Total minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: approaches and outcomes

Comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy in lymph node metastasis/dissection for thoracic esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to clarify the characteristics of lymph node metastasis (LNM) and to compare the oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with open esophagectomy (OE) in terms of lymph node dissection (LND) in thoracic esophageal cancer patients.

METHODS

The data from esophageal cancer patients who underwent MIE or OE from January 2016 to January 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The characteristics of LNM in thoracic esophageal cancer were discussed, and the differences in numbers of LND, LND rate, and LNM rate/degree of upper mediastinum between MIE and OE were compared.

RESULTS

For overall characteristics of LNM in 249 included patients, the highest rate of LNM was found in upper mediastinum, while LNM rate in middle and lower mediastinum, and abdomen increased with the tumor site moving down. The patients were divided into MIE ( n  = 204) and OE groups ( n  = 45). In terms of number of LND, there were significant differences in upper mediastinum between MIE and OE groups (8 [5, 11] vs. 5 [3, 8], P  < 0.001). The comparative analysis of regional lymph node showed there was no significant difference except the subgroup of upper mediastinal 2L and 4L group (3 [1, 5] vs. 0 [0, 2], P  < 0.001 and 0 [0, 2] vs. 0, P  = 0.012, respectively). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in terms of LND rate except 2L (89.7% [183/204] vs. 71.1% [32/45], P  = 0.001) and 4L (41.2% [84/204] vs . 22.2% [10/45], P  = 0.018) groups. For LNM rate of T3 stage, there was no significant difference between MIE and OE groups, and the comparative analysis of regional lymph node showed that there was no significant difference except 2L group (11.1% [5/45] vs . 38.1% [8/21], P  = 0.025). The LNM degree of OE group was significantly higher than that of MIE group (27.2% [47/173] vs . 7.6% [32/419], P  < 0.001), and the comparative analysis of regional LNM degree showed that there was no significant difference except 2L (34.7% [17/49] vs . 7.7% [13/169], P  < 0.001) and 4L (23.8% [5/21] vs . 3.9% [2/51], P  = 0.031) subgroups.

CONCLUSION

MIE may have an advantage in LND of upper mediastinum 2L and 4L groups, while it was similar to OE in other stations of LND.

Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy in 1023 consecutive esophageal cancer patients: a single-center experience

Objective

By analyzing the perioperative, postoperative complications and long-term overall survival time, we summarized the 8-year experience of minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in a single medical center.

Methods

This retrospective follow-up study included 1023 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer who underwent MIE-McKeown between Mar 2013 and Oct 2020. Relevant variables were collected and evaluated. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed by Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

For 1023 esophageal cancer undergoing MIE-McKeown, the main intraoperative complications were bleeding (3.0%, 31/1023) and tracheal injury (1.7%, 17/1023). There was no death occurred during operation. The conversion rate of thoracoscopy to thoracotomy was 2.2% (22/1023), and laparoscopy to laparotomy was 0.3% (3/1023). The postoperative morbidity of complications was 36.2% (370/1023), of which anastomotic leakage 7.7% (79/1023), pulmonary complication 13.4% (137/1023), chylothorax 2.3% (24/1023), and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury 8.8% (90/1023). The radical resection rate (R0) was 96.0% (982/1023), 30-day mortality was 0.3% (3/1023). For 1000 cases with squamous cell carcinoma, the estimated 3-year and 5-year overall survival was 37.2% and 17.8% respectively. In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy offered 3-year disease-free survival rate advantage in advanced stage patients (for stage IV: 7.2% vs. 1.8%).

Conclusions

This retrospective single center study demonstrates that MIE-McKeown procedure is feasible and safe with low perioperative and postoperative complications’ morbidity, and acceptable long-term oncologic results.

Operative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer

Background There is a recent rise in the incidence of esophageal carcinoma in India. Surgical resection with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiation is the current treatment modality of choice. Postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications, affect many patients who undergo open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) could reduce the pulmonary complications and reduce the postoperative stay.

Methodology We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 114 patients with esophageal cancer in the department of surgical oncology at a tertiary cancer center in South India between January 2019 and March 2020. We included patients with resectable cancer of middle or lower third of the esophagus, and gastroesophageal junction tumors (Siewert I). MIE was performed in 27 patients and 78 patients underwent open esophagectomy (OE). The primary outcome measured was postoperative complications of Clavien–Dindo grade II or higher within 30 days. Other outcomes measured include overall mortality within 30 days, intraoperative complications, operative duration and the length of hospital stay.

Results A postoperative complication rate of 18.5% was noted in the MIE group, compared with 41% in the OE group ( p = 0.034). Pulmonary complications were noted in 7.4% in the MIE group compared to 25.6% in the OE group ( p = 0.044). Postoperative mortality rates, intraoperative complications, and other nonpulmonary postoperative complications were almost similar with MIE as with open esophagectomy. Although the median operative time was more in the MIE group (260 minutes vs. 180 minutes; p < 0.0001), the median length of hospital stay was shorter in patients undergoing MIE (9 days vs. 12 days; p = 0.0001).

Conclusions We found that MIE resulted in lower incidence of postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications. Although, MIE was associated with prolonged operative duration, it resulted in shorter hospital stay.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted, Video-Assisted, and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The utilization of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer is increasing, despite limited data comparing RAMIE with other surgical approaches.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the literature for clinical outcomes of RAMIE compared with video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE).

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Embase databases from January 1, 2013, to May 6, 2020, was performed.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that compared RAMIE with VAMIE and/or OE for cancer were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline, data were extracted by independent reviewers. A random-effects meta-analysis of 9 propensity-matched studies was performed for the RAMIE vs VAMIE comparison only. A narrative synthesis of RAMIE vs VAMIE and OE was performed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcomes of interest were intraoperative outcomes (ie, estimated blood loss [EBL], operative time, lymph node [LN] harvest), short-term outcomes (anastomotic leak, recurrent laryngeal nerve [RLN] palsy, pulmonary and total complications, and 90-day mortality), and long-term oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 21 studies (2 randomized clinical trials, 11 propensity-matched studies, and 8 unmatched studies) with 9355 patients were included. A meta-analysis was performed with 9 propensity-matched studies comparing RAMIE with VAMIE. The random-effects pooled estimate found an adjusted risk difference (RD) of -0.06 (95% CI, -0.11 to -0.01) favoring fewer pulmonary complications with RAMIE. There was no evidence of differences between RAMIE and VAMIE in LN harvest (mean difference [MD], -1.1 LN; 95% CI, -2.45 to 0.25 LNs), anastomotic leak (RD, 0.0; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.03), EBL (MD, -6.25 mL; 95% CI, -18.26 to 5.77 mL), RLN palsy (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.10), total complications (RD, 0.05; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.11), or 90-day mortality (RD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.0). There was low certainty of evidence that RAMIE was associated with a longer disease-free survival compared with VAMIE. For OE comparisons (data not pooled), RAMIE was associated with a longer operative time, decreased EBL, and less pulmonary and total complications.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, RAMIE had similar outcomes as VAMIE but was associated with fewer pulmonary complications compared with VAMIE and OE. Studies on long-term functional and cancer outcomes are needed.

Minimally Invasive Versus open AbdominoThoracic Esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma (MIVATE) - study protocol for a randomized controlled trial DRKS00016773

BACKGROUND

The only curative treatment for most esophageal cancers is radical esophagectomy. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) aims to reduce postoperative morbidity, but is not yet widely established. Linear stapled anastomosis is a promising technique for MIE because it is quite feasible even without robotic assistance. The aim of the present study is to compare total MIE with linear stapled anastomosis to open esophagectomy (OE) with circular stapled anastomosis with special regard to postoperative morbidity in an expertise-based randomized controlled trial (RCT).

METHODS/DESIGN

This superiority RCT compares MIE with linear stapled anastomosis (intervention) to OE with circular stapled anastomosis (control) for Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. It was initiated in February 2019, and recruitment is expected to last for 3 years. For inclusion, patients must be 18 years of age or more with a resectable primary malignancy in the distal esophagus. Participants with tumor localizations above the azygos vein, metastasis, or infiltration into adjacent tissue will be excluded. In an expertise-based approach, the allocated treatment will only be carried out by the single most experienced surgeon of the surgical center for each respective technique. The sample size was calculated with 20 participants per group for the primary endpoint postoperative morbidity according to comprehensive complication index (CCI) within 30 postoperative days. Secondary endpoints include anastomotic insufficiency, pulmonary complications, other intra- and postoperative outcome parameters such as estimated blood loss, operative time, length of stay, short-term oncologic endpoints, adherence to a standardized fast-track protocol, postoperative pain, and postoperative recovery (QoR-15). Quality of life (SF-36, CAT EORTC QLQ-C30, CAT EORTC QLQ-OES18) and oncological outcomes are evaluated with 60 months follow-up.

DISCUSSION

MIVATE is the first RCT to compare OE with circular stapled anastomosis to total MIE with linear stapled anastomosis exclusively for intrathoracic anastomosis. The expertise-based approach limits bias due to heterogeneity of surgical expertise. The use of a dedicated fast-track protocol in both OE and MIE will shed light on the role of the access strategy alone in this setting. The findings of this study will serve to define which approach has the best perioperative outcome for patients requiring esophagectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00016773 . Registered on 18 February 2019.

Robotic resection for esophageal cancer

Background

In the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer, complete tumor resection is the most important factor and determines long-term survival. With an increase in robotic expertise in other fields of surgery, robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) was born. Currently, there is a lack of convincing data on the extent of expected benefits (perioperative and oncologic outcomes and/or quality of life). Some evidence exists that patients’ overall quality of life and physical function improves, with less fatigue and pain 3 months after surgery. We aimed to review the available literature regarding robotic esophagectomy, compare perioperative, oncologic, and quality of life outcomes with open and minimally invasive approaches, and give a brief overview of our standardized four-arm RAMIE technique and explore future directions.

Methods

A Medline (PubMed) search was conducted including the following key words: esophagectomy, minimally invasive esophagectomy, robotic esophagectomy, Ivor Lewis and McKeown. We present the history, different techniques used, outcomes, and the standardization of robotic esophagectomy.

Results

Robotic esophagectomy offers a steeper learning curve with fewer complications but comparable oncological results compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Conclusions

Available studies suggest that RAMIE is associated with benefits regarding length of stay, clinical outcomes, and quality of life—if patients are treated in an experienced center with a standardized technique for robotic esophagectomy—making it a potentially beneficial tool in the treatment of esophageal cancer. However, center-wide standardization and prospective data collection will be a necessity to prove superiority of robotic esophagectomy.

Current Issues in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was first introduced in the 1990s. Currently, it is a widely accepted surgical approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer, as it is an oncologically sound procedure; its advantages when compared to open procedures, including reduction in postoperative complications, reduction in the length of hospital stay, and improvement in quality of life, are well documented. However, debates are still ongoing about the safety and efficacy of MIE. The present review focuses on some of the current issues related to conventional MIE and robot-assisted MIE based on evidence from the current literature.

Treatment of early stage (T1) esophageal adenocarcinoma: Personalizing the best therapy choice

Esophagectomy is considered the primary form of management for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC); however, the surgery is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. For patients with early-stage EAC, endoscopic resection (ER) presents a potential curative treatment option that is less invasive and carries fewer risks procedure related risks, but it is associated with higher rates of cancer recurrence following the procedure. For some patients, age and comorbidities may prevent them from having esophagectomy as a treatment option, while other patients may be operative candidates but do not wish to undergo esophagectomy for a variety of reasons related to their values and preferences. Furthermore, while anxiety of cancer recurrence following ER may significantly diminish a patient’s quality of life (QOL), so might the morbidity surrounding esophagectomy. In addition to considering health status, patient preferences, and impacts on QOL, physicians and patients must also consider what treatments would be both beneficial and available to the patient, considering esophagectomy methods-minimally invasive vs open-or the use of chemoradiotherapy in addition to ER. Our article reviews and summarizes available treatment options for patients with early EAC and their potential effects on the health and wellbeing of patients based on the current data. We conclude with a request for more research of available options for early EAC patients, the conditions that determine when each option should be employed, and their effects not only on patient health but also QOL.

Benchmark analyses in minimally invasive esophagectomy-impact on surgical quality improvement

Over the last decades, benchmarking has become an established management tool to improve quality in commercial economics. It is a rather new concept in the healthcare industry, and a confusingly wide range of approaches referring to "benchmarking" have been employed in the field of minimally invasive esophageal cancer surgery. It is our conviction that benchmarking will be an essential element of surgical research in the future. Therefore, defining and implementing standards is not only a desirable, but a vital step. Recently, we have introduced a standardized method of establishing valid benchmarks for surgical quality improvement including ideal outcome thresholds for total minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy (ttMIE). The present article aims at discussing the actual literature on benchmarking in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and at fueling the debate on how to further improve the current practice of surgical outcome research.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between minimally invasive McKeown and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal or junctional cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for esophageal or gastroesophageal junctional cancer, with advantages of improved perioperative outcomes in comparison with open esophagectomy. McKeown and Ivor Lewis are widely used procedures of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and there have been controversies on which one is preferred for patients with resectable esophageal or junctional cancer.

Patients and methods

This review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (number CRD42017075989). Studies in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were thoroughly investigated. Eligible studies included prospective and retrospective studies evaluating short-term outcomes of minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy (MIME) vs minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MILE) in patients with resectable esophageal or junctional tumors. Main parameters included anastomotic leak and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Overall incidence rates (ORs)/weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by employing random-effects models.

Results

Fourteen studies containing 3,468 cases were included in this meta-analysis. Age, male sex, and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage between the 2 groups were not statistically different. MIME led to more blood loss, longer operating time, and longer hospital stay than MILE. MIME was associated with higher incidence of pulmonary complications (OR =1.96, 95% CI =1.28–3.00) as well as total anastomotic leak (OR =2.55, 95% CI =1.40–4.63), stricture (OR =2.07, 95% CI =1.05–4.07), and vocal cord injury/palsy (OR =5.62, 95% CI =3.46–9.14). In addition, the differences of R0 resection rate, number of lymph modes retrieved, blood transfusion rate, length of intensive care unit stay, incidence of cardiac arrhythmia, and Chyle leak between MIME and MILE were not statistically significant. Notably, incidence of severe anastomotic leak (OR =1.28, 95% CI =0.73–2.24) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (OR =1.76, 95% CI =0.92–3.36) as well as 90-day mortality (OR =2.22, 95% CI =0.71–6.98) between the 2 procedures were also not significantly different.

Conclusion

This study suggests that MIME and MILE are comparable with respect to clinical safety. MILE may be a better option when oncologically and clinically suitable. MIME is still a safe alternative procedure when clinically indicated. However, this evidence is at risk for bias; randomized controlled trials are needed to validate or correct our results.

Matched-pair comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BACKGROUND

Open esophagectomy (OE) with radical lymphadenectomy is known as one of the most invasive digestive surgeries with the high rate of complications. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has developed very rapidly and has formed several available technical approaches. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aiming at how beneficial, and to what extent MIE resection really will be.

METHODS

A systematic literature search will be performed through May 31, 2018 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar for relevant articles published in any language. Randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and propensity score matched comparative studies will be included. If data are sufficient, subgroup analyses will be conducted in different surgical procedures of MIE.

RESULTS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

CONCLUSION

This will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis using data of randomized controlled, prospective, and propensity score matched comparative studies to compare the outcomes between MIE and OE updating to May 31, 2018.

Defining Benchmarks for Transthoracic Esophagectomy: A Multicenter Analysis of Total Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in Low Risk Patients

OBJECTIVE

To define "best possible" outcomes in total minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy (ttMIE).

BACKGROUND

TtMIE, performed by experts in patients with low comorbidity, may serve as a benchmark procedure for esophagectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From a cohort of 1057 ttMIE, performed over a 5-year period in 13 high-volume centers for esophageal surgery, we selected a study group of 334 patients (31.6%) that fulfilled criteria of low comorbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≤2, WHO/ECOG score ≤1, age ≤65 years, body mass index 19-29 kg/m). Endpoints included postoperative morbidity measured by the Clavien-Dindo classification and the comprehensive complication index. Benchmark values were defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome parameters of the participating centers to represent best achievable results.

RESULTS

Benchmark patients were predominantly male (82.9%) with a median age of 58 years (53-62). High intrathoracic (Ivor Lewis) and cervical esophagogastrostomy (McKeown) were performed in 188 (56.3%) and 146 (43.7%) patients, respectively. Median (IQR) ICU and hospital stay was 0 (0-2) and 12 (9-18) days, respectively. 56.0% of patients developed at least 1 complication, and 26.9% experienced major morbidity (≥grade III), mostly related to pulmonary complications (25.7%), anastomotic leakage (15.9%), and cardiac events (13.5%). Benchmark values at 30 days after hospital discharge were ≤55.7% and ≤30.8% for overall and major complications, ≤18.0% for readmission, ≤3.1% for positive resection margins, and ≥23 for lymph node yield. Benchmarks at 30 and 90 days were ≤1.0% and ≤4.6% for mortality, and ≤40.8 and ≤42.8 for the comprehensive complication index, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This outcome analysis of patients with low comorbidity undergoing ttMIE may serve as a reference to evaluate surgical performance in major esophageal resection.

A standardized comparison of peri-operative complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy: Ivor Lewis versus McKeown

BACKGROUND

While our institutional approach to esophageal resection for cancer has traditionally favored a minimally invasive (MI) 3-hole, McKeown esophagectomy (MIE 3-hole) during the last five years several factors has determined a shift in our practice with an increasing number of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis (MIE IL) resections being performed. We compared peri-operative outcomes of the two procedures, hypothesizing that MIE IL would be less morbid in the peri-operative setting compared to MIE 3-hole.

METHODS

Our institution's IRB-approved esophageal database was queried to identify all patients who underwent totally MI esophagectomy (MIE IL vs. MIE 3-hole) from June 2011 to May 2016. Patient demographics, preoperative and peri-operative data, as well as post-operative complications were compared between the two groups. Post-operative complications were analyzed using the Clavien-Dindo classification system.

RESULTS

There were 110 patients who underwent totally MI esophagectomy (MIE IL n = 49 [45%], MIE 3-hole n = 61 [55%]). The majority of patients were men (n = 91, 83%) with a median age of 62.5 (range 31-83). Preoperative risk stratifiers such as ECOG score, ASA, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were not significantly different between groups. Anastomotic leak rate was 2.0% in the MIE IL group compared to 6.6% in the MIE 3-hole group (p = 0.379). The rate of serious (Clavien-Dindo 3, 4, or 5) post-operative complications was significantly less in the MIE IL group (34.7 vs. 59.0%, p = 0.013). Serious pulmonary complications were not significantly different (16.3 vs. 26.2%, p = 0.251) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort, totally MIE IL showed significantly less severe peri-operative morbidity than MIE 3-hole, but similar rates of serious pulmonary complications and anastomotic leaks. These findings confirm the safety of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomies for esophageal cancer when oncologically and clinically appropriate. Minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy remains a satisfactory and appropriate option when clinically indicated.