Background While curative-intent resection for gallbladder cancer (GBC) is being increasingly performed in elderly patients, perioperative morbidity and long-term oncological outcomes in this population remain unclear. Methods Consecutive patients with GBC who underwent curative-intent resection (2016–2020) were identified from a multicentre database and stratified as elderly (>70 years) or younger (≤70 years). Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to minimise selection bias. The outcomes compared included overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and short-term outcomes. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for major morbidity and Cox regression was used for CSS, with the Fine-Gray competing risk model further applied to account for non-cancer-related death in the analysis of CSS. Results Among the 575 patients enrolled, 432 were younger and 143 were elderly. After 1:1 PSM and IPTW, elderly patients had significantly higher 90-day major morbidity rates than younger patients (p=0.029 and p=0.010, respectively), but also demonstrated better CSS in both cohorts (p=0.038 and p<0.001, respectively). OS was significantly longer in elderly patients only after PSM (p<0.001), with no significant difference after IPTW (p=0.684). Multi-adjusted analysis confirmed that advanced age was an independent risk factor for major morbidities (original cohort: OR 1.71 (95% CI 1.12 to 2.59); PSM: OR 1.88 (95% CI 1.08 to 3.30); IPTW: OR 1.83 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.82)) but was associated with longer CSS (original cohort: HR 0.65 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.97); PSM: HR 0.29 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.45); IPTW: HR 0.62 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.90); Fine-Gray model: HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.39)). Conclusion Despite a higher risk of major postoperative morbidity, advanced age itself might not be considered a contraindication for curative-intent resection. Selected elderly patients with GBC may achieve superior CSS compared to their younger counterparts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: