are lethal diseases in the biliary system [20]. Our previous population-database cohort study showed that CCY was associated with a lower risk of cholangiocarcinoma in patients who underwent ERCP for bile duct stones management [21], but the evidence was not strong owing to the limited number of further cholangiocarcinoma cases. Therefore, we conducted a large-scale whole population-database cohort study in Taiwan and provided detailed confounding factor adjustments to clarify the association between CCY and the risk of pancreaticobiliary cancers after the ERCP management of choledocholithiasis and acute cholangitis.

2. Materials and Methods

We conducted a nationwide cohort study including whole population data, which comprised about 23 million beneficiaries who were enrolled in the Health Insurance Program in Taiwan from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2018. The data were accessed from Taiwan’s Health and Welfare Data Science Center (HWDSC). This center maintains many nationwide databases in Taiwan for the purpose of academic research [22]. We linked three nationwide databases, the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD), the Cancer Registry Database, and the Death Registry Records, to evaluate the risk of pancreaticobiliary cancers, including ICC, ECC, AVC, and PDAC in choledocholithiasis patients after ES or endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD). The information in the registry data of inpatient and outpatient visits was identified, including personal demographics, diagnosis of potential disease, prescriptions, and surgeries from the NHIRD. The Cancer Registry Database was established in 1979 (https://twcr.tw/), and it contains a high-quality database of the validated registry framework. We extracted data on the date of cancer diagnosis and the cancer site from the Cancer Registry Database. The Death Registry Records were used to check the survival status, date of death, and cause of death. All study individuals were provided with a hashed and unique personal identification number to link the data between these nationwide databases. The primary outcome in this study is further biliary cancer risk, while the secondary outcome is PDAC risk after CCY in patients, whoever accepted ERCP choledocholithiasis management.
The Human Research Ethics Committee of the Institutional Review Board of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital approved our study (CS1-22080) on 27 June 2022. This study was sponsored by the Chung Shan Medical University Hospital Research Program (CSH-2021-C-006, CSH-2022-C-044).

2.1. Definition of Study Population

We identified patients hospitalized for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis (ICD-9 codes: 574.3, 574.4, 574.5, 574.6, 574.7, 574.8, and 574.9), cholangitis (ICD-9 codes: 576.1 and 576.2), and treated with therapeutic ERCP (ES [procedure code: 56031B and 56033B] or EPBD [procedure code: 56032B]) for the first time, who were also identified by procedure codes of lithotripsy (28008B, 28035B) between 2011 and 2017 and followed the outcomes of these patients until 31 December 2018. Initially, 55,459 patients were selected, and the patients who had missing demographic data, were aged <18 years at admission, and had received CCY before admission were excluded. After the first exclusion, there were 14,068 patients who had received CCY within 2 months [23] after the first admission as the CCY group and 38,259 patients who did not have CCY throughout the study period as the comparison group. We defined the index date as the date 2 months after initial admission to avoid potential surveillance or detection bias. Furthermore, we excluded patients who died or had biliary tract malignancy before the index date. The 13,413 and 33,068 eligible cases were divided into CCY and non-CCY cohorts, respectively.
An additional analysis of propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce the confounding bias after balancing the measured characteristics between the study groups [24]. We also provide the original baseline characteristics among study groups in Supplementary Table S1. The propensity score was estimated as the probability of the treatment of CCY by using logistic regression, and the covariates included were index year, baseline demographics (including sex, age, urbanization, and insured category), and pancreaticobiliary cancer risk factors (including chronic hepatitis B infections [CHB] [25], chronic hepatitis C [10] [CHC], Helicobacter pylori [HP] infection [26,27], diabetes mellitus [28,29] [DM], chronic kidney disease [CKD], choledochal cyst disease [30,31], inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD], and liver cirrhosis [LC] [8,32]). There were some rare diagnoses, which may increase biliary cancer risks, that were never recorded in our analysis, such as primary sclerosing cholangitis [33] and specific parasite infection [34]. We used the PSMATCH procedure in the SAS software version 9.4, the algorithm of greedy nearest neighbor matching, and non-replacement paired within 0.01 caliper widths [35]. Finally, 13,330 pairs of PSM CCY and non-CCY patients were selected for analysis (Figure 1).

2.2. Definition of Study Covariates

Baseline demographics, including age, sex, urbanization, and insured category, were identified based on the information at the index date. Age was calculated in years between the birth and index dates, and we classified patients into the age groups of 18 to <50, 50 to <60, 60 to <70, and ≥70 years. The risk factors of pancreaticobiliary cancers, including CHB, CHC, HP infection, DM, CKD, congenital cystic disease of the liver, IBD, and LC, were identified based on the ICD-9-CM codes listed in Supplementary Table S2. The baseline characteristics among study groups after PSM are shown in Table 1.

2.3. Identification of Study Events

The subsequent pancreaticobiliary cancer was identified from the information in the Cancer Registry Database. The patients who were newly diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma (ICC and ECC), PDAC, and AVC were ascertained using ICD-9 codes (Supplementary Table S2), while lung cancer was selected for potential bias detection.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

We used the absolute standardized difference (ASD) [36] to compare the baseline covariates between the groups in this large-sample observational study. The characteristics were balanced when the ASD was <0.1. We conducted survival models to evaluate the association between CCY and the risk of pancreaticobiliary cancers. The incidence rate and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by considering the Poisson distribution. All study individuals were followed from the index date until the occurrence of the study event. The censoring point included the death of patients or the end of the study (31 December 2018). Kaplan–Meier survival curves were plotted to compare the 7-year cumulative probability of developing cholangiocarcinoma (including ICC and ECC), PDAC, AVC, or lung cancer among the CCY and non-CCY cohorts, with a median follow-up period of 3.9 years. A log-rank test was performed to determine the overall homogeneity of the hazard rate functions among the study groups. After the proportional hazard assumption was tested, univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of the exposure to CCY on the risk of cholangiocarcinoma, PDAC, AVC, and lung cancer (Table 2). We considered the covariates, including index year, baseline demographics, and known pancreaticobiliary cancer risks, which were described in the definition of the study population in the multivariable regression. The competing HR was estimated using the sub-distribution Fine–Gray regression approach, wherein mortality was considered a competing event. A subgroup analysis and an interaction effect test were performed to evaluate the effects of sex and age in different stratifications using multivariate Cox regression. When considering the possible incubation period from exposure to the diagnosis of cancer, we performed the sensitivity analysis using the landmark time at 24 months after the index date. We excluded individuals who were followed for less than 24 months in the landmark analysis. All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). A significance level of 0.05 was used for the hypothesis test.

3. Results

We collected 13,330 cases who received CCY after ES or EPBD for choledocholithiasis or cholangitis management. We provided another 13,330 cases without CCY after PSM under similar clinical conditions as the control group (Figure 1). In the baseline covariates, the ASD in the index year, gender, age, urbanization, and insured category, which were all less than 0.1, means balanced baseline characters between the CCY and non-CCY groups. Meanwhile, there were no statistically significant differences in the known risk factors for pancreaticobiliary cancer, such as CHB, CHC, Helicobacter infection, diabetes mellitus, CKD, congenital cystic disease of the liver, IBD, and LC, between the CCY and non-CCY cohorts. Detailed information is shown in Table 1.
The results showed that 168 patients had cholangiocarcinoma in the non-CCY group, while 60 cases had cholangiocarcinoma in the CCY group. There were 3.52, 2.45, and 1.09 cases per 1000 person-years of cholangiocarcinoma, ICC, and ECC in the non-CCY group and 1.19, 0.91, and 0.48 cases per 1000 person-years of cholangiocarcinoma, ICC, and ECC, respectively, in the CCY group. The competing HR in the multivariable regression, considering the covariates, including index year, baseline demographics (including sex, age, urbanization, and insured category), and risk factors for pancreaticobiliary cancers (including CHB, CHC, HP infection, DM, CKD, congenital cystic disease of the liver, IBD, and LC), revealed an adjusted HR of the CCY group of 0.34 (0.25–0.46), 0.37 (0.26–0.52), 0.44 (0.27–0.72) in cholangiocarcinoma, ICC, and ECC, respectively, compared with the risks of the non-CCY group.
There were 101 cases of PDAC in the follow-up period, which resulted in an incidence rate of 2.11 (1.74–2.57) per 1000 person-years in the non-CCY group, while there were 61 cases of PDAC with an incidence rate of 1.21 (0.94–1.56) per 1000 person-years in the CCY group. The adjusted HR of PDAC in the CCY group compared with the non-CCY group was 0.58 (0.42–0.79), with a p value of 0.0007. Similar results were noticed in the AVC, which showed that the adjusted HR of the AVC in the CCY group compared with the non-CCY group was 0.30 (0.17–0.53), with a p value of <0.0001. For potential bias detection, we chose lung cancer, which is supposed to have no relationship with CCY, to calculate the adjusted HR between the CCY and non-CCY cohorts. The adjusted HR of lung cancer was 0.86 (0.61–1.21) in the CCY group compared with the non-CCY group, which showed a non-significant difference, with a p value of 0.3737. Detailed information is provided in Table 2. We provided the pancreaticobiliary cancer risk in the study groups before PSM in Supplementary Table S3.
Kaplan–Meier curves were plotted to compare the 7-year cumulative probability of developing cholangiocarcinoma, ICC, ECC, and lung cancer in Figure 2. The cumulative incidence probability of cholangiocarcinoma, ECC, and ICC was significantly higher in the non-CCY group than in the CCY group, with p values of p < 0.0001, p = 0.0002, and p < 0.0001, respectively. The Kaplan–Meier curve of lung cancer incidence probability was similar (p = 0.4750) between the non-CCY and CCY groups in Panel D, Figure 2. The cumulative incidence probability of PDAC, which is demonstrated in Panel A, Figure 3, is significantly higher in the non-CCY group (p = 0.0003), while the AVC risk is also higher (p < 0.0001) in the non-CCY group (Panel B, Figure 3).
We performed the sensitivity analysis using the landmark time at 24 months after the index date by excluding individuals who were followed for less than 24 months in the landmark analysis. The competing adjusted hazard ratios of the CCY group compared with that of the non-CCY group were 0.30 (0.17–0.51) in cholangiocarcinoma, 0.44 (0.25–0.75) in ICC, 0.46 (0.18–1.14) in ECC, 0.84 (0.47–1.48) in PDAC, 0.48 (0.16–1.40) in AVC, and 1.05 (0.65–1.68) in lung cancer when individuals who were followed for less than 24 months were excluded. Detailed information is presented in Table 3. The original results before PSM showed similar conditions in Supplementary Table S4.

