Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy may increase the risk of severe anastomotic complications after esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis

Comparison of totally laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted approach in gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective comparative study

Purpose

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is strongly recommended for advanced gastric cancer due to good local control and a high rate of R0 dissection with this strategy. Minimally invasive techniques such as laparoscopy-assisted or total laparoscopic approaches is becoming more and more acceptable in the treatment for gastric cancer. However, the safety and efficiency of total laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy (TLG) for advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy have not been well evaluated.

Methods

A retrospective study in a single center from 2014 to 2016 was conducted. A total of 65 locally advanced gastric cancers were treated by laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) or TLG. Parameters which include operation time, blood loss, complications, hospital stay, 3-year overall survival, and 3-year disease-free survival were used for comparison.

Results

The time of operation in the TLG group was shorter than in the LAG group (P = 0.013), blood loss was less (P = 0.002) and time to first flatus was shorter (P = 0.039) in the TLG group than that in the LLG group. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were comparable in both groups. No significant difference was found in 3-year overall and disease-free survival.

Conclusion

For patients with locally advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy can be considered as a safe and efficient alternative. A further multicenter prospective randomized controlled study is needed to elucidate the applicability of this technique for advanced gastric cancer.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Anastomotic Leakage after Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

Background

Anastomotic leakage (AL) following esophagectomy represents a serious complication that often results in prolonged hospitalization and necessitates repeated interventions, including nothing-by-mouth (NPO) restriction, endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT), or surgical repair. In this study, we evaluated the patterns and outcomes of AL treatment.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer at a single center between 2003 and 2020. Of 3,096 examined cases, 181 patients (5.8%) with AL were included in the study: 114 patients (63%) with cervical anastomosis (CA) and 67 (37%) with intrathoracic anastomosis (TA).

Results

The incidence of AL was 11.9% in the CA and 3.2% in the TA group (p<0.001). Among patients with CA who developed AL, 87 (76.3%) were managed with NPO, 15 (13.2%) with EVT, and 12 (10.5%) with surgical repair. Over 90% of patients with cervical AL resumed an oral diet by the time of discharge, regardless of treatment method. Among patients with TA and AL, 36 (53.7%) received NPO, 25 (37.7%) underwent EVT, and 6 (9%) required surgery. Of these, 34 patients who were managed with NPO and 19 with EVT could resume an oral diet. However, only 2 patients who underwent surgery resumed an oral diet, and 2 patients required additional EVT.

Conclusion

Although patients with CA displayed a higher incidence of AL, their rate of successful oral intake exceeded that of those with TA, regardless of treatment method. Among patients exhibiting AL with TA, EVT was more commonly employed than in CA cases, and it appears effective.

Endoscopic vacuum therapy for the management of upper GI leaks and perforations: a multicenter retrospective study of factors associated with treatment failure (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The optimal management of upper GI (UGI) leaks and perforations remains controversial. Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) is a new alternative endoscopic treatment that has recently shown a high rate of successful closure of UGI leaks and perforations. However, only few reports have been made on the factors that affect clinical success rates.

METHODS

Four referral hospitals participated in this retrospective multicenter study. Between September 2015 and February 2020, 119 patients who underwent EVT for a UGI perforation or leak were included. We retrospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of EVT and the factors associated with EVT failure. Neoadjuvant treatments included chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy before surgery, and the intraluminal method meant that the sponge was placed directly onto the defect within the lumen of UGI tract.

RESULTS

Among 119 patients, 84 showed clinical success (70.6%). Eighty-nine patients (74.8%) underwent EVT as primary therapy and 30 patients as rescue therapy. On multivariate analysis, neoadjuvant treatment and the intraluminal method were significant independent risk factors for EVT failure. During the follow-up period (median, 8.46 months), stenosis occurred in 22 patients (18.5%). The overall survival rate of the EVT success group was significantly higher than that of the EVT failure group. Twenty-two patients died because of non-EVT-related causes, and 7 patients died because of leakage-related adverse events. No death was caused by the EVT itself.

CONCLUSIONS

EVT is a promising treatment method for UGI leaks and perforations. Further studies are needed to establish the indications for successful EVT.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Anastomotic leakage (AL) after oesophagectomy and oesophageal perforations are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive endoscopy is often used as first-line treatment, particularly endoluminal vacuum therapy (EVT). The aim was to assess the performance of the first commercially available endoluminal vacuum device (Eso-Sponge®) in the management of AL and perforation of the upper gastrointestinal tract (GIT).

Methods

The Eso-Sponge® registry was designed in 2014 as a prospective, observational, national, multicentre registry. Patients were recruited with either AL or perforation within the upper GIT. Data were collected with a standardized form and transferred into a web-based platform. Twenty hospitals were enrolled at the beginning of the study (registration number NCT02662777; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). The primary endpoint was successful closure of the oesophageal defect.

Results

Eleven out of 20 centres recruited patients. A total of 102 patients were included in this interim analysis; 69 patients with AL and 33 with a perforation were treated by EVT. In the AL group, a closure of 91 per cent was observed and 76 per cent was observed in the perforation group. The occurrence of mediastinitis (P = 0.002) and the location of the defect (P = 0.008) were identified as significant predictors of defect closure.

Conclusions

The Eso-Sponge® registry offers the opportunity to collate data on EVT with a uniform, commercially available product to improve standardization. Our data show that EVT with the Eso-Sponge® is an option for the management of AL and perforation within the upper GIT.

Comparison of short-term outcomes from the International Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA), the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG), and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA)

BACKGROUND

The Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) have set standards in reporting outcomes after oesophagectomy. Reporting outcomes from selected high-volume centres or centralized national cancer programmes may not, however, be reflective of the true global prevalence of complications. This study aimed to compare complication rates after oesophagectomy from these existing sources with those of an unselected international cohort from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA).

METHODS

The OGAA was a prospective multicentre cohort study coordinated by the West Midlands Research Collaborative, and included patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April and December 2018, with 90 days of follow-up.

RESULTS

The OGAA study included 2247 oesophagectomies across 137 hospitals in 41 countries. Comparisons with the ECCG and DUCA found differences in baseline demographics between the three cohorts, including age, ASA grade, and rates of chronic pulmonary disease. The OGAA had the lowest rates of neoadjuvant treatment (OGAA 75.1 per cent, ECCG 78.9 per cent, DUCA 93.5 per cent; P < 0.001). DUCA exhibited the highest rates of minimally invasive surgery (OGAA 57.2 per cent, ECCG 47.9 per cent, DUCA 85.8 per cent; P < 0.001). Overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts (OGAA 63.6 per cent, ECCG 59.0 per cent, DUCA 62.2 per cent), with no statistically significant difference in Clavien-Dindo grades (P = 0.752). However, a significant difference in 30-day mortality was observed, with DUCA reporting the lowest rate (OGAA 3.2 per cent, ECCG 2.4 per cent, DUCA 1.7 per cent; P = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Despite differences in rates of co-morbidities, oncological treatment strategies, and access to minimal-access surgery, overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts.

Strategies to prevent anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy and gastric conduit reconstruction

Background

Surgery remains the cornerstone of esophageal cancer treatment but is burdened with high procedure-related morbidity. Anastomotic leakage as the most important surgical complication after esophagectomy is a key indicator for quality in surgical outcome research.

Purpose

The aim of this narrative review is to assess and summarize the current knowledge on prevention of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy and to provide orientation for the reader in this challenging field of surgery.

Conclusions

There are various strategies to reduce postoperative morbidity and to prevent anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy, including adequate patient selection and preparation, and many technical-surgical and anesthesiological details. The scientific evidence regarding those strategies is highly heterogeneous, ranging from expert’s recommendations to randomized controlled trials. This review is intended to serve as an empirical guideline to improve the clinical management of patients undergoing esophagectomy with a special focus on anastomotic leakage prevention.

Endoscopic vacuum therapy for postoperative esophageal leak

Background

Anastomotic leak is the most common and serious complication following esophagectomy. Endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) is a promising method for treating anastomotic leak. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of EVAC and to identify factors associated with longer treatment duration for esophageal anastomotic leak following esophagectomy for cancer.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 20 esophageal cancer patients who had undergone EVAC for anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. The efficacy and success rates were evaluated and factors associated with longer treatment duration (≥ 21 days) were identified.

Results

All 20 patients were male. Of these, 10 (50.0%) received neoadjuvant treatment and 6 (30.0%) had one or more comorbidities. The median size of fistula opening was 1.75 cm. During a median of 14.5 days of EVAC treatment, a median of 5 interventions were performed. Treatment success was achieved in 19 patients (95.0%). Neoadjuvant treatment was significantly associated with longer EVAC treatment. There was a non-significant trend toward the need for longer treatment duration for a larger fistula opening size.

Conclusions

EVAC treatment is a good non-surgical option for anastomotic leak following esophagectomy. Long duration of treatment is associated with neoadjuvant treatment and a large leakage opening.

Application of standardized hemodynamic protocols within enhanced recovery after surgery programs to improve outcomes associated with anastomotic leak and conduit necrosis in patients undergoing esophagectomy

Esophagectomy for cancer is associated with high risk for postoperative morbidity. The most serious regularly encountered complication is anastomotic leak and the most feared individual complication is conduit necrosis. Both of these complications affect the length of stay, mortality, quality of life, and survival for patients undergoing esophageal resection. The maintenance of conduit viability is of primary importance in the perioperative care of patients following esophageal resection. It has been shown that restrictive fluid management may be associated with improved postoperative outcomes in abdominal and other types of surgery, but many factors can affect the incidence of anastomotic leak and the viability of the gastric conduit. We have performed a comprehensive review with the aim to give an overview of the available evidence for the use of standardized hemodynamic protocols (SHPs) for esophagectomy and review the hemodynamic protocol, which has been applied within a standardized clinical pathway (SCP) at the Department of Thoracic surgery at the Virginia Mason Medical Center between 2004-2018 where the anastomotic leak rate over the period has been 5.2% and the incidence of conduit necrosis requiring surgical management is zero. The literature review demonstrates that there are few high quality studies that provide scientific evidence for the use of a SHP. The evidence indicates that the use of goal-directed hemodynamic monitoring might be associated with a reduced risk for postoperative complications, shortened length of stay, and decreased need for intensive care unit stay. We propose that the routine application of a SHP can provide a uniform infrastructure to optimize conduit perfusion and decrease the incidence of anastomotic leak.

Implementation of minimally invasive esophagectomy in a tertiary referral center for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy remains the gold standard in the curative intent treatment of resectable esophageal cancer. However, this procedure is complex and associated with high risk of complications. In an effort to reduce the postoperative morbidity associated with open esophagectomy various minimally invasive techniques have been introduced and developed during the recent years. The aim of the current study was to present our 4.5-year experience of the gradual implementation of various minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) techniques in our tertiary referral center.

METHODS

From May 2012 a transitional period from conventional open esophagectomy to MIE was initiated. This period was preceded by fellowships and visits to expert centers abroad. Thereafter, a gradual implementation and refinement of the new techniques followed. Technique related data were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

Between January 1^st 2011 and December 31^st 2016 a total of 249 patients underwent an esophagectomy in our unit. Seventy-six cases were performed through a conventional open esophagectomy and 173 by some type of MIE. An increasing utilization of MIE over this time period was seen and finally reached 100% of treatment intentions, during the last 2 years. Ten cases (5.7%) where converted to open approach. A decrease in leak rate, operating time, peroperative bleeding and hospital stay as well as an increasing number of harvested lymph nodes was observed during the implementation period.

CONCLUSIONS

The transition from conventional open esophagectomy to MIE was successful at our center. The implementation was overall safe with good postoperative outcomes, although changes in results required technical modifications over time.

Current trends in multimodality treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer - Review article

PURPOSE

Multimodality treatment has now been widely introduced in the curatively intended treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. We aim to give an overview of the scientific evidence for the available treatment strategies and to describe which trends that are currently developing.

METHODS

We conducted a review of the scientific evidence for the different curatively intended treatment strategies that are available today. Relevant articles of randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and meta analyses were included.

