[New S3 guideline for esophageal cancer : Important surgical aspects]

Invasive features of superficial oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma-analysis of risk factors for lymph node metastasis

There are currently no studies that have examined the clinicopathological factors in detail, including the histological images of the invasive front, and the risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in superficial oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC). This study aimed to develop an algorithm that contributes to a better assessment of the risk of LNM and recurrence in SESCC. Clinicopathological factors, such as submucosal (SM) invasion distance, were examined in 88 surgically resected cases of SESCC. An SM invasion distance of 600 μm was the statistically best customer value for LNM (p = 0.0043). To obtain a histological image of the invasive front, we evaluated modified tumour budding (MBD) by modifying the number of tumour foci constituent cells and foci in tumour budding. We also evaluated the smallest number of tumour foci. Using these factors, we developed an algorithm to predict the risk of LNM. The best algorithm was created using an SM invasion distance of 600 μm and an index of 5 or more foci consisting of five or fewer tumour cells in the MBD (MBD5 high-grade ≥ 5), which was also significantly associated with recurrence-free survival (p = 0.0305). Further study of the algorithm presented in this study is expected to improve the quality of life of patients by selecting appropriate additional treatments after endoscopic resection and appropriate initial treatment for SESCC.

Minimally invasive surgery for gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: Current evidence and future perspectives

Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly indicated in the management of malignant disease. Although oesophagectomy is a difficult operation, with a long learning curve, there is actually a shift towards the laparoscopic/thoracoscopic/ robotic approach, due to the advantages of visualization, surgeon comfort (robotic surgery) and the possibility of the whole team to see the operation as well as and the operating surgeon. Although currently there are still many controversial topics, about the surgical treatment of patients with gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) adenocarcinoma, such as the type of open or minimally invasive surgical approach, the type of oesophago-gastric resection, the type of lymph node dissection and others, the minimally invasive approach has proven to be a way to reduce postoperative complications of resection, especially by decreasing pulmonary complications. The implementation of new technologies allowed the widening of the range of indications for this type of surgical approach. The short-term and long-term results, as well as the benefits for the patient - reduced surgical trauma, quick and easy recovery - offer this type of surgical treatment the premises for future development. This article reviews the updates and perspectives on the minimally invasive approach for GOJ adenocarcinoma.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT-2 trial)

BACKGROUND

For patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent. Both conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) were shown to be superior compared to open transthoracic esophagectomy considering postoperative complications. However, no randomized comparison exists between MIE and RAMIE in the Western World for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

This is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 218) with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction are randomized to either RAMIE (n = 109) or MIE (n = 109). The primary outcome of this study is the total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes specified per lymph node station.

CONCLUSION

This is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAMIE to MIE as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in the Western World. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that RAMIE will result in a higher abdominal and mediastinal lymph node yield specified per station compared to conventional MIE. Short-term results and the primary endpoint (total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes per lymph node station) will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient within this trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04306458 . Registered 13th March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04306458; Date of first enrolment 18.01.2021; Target sample size 218; Recruitment status: Recruiting; Protocol version 2; Issue date 10.03.2020; Rev. 02.02.2021; Authors ET, PCvdS, PPG.

Gastrointestinal function testing model using a new laryngopharyngeal pH probe (Restech) in patients after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

There is no established correlation between 24-h esophageal pH-metry (Eso-pH) and the new laryngopharyngeal pH-monitoring system (Restech) as only small case series exist. Eso-pH was not designed to detect laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and Restech may detect LPR better. We have previously published a dataset using the two techniques in a large patient collective with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Anatomically, patients after esophagectomy were reported to represent an ideal human reflux model as no reflux barrier exists.

AIM

To use a human reflux model to examine our previously published correlation in these patients.

