Epidemiology of gall bladder cancer and its prevalence worldwide: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) accounts for 1.3% of cancer incidence and 1.7% of cancer-related deaths which emphasizes the need for comprehensive research in epidemiological trends.

Aim: We aim to address this gap by investigating global prevalence trends across various regions, age groups, risk factors and cancer stages.

Methods: A meta-analysis of studies retrieved from Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science, reporting prevalence of GBC was conducted using a predetermined screening criterion. Meta Regression and Egger's Regression-based tests were employed to assess heterogeneity and publication bias, respectively.

Results: We identified three types of studies (n = 20), primarily originating from Asia (n = 10) over a cumulative time period of 24 years (1988-2012). The pooled analysis revealed a statistically significant GBC prevalence of 20.3 ± 5.2% (95% CI 9.3-31.3%, p = 0.001) among at-risk populations, including those with gallstones or cholecystitis. Analysis of potential publication bias showed none, nevertheless, individual parameters indicated varying significance. Subgroup analyses highlighted regional, temporal, and demographic variations, emphasizing the influence of factors like sample size and age on GBC prevalence. Correlation analysis demonstrated strong positive associations with sample size (p < 0.01), gender distribution (male: r = 0.85, p < 0.01, female: r = 0.806, p < 0.01), and prevalence rates (r = 0.98, p = 0.04).

Conclusion: Despite of less data present, our comprehensive overview of prevalence, regional variations, and demographic associations serves as a crucial starting point for future targeted investigations. The study fulfills a gap in epidemiology of GBC and emphasizes the need for increased attention and provides a pioneering arena in future.

Keywords: Cancer research; Epidemiology; Gallbladder cancer; Global trends; Prevalence; Risk factors.

Fig. 1

Flowchart illustrating the systematic selection process. The screening process resulted in 20 eligible records after excluding duplicates, other than prevalence-based research and studies with missing details

Fig. 2

Forest plot highlighting each study with its individual effects. All the studies showed a statistically significant effect in pooled prevalence with overall p = 0.00, except Silva et al. [13] and Raina et al. [20] showed non-significant outcomes in the study collection

Fig. 3

A funnel plot representing distribution of studies. The substantial heterogeneity contributes to the deviation of 3 studies [31–33] and thus the asymmetry in the funnel plot

Fig. 4

Bubble plots showing the variability of different studies in various moderators