4. Discussion

This is the first nationwide whole-population study to evaluate the cancer risk of CCY in patients after choledocholithiasis or cholangitis managed with therapeutic ERCP. The inclusion criteria used both the diagnosis code and procedure code of ES or EPBD combined with lithotripsy to ensure disease accuracy and balance the heterogeneous condition of choledocholithiasis in both CCY and non-CCY groups in order to minimize the limitations inherent to retrospective research. These patients usually need CCY to reduce recurrent biliary events in the rest of their lifetimes, but the decision becomes more difficult because of prior studies reporting that CCY could possibly increase cancer risk. In our study, we found that the competing adjusted hazard ratios in the CCY group were 0.34 (95% CI, 0.25–0.46), 0.37 (95% CI, 0.26–0.52), 0.44 (95% CI, 0.27–0.72), 0.58 (95% CI, 0.42–0.79), and 0.30 (95% CI, 0.17–0.53) for cholangiocarcinoma, ICC, ECC, PDAC, and AVC, respectively, compared with the risk in the non-CCY group. Instead of increasing cancer risk, CCY was associated with a significantly lower risk of pancreaticobiliary cancer by 42–70% (ICC 63% reduction, ECC 56%, PDAC 42%, and AVC 70%). These results remained consistent in the sensitivity tests, including the landmark analysis. Across multiple analytical methods, no evidence was found to suggest that CCY was associated with elevated risks of ECC, PDAC, or AVC.
There is very limited clinical evidence focusing on cancer risks after CCY in patients with choledocholithiasis, which was previously managed by therapeutic ERCP. In pancreatic and hepatobiliary systems, previous cohort studies demonstrated that patients who received CCY had higher cancer risks of overall liver cancers [7], HCC [9,10], ICC [9], ECC [11], AVC [11,12], and PDAC [7,11,12]. Meta-analysis studies also supported the increased risk of liver cancer [37,38] and PDAC [13] in patients with gallstone disease after CCY. Only one review showed no association between CCY and cancer risk in the hepatobiliary system after a strict quality checkup [17]. In contrast, our study exhibits opposite results: the incidence of cholangiocarcinoma, ICC, ECC, AVC, and PDAC were all significantly lower and reduced in crude, adjusted, and competing adjusted hazard ratios after CCY subsequent to therapeutic ERCP choledocholithiasis treatment. There might be some major issues in previous literature, such as earlier studies using historical comparisons [11,12] and case-control study designs [7]. Although other studies [9,39] have performed the adjustment of gallstone disease, the disease severity of cholelithiasis in patients who received CCY and in patients who need no intervention is still different from the background inflammation situation.
While we focused on cholangiocarcinoma risk, a previous large-scale Swedish database study [40] showed increased ICC and ECC risks in the CCY group compared with the non-CCY group, while the risk of these tumors is reduced back to the level of the background population more than 10 years after CCY. However, this study used patients with non-symptomatic gallstone disease as a control group, which may be confounded by the disease severity of gallstone disease. A recent systemic review [41] showed that CCY was associated with a significant 54% increase in the risk of cholangiocarcinoma, especially in the ECC, in comparison with healthy controls. The updated study, which focused on complicated gallstone disease patients, showed that CCY slightly decreased cholangiocarcinoma risk [42], but this study still used age-matched and sex-matched controls without further detailed confounding factors adjustments. The problems of heterogenous disease severity and inflammatory conditions due to cholelithiasis in the CCY group and in the pure gallstone disease group/normal population existed in almost all previous articles. Our study design directly discussed the future cancer risk in patients who received therapeutic ERCP intervention for choledocholithiasis in both patients who received CCY or chose not to receive CCY. We believe this study design can help clarify the truest risk of CCY for pancreaticobiliary cancer incidence in patients who have undergone ES or EPBD for choledocholithiasis and need CCY to reduce recurrent biliary events in the rest of their lifetime.