METHODS

Patients after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy underwent our routine follow-up program with surveillance endoscopies, computed tomography scans and further exams following surgery. Only patients with a complete check-up program and reflux symptoms were offered inclusion into this prospective study and evaluated using Restech and simultaneous Eso-pH. Subsequently, the relationship between the two techniques was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 43 patients from May 2016 - November 2018 were included. All patients presented with mainly typical reflux symptoms such as heartburn (74%), regurgitation (84%), chest pain (58%), and dysphagia (47%). Extraesophageal symptoms such as cough, hoarseness, asthma symptoms, and globus sensation were also present. Esophageal 24-hour pH-metry was abnormal in 88% of patients with a mean DeMeester Score of 229.45 [range 26.4-319.5]. Restech evaluation was abnormal in 61% of cases in this highly selective patient cohort. All patients with abnormal supine LPR were also abnormal for supine esophageal reflux measured by conventional Eso-pH.

CONCLUSION

Patients following esophagectomy and reconstruction with gastric interposition can ideally serve as a human reflux model. Interestingly, laryngopharyngeal reflux phases occur mainly in the upright position. In this human volume-reflux model, results of simultaneous esophageal and laryngopharyngeal (Restech) pH-metry showed 100% correlation as being explicable by one of our reflux scenarios.

Are muscle parameters obtained by computed tomography associated with outcome after esophagectomy for cancer?

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Esophageal cancer patients often suffer from cancer-related malnutrition and, as a result, sarcopenia. Whether sarcopenia worsens the outcome after esophagectomy is unclear. Inconsistent study results are partly caused by varying cut-off values used for defining sarcopenia. To overcome this challenge, a new statistical approach is proposed in this study: analyzing the linear association of computer tomography derived muscle parameters with important clinical short- and long-term outcomes post esophagectomy, regardless of cut-offs.

METHODS

Skeletal muscle index (SMI), quantifying muscle mass, was assessed with computed tomography (CT) in 98 patients undergoing esophagectomy. Muscle radiation attenuation (MRA) was measured to evaluate muscle quality. To evaluate the influence of the SMI and MRA on post-surgery complications, logistic regression models were used. To analyze the relationship of lengths of stay to muscle parameters, the competing risk approach introduced by Fine and Gray was applied. For survival analysis, log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling were used.

RESULTS

Neither a relevant association of SMI nor MRA with pneumonia and esophagoenteric leak were observed. Furthermore, no relevant association to lengths of stay in intensive care or hospital were detected. If the SMI increased, the odds for pleural effusion and pleural empyema decreased, but the odds of a pulmonary embolism increased. Univariate, unadjusted long-term survival analysis revealed that lower MRA and lower SMI were associated with shorter survival (P = 0.03). However, if the analysis was adjusted for confounders, e.g., Charlson Comorbidity Index, no relevant association regarding long-term survival was detected.

CONCLUSION

Consequently, poor muscle status, determined by CT imaging, does not justify denying a patient an oncologic resection. The Charlson Comorbidity Index, however, was superior for preoperative risk stratification.

Does Circular Stapler Size in Surgical Management of Esophageal Cancer Affect Anastomotic Leak Rate? 4-Year Experience of a European High-Volume Center

Simple Summary

One of the most severe postoperative complications after a transthoracic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is a leakage of the anastomosis created between the remnant esophagus and the stomach. There is substantial debate on which surgical technique and which stapler are the best. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze whether the stapler diameter had an impact on postoperative anastomotic leak rates during a 4-year time frame from 2016 to 2020. A total of 632 patients (open, hybrid, and totally minimally invasive esophagectomy) met the inclusion criteria. A total of 214 patients underwent an anastomosis with a 25 mm stapler vs. 418 patients with a 28 mm stapler. Anastomotic leak rates were 15.4% vs. 10.8%, respectively. Stapler size should be chosen according to the individual anatomical situation of the patient and may be of higher relevance in patients undergoing totally minimally invasive reconstruction.

Abstract

Anastomotic leak is one of the most severe postoperative complications and is therefore considered a benchmark for the quality of surgery for esophageal cancer. There is substantial debate on which anastomotic technique is the best for patients undergoing Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Our standardized technique is a circular stapled anastomosis with either a 25 or 28 mm anvil. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze whether the stapler diameter had an impact on postoperative anastomotic leak rates during a 4-year time frame from 2016 to 2020. A total of 632 patients (open, hybrid, and totally minimally invasive esophagectomy) met the inclusion criteria. A total of 214 patients underwent an anastomosis with a 25 mm stapler vs. 418 patients with a 28 mm stapler. Anastomotic leak rates were 15.4% vs. 10.8%, respectively (p = 0.0925). Stapler size should be chosen according to the individual anatomical situation of the patient. Stapler size may be of higher relevance in patients undergoing totally minimally invasive reconstruction.

[Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer?]

BACKGROUND

According to international guidelines neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy are recommended for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. The treatment approach depends on the tumor entity (adenocarcinoma vs. squamous cell carcinoma).

OBJECTIVE

What benefits do patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer have from neoadjuvant treatment? Is there information in the international literature on whether a particular neoadjuvant treatment is preferred? Does the type of neoadjuvant treatment depend on factors other than the tumor entity? Is there a standard in the drug composition of chemotherapy or a clearly defined chemoradiotherapy regimen?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A review, evaluation and critical analysis of the international literature were carried out.

RESULTS

Patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer benefit from a neoadjuvant treatment. The current data situation for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus demonstrates a better response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone. Locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus can be treated with combined neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy as well as by chemotherapy alone. Both lead to an improvement in the prognosis. There are often differences particularly among radiation treatment regimens in the different centers. Furthermore, the localization of the tumor can also be important for treatment decisions.

CONCLUSION

A neoadjuvant treatment is clearly recommended for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Currently, chemoradiotherapy according to the CROSS protocol is preferred for squamous cell carcinoma. For adenocarcinoma both chemotherapy according to the FLOT protocol as well as chemoradiotherapy in a neoadjuvant treatment concept lead to an improvement in the prognosis.

Distribution of lymph node metastases in locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (cT2-4): comparison between Siewert type I and selected Siewert type II tumors

INTRODUCTION

The distribution of lymph node metastases in locally advanced Siewert type I and type II AEG (adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction) remains unclear. The diversity of data in the literature reflects the non-uniformity of tumor stages and surgical procedures in previous studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on a retrospective analysis from our single-center database, we examined distributions of lymph node metastases in types I and II cT2-4 AEG. The dataset comprised 44 patients; 19 and 25 patients had type I and type II, respectively. All patients underwent subtotal esophagectomy and total mediastinal lymphadenectomy, which included dissection of the upper mediastinal lymph nodes. The histological data of the surgical specimens were analyzed to evaluate metastasis rates in each lymph node station according to the Japanese Esophageal Society (JES) and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) guidelines.

RESULTS

Lymph node metastases were observed in 75.0% cases (n = 33/44). There was no significant difference in the total lymph node metastasis rate between the two groups (type I 73.7% versus type II 76.0%). On comparing each lymph node region separately, no statistically significant differences were noted between the groups: upper mediastinal (type I 31.6% versus type II 24.0%), middle and lower mediastinal (type I 31.6% versus type II 44.0%), paragastric (type I 61.1% versus type II 76.0%), and celiac lymph nodes (type I 16.7% versus type II 25.0%).

CONCLUSION

In advanced clinical stages, the metastasis rate is high at all mediastinal lymph node regions in both type I and type II AEGs.

Modular step-up approach to robot-assisted transthoracic esophagectomy-experience of a German high volume center

Background

The use of robotic technology in general surgery is rapidly increasing in Europe. Aim of this study is to evaluate the introduction of new robotic technologies in a center of excellence for upper gastrointestinal surgery.