RESULTS

After a systematic search of relevant papers we have included 64 articles in the review. The results show that adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction are two separate entities and should be analysed and studied as two different diseases. Neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgical resection is the gold standard of the curatively intended treatment today. There is no scientific evidence to support the use of chemoradiotherapy over chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma. There is reasonable evidence to support definitive chemoradiotherapy as a treatment option for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base for curatively intended treatments of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer is not very strong. Several on-going trials have the potential to change the gold standard treatments of today.

Influence of the Extent and Dose of Radiation on Complications After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation and Subsequent Esophagectomy With Gastric Tube Reconstruction With a Cervical Anastomosis

PURPOSE

To determine, in a large series, the influence of the extent and dose of radiation to the fundus of the stomach and mediastinum on the development and severity of anastomotic complications in patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 2005 and 2012, 364 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (41.4 Gy combined with chemotherapy) followed by esophagectomy were included. The future anastomotic region in the fundus was determined, and the mean dose, V20-V40, and upper planning target volume border in relation to mediastinal length, expressed as the mediastinal ratio, were calculated.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage occurred in 22% and anastomotic stenosis in 41%. Logistic regression analysis revealed no influence of age, comorbidity, mean fundus dose, V20-V40, or the mediastinal ratio on the incidence of anastomotic leakage or anastomotic stenosis. In 28% of the patients severe complications (Clavien-Dindo score of ≥IIIB) occurred. The presence of multiple comorbidities (hazard ratio 2.4 [95% confidence interval 1.3-4.5], P=.006) and a mediastinal ratio of 0.5 to 1.0 (hazard ratio 1.9 [95% confidence interval 1.0-3.5], P=.036) were both independent predictors of severe complications.

CONCLUSION

With a mean radiation dose of 24.2 Gy to the future anastomotic region of the gastric fundus, the radiation dose was not associated with the incidence of anastomotic leakage or anastomotic stenosis. The incidence of severe complications was associated with a high superior mediastinal planning target volume border.

Chances, risks and limitations of neoadjuvant therapy in surgical oncology

Over the last decades, neoadjuvant treatment has been established as a standard of care for a variety of tumor types in visceral oncology. Neoadjuvant treatment is recommended in locally advanced esophageal and gastric cancer as well as in rectal cancer. In borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, neoadjuvant therapy is an emerging treatment concept, whereas in resectable colorectal liver metastases, neoadjuvant treatment is often used, although the evidence for improvement of survival outcomes is rather weak. What makes neoadjuvant treatment attractive from a surgical oncology viewpoint is its ability to shrink tumors to a smaller size and to increase the chances for complete resection with clear surgical margins, which is a prerequisite for cure. Studies suggest that local tumor control is increased in some visceral tumor types, especially with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. In some other studies, a better control of systemic disease has contributed to significantly improved survival rates. Additionally, delaying surgery offers the chance to bring the patient into a better general condition for major surgery, but it also confers the risk of progression. Although it is a relatively rare event, cancers may progress locally during neoadjuvant treatment or distant metastases may occur, jeopardizing a curative surgical treatment approach. Although this is seen as risk of neoadjuvant treatment, it can also be seen as a chance to select only those patients for surgery who have a better control of systemic disease. Some studies showed increased perioperative morbidity in patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment, which is another potential disadvantage. Optimal multidisciplinary teamwork is key to controlling that risk. Meanwhile, the neoadjuvant treatment period is also used as a "window of opportunity" for studying the activity of novel drugs and for investigating predictive and prognostic biomarkers of chemoradiotherapy and radiochemotherapy. Although the benefits of neoadjuvant treatment have been clearly established, the risk of overtreatment of cancers with an unfavorable prognosis remains an issue. All indications for neoadjuvant treatment are based on clinical staging. Even if staging is done meticulously, making use of all recommended diagnostic modalities, the risk of overstaging and understaging remains considerable and may lead to false indications for neoadjuvant treatment. Finally, despite all developments and emerging concepts in medical oncology, many cancers remain resistant to the currently available drugs and radiation. This may in part be due to specific molecular resistance mechanisms that are marginally understood thus far. Neoadjuvant treatment has been one of the major advances in multidisciplinary oncology in the last decades, requiring a dedicated treatment team and an optimal infrastructure for complex oncology care. This article discusses the goals and novel directions as well as limitations in neoadjuvant treatment of visceral cancers.