Trends in incidence, treatment, and relative survival of colorectal cancer in the Netherlands between 2000 and 2021.

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of colorectal cancer (CRC) has changed rapidly over the years. The aim of this study was to assess the trends in incidence, treatment, and relative survival (RS) of patients diagnosed with CRC in the Netherlands between 2000 and 2021. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 2 75667 patients diagnosed with CRC between 2000 and 2021 were included from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Analyses were stratified for disease extent (localised: T1-3N0M0; regional: T4N0M0/T1-4N1-2M0; distant: T1-4N0-2M1) and localisation (colon; rectum). Trends were assessed with joinpoint regression. RESULTS: CRC incidence increased until the mid-2010s but decreased strongly thereafter to rates comparable with the early 2000s. Amongst other trend changes, local excision rates increased for patients with localised colon (2021: 13.6 %) and rectal cancer (2021: 34.9 %). Moreover, primary tumour resection became less common in patients with distant colon (2000-2021: 60.9-12.5 %) or rectal cancer (2000-2021: 47.8-6.9 %), while local treatment of metastases rates increased. Five-year RS improved continuously for localised and regional colon (97.7 % and 72.0 % in 2017, respectively) and rectal cancer (95.2 % and 76.3 % in 2017, respectively). The rate of anti-cancer treatments decreased in distant colon (2010-2021: 80.3 % to 67.2 %; p < 0.001) and rectal cancer (2011-2021: 86.0 % to 77.0 %; p < 0.001). The improvement of five-year RS stagnated for distant colon (2010-2017: 11.2 % to 11.9 %; average percentage of change [APC]: 2.1, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: -7.6, 4.7) and rectal cancer (2009-2017: 12.7 % to 15.6 %; APC: 1.4, 95 % CI: -19.1, 5.5). CONCLUSIONS: Major changes in the incidence and treatment of CRC between 2000 and 2021 were identified and quantified. Five-year RS increased continuously for patients with localised and regional CRC, but stagnated for patients with distant CRC, likely caused by decreased rates of anti-cancer treatment in this group.

Variation in hospital performances after colorectal cancer surgery: A case-mix adjusted Dutch population based study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate hospital variability in postoperative mortality and anastomotic leakage (AL) after colorectal cancer surgery, as well as the association with hospital volume and teaching status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This nationwide population based study derived data from CRC patients who underwent a surgical resection with primary anastomosis from the Netherlands Cancer Registry between 2015 and 2020. Primary outcomes were 90-day mortality and AL for colon cancer (CC) patients, and AL for rectal cancer (RC) patients. Logistic regression modelling was used to evaluate the association between case-mix factors and hospital volume. Variability in outcomes between hospitals was analysed with Poisson regression. RESULTS: This study included 44,101 CRC patients, comprising 35,164 CC patients, and 8937 RC patients. In the CC cohort, the unadjusted rates of AL ranged from 2.6 % to 14.4 %, and the unadjusted 90-day mortality rates ranged from 0.0 % to 6.7 %. In the RC cohort, the unadjusted rates of AL ranged from 0.0 % to 28.6 %. After case-mix adjustment, two hospitals performed significantly worse than expected regarding 90-day mortality in the CC cohort, and in both CC and RC cohorts, significant outliers were observed concerning AL. Amongst CC patients, low case volume (OR 1.26 95%CI 1.08-1.46) was significantly associated with AL. CONCLUSION: Statistically significant variations in hospital performance were observed among Dutch hospitals after CRC surgery, but this effect could not be entirely attributed to hospitals' teaching status. Nevertheless, concentrating care has the potential to improve outcomes by enhancing individual surgical performance and optimizing care pathways.

Multimodal Therapy Versus Primary Surgery for Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Diffuse Type Carcinoma, with a Focus on Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma: A Nationwide Study.

BACKGROUND: Diffuse type adenocarcinoma and, more specifically, signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) have a poor prognosis and the value of neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy (nCRT) is unclear. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery for diffuse type gastric and GEJ carcinoma between 2004 and 2015 were retrospectively included from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The primary outcome was overall survival after surgery. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted. Furthermore, multivariable Poisson and Cox regressions were performed, correcting for confounders. To comply with the Cox regression proportional hazard assumption, gastric cancer survival was split into two groups, i.e. <90 days and >90 days, postoperatively by adding an interaction variable. RESULTS: Analyses included 2046 patients with diffuse type cancer: 1728 gastric cancers (50% SRCC) and 318 GEJ cancers (39% SRCC). In the gastric cancer group, 49% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) and 51% received primary surgery (PS). All-cause mortality within 90 days postoperatively was lower after nCT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.44; p < 0.001). Also after 90 days, mortality was lower in the nCT group (HR for the interaction variable 2.84, 95% CI 1.87-4.30, p < 0.001; total HR 0.29*2.84 = 0.84). In the GEJ group, 38% received nCT, 22% received nCRT, and 39% received PS. All-cause mortality was lower after nCT (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43-0.93; p = 0.020) compared with PS. The nCRT group was removed from the Cox regression analysis since the Kaplan-Meier curves of nCRT and PS intersected. The results for gastric and GEJ carcinomas were similar between the SRCC and non-SRCC subgroups. CONCLUSION: For gastric and GEJ diffuse type cancer, including SRCC, nCT was associated with increased survival.

The association between hospital variation in curative treatment for esophagogastric cancer and health-related quality of life and survival.

BACKGROUND: As previous studies showed significant hospital variation in curative treatment of esophagogastric cancer, this study assesses the association between this variation and overall, cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival, and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with potentially curable esophageal or gastric cancer between 2015 and 2018 as registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry were included. Data on overall survival was available for all patients, data on cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival and HRQoL was available for subgroups. Patients were classified according to diagnosis in hospitals with low, medium or high probability of treatment with curative intent (LP, MP or HP). Multivariable models were used to assess the association between LP, MP and HP hospitals and HRQoL and survival. RESULTS: This study includes 7,199 patients with esophageal, and 2,407 with gastric cancer. Overall and cancer-specific survival was better for patients diagnosed in HP versus LP hospitals for both esophageal (HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.77-0.88 and HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.75-0.91, respectively), and gastric cancer (HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.73-0.92 and HR = 0.74, 95%CI:0.64-0.87, respectively). These differences disappeared after adjustments for treatment. Recurrence-free survival was worse for gastric cancer patients diagnosed in HP hospitals (HR = 1.50, 95%CI:1.14-1.96), which disappeared after adjustment for radicality of surgery. Minor, but no clinically relevant, differences in HRQoL were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed in hospitals with a high probability of treatment with curative intent have a better overall and cancer-specific but not recurrence-free survival, while minor differences in HRQoL were observed.

Long-term health-related quality of life in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer receiving first-line systemic therapy.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of systemic therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer in daily clinical practice. This study assessed the HRQoL of patients with esophagogastric cancer during first-line systemic therapy, at disease progression, and after progression in a real-world context. METHODS: Patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer (2014-2021) receiving first-line systemic therapy registered in the Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Oesophageal-gastric cancer (POCOP) were included (n = 335). HRQoL was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25. Outcomes of mixed-effects models were presented as adjusted mean changes. RESULTS: Results of the mixed-effect models showed the largest significant improvements during systemic therapy for odynophagia (- 18.9, p < 0.001), anxiety (- 18.7, p < 0.001), and dysphagia (- 13.8, p < 0.001) compared to baseline. After progression, global health status (- 6.3, p = 0.002) and cognitive (- 6.2, p = 0.001) and social functioning (- 9.7, p < 0.001) significantly worsened. At and after progression, physical (- 9.0, p < 0.001 and - 8.8, p < 0.001) and role functioning (- 15.2, p = 0.003 and - 14.7, p < 0.001) worsened, respectively. Trouble with taste worsened during systemic therapy (11.5, p < 0.001), at progression (12.0, p = 0.004), and after progression (15.3, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In general, HRQoL outcomes in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer improved during first-line therapy. Deterioration in outcomes was mainly observed at and after progression. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Identification of HRQoL aspects is important in shared decision-making and to inform patients on the impact of systemic therapy on their HRQoL.

A population-based comparison of patients with metastatic esophagogastric carcinoma between Japan and the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: Differences exist between Asian and Western patients with esophagogastric cancer, for example in terms of histological subtype and treatment strategies. This study aimed to compare characteristics and treatment between patients with metastatic esophagogastric cancer from Japan and the Netherlands using nationwide cancer registry data. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer were included from the nationwide national cancer registry of Japan (2016-2019) and the Netherlands (2015-2020). Treatment strategies were analyzed using chi-squared tests. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with metastatic esophageal (16.0% vs 34.2%) and gastric cancer (14.9% vs 45.2%) were lower in Japan compared to the Netherlands. Japanese patients with metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) or gastric cancer (GC) were more often male and older compared to Dutch patients. Proportion of patients with metastatic disease who received surgical resection was higher in Japan compared to the Netherlands (EAC 9.3 vs 1.4%, p < 0.001; ESCC 10.7% vs 2.3%, p < 0.001; GC 12.0% vs 3.6% p < 0.001). Proportion of patients who received systemic therapy was also higher (EAC 44.8% vs 30.4%, p < 0.001; ESCC 26.6% vs 12.0%, p < 0.001; GC 50.7% vs 35.8% p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Japanese patients less often presented with metastatic esophagogastric cancer and more often underwent surgical resection or received systemic therapy compared to Dutch patients. Further investigation should elucidate what the deliberations are in both Japan and the Netherlands and if more patients in the Netherlands could benefit from surgical resection or systemic therapy and whether this would translate in better survival and quality of life.

Gastrointestinal Symptoms After Resection of Esophagogastric Cancer: A Longitudinal Study on Their Incidence and Impact on Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: This study assesses the incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms in the first year after resection of esophageal or gastric cancer and its association with health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, work productivity, and daily activities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with esophageal or gastric cancer between 2015 and 2021, who underwent a resection, and completed ≥ 2 questionnaires from the time intervals prior to resection and 0-3, 3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months after resection were included. Multivariable generalized linear mixed models were used to assess changes in gastrointestinal symptoms over time and the impact of the number of gastrointestinal symptoms on HRQoL, functioning, work productivity, and daily activities for patients who underwent an esophagectomy or gastrectomy separately. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 961 (78.8%) and 259 (21.2%) patients who underwent an esophagectomy and gastrectomy, respectively. For both groups, the majority of gastrointestinal symptoms changed significantly over time. Most clinically relevant differences were observed 0-3 after resection compared with prior to resection and included increased diarrhea, appetite loss, and eating restrictions, and specifically after esophagectomy dry mouth, trouble with coughing, and trouble talking. At 9-12 after resection one or more severe gastrointestinal symptoms were reported by 38.9% after esophagectomy and 33.7% after gastrectomy. A higher number of gastrointestinal symptoms was associated with poorer functioning, lower HRQoL, higher impairment in daily activities, and lower work productivity. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently observed and burdensome after esophagectomy or gastrectomy, highlighting the importance to address these sequelae for high quality survivorship.

Impact of network treatment in patients with resected pancreatic cancer on use and timing of chemotherapy and survival.

BACKGROUND: Centralization of pancreatic cancer surgery aims to improve postoperative outcomes. Consequently, patients with pancreatic cancer may undergo pancreatic surgery in an expert centre and adjuvant chemotherapy in a local hospital (network treatment). The aim of this study was to assess whether network treatment has an impact on time to chemotherapy, failure to complete adjuvant chemotherapy, and survival. Second, whether these parameters varied between pancreatic networks was studied. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients diagnosed with non-metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent pancreatic surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015-2020). Time to chemotherapy was defined as the time between surgery and the start of adjuvant chemotherapy. Completion of adjuvant chemotherapy was defined as the receipt of 12 cycles of FOLFIRINOX or six cycles of gemcitabine. Analysis was performed with linear mixed models and multilevel logistic regression models. Cox regression analyses were performed for survival. RESULTS: In total, 1074 patients were included. Network treatment was observed in 468 patients (43.6 per cent) and was not associated with longer time to chemotherapy (0.77 days, standard error (s.e.) 1.14, P = 0.501), failure to complete adjuvant chemotherapy (odds ratio (OR) = 1.140, 95 per cent c.i. 0.86 to 1.52, P = 0.349), and overall survival (hazards ratio (HR) = 1.04, 95 per cent c.i. 0.88 to 1.22, P = 0.640). Significant variation between the networks was observed for time to chemotherapy (range 40.5-63 days, P < 0.0001) and completion of adjuvant chemotherapy (range 19-52 per cent, P = 0.030). Adjusted for case mix, time to chemotherapy significantly differed between networks. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide analysis, network treatment in patients with resected pancreatic cancer was not associated with longer time to chemotherapy, failure to complete adjuvant chemotherapy, and worse survival. Significant variation between pancreatic cancer networks was found for time to chemotherapy.

Late Toxicity and Health-Related Quality of Life Following Definitive Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is a treatment option with curative intent for patients with esophageal cancer that could result in late toxicities and affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to investigate the effect of dCRT on late toxicities and HRQoL in esophageal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO. Prospective phase II and III clinical trials, population-based studies, and retrospective chart reviews investigating late toxicity or HRQoL after dCRT (≥50 Gy) were included. The HRQoL outcomes were analyzed using linear mixed-effect models with restricted cubic spline transformation. Any HRQoL changes of ≥10 points were considered clinically relevant. The risk of toxicities was calculated using the number of events and the total study population. RESULTS: Among 41 included studies, 10 assessed HRQoL and 31 late toxicity. Global health status remained stable over time and improved after 36 months compared with baseline (mean change, +11). Several tumor-specific symptoms, including dysphagia, eating restrictions, and pain, improved after 6 months compared with baseline. Compared with baseline, dyspnea worsened after 6 months (mean change, +16 points). The risk of any late toxicity was 48% (95% CI, 33%-64%). Late toxicity risk of any grade for the esophagus was 17% (95% CI, 12%-21%), pulmonary 21% (95% CI, 11%-31%), cardiac 12% (95% CI, 6%-17%), and any other organ 24% (95% CI, 2%-45%). CONCLUSIONS: Global health status remained stable over time, and tumor-specific symptoms improved within 6 months after dCRT compared with baseline, with the exception of dyspnea. In addition, substantial risks of late toxicity were observed.

Hospital practice variation in the proportion of patients with esophagogastric cancer discussed during an expert multidisciplinary team meeting.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) and especially MDTMs in which expert centres are involved (expert MDTMs) are a key element in adequate cancer care. However, variation among hospitals in the proportion of patients presented during an expert MDTM has been described. This study aims to investigate national practice variation in the proportion of patients with oesophageal or gastric cancer being discussed during an expert MDTM. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with oesophageal or gastric cancer in 2018-2019 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 6,921). Multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to analyse the association between patient, and tumour characteristics, and the probability to be discussed in an expert MDTM. Variation was analysed according to the hospital and region of diagnosis for: all patients, patients with a potentially curable (cT1-4A cTX, any cN, cM0) or incurable tumour stage (cT4b and/or cM1). RESULTS: In total, 79% of patients were discussed during an expert MDTM, of whom 84% (n = 3,424) and 71% (n = 2,018) with potentially curable, or incurable oesophageal or gastric cancer, respectively. The proportion of patients discussed during an expert MDTM ranged from 54% to 98%, and 17% to 100% between hospitals for potentially curable and incurable patients, respectively (all p < 0.0001). Adjusted analyses showed significant hospital (all p < 0.0001), but no regional variation regarding the patients discussed during an expert MDTM. CONCLUSION: For patients with oesophageal or gastric cancer the probability of being discussed during an expert MDTM varies considerably according to the hospital of diagnosis.