Limitations

There are some limitations to our study. First, our study, like most retrospective database studies, had some confounding factors, such as environmental risk exposure, personal habits, and exact family history, which cannot be corrected and may lead to some clinical bias. Second, although the longest follow-up period is 7.6 years, the mean follow-up time in our cohort study is 3.9 years, which is relatively short. However, we cannot expand the observational period due to all the data being kept in HWDSC in accordance with our regulations in Taiwan. Third, the general characteristics of the CCY and non-CCY groups were less homogenous in the original data, which required PSM to balance the background parameters. However, the PSM process itself led to a loss of study samples and may have reduced statistical power, especially in the sensitivity analysis, with the exclusion of patients followed up for less than 2 years. Fourth, we didn’t evaluate further the cancer risk in patients who accepted LCBDE because we seldom performed this procedure routinely in Taiwan. As a result, our results should be applied with caution to the patients who underwent LCBDE.

5. Conclusions

In patients who underwent therapeutic ERCP for choledocholithiasis or cholangitis, CCY was not associated with an excessive risk of pancreaticobiliary cancer. Instead, the relationship between CCY and the subsequent development of pancreaticobiliary cancer post-ERCP appeared to be protective.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers16050977/s1. Table S1: Baseline characteristics among original study groups (before propensity score matching); Table S2: definition of co-morbidities and study outcome; Table S3: Risks of cancer incidence among patients with EST/EPBD before propensity score matching; Table S4: Sensitivity analysis by moving the time 0 as +24 from index date before propensity score matching.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: C.-C.W. and M.-C.T.; Data curation: J.-Y.H. and L.-H.W.; Formal analysis: J.-Y.H. and W.-W.S.; Funding acquisition: C.-C.W. and M.-C.T.; Investigation: Y.-C.H. and J.C.-C.W.; Methodology: C.-C.W. and M.-C.T.; Writing—original draft: C.-C.W. and C.-Y.H.; Writing—review and editing: Y.-C.H. and C.-C.L.; Project administration: C.-C.L.; Resources: J.C.-C.W. and M.-C.T.; Software: J.-Y.H.; Validation: Y.-C.H. and C.-C.W.; Supervision: M.-C.T. and J.C.-C.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was sponsored by the Chung Shan Medical University Hospital Research Program (CSH-2021-C-006, CSH-2022-C-044).

Institutional Review Board Statement

All study individuals were provided with a hashed and unique personal identification number to link the data between these nationwide databases. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Institutional Review Board of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital approved our study (CS1-22080).

Informed Consent Statement

This is a retrospective national database study that obtained waiver 1 for informed consent.