Methods

A standardized teaching protocol of a complete OR team was performed in simulation and animal models at the Center for the Future of Surgery (San Diego CA, USA) and IRCAD (Strasbourg, France) to receive certification as console surgeons. Starting 02/2017 the daVinci Xi and Stryker ICG laparoscopy systems were introduced at our academic center (certified center of excellence for surgery of the upper gastrointestinal tract, n>300 upper gastrointestinal cases/year). After simple training procedures based on our minimally invasive expertise were performed, difficulty was increased based on a modular step up approach to finally perform robotic assisted transthoracic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Results

A total of 70 patients (9 females) fulfilled inclusion criteria to our study. Robotic assisted esophagectomy was divided into six modules. Level of difficulty was increased based on our modular step up approach without quality compromises. There were no intraoperative complications and no unplanned conversions to open surgery. Two surgeons were able to sequentially train and perform a completely robotic transthoracic esophagectomy using this modular approach without a substantial learning curve. A total of ten esophagectomies per surgeon were necessary to complete all modules in one case.

Conclusions

The standardized training protocol and the University of Cologne modular step up approach allowed safe introduction of the new technology used. All cases were performed safely without operation-associated complications.

[Updated German S3 guidelines on esophageal cancer and supplements from a surgical perspective]

The updated German S3 guidelines recommend transthoracic subtotal esophagectomy with 2‑field lymphadenectomy for surgical treatment of esophageal cancer in patients with squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric (AEG type I) junction of the middle and lower third. For AEG type III transhiatal extended total gastrectomy with distal esophageal resection is favored. Patients with AEG type II can be treated by both procedures under the prerequisite that an R0 resection can be achieved. A limited resection of the distal esophagus and the proximal stomach can only be considered in cT1 N0 M0 possibly cT2 AEG junction without an oncological risk constellation, i.e. grade G1/G2, intestinal type and no poorly cohesive carcinoma, because the rate of lymph node metastasis at the distal stomach is less than 2%. Minimally invasive procedures provide advantages compared to open esophagectomy due to the lower rate of postoperative total and especially pulmonary complications. This is true for hybrid esophagectomy (laparoscopy and thoracotomy) versus open access in cases of intrathoracic anastomoses and for total minimally invasive esophagectomy including robotic techniques versus open access in cervical esophagogastrostomy.

[Therapeutic approach in oligometastatic gastric and esophageal cancer]

The therapeutic approach to patients with oligometastatic gastric cancer and esophageal cancer is currently undergoing a shift towards a more aggressive therapy including surgical resection. In the current German S3 guidelines surgical treatment of metastatic disease is not recommended; however, nowadays interdisciplinary tumor boards have to evaluate such patients increasingly more often. On an individual basis a radical surgical resection of the primary tumor and the metastases is considered and performed in patients who respond well to multimodal chemotherapy concepts. In this review article the currently available data from the literature are discussed and a foundation for individually extended surgical approaches is presented. Together with the currently available results of the FLOT 3 study and the mostly retrospective studies, it seems to be possible to identify patients who would profit from such an aggressive treatment. In the future randomized prospective studies, such as the RENAISSANCE/FLOT 5 study and the GASTRIPEC study will have to evaluate whether an aggressive surgical therapy within multimodal therapy concepts of metastatic gastric and esophageal carcinomas is warranted.

Early esophageal cancer: the significance of surgery, endoscopy, and chemoradiation

Early carcinomas of the esophagus are histologically classified as adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma and microscopically subdivided into mucosal and submucosal carcinomas depending on infiltration depth. The prevalence of lymph node metastasis in mucosal carcinoma remains low. However, lymph node metastases arise frequently from tumors with submucosal infiltration, with increasing prevalence in the deeper submucosal sublayers. According to current German guidelines, endoscopic resection is the recommended treatment in mucosal adenocarcinoma without histologic risk factors (lymphatic invasion 1, vascular invasion 1, >grade 2, R1-margin). In superficial submucosal infiltration without histologic risk factors, endoscopic resection can be considered. In squamous cell carcinoma, endoscopic resection is indicated up to middle layer mucosal carcinoma. Beyond these criteria, surgical resection should be considered. The gold standard is a subtotal transthoracic esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy. Total esophagectomy is performed in cervical esophageal carcinoma and transhiatal extended gastrectomy in carcinoma of the cardia. Minimally invasive procedures show good oncologic results and reduce the morbidity of radical esophagectomy. Reduced morbidity might be an argument for surgical resection in borderline cases between endoscopic and surgical resection. In early squamous cell cancer, the combination of endoscopic resection and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is a therapeutic option with promising results.

