Retrospective study using the propensity score to clarify the oncologic feasibility of thoracoscopic esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Provides Better Short- and Long-Term Outcomes Than Open Esophagectomy in Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been increasingly performed for locally advanced esophageal cancer in place of open transthoracic esophagectomy (OE). This study explored the significance of MIE for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), focusing mainly on the depth of primary esophageal tumors.

METHODS

This study retrospectively assessed short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent esophagectomy for ESCC from 2005 through 2021. The inverse probability of the treatment-weighting (IPTW) method was used to compare the outcomes between OE and MIE. The outcomes also were evaluated in the subgroups stratified by cT category.

RESULTS

Among 1117 patients, 447 (40%) underwent OE and 670 (60%) underwent MIE. After IPTW adjustment, the incidence of any postoperative complications was significantly higher in the OE group than in the MIE group (60.8% vs 53.7%; p = 0.032), whereas the R0 resection rate was significantly higher in the MIE group (98.6% vs 92.7%; p < 0.001). The MIE group showed better 3 year overall and cancer-specific survival than the OE group (p < 0.001). The incidence of locoregional recurrence within the surgical field was significantly more frequent in the OE group (p < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis stratified by cT category, the R0 resection rate was significantly higher and the incidence of locoregional recurrence was lower in the MIE group among the patients with cT3-4 tumors. In the patients with cT1-2 tumors, MIE showed no significant benefit over OE.

CONCLUSIONS

For the patients with cT3-4 tumors, MIE showed fewer postoperative complications, better locoregional control, and better prognosis than OE. Compared with OE, MIE is beneficial, especially for locally advanced ESCC.

Laparoscopic reconstruction in McKeown esophagectomy is a risk factor for postoperative diaphragmatic hernia

Diaphragmatic hernia is a very rare but high-risk complication after esophagectomy. Although there are many studies on the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy procedure for diaphragmatic hernia, there are fewer studies on the McKeown procedure. The present study aimed to estimate the incidence of diaphragmatic hernia after esophagectomy, describing its presentation and management with the McKeown procedure. We retrospectively evaluated the 622 patients who underwent radical esophagectomy between January 2002 and December 2020 at the Wakayama Medical University Hospital. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors for diaphragmatic hernia. Emergency surgery for postoperative diaphragmatic hernia was performed in nine of 622 patients (1.45%). Of these nine patients, one developed prolapse of the small intestine into the mediastinum (11.1%). The other eight patients underwent posterior mediastinal route reconstructions (88.9%), one of whom developed prolapse of the gastric conduit, and seven of whom developed transverse colon via the diaphragmatic hiatus. Laparoscopic surgery was identified in multivariate analysis as the only independent risk factor for diaphragmatic hernia (odd's ratio [OR] = 9.802, p = 0.034). In all seven cases of transverse colon prolapse into the thoracic cavity, the prolapsed organ had herniated from the left anterior part of gastric conduit. Laparoscopic surgery for esophageal cancer is a risk factor for diaphragmatic hernia. The left anterior surface of gastric conduit and diaphragmatic hiatus should be fixed firmly without compromising blood flow to the gastric conduit.

Patterns of Recurrence and Long-Term Survival of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Open Esophagectomy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) as a treatment for patients with esophageal cancer has recently become more common worldwide. However, differences in the pattern of recurrence between MIE and open esophagectomy (OE) using the transthoracic approach have not been fully investigated, particularly in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

We searched the prospective databases of two institutes for patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by esophagectomy between 2011 and 2018. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to reduce bias from confounding patient-related variables. Operative outcomes, regionally harvested lymph nodes (LNs), recurrence pattern, and prognosis were investigated in two groups.

RESULTS

We identified 410 patients who underwent OE (n = 263) and MIE (n = 147). After propensity score matching, 131 pairs of patients were selected. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics after matching. The total number of harvested LNs in both groups was similar (55.1 vs. 58.9, P = 0.132). The incidence of LN recurrence in the MIE group was significantly lower than that in the OE group (27% vs. 15%, P = 0.010). In particular, the incidence of mediastinal LN recurrence in the MIE group was significantly lower than that in the OE group (16% vs. 6%, P = 0.017). There were no significant differences between the two groups in hematogenous (19% vs.12%, P = 0.173), dissemination (5% vs. 4%, P = 0.769), local (4% vs. 1%. P = 0.213), and other recurrence (3% vs. 3%, P = 1.000). The 3-year disease-free and overall survival of MIE were significantly better than OE (71.4% vs. 50.5%, P = 0.004 and 80.3% vs. 61.2%, P = 0.002, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that the thoracic approach (OE vs. MIE) (HR 1.93, P = 0.004) was an independent prognostic factor, along with the pathological N stage (HR 3.05, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

MIE has less intramediastinal LN recurrence than OE and may lead to a better long-term prognosis in patients with advanced esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

A refined procedure for esophageal resection using a full minimally invasive approach

Objective

Newer minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy have brought substantial benefits to esophageal-cancer patients and continue to improve. We report here our experience with a streamlined procedure as part of a comprehensive perioperative-care program that provides additional advances in the continued evolution of this procedure.

Methods

All patients with primary esophageal cancer referred for resection to the Oakland Medical Center of the Kaiser-Permanente Northern California health plan who underwent this approach between January 2013 and August 2018 were included. Operative and clinical outcome variables were extracted from the electronic medical record, operating-room files, and manual chart review.

Results

142 patients underwent the new procedure and care program; 121 (85.2%) were men with mean age of 64.5 years. 127 (89.4%) were adenocarcinoma; 117 (82.4%) were clinical stage III or IVA. 115 (81.0%) required no jejunostomy. Median hospital length-of-stay was 3 days and 8 (5.6%) patients required admission to the intensive care unit. Postoperative complications occurred in 22 (15.5%) patients within 30 days of the procedure. There were no inpatient deaths; one patient (0.7%) died within 30 days following discharge and three additional deaths (2.1%) occurred through 90 days of follow-up.

Conclusions

This approach resulted in excellent clinical outcomes, including short hospital stays with limited need for the intensive care unit, few perioperative complications, and relatively few patients requiring feeding tubes on discharge. This comprehensive approach to esophagectomy is feasible and provides another clinically meaningful advance in the progress of minimally invasive esophagectomy. Further development and dissemination of this method is warranted.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01765-2.

Long-term survival outcomes of esophageal cancer after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

Objectives

The aim of this study was to determine the long-term overall and disease-free survival and factors associated with overall survival in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing a totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MILE) at a safety-net hospital.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent MILE from September 2013 to November 2017. Overall and disease-free survival were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier estimates, and hazard ratios (HR) were derived from multivariable Cox regression models.

Results

Ninety-six patients underwent MILE during the study period. Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 83.2%, 61.9%, and 55.9%, respectively. Disease-free survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 83.2%, 60.6%, and 47.5%, respectively. Overall survival (p < 0.001) and disease-free survival (p < 0.001) differed across pathological stages. By multivariable analysis, increasing age (HR, 1.06; p = 0.02), decreasing Karnofsky performance status score (HR, 0.94; p = 0.002), presence of stage IV disease (HR, 5.62; p = 0.002), locoregional recurrence (HR, 2.94; p = 0.03), and distant recurrence (HR, 4.78; p < 0.001) were negatively associated with overall survival. Overall survival significantly declined within 2 years and was independently associated with stage IV disease (HR, 3.29; p = 0.04) and distant recurrence (HR, 5.78; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

MILE offers favorable long-term overall and disease-free survival outcomes. Age, Karnofsky performance status score, stage IV, and disease recurrence are shown to be prognostic factors of overall survival. Prospective studies comparing long-term outcomes after different MIE approaches are warranted to validate survival outcomes after MILE.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-022-02518-0.

Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases?

It has been said that "thoracoscopy suppresses the occurrence of pneumonia in comparison to thoracotomy", but does it reflect real clinical practice? To resolve this clinical question, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies from limited institutes (CLIs) in which a large number of high-volume centers were the main participants to those of retrospective cohort studies based on nationwide databases (CNDs) in which both high-volume centers and low-volume hospitals participated. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic to open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in the three above-mentioned research formats. In total, 43 studies with 21,057 patients, which included 1 RCT with 115 patients, 38 CLIs with 6,126 patients and 4 CNDs with 14,816 patients, were selected. Pneumonia was one of the most important complications. Although significant superiority in thoracoscopic esophagectomy was observed in RCTs (p = 0.005) and CLIs (p = 0.003), no such difference was seen in findings using nationwide databases (p = 0.69). In conclusion, unlike RCTs and CLIs, CNDs did not show the superiority of thoracoscopic surgery in terms of post-operative pneumonia. RCTs and CLIs were predominantly performed by high-volume hospitals, while CNDs were often performed by low-volume hospitals. In actual clinical practice including various types of hospitals, the superiority of thoracoscopic over open esophagectomy regarding the incidence of pneumonia may, therefore, decrease.

Clinical impact of abdominal versus mediastinal metastases as a prognostic factor for poor outcomes following esophageal cancer surgery: a retrospective study

Background

Surgery is still the mainstay of radical treatment for resectable esophageal cancer (EC). It is apparent that the presence or spread of lymph node metastasis (LNM) is a powerful prognostic factor in patients with EC who are eligible for curative treatment. Although the importance and efficacy of lymph node dissection in radical esophagectomy have been reported, the clinical or prognostic relevance of specific metastatic patterns within the mediastinal cavity and abdomen remains unclear.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the association of postoperative survival with clinical mediastinal LNM (cMLNM) and abdominal LNM (cALNM) in 157 patients who underwent radical EC surgery at our hospital between May 2012 and March 2018.

Results

A significant difference in cause-specific survival (CSS) was observed between patients with and without cALNM (log-rank p = 0.000). A multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that cALNM and thoracic surgery (mediastinal lymphadenectomy via conventional open right thoracotomy or video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery) independently predicted CSS (p = 0.0007 and 0.021, respectively). Moreover, a significant difference in systemic recurrence-free survival was observed between those with and without cALNM (log-rank p = 0.000). Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that cALNM and sex independently predicted systemic recurrence-free survival (p = 0.000 and 0.015, respectively).

Conclusion

cALNM was an independent poor prognostic factor for CSS after EC surgery. It may also be an independent prognostic factor for postoperative systemic recurrence, which can shorten the CSS. For patients with cALNM-positive EC who have a high potential risk of systemic metastases, more extensive treatment besides the conventional perioperative systemic chemotherapy may be necessary.

Minimally invasive techniques for transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oesophagectomy is a demanding operation that can be performed by different approaches including open surgery or a combination of minimal access techniques. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of open, minimally invasive and robotic oesophagectomy techniques for oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting open oesophagectomy, laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO), thoracoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (TAO), totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) or robotic MIO (RAMIO) for oesophagectomy. A network meta-analysis of intraoperative (operating time, blood loss), postoperative (overall complications, anastomotic leaks, chyle leak, duration of hospital stay) and oncological (R0 resection, lymphadenectomy) outcomes, and survival was performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight studies involving 32 315 patients were included in the network meta-analysis (open 17 824, 55·2 per cent; LAO 1576, 4·9 per cent; TAO 2421 7·5 per cent; MIO 9558, 29·6 per cent; RAMIO 917, 2·8 per cent). Compared with open oesophagectomy, both MIO and RAMIO were associated with less blood loss, significantly lower rates of pulmonary complications, shorter duration of stay and higher lymph node yield. There were no significant differences between surgical techniques in surgical-site infections, chyle leak, and 30- and 90-day mortality. MIO and RAMIO had better 1- and 5-year survival rates respectively compared with open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive and robotic techniques for oesophagectomy are associated with reduced perioperative morbidity and duration of hospital stay, with no compromise of oncological outcomes but no improvement in perioperative mortality.

Effectiveness of Transthoracic Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Transthoracic hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) is frequently performed in patients with esophageal cancer. However, no conclusive benefit has been defined for HMIE compared with open esophagectomy (OE) or totally MIE (TMIE). The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of HMIE compared with OE and TMIE.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase (via OVID) and Cochrane databases were comprehensively searched for relevant studies up to January 2019. Studies comparing the efficacy of transthoracic HMIE with OE or TMIE were included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine relevant studies comprising 3994 patients were identified and included in the analysis of HMIE vs OE. HMIE decreased the incidence of postoperative total morbidity (OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.80, p = 0.00), pneumonia (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.66, p = 0.00), in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83, p = 0.01), duration of hospitalization (SMD=-1.03, 95% CI -1.73 to -0.33, p = 0.00) and the estimated intraoperative blood loss (SMD=-1.01, 95% CI -1.62 to -0.40, p = 0.00) compared with OE. Twenty-one relevant studies comprising 3007 patients were identified and included in the analysis of HMIE vs TMIE. HMIE increased estimated intraoperative blood loss [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.02, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.58, p = 0.00] and the incidence of postoperative pneumonia (OR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.26, p = 0.00) compared with TMIE. No statistical differences were observed for other surgical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In our opinion, HMIE is a promising surgical technique. But further RCTs are still needed to confirm the advantages and disadvantages of HMIE mentioned above.

Tumor Volume Index as a Prognostic Factor in Patients after Curative Esophageal Cancer Resection

BACKGROUND

The tumor, node, metastasis classification system for staging esophageal cancer does not include tumor volume although it may be an important prognostic factor. We evaluated the prognostic value of tumor volume in esophageal cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study in patients with histologically confirmed primary esophageal cancer who underwent curative esophagectomy at our facility between April 1992 and December 2013. The Tumor Depth Parameter (TDP) was defined as mucosa = 1, submucosa = 2, muscularis propria = 3, adventitia = 4, and invasion into adjacent organs = 5. The pathological Tumor Volume Index (TVI) was defined as the major axis × the minor axis × TDP. The appropriate tumor diameter and TVI cutoff values were determined by the Youden index obtained from the receiver operating characteristic curve. Prognostic factors for overall survival were evaluated by univariate analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression models.

RESULTS

We enrolled 302 patients. In the univariate analysis, patient age and sex, thoracoscopic surgery, tumor depth of invasion and diameter, lymph node metastasis, and the TVI were significantly associated with overall survival. In our multivariate analysis, patient age and sex, thoracoscopic surgery, lymph node metastasis, and the TVI were independently associated with overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The pathological TVI was an independent prognostic factor in patients with esophageal carcinoma and could be included in the staging system of esophageal cancer.

Recent advances in thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Technical advances and developments in endoscopic equipment and thoracoscopic surgery have increased the popularity of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, there is currently no established scientific evidence supporting the use of MIE as an alternative to open esophagectomy (OE). To date, a number of single-institution studies and several meta-analyses have demonstrated acceptable short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, and we recently reported one of the largest propensity score-matched comparison studies between MIE and OE for esophageal cancer, based on a nationwide Japanese database. We found that, in general, MIE had a longer operative time and less blood loss than OE. Moreover, compared to OE, MIE was associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications such as pneumonia, and both methods had similar mortality rates. Although MIE may reduce the occurrence of postoperative respiratory complications, MIE and OE seem to have comparable short-term outcomes. However, the oncological benefit to patients undergoing MIE remains to be scientifically proven, as no randomized controlled trials have been conducted to verify each method's impact on the long-term survival of cancer patients. An ongoing randomized phase III study (JCOG1409) is expected to determine the impact of each method with regard to short- and long-term outcomes.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

Open esophagectomy (OE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) reduces complications in resectable esophageal cancer. The aim of this study is to explore the superiority of MIO in reducing complications and in-hospital mortality than OE.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Wanfang, and Wiley Online Library were thoroughly searched. Odds ratio (OR)/weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the strength of association.

Results

Fifty-seven studies containing 15,790 cases of resectable esophageal cancer were included. MIO had less intraoperative blood loss, short hospital stay, and high operative time (P < 0.05) than OE. MIO also had reduced incidence of total complications; (OR = 0.700, 95% CI = 0.626 ~ 0.781, P_V < 0.05), pulmonary complications (OR = 0.527, 95% CI = 0431 ~ 0.645, P_V < 0.05), cardiovascular complications (OR = 0.770, 95% CI = 0.681 ~ 0.872, P_V < 0.05), and surgical technology related (STR) complications (OR = 0.639, 95% CI = 0.522 ~ 0.781, P_V < 0.05), as well as lower in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.668, 95% CI = 0.539 ~ 0.827, P_V < 0.05). However, the number of harvested lymph nodes, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, gastrointestinal complications, anastomotic leak (AL), and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (RLNP) had no significant difference.

Conclusions

MIO is superior to OE in terms of perioperative complications and in-hospital mortality.

Superiority of Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy in Reducing In-Hospital Mortality of Patients with Resectable Oesophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Compared with open oesophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) proves to have benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. However, it is unknown whether MIO has superiority in reducing the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM).

Objective

The objective of this meta-analysis was to explore the effect of MIO vs. OE on the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM).

Data Sources

Sources such as Medline (through December 31, 2014), Embase (through December 31, 2014), Wiley Online Library (through December 31, 2014), and the Cochrane Library (through December 31, 2014) were searched.

Study Selection

Data of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials related to MIO versus OE were included.

Interventions

Eligible studies were those that reported patients who underwent MIO procedure. The control group included patients undergoing conventional OE.

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods

Fixed or random -effects models were used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) or relative risks (RRs) for quantification of associations. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by using Cochran’s Q and I² statistics.

Results

A total of 48 studies involving 14,311 cases of resectable oesophageal cancer were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIO had statistically reduced occurrence of IHM (OR=0.69, 95%CI =0.55 -0.86). Patients undergoing MIO also had significantly reduced incidence of pulmonary complications (PCs) (RR=0.73, 95%CI = 0.63-0.86), pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR=0.71, 95%CI= 0.51-0.99) and arrhythmia (OR=0.79, 95%CI = 0.68-0.92). Non-significant reductions were observed among the included studies in the occurrence of anastomotic leak (AL) (OR=0.93, 95%CI =0.78-1.11), or Gastric Tip Necrosis (GTN) (OR=0.89, 95%CI =0.54-1.49).

Limitation

Most of the included studies were non-randomized case-control studies, with a diversity of study designs, demographics of participants and surgical intervention.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) has superiority over open oesophagectomy (OE) in terms of the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM) and should be the first-choice surgical procedure in esophageal surgery.

Is the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index a Significant Predictor of Postoperative Complications in Patients with Esophageal Cancer Undergoing Esophagectomy?

Background: The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) is a new index recently introduced for predicting the risk of nutrition-related complications. The GNRI has mainly been reported as a simple and accurate tool to assess the nutritional status and prognosis of elderly patients. So far, there have been no reports of the GNRI in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Our objective was to examine the association between the GNRI and short-term outcomes, especially postoperative complications, in patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy and gastric tube reconstruction. Materials and Methods: The present study enrolled 122 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy and gastric tube reconstruction. The GNRI at admission to the hospital was calculated as follows: (1.489 × albumin in g/l) + (41.7 × present/ideal body weight). The characteristics and short-term outcomes were compared between two groups: the high (GNRI ≥90) and the low (GNRI <90) GNRI group. The mortality and morbidity rates, especially the rates regarding respiratory complications and anastomotic leakage, were investigated. Results: The mean age of the 122 patients was 63.9 ± 9.1 years (range 43-83). There were no significant differences in either patient or operative characteristics. The low GNRI group had a significantly higher rate of respiratory complications (p = 0.002). A multivariate analysis demonstrated that the GNRI was the only independent significant factor predicting respiratory complications (hazard ratio 3.41, 95% confidence interval 1.19-9.76; p = 0.022). Conclusion: The GNRI is considered to be a clinically useful marker that can be used to assess the nutritional status and predict the development of postoperative respiratory complications in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy and gastric tube reconstruction.

Is the prognostic impact of tumor location in patients with surgically resected esophageal squamous cell carcinoma affected by surgical approach?

AIM

The aim of the present study was to clarify differences in node metastasis mode and clinical outcomes based on tumor location in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants comprised 228 patients with ESCC who underwent radical esophagectomy without preoperative supplement therapies. Lymph nodes were harvested from three fields: the neck, thorax, and abdomen. Patients were divided into three groups depending on tumor location [upper esophagus (UE), middle esophagus, or lower esophagus (LE)] and analyzed clinicopathologically.

RESULTS

The LE group showed significantly more progressive ESCC in terms of tumor invasion (p = 0.025), node metastasis (p = 0.0071), and TNM stage (p = 0.0043). The LE group revealed a tendency to metastasize to extrathoracic (especially abdominal) nodes (p = 0.0008). Recurrent laryngeal node metastasis was increased in the UE group (p = 0.016). However, no prognostic differences were detected between groups according to tumor location. Likewise, subgroup analyses by surgical approach (open thoracotomy vs. thoracoscopy) and cancer stage (stage I/II, III, and IV) did not reveal any significant prognostic impact of tumor location.

CONCLUSION

Lymphatic spread varied by tumor location, but no prognostic impact of tumor location could be detected in patients with ESCC in spite of surgical approach or cancer stage.