Data Availability Statement

Datasets from the National Health Insurance Research Database are available through a request to the Health and Welfare Data Science Center (HWDSC). However, the data are not publicly available due to the privacy of research participants. We are unable to share the data sets and code lists on request. For this study, the application number is H111231, which was registered in HWDSC.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Baiu, I.; Hawn, M.T. Choledocholithiasis. JAMA 2018, 320, 1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pogorelic, Z.; Aralica, M.; Jukic, M.; Zitko, V.; Despot, R.; Juric, I. Gallbladder Disease in Children: A 20-year Single-center Experience. Indian Pediatr. 2019, 56, 384–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Huang, R.J.; Barakat, M.T.; Girotra, M.; Banerjee, S. Practice Patterns for Cholecystectomy After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Patients With Choledocholithiasis. Gastroenterology 2017, 153, 762–771.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wang, C.-C.; Tsai, M.-C.; Wang, Y.-T.; Yang, T.-W.; Chen, H.-Y.; Sung, W.-W.; Huang, S.-M.; Tseng, M.-H.; Lin, C.-C. Role of Cholecystectomy in Choledocholithiasis Patients Underwent Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 2168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Khan, M.A.; Khan, Z.; Tombazzi, C.R.; Gadiparthi, C.; Lee, W.; Wilcox, C.M. Role of Cholecystectomy After Endoscopic Sphincterotomy in the Management of Choledocholithiasis in High-risk Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2018, 52, 579–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lau, J.Y.; Leow, C.; Fung, T.M.; Suen, B.; Yu, L.; Lai, P.B.; Lam, Y.; Ng, E.K.; Lau, W.Y.; Chung, S.S.; et al. Cholecystectomy or Gallbladder In Situ After Endoscopic Sphincterotomy and Bile Duct Stone Removal in Chinese Patients. Gastroenterology 2006, 130, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Nogueira, L.; Freedman, N.D.; Engels, E.A.; Warren, J.L.; Castro, F.; Koshiol, J. Gallstones, cholecystectomy, and risk of digestive system cancers. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2014, 179, 731–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Razumilava, N.; Gores, G.J. Cholangiocarcinoma. Lancet 2014, 383, 2168–2179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Liu, T.; Siyin, S.T.; Yao, N.; Xu, G.; Chen, Y.T.; Duan, N.; Liu, S. Risk of primary liver cancer associated with gallstones and cholecystectomy: A competing risks analysis. Medicine 2020, 99, e22428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. El-Serag, H.B.; Engels, E.A.; Landgren, O.; Chiao, E.; Henderson, L.; Amaratunge, H.C.; Giordano, T.P. Risk of hepatobiliary and pancreatic cancers after hepatitis C virus infection: A population-based study of U.S. veterans. Hepatology 2009, 49, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Urbach, D.R.; Swanstrom, L.L.; Khajanchee, Y.S.; Hansen, P.D. Incidence of cancer of the pancreas, extrahepatic bile duct and ampulla of Vater in the United States, before and after the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am. J. Surg. 2001, 181, 526–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Chow, W.H.; Johansen, C.; Gridley, G.; Mellemkjær, L.; Olsen, J.H. Gallstones, cholecystectomy and risk of cancers of the liver, biliary tract and pancreas. Br. J. Cancer 1999, 79, 640–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Fan, Y.; Hu, J.; Feng, B.; Wang, W.; Yao, G.; Zhai, J.; Li, X. Increased Risk of Pancreatic Cancer Related to Gallstones and Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pancreas 2016, 45, 503–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Labib, P.L.; Goodchild, G.; Pereira, S.P. Molecular Pathogenesis of Cholangiocarcinoma. BMC Cancer 2019, 19, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Doherty, B.; Nambudiri, V.E.; Palmer, W.C. Update on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cholangiocarcinoma. Curr. Gastroenterol. Rep. 2017, 19, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Wang, C.; Tseng, M.; Wu, S.; Yang, T.; Chen, H.; Sung, W.; Su, C.; Wang, Y.; Chen, W.; Lai, H.; et al. Symptomatic cholelithiasis patients have an increased risk of pancreatic cancer: A population-based study. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 36, 1187–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Coats, M.; Shimi, S.M. Cholecystectomy and the risk of alimentary tract cancers: A systematic review. World J. Gastroenterol. 2015, 21, 3679–3693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Pogorelić, Z.; Lovrić, M.; Jukić, M.; Perko, Z. The Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Common Bile Duct Exploration: A Single-Step Treatment of Pediatric Cholelithiasis and Choledocholithiasis. Children 2022, 9, 1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Oliveira-Cunha, M.; Dennison, A.R.; Garcea, G. Late Complications After Endoscopic Sphincterotomy. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. Percutaneous Tech. 2016, 26, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Van Dyke, A.L.; Shiels, M.S.; Jones, G.S.; Pfeiffer, R.M.; Petrick, J.L.; Beebe-Dimmer, J.L.; Koshiol, J. Biliary tract cancer incidence and trends in the United States by demographic group, 1999-2013. Cancer 2019, 125, 1489–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, C.-C.; Tseng, M.-H.; Wu, S.-W.; Yang, T.-W.; Chen, H.-Y.; Sung, W.-W.; Su, C.-C.; Wang, Y.-T.; Lin, C.-C.; Tsai, M.-C. Cholecystectomy reduces subsequent cholangiocarcinoma risk in choledocholithiasis patients undergoing endoscopic intervention. World J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2020, 12, 1381–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hsieh, C.-Y.; Su, C.-C.; Shao, S.-C.; Sung, S.-F.; Lin, S.-J.; Kao Yang, Y.-H.; Lai, E.C.-C. Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database: Past and future. Clin. Epidemiol. 2019, 11, 349–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Singhal, T.; Balakrishnan, S.; Grandy-Smith, S.; Hunt, J.; Asante, M.; El-Hasani, S. Gallstones: Best served hot. JSLS 2006, 10, 332–335. [Google Scholar]
  24. Austin, P.C. The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: Reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat. Med. 2014, 33, 1242–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sekiya, S.; Suzuki, A. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma can arise from Notch-mediated conversion of hepatocytes. J. Clin. Investig. 2012, 122, 3914–3918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Murphy, G.; Michel, A.; Taylor, P.R.; Albanes, D.; Weinstein, S.J.; Virtamo, J.; Freedman, N.D. Association of seropositivity to Helicobacter species and biliary tract cancer in the ATBC study. Hepatology 2014, 60, 1963–1971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fukuda, K.; Kuroki, T.; Tajima, Y.; Tsuneoka, N.; Kitajima, T.; Matsuzaki, S.; Furui, J.; Kanematsu, T. Comparative analysis of Helicobacter DNAs and biliary pathology in patients with and without hepatobiliary cancer. Carcinogenesis 2002, 23, 1927–1931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jing, W.; Jin, G.; Zhou, X.; Zhou, Y.Q.; Zhang, Y.J.; Shao, C.H.; Hu, X.G. Diabetes mellitus and increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma: A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 2012, 21, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Zhang, L.F.; Zhao, X.H. Diabetes mellitus and increased risk of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A meta-analysis. Hepatogastroenterology 2013, 60, 684–687. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  30. Lipsett, P.A.; Pitt, H.A.; Colombani, P.M.; Boitnott, J.K.; Cameron, J.L. Choledochal Cyst Disease A Changing Pattern of Presentation. Ann. Surg. 1994, 220, 644–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Wirth, T.C.; Kuebler, J.F.; Petersen, C.; Ure, B.M.; Madadi-Sanjani, O. Choledochal Cyst and Malignancy: A Plea for Lifelong Follow-Up. Eur. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2019, 29, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Palmer, W.C.; Patel, T. Are common factors involved in the pathogenesis of primary liver cancers? A meta-analysis of risk factors for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J. Hepatol. 2012, 57, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chapman, M.H.; Webster, G.J.; Bannoo, S.; Johnson, G.J.; Wittmann, J.; Pereira, S.P. Cholangiocarcinoma and dominant strictures in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis: A 25-year single-centre experience. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2012, 24, 1051–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Watanapa, P.; Watanapa, W.B. Liver fluke-associated cholangiocarcinoma. Br. J. Surg. 2002, 89, 962–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rassen, J.A.; Shelat, A.A.; Myers, J.; Glynn, R.J.; Rothman, K.J.; Schneeweiss, S. One-to-many propensity score matching in cohort studies. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2012, 21, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Austin, P.C. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat. Med. 2009, 28, 3083–3107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, Y.; Guo, L.; Mao, J.; Jiao, Z.; Guo, J.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, J. Cholelithiasis, cholecystectomy and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis. J. Cancer Res. Ther. 2014, 10, 834–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wang, Y.; Xie, L.F.; Lin, J. Gallstones and cholecystectomy in relation to risk of liver cancer. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 2019, 28, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chen, Y.K.; Yeh, J.-H.; Lin, C.-L.; Peng, C.-L.; Sung, F.-C.; Hwang, I.-M.; Kao, C.-H. Cancer risk in patients with cholelithiasis and after cholecystectomy: A nationwide cohort study. J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 49, 923–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Nordenstedt, H.; Mattsson, F.; El-Serag, H.; Lagergren, J. Gallstones and cholecystectomy in relation to risk of intra- and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Br. J. Cancer 2012, 106, 1011–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Xiong, J.; Wang, Y.; Huang, H.; Bian, J.; Wang, A.; Long, J.; Zheng, Y.; Sang, X.; Xu, Y.; Lu, X.; et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis: Cholecystectomy and the risk of cholangiocarcinoma. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 59648–59657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ahn, H.S.; Kim, H.J.; Kang, T.U.; Park, S.M. Cholecystectomy reduces the risk of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with complicated gallstones, but has negligible effect on hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2022, 37, 669–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 16 00977 g001
Figure 1. Flowchart of patient selection.
Figure 1. Flowchart of patient selection.
Cancers 16 00977 g001
Cancers 16 00977 g002
Figure 2. KM curves of incidence probability of (A) cholangiocarcinoma, (B) extra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma, (C) intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and (D) lung cancer.
Figure 2. KM curves of incidence probability of (A) cholangiocarcinoma, (B) extra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma, (C) intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and (D) lung cancer.
Cancers 16 00977 g002
Cancers 16 00977 g003
Figure 3. KM curves of incidence probability of (A) pancreatic cancer and (B) ampullary cancer.
Figure 3. KM curves of incidence probability of (A) pancreatic cancer and (B) ampullary cancer.
Cancers 16 00977 g003
Table 1. Baseline characteristics among study groups after propensity score matching (PSM).
Table 1. Baseline characteristics among study groups after propensity score matching (PSM).
Non-CholecystectomyCholecystectomyASD
n13,33013,330
Index year 0.000
 2011, 20122932 (22.00%)2911 (21.84%)
 2013, 20143615 (27.12%)3585 (26.89%)
 2015, 20164144 (31.09%)4189 (31.43%)
 2017, 20182639 (19.80%)2645 (19.84%)
Sex 0.004
 Male7111 (53.35%)7047 (52.87%)
 Female6219 (46.65%)6283 (47.13%)
Age 0.000
 <503662 (27.47%)3636 (27.28%)
 50–602516 (18.87%)2510 (18.83%)
 60–702934 (22.01%)2988 (22.42%)
 ≥704218 (31.64%)4196 (31.48%)
Urbanization 0.000
 High urbanization3928 (29.47%)3872 (29.05%)
 Moderate urbanization4147 (31.11%)4160 (31.21%)
 Developing town2128 (15.96%)2094 (15.71%)
 General town1833 (13.75%)1848 (13.86%)
 Aged town368 (2.76%)367 (2.75%)
 Agriculture town605 (4.54%)636 (4.77%)
 Village321 (2.41%)353 (2.65%)
Insured category 0.083
 Government701 (5.26%)721 (5.41%)
 Privately held company7235 (54.28%)7124 (53.44%)
 Agricultural organizations2379 (17.85%)2387 (17.91%)
 Low-income 90 (0.68%)103 (0.77%)
 Non-labor force2737 (20.53%)2776 (20.83%)
 Others188 (1.41%)219 (1.64%)
Co-morbidity
 Chronic hepatitis B1029 (7.72%)1134 (8.51%)0.029
 Chronic hepatitis C406 (3.05%)465 (3.49%)0.025
 Helicobacter infection397 (2.98%)466 (3.50%)0.029