Cancer of the gastroesophageal junction: a diagnosis, classification, and management review

Management of gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma is a controversial topic. The rising incidence of this cancer requires a clear consensus to ensure proper management. Application of oncological principles for tumors of the esophagus or stomach is not possible because of comparative differences in the biology of GEJ adenocarcinoma, leading to different therapeutic options. Staging work-up with endoscopy, endosonography, and PET is essential to inform the choice of neoadjuvant treatment and surgical approach to GEJ adenocarcinoma. Surgery remains the only curative treatment and should be undertaken in specialized centers.

Endoscopic and histopathologic reflux-associated mucosal damage in the remnant esophagus following transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer-5-year long-term follow-up

Gastroesophageal reflux is a common problem following esophagectomy and reconstruction with gastric interposition. Despite a routine prescription of proton pump inhibitors, reflux-associated mucosal damage in the remnant esophagus is frequently observed. Purpose of this study is to evaluate mucosal damage in the esophageal remnant during long-term follow-up and to compare the prevalence of this damage between the subgroups of esophageal squamous cell and adenocarcinoma. All patients undergoing transthoracic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy were prospectively entered in our IRB approved database. All patients underwent a routine check-up program with yearly surveillance endoscopies following esophagectomy. Only patients with a complete follow-up were included into this study. Endoscopic and histopathologic mucosal changes of the remnant esophagus were analyzed in close intervals. A total of 50 patients met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 31 adenocarcinomas (AC) and 19 squamous cell carcinomas (SCC). Mucosal damage was already seen 1 year after surgery in 20 patients macroscopically (43%) and in 21 patients microscopically (45%). At 5-year follow-up the prevalence for macroscopic and microscopic damage was 55% and 60%, respectively. The prevalence of mucosal damage was higher in AC patients than in SCC patients (1y-FU: 51% [AC] vs. 28% [SCC]; 5y-FU: 68% [AC] vs. 35% [SCC], P < 0.05). Newly acquired Barrett's esophagus was seen in 10 patients (20%) with two of those patients (20%) showing histopathologic proof of neoplasia. This study shows a high prevalence of reflux-associated mucosal damage in the remnant esophagus one year out of surgery and only a moderate increase in prevalence in the following years. Mucosal damage was more frequently seen in AC patients and the occurrence of de-novo Barrett's esophagus and de-novo neoplasia was high. Endoscopic surveillance with targeted biopsies seems to be an indispensable tool to follow patients after esophagectomy appropriately.

Perioperative chemotherapy vs. neoadjuvant chemoradiation in gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma : A population-based evaluation of the Munich Cancer Registry

BACKGROUND

To date, it remains unclear whether locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (AEG) should be treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT), analogous to esophageal cancer, or with perioperative chemotherapy (pCT), analogous to gastric cancer. The purpose of this study was to analyze the data of the Munich Cancer Registry (MCR) and to compare pCT and nCRT in AEG patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 2,992 AEG patients, treated between 1998 and 2014, were included in the study. Baseline and tumor parameters as well as overall survival (OS) and tumor recurrence were compared between 56 patients undergoing nCRT and 64 patients undergoing pCT with UICC stage II/III cancer. In addition, uni- and multivariate analyses using Cox regression models were performed to evaluate the effect of tumor characteristics and treatment regimens on OS.

RESULTS

In patients with UICC stage II/III AEG treated with either nCRT or pCT, no significant differences were seen for baseline and tumor characteristics. While there was a significantly higher cumulative incidence of locoregional treatment failure after pCT (32.8%; 95% CI: 18.0-48.4%) compared with nCRT (7.4%; 95% CI: 2.3-16.5%; p = 0.007), there was no significant difference for distant treatment failure (52.9%; 95% CI: 35.4-67.7% and 38.4%; 95% CI: 23.7-52.9%; p = 0.347). When analyzing the whole cohort, patients who received pCT were younger (58.3 years vs. 63.0 years; p = 0.016), had a higher chance of complete tumor resection (81% vs. 67%; p = 0.033), more resected lymph nodes (p = 0.036), and fewer lymph node metastases (p = 0.038) compared with patients who received nCRT. Nevertheless, there was still a strong trend toward a higher incidence of local treatment failure after pCT (25.8%; 95% CI: 14.7-38.3% vs. 12.6%; 95% CI: 5.5-22.8%; p = 0.053). Comparable to the results for patients with UICC stage II/III, no difference was seen for the incidence of distant treatment failure. When excluding patients with UICC stage IV cancer, no significant difference was found for OS.

CONCLUSION

For UICC stage II/III carcinoma, nCRT was associated with an improved locoregional tumor control compared with pCT, while no further significant differences were seen between nCRT and pCT for UICC stage II/III AEG. Moreover, there was a strong trend toward improved locoregional tumor control after nCRT when analyzing all patients treated with nCRT or pCT, despite these patients having higher risk factors.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation for patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus? A propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Multimodal therapies are the standard of care for advanced adenocarcinomas of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction (AEG Types I and II). Only three randomised trials have compared preoperative chemotherapy with and without radiation. The results showed a small benefit for combined chemoradiation. In the meantime, newer therapy protocols are available.

AIM

In a propensity-score matched study, we analysed patients with locally advanced AEG type I or II, treated with chemotherapy (FLOT-protocol) or chemoradiation (CROSS-protocol), followed by oesophagectomy, in a single high-volume centre.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2011 and 2015, 137 patients with advanced (cT3NxcM0) adenocarcinoma received pre-operative therapy; 70% had chemoradiation (CROSS-protocol) and 30% had chemotherapy (FLOT-protocol). After propensity-score matching, 40 patients from the CROSS-group were selected for analysis. Postoperative histopathological response and prognosis were analysed.

RESULTS

The two groups were comparable according to the matching criteria age, gender, tumour location, and year of surgery. R0-resection was achieved in 97% of patients in the CROSS-group and 85% of the FLOT-group (p = 0.049). Major response of the primary tumour was evident more often in the CROSS-group (17/40 pts. 43%) versus FLOT-group (11/40 pts. 27%) as well no lymph node metastasis (ypN0 = 68% versus ypN0 = 40%) (p = 0.014). Prognosis were not significantly different between the two groups. In multivariate analysis, only ypN-category was an independent prognostic factor.

CONCLUSION

Compared to FLOT-chemotherapy, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with the CROSS-protocol in locally advanced adenocarcinoma AEG types I and II resulted in better response by the primary tumour and less lymph node metastasis but without superior survival.

New approaches in esophageal carcinomas

New approaches in the treatment of esophageal cancer comprise endoscopy with refinements of esophagoscopic intraluminal resection by endoscopic submucosal dissection. Radical open surgery is more and more replaced by minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIO), especially in the hybrid technique with laparoscopic gastrolysis and transthoracic esophageal resection and gastric pull-up. Total MIO also in the robotic technique has not yet shown that it produces superior results than the hybrid technique. Fluorescent dye can improve the intraoperative visualization of the vascularization of the gastric conduit. The individualization of neoadjuvant therapy is the magic word in clinical research of multimodal treatment of esophageal cancer. This means response prediction based on molecular markers or clinical response evaluation. The documentation of the diversity of postoperative complications is now standardized by an international consensus. The value of enhanced recovery after surgery is not yet approved compared to conventional management.