Trends in best-case, typical and worst-case survival scenarios of patients with non-metastatic esophagogastric cancer between 2006 and 2020: A population-based study.

New treatment options and centralization of surgery have improved survival for patients with non-metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer. It is unknown, however, which patients benefitted the most from treatment advances. The aim of this study was to identify best-case, typical and worst-case scenarios in terms of survival time, and to assess if survival associated with these scenarios changed over time. Patients with non-metastatic potentially resectable esophageal or gastric cancer diagnosed between 2006 and 2020 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Best-case (20th percentile), upper-typical (40th percentile), typical (median), lower-typical (60th percentile) and worst-case (80th percentile) survival scenarios were defined, and regression analysis was used to investigate the change in survival time for each scenario across years. For patients with esophageal cancer (N = 24 352) survival time improved on average 12.0 (until 2011), 1.5 (until 2018), 0.7, 0.4 and 0.2 months per year for the best-case, upper-typical, median, lower-typical and worst-case scenario, respectively. For patients with gastric cancer (N = 9993) survival time of the best-case scenario remained constant, whereas the upper-typical, median, lower-typical and worst-case scenario improved on average with 1.0 (until 2018), 0.5, 0.2 and 0.2 months per year, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that, survival scenarios improved for nearly all patients across treatment groups and for patients with squamous cell carcinomas or adenocarcinomas. Survival improved for almost all patients suggesting that in clinical practice the vast majority of patients benefitted from treatment advances. The clinically most meaningful survival advantage was observed for the best-case scenario of esophageal cancer.

Comparing treatment and outcomes in advanced esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, and gastric adenocarcinomas: a population-based study.

Background: Treatment of advanced or metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) follows the guidelines for gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJC) and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC), but patients with EAC are often excluded from clinical studies of GEJC/GAC. Objectives: Here we describe treatment and survival of patients with advanced EAC, GEJC, and GAC to provide population-based evidence on distinctions and similarities between these populations. Design: Retrospective cohort study of patients with unresectable advanced (cT4b) or metastatic (cM1) EAC, GEJC, or GAC (2015-2020) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Methods: Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods, log-rank tests, and multivariable Cox regression. Results: In all, 7391 patients were included (EAC: n = 3346, GEJC: n = 1246, and GAC: n = 2798). Patients with EAC were more often males and more often had ⩾2 metastatic locations. First-line systemic therapy was received by 42%, 47%, and 36% of patients with EAC, GEJC, and GAC, respectively. Median OS was 5.0, 5.1, and 4.0 months for all patients with EAC, GEJC, and GAC, respectively (p < 0.001). Median OS from start of first-line therapy of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative adenocarcinomas was 7.6, 7.8, and 7.5 months (p = 0.12) and of patients with HER2-positive carcinoma receiving first-line trastuzumab-containing therapy was 11.0, 13.3, and 9.5 months (p = 0.37) in EAC, GEJC, and GAC, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, no difference in OS for patients with EAC, GEJC, and GAC was observed. Conclusion: Despite differences in clinical characteristics and treatment strategies, survival between patients with advanced EAC, GEJC, and GAC was similar. We advocate that EAC patients should not be excluded from clinical trials for patients with molecularly similar GEJC/GAC.

Conditional relative survival in nonmetastatic esophagogastric cancer between 2006 and 2020: A population-based study.

Conditional relative survival (CRS) is useful for communicating prognosis to patients as it provides an estimate of the life expectancy after having survived a certain time after treatment. Our study estimates the 3-year relative survival conditional on having survived a certain period for patients with esophageal or gastric cancer. Patients with nonmetastatic esophageal or gastric cancer diagnosed between 2006 and 2020 treated with curative intent (resection with or without [neo]adjuvant therapy, or chemoradiotherapy) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. CRS was calculated since resection or last day of chemoradiotherapy. The probability of surviving an additional 3 years (ie, 3-year CRS), if the patients survived 1, 3 and 5 years after diagnosis was 62%, 79%, 87% and 69%, 84%, 90% for esophageal and gastric cancer, respectively. The 3-year CRS after having survived 3 years for patients with esophageal cancer who underwent a resection (n = 12 204) was 91%, 88%, 77% and 60% for pathological Stage 0, I, II and III, and for patients with esophageal cancer who received chemoradiotherapy (n = 4158) was 51% and 66% for clinical Stage II and III, respectively. The 3-year CRS after having survived 3 years for patients with gastric cancer who underwent a resection (n = 6531) was 99%, 90%, 73% and 59% for pathological Stage 0, I, II and III, respectively. Despite poor prognosis of patients with esophageal or gastric cancer, life expectancy increases substantially after patients have survived several years after treatment. Our study provides valuable information for communication of prognosis to patients during follow-up after treatment.

Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Toward a Second Chance at Cure? A Population-Based, Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In current practice, rates of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) are low due to the use of the total mesorectal excision (TME) in combination with various neoadjuvant treatment strategies. However, the literature on LRRC mainly consists of single- and multicenter retrospective cohort studies, which are prone to selection bias. The aim of this study is to provide a nationwide, population-based overview of LRRC after TME in the Netherlands. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 1431 patients with nonmetastasized primary rectal cancer diagnosed in the first six months of 2015 and treated with TME were included from the nationwide, population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data on disease recurrence were collected for patients diagnosed in these 6 months only. Competing risk cumulative incidence, competing risk regression, and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to assess incidence, risk factors, treatment, and overall survival (OS) of LRRC. RESULTS: Three-year cumulative incidence of LRRC was 6.4%; synchronous distant metastases (LRRC-M1) were present in 44.9% of patients with LRRC. Distal localization, R1-2 margin, (y)pT3-4, and (y)pN1-2 were associated with an increased LRRC rate. No differences in LRRC treatment and OS were found between patients who had been treated with or without prior n(C)RT. Curative-intent treatment was given to 42.9% of patients with LRRC, and 3-year OS thereafter was 70%. CONCLUSIONS: Nationwide LRRC incidence was low. A high proportion of patients with LRRC underwent curative-intent treatment, and OS of this group was high in comparison with previous studies. Additionally, n(C)RT for primary rectal cancer was not associated with differences in treatment and OS of LRRC.

The diagnostic value of staging laparoscopy in gallbladder cancer: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Disseminated disease (DD) is often found at (re-)exploration in gallbladder cancer (GBC) patients. We aimed to assess the yield of staging laparoscopy (SL) and identify predictors for DD. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients from all Dutch academic centres with primary GBC (pGBC) and incidentally diagnosed GBC (iGBC) planned for (re-)resection. The yield of SL was determined. In iGBC, predictive factors for DD were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 290 patients were included. Of 183 included pGBC patients, 143 underwent laparotomy without SL, and 42 (29%) showed DD perioperatively. SL, conducted in 40 patients, identified DD in eight. DD was found in nine of 32 patients who underwent laparotomy after SL. Of 107 included iGBC patients, 100 underwent laparotomy without SL, and 19 showed DD perioperatively. SL, conducted in seven patients, identified DD in one. Cholecystitis (OR = 4.25; 95% CI 1.51-11.91) and primary R1/R2 resection (OR = 3.94; 95% CI 1.39-11.19) were independent predictive factors for DD. CONCLUSIONS: In pGBC patients, SL may identify DD in up to 20% of patients and should be part of standard management. In iGBC patients, SL is indicated after primary resection for cholecystitis and after initial R1/R2 resection due to the association of these factors with DD.