 Diabetes mellitus4222 (31.67%)4210 (31.58%)0.002
 CKD1276 (9.57%)1270 (9.53%)0.002
 Congenital cystic disease of liver93 (0.70%)90 (0.68%)0.003
 Inflammatory bowel diseases375 (2.81%)427 (3.20%)0.023
 Liver cirrhosis516 (3.87%)510 (3.83%)0.002
ASD, absolute standardized difference. CKD, chronic kidney disease.
Table 2. Risks of cancer incidence among patients with EST/EPBD after PSM.
Table 2. Risks of cancer incidence among patients with EST/EPBD after PSM.
Non-CholecystectomyCholecystectomyp Value
Cholangiocarcinoma
Observed person-years47,718.850,262.1
Incident cases16860
Incidence rate †3.52 (3.03–4.1)1.19 (0.93–1.54)
Crude HR (95% CI)Reference0.34 (0.26–0.46)<0.0001
Adjusted HR (95% CI)Reference0.34 (0.25–0.46)<0.0001
ICC
Observed person-years47,768.350,276.6
Incident cases11746
Incidence rate †2.45 (2.04–2.94)0.91 (0.69–1.22)
Crude HR (95% CI)Reference0.38 (0.27–0.53)<0.0001
Adjusted HR (95% CI)Reference0.37 (0.26–0.52)<0.0001
ECC
Observed person-years47,825.850,286.9
Incident cases5224
Incidence rate †1.09 (0.83–1.43)0.48 (0.32–0.71)
Crude HR (95% CI)Reference0.45 (0.28–0.73)0.0011
Adjusted HR (95% CI)Reference0.44 (0.27–0.72)0.0010
Pancreatic cancer
Observed person-years47,785.950,273.8
Incident cases10161
Incidence rate †2.11 (1.74–2.57)1.21 (0.94–1.56)
Crude HR (95% CI)Reference0.58 (0.43–0.80)0.0009
Adjusted HR (95% CI)Reference0.58 (0.42–0.79)0.0007
Ampulla Vater cancer
Observed person-years47,829.050,289.0
Incident cases4915
Incidence rate †1.02 (0.77–1.36)0.3 (0.18–0.49)
Crude HR (95% CI)Reference0.30 (0.17–0.53)<0.0001
Adjusted HR (95% CI)Reference0.30 (0.17–0.53)<0.0001
Lung cancer
Observed person-years47,765.750,171.8
Incident cases13596
Incidence rate †2.83 (2.39–3.35)1.91 (1.57–2.34)
Crude HR (95% CI)Reference0.88 (0.63–1.24)0.4753
Adjusted HR (95% CI)Reference0.86 (0.61–1.21)0.3737
† per 100 person-years. ICC, Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. ECC, Extra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma. aHR, adjusted hazard ratio, the covariates included index year, sex, age, urbanization, unit type of insured, and co-morbidities. Competing aHR, competing adjusted hazard ratio was estimated by the Fine and Gray sub-distribution hazard function.
Table 3. Sensitivity analysis by moving the time 0 as +24 from index date.
Table 3. Sensitivity analysis by moving the time 0 as +24 from index date.
Cholecystectomy aHR (95% CI)
Excluded Patients Followed <24 months
Incidence rate
 Cholangiocarcinoma0.30 (0.17–0.51)
 ICC0.44 (0.25–0.75)
 ECC0.46 (0.18–1.14)
 Pancreatic cancer0.84 (0.47–1.48)
 Ampulla Vater cancer0.48 (0.16–1.40)
 Lung cancer1.05 (0.65–1.68)
ICC, Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. ECC, Extra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma. aHR, adjusted hazard ratio. The covariates included index year, sex, age, urbanization, unit type of insured, and co-morbidities.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, C.-C.; Huang, J.-Y.; Weng, L.-H.; Hsu, Y.-C.; Sung, W.-W.; Huang, C.-Y.; Lin, C.-C.; Wei, J.C.-C.; Tsai, M.-C. Association between Cholecystectomy and the Incidence of Pancreaticobiliary Cancer after Endoscopic Choledocholithiasis Management. Cancers 2024, 16, 977. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16050977

AMA Style

Wang C-C, Huang J-Y, Weng L-H, Hsu Y-C, Sung W-W, Huang C-Y, Lin C-C, Wei JC-C, Tsai M-C. Association between Cholecystectomy and the Incidence of Pancreaticobiliary Cancer after Endoscopic Choledocholithiasis Management. Cancers. 2024; 16(5):977. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16050977

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Chi-Chih, Jing-Yang Huang, Li-Han Weng, Yao-Chun Hsu, Wen-Wei Sung, Chao-Yen Huang, Chun-Che Lin, James Cheng-Chung Wei, and Ming-Chang Tsai. 2024. "Association between Cholecystectomy and the Incidence of Pancreaticobiliary Cancer after Endoscopic Choledocholithiasis Management" Cancers 16, no. 5: 977. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16050977

APA Style

Wang, C. -C., Huang, J. -Y., Weng, L. -H., Hsu, Y. -C., Sung, W. -W., Huang, C. -Y., Lin, C. -C., Wei, J. C. -C., & Tsai, M. -C. (2024). Association between Cholecystectomy and the Incidence of Pancreaticobiliary Cancer after Endoscopic Choledocholithiasis Management. Cancers, 16(5), 977. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16050977

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop