Transition from open to minimally invasive en bloc esophagectomy can be achieved without compromising surgical quality

Nodal Yield <15 Is Associated With Reduced Survival in Esophagectomy and Is a Quality Metric

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy remains the cornerstone of curative management of esophageal adenocarcinoma and is frequently used for squamous cell carcinoma. The optimal extent of lymphadenectomy and whether increasing lymph node yields confer a survival benefit remains unclear. Guidelines suggest resecting and examining a minimum of 15 lymph nodes at esophagectomy. This study assessed the impact of lymph node yield and lymph node ratio (LNR) on survival, identifying factors influencing nodal yield and radicality of resection.

METHODS

All patients undergoing esophagectomy with curative intent at a single institution (stage 1-4 inclusive) from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, were reviewed. Clinical and pathologic variables were interrogated. LNR was calculated by dividing positive lymph nodes by the total nodes resected.

RESULTS

Esophagectomy was performed in 397 patients, with 288 undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). Margin status (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.15-2.83; P < .01), nodal yield <15 (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.29-3.04; P = .002), and elevated LNR (HR, 8.16; 95% CI, 2.89-23.06; P < .001) predicted survival. MIE had higher nodal yields compared with open procedures (30.7 vs 25.3, P < .001). Patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy had lower nodal yields compared with those with no neoadjuvant therapy and those with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (26.4 vs 30.6 vs 36.8, respectively; P < .001). Regression analysis determined a LNR of <0.05 was associated with a survival benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Textbook lymphadenectomy is associated with improved survival. Low lymph node yield and a high LNR are associated with reduced overall survival. A LNR of <0.05 is associated with significant survival benefit. A minimum nodal yield of 15 should remain the standard of care.

As time goes by–developments in surgery for esophageal cancer in the new millennium

Background

In the last two decades, both treatment options and epidemiological features of cancer have changed. We studied the influence of related parameters on the outcome of patients undergoing resection for esophageal carcinoma.

Methods

We analyzed 499 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy for carcinoma since January 2000, comparing 2000–2010 with 2011–2021 and examining changes over time.

Results

The percentage of men (87.9 vs. 86.9%; p = 0.74) in the two groups was unchanged, whereas mean age increased significantly from 60.8 to 65.2 years (p = 0.000). There was a trend towards an increase of adenocarcinoma (gamma = 0.120, ASE = 0.055). Despite significantly increasing use of induction chemoradiotherapy (p = 0.000) from 7.14% in 2000 to 68.9% in 2021 the distribution of pT, pN stage, grading and the rate of positive lateral resection margins remained unchanged. When comparing the two periods, the overall 30-day mortality was 4.4 vs. 4.2% (p = 0.56), recurrence-free survival was 36.9 vs. 38% at 60 months and 33.9 vs. 36.4% at 120 months (p = 0.93). Tumor-associated survival was 41.1 vs. 45% at 60 months and 35.5 vs. 38.7% at 120 months (p = 0.78). None of the survival rates differed significantly. A multivariable analysis of year of surgery, age, sex, histological subtype, grading, pT, pN, lateral resection margin, and induction therapy showed that only higher pT (p = 0.01), positive pN (p = 0.000), positive lateral margin (p = 0.003), squamous cell carcinoma (p = 0.04) and higher grading (p = 0.026) had a statistically significant, independent, negative influence on prognosis.

Conclusion

Optimized noninvasive and invasive therapeutic modalities have produced only marginal improvement in the prognosis of esophageal cancer within the last two decades.

Feasibility of enhanced recovery protocol in minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery has generally been applied to gastrointestinal surgeries; however, few studies have investigated minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of an enhanced recovery protocol after minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy.

METHODS

Data were collected between January 2015 and April 2020 for patients who underwent esophagectomy. Of these patients, those who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy was selected for the investigation. Perioperative outcomes and nutritional index were compared using propensity score matching between the conventional group and the enhanced recovery group.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients were enrolled in this study. Of these, 73 and 46 were treated with conventional and enhanced recovery protocol, respectively. Forty-two pairs were matched in two groups. The enhanced recovery group showed a lower rate of pulmonary complications (9.5% vs. 28.5%, p = 0.0235), abdominal dysfunctions (16.7% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.0078), and shorter hospital stay as compared with the conventional group (17.5 days vs. 23 days, p = 0.0034). The loss of body weight (6.3% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.0065) and body mass index (5.6% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.0017) were significantly lower in the enhanced recovery group than in the conventional group. In contrast, nutritional biochemistry data did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the promotion of an enhanced recovery protocol in minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy maintains nutritional status without increasing postoperative complications.