Two-Year Quality of Life Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive and Open Esophagectomy

Evaluating the Impact of Minimally Invasive Surgery on Long-Term Quality of Life in Foregut Cancer Patients

INTRODUCTION

Compared to open surgery (OS), minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for foregut cancer improves perioperative outcomes. However, the impact of MIS on long-term quality of life (QOL) is unknown. We compare the long-term QOL of patients who underwent MIS and OS for foregut cancer.

METHODS

Surgically managed esophageal and gastric cancer patients were surveyed globally via online support groups. Physical (P-QOL) and mental (M-QOL) well-being were determined using the Short Form-12 questionnaire and compared based on the surgical approach (MIS vs OS). We defined "long-term" as greater than 3 months from surgery.

RESULTS

Out of 100 respondents with esophageal and gastric cancer, 64 survivors underwent surgical management greater than 3 months before the survey. They were 56.6 ± 9.9 years, 46.0% female, and 95.2% White, with a median survival of 33.0 (14.0-63.0) months. The most common diagnosis was esophageal adenocarcinoma (69.8%). Surgical procedures included esophagectomy (56.5%), esophagogastrectomy (29.0%), and gastrectomy (14.5%), of which 45.2% were OS and 48.4% were MIS. The cohort overall exhibited lower P-QOL (40.7 ± 10.4) and M-QOL (44.6 ± 15.2) compared to the general population (50.0 ± 10.0; p < 0.050). There was no difference in age, sex, race, education, income, diagnosis, and adjuvant therapy between OS and MIS cohorts (all p > 0.050). Long-term P-QOL (38.5 ± 11.6 OS vs. 42.8 ± 9.5 MIS, p = 0.123) and M-QOL (44.7 ± 15.3 OS vs. 44.9 ± 14.9 MIS, p = 0.901) was similar between patients who underwent OS and MIS for foregut cancer.

CONCLUSION

MIS is not associated with higher long-term QOL in patients who have undergone surgery for foregut malignancy.

Novel robot-assisted minimally invasive surgical technique for the treatment of esophageal cancer

A new trend toward the application robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has started to develop in the field of gastrointestinal tract surgery. As compared with the current gold standard, minimally invasive esophagectomy, RAMIE facilitates more thorough upper mediastinal lymphadenectomy and reduces the risk of vessel damage. This study aimed to evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of RAMIE in patients with esophageal cancer based on the first 2 RAMIE procedures carried out in Poland. Both robotic procedures were successful, without the need for conversion to open surgery. There was no case of incomplete lesion removal or postoperative complications, indicating that RAMIE is a feasible and safe treatment option for patients with esophageal cancer and results in good postoperative recovery.

Long-Term Quality of Life and Survivorship Priorities in Esophageal Cancer Patients: A Survey-Based Assessment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study examines the long-term quality of life (QOL) and priorities of survivors who underwent management for esophageal cancer (EC).

METHODS

We cross-sectionally surveyed EC patients through online support groups to assess the relative importance of their overall survival, experience, costs of care, and QOL. Kendall's co-efficient of Concordance (W) was utilized to assess agreement among respondents.

RESULTS

Among 100 respondents (age 57.2 ± 10.4 years, 54% male, 90% Caucasian), median overall survival was 18.0 (7.8-49.8) months, with a maximum survivorship of 48.3 years. Respondents ranked overall survival most important, followed by functional independence, emotional well-being, treatment experience, and costs of care (W = 0.342, p < 0.001). Some survivors ranked treatment experience (4%) or costs (6%) as their most important priority. The cohort's physical QOL (P-QOL; 39.79 ± 10.16) and mental QOL (M-QOL; 42.29 ± 15.43) were below that of the general population (50.00 ± 10.00); both p < 0.050. There was no difference in P-QOL and M-QOL based on the presence of metastatic disease (both p > 0.050). Patients who underwent curative surgery had superior M-QOL (45.00 ± 15.22 vs. 36.70 ± 14.53, p = 0.010). Although P-QOL was similar based on duration of survival (40.30 ± 9.75 [< 1 year], 39.33 ± 10.52 [1-5 years], 39.81 ± 10.68 [> 5 years], p = 0.873), M-QOL was higher in patients with extended survivorship (36.87 ± 14.24 [< 1 year], 45.05 ± 14.94 [1-5 years], 47.30 ± 16.36 [> 5 years], p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite enduring physical health impairments, a majority of EC survivors prioritized their survival. However, a few survivors prioritized costs and treatment experience, underscoring the importance of tailoring treatments to ensure alignment with individual patient-driven priorities.

Patient-reported outcomes following esophagectomy

The impact on quality of life (QoL) following esophagectomy is well reported in many studies that have analyzed patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The morbidity surrounding esophagectomy mainly lies within the significant lifestyle changes that can be permanent in some patients. Research efforts in cancer treatments primarily focus on measurements of survival and major morbidity to establish the best therapy that provides the longest survival, but they do not consider the global well-being of the patient. PROs assist in this measurement of QoL and health that is obtained from the patient or caregiver. These instruments are of minimal burden and cost to the patient and are generally utilized before each clinic visit which can help quantify symptoms and improve communication between patients and their surgeons. PROs can also be successfully integrated into the electronic medical records for a standardized approach to collection of data. Review of PRO studies have demonstrated a consensus of an overall decrease in QoL immediately following esophagectomy, but there is a discordance in long-term analyses regarding health-related QoL (HRQoL) scores that return to baseline. This review focuses on methods of gathering and utilizing PRO data, as well as reviewing the current literature regarding QoL research in those undergoing esophagectomy for both short-term and long-term periods.

Comparative study of acute and chronic pain after inflatable videoasisted MediastinoscopicTranshiatal esophagectomy and minimally invasive McKeown Esophagectomy:A propensity score matching analysis

Objective

The short-term quality of life of patients can be enhanced by performing Inflatable Video-Assisted Mediastinoscopic Transhiatal Esophagectomy (IVMTE). Nevertheless, there is limited research on how it impacts postoperative acute and chronic pain in individuals diagnosed with esophageal cancer.Hence, this research aimed to examine the impact of IVMTE and minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy (MIME) on the occurrence of acute and chronic pain following surgery in individuals diagnosed with esophageal cancer.

Methods

A retrospective, propensity score matching analysis was adopted. In total, 133 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent IVMTE and MIME between January 2020 and December 2021 were part of the study. Among them, 38 patients underwent IVMTE and 95 patients underwent MIME. Following the propensity score matching analysis, 36 patients were included in each group. Patients' postoperative pain was evaluated using the numerical rating scale (NRS).

Results

The IVMTE group (Group A) had significantly reduced operation time and intraoperative blood loss compared to the MIME group (Group B) (P < 0.05). NRS scores on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 7th days after surgery, as well as on the 3rd and 6th months post-surgery, were notably reduced in the IVMTE group (Group A) compared to the MIME group (Group B) (P < 0.05). Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that chronic pain occurred postoperative 3rd months was related to the operation methods (P < 0.05). Univariate analysis showed that chronic pain occurred postoperative 6th months was related to the operation time, postoperative 14th days NRS scores and operation methods (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that chronic pain occurred postoperative 6th months was related to the operation methods (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The results showed that the operation methods were the main risk factors for postoperative chronic pain. The compared with MIME, IVMTE can further reduce the acute and chronic pain of patients with esophageal cancer.

Long-term quality of life after hybrid robot-assisted and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in a single center: a comparative analysis

PURPOSE

Due to improved survival of esophageal cancer patients, long-term quality of life (QoL) is increasingly gaining importance. The aim of this study is to compare QoL outcomes between open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (Open-E) and a hybrid approach including laparotomy and a robot-assisted thoracic phase (hRob-E). Additionally, a standard group of healthy individuals serves as reference.

METHODS

With a median follow-up of 36 months after hRob-E (n = 28) and 40 months after Open-E (n = 43), patients' QoL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and the EORTC Esophagus specific QoL questionnaire 18 (QLQ-OES18).

RESULTS

Patients showed similar clinical-pathological characteristics, but hRob-E patients had significantly higher ASA scores at surgery (p < 0.001). Patients and healthy controls reported similar global health status and emotional and cognitive functions. However, physical functioning of Open-E patients was significantly reduced compared to healthy controls (p = 0.019). Operated patients reported reduced role and social functioning, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, dyspnea, and diarrhea. A trend towards a better pain score after hRob-E compared to Open-E emerged (p = 0.063). Regarding QLQ-OES18, hRob-E- and Open-E-treated patients similarly reported eating problems, reflux, and troubles swallowing saliva.

CONCLUSIONS

The global health status is not impaired after esophagectomy. Despite higher ASA scores, QoL of hRob-E patients is similar to that of patients operated with Open-E. Moreover, patients after hRob-E appear to have a better score regarding physical functioning and a better pain profile than patients after Open-E, indicating a benefit of minimally invasive surgery.

Comparison of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: A propensity-matched study from a single high-volume institution

OBJECTIVE

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy accounts for a growing proportion of esophagectomies, potentially due to improved technical capabilities simplifying the challenging aspects of standard minimally invasive esophagectomy. However, there is limited evidence directly comparing both operations. The objective is to evaluate the short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy in comparison with the minimally invasive esophagectomy approach for patients with esophageal cancer over a 7-year period at a high-volume center. The primary end points of this study were overall survival and disease-free survival. Secondary end points included operation-specific morbidity, lymph node yield, readmission status, and in-hospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortality.

METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy or standard minimally invasive esophagectomy over a 7-year period were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Inclusion criteria were patients with stage I to III disease, operations performed past the learning curve, and no evidence of scleroderma or cirrhosis. A 1:3 propensity match (robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy:minimally invasive esophagectomy) for multiple clinical covariates was performed to identify the final study cohort. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the 2 operations.

RESULTS

A total of 734 patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (n = 630) or robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (n = 104) for esophageal cancer were identified. After exclusions and matching, a total cohort of 246 patients undergoing robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (n = 65) or minimally invasive esophagectomy (n = 181) were identified. There was no difference in overall survival (P = .69) or disease-free survival (P = .70). There were no significant differences in rates of major morbidity: pneumonia (17% vs 17%, P = .34), chylothorax (8% vs 9%, P = .95), recurrent laryngeal nerve injury (0% vs 1.5%, P = 1), anastomotic leak (5% vs 4%, P = .49), intraoperative complications (9% vs 8%, P = .73), or complete resection rates (99% vs 96%, P = .68). There was no difference in in-hospital (P = .89), 30-day (P = .66) or 90-day mortality (P = .73) between both cohorts. The robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy cohort yielded a higher median lymph node harvest in comparison with the minimally invasive esophagectomy cohort (32 vs 29, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy may improve lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy and robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy are otherwise associated with similar mortality, morbidity, and perioperative outcomes. Further prospective study is required to investigate whether improved lymph node resection may translate to improved oncologic outcomes.

Recovery of Patient-reported Quality of Life After Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy is an important, but potentially morbid, operation used to treat benign and malignant conditions that may significantly impact patient quality of life (QOL). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are measures of QOL that come directly from patient self-report. This study characterizes patterns of change and recovery in PROs in the first year after esophagectomy.

METHODS

Longitudinal QOL scores measuring physical function, pain, and dyspnea were obtained from esophagectomy patients during all clinic visits. PRO scores were obtained using the National Institutes of Health-sponsored Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System from April 2018 to February 2021. Mean PRO scores over 100 days after surgery were compared with baseline PRO scores using mixed-effects modeling with compound symmetry correlational structure.

RESULTS

One hundred three patients with PRO results were identified. Reasons for esophagectomy were malignancy (87.4%), achalasia (5.8%), stricture (5.8%), and dysplasia (1.0%). When comparing mean PRO scores at visits ≤ 50 days after surgery with preoperative PRO scores, physical function scores declined by 27.3% (P < .001), whereas dyspnea severity and pain interference scores had increased by 24.5% (P < .001) and 17.1% (P < .001), respectively. Although recovery occurred over the course of the 100 days after surgery, mean physical function scores and dyspnea scores were still 12.7% (P = .02) and 26.4% (P = .001) worse, respectively, than mean preoperative levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite declines in QOL scores immediately after esophagectomy, recovery back toward baseline was observed during the first 100 days. These findings are of considerable importance when counseling patients regarding esophagectomy, tracking recovery, and implementing quality improvement initiatives. Further long-term follow-up is needed to determine recovery beyond 100 days.

Pain management after robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy

Background

Adequate pain control after open esophagectomy is associated with reduced complications, earlier recovery and higher patient satisfaction. While further developing surgical procedures like robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) it is relevant to adapt postoperative pain management. The primary question of this observational survey was whether one of the two standard treatments, thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) or intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), is superior for pain control after RAMIE as the optimal pain management for these patients still remains unclear. Use of additional analgesics, changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), postoperative complications and duration of intensive care and hospital stay were also analyzed.

Methods

This prospective observational pilot study analyzed 50 patients undergoing RAMIE (postoperative PCA with piritramide or TEA using bupivacaine; each n = 25). Patient reported pain using the numeric rating scale score and differences in FEV1 using a micro spirometer were measured at postoperative day 1, 3 and 7. Additional data of secondary endpoints were collected from patient charts.

Results

Key demographics, comorbidity, clinical and operative variables were equivalently distributed. Patients receiving TEA had lower pain scores and a longer-lasting pain relief. Moreover, TEA was an independent predictive variable for reduced length of hospital stay (HR -3.560 (95% CI: -6.838 to -0.282), p = 0.034).

Conclusions

Although RAMIE leads to reduced surgical trauma, a less invasive pain therapy with PCA appears to be inferior compared to TEA in case of sufficient postoperative analgesia and length of hospital stay. According to the results of this observational pilot study analgesia with TEA provided better and longer-lasting pain relief compared to PCA. Further randomized controlled trials should be conducted to evaluate the optimal postoperative analgesic treatment for RAMIE.

Routine Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment Into Thoracic Surgery Practice

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessment is a necessary component of surgical outcome assessment and patient care. This study examined the success of routine PROs assessment in an academic-based thoracic surgery practice.

METHODS

PROs, measuring pain intensity, physical function, and dyspnea, were routinely obtained using the National Institutes of Health-sponsored Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) on all thoracic surgery patients beginning in April 2018 through January 2021. Questionnaires were administered electronically through a web-based platform at home or during the office visit. Completion rates and barriers were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 9725 thoracic surgery office visits occurred during this time frame. PROs data were obtained in 6899 visits from a total of 3551 patients. The mean number of questions answered per survey was 22.4 ± 2.2. Overall questionnaire completion rate was 65.7%. A significant decline in survey completion was noted in April 2020, after which adjustments were made to allow for questionnaire completion through a mobile health platform. Overall monthly questionnaire completion rates ranged from 20% (April 2020) to 90% (October 2018). Mean T scores were dyspnea, 41.6 ± 12.3; physical function, 42.7 ± 10.5; and pain intensity, 52.8 ± 10.3.

CONCLUSIONS

PROs can be assessed effectively in a thoracic surgery clinic setting, with minimal disruption of clinical activities. Future efforts should focus on facilitating PROs collection from disadvantaged patient populations and scaling implementation across programs.

The Implementation of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Treatment of Esophageal Cancer: A Step Toward Better Outcomes?

Esophagectomy is considered the cornerstone of the radical treatment of esophageal cancer. In the past decades, minimally invasive techniques including robot-assisted approaches have become popular. The aim of minimally invasive surgery is to reduce the surgical trauma, resulting in faster recovery, reduction in complications, and better quality of life after surgery. Secondly, a more precise dissection may lead to better oncological outcomes. As such, minimally invasive esophagectomy is now seen by many as the standard surgical approach. However, evidence supporting this viewpoint is limited. This narrative review summarizes recent prospectively designed studies on minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Five decades of progress in surgical oncology: Tumors of the lung and esophagus

During the past 50 years, there has been a remarkable transformation in the management of lung and esophageal cancers. Improved methods of diagnosis, better staging and patient selection for surgery, the advent of minimally invasive approaches to resection, decreasing operative mortality, greater insights into tumor biology, and the development of effective multimodality therapies and precision medicine have contributed to this transformation. Progress has been most notable in lung cancer.

Today's Mistakes and Tomorrow's Wisdom in the Surgical Treatment of Barrett's Adenocarcinoma

Background

Barrett's esophagus is a premalignant condition caused by longstanding gastroesophageal reflux disease and may progress to low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and finally esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Summary

Barrett's adenocarcinoma can be treated either by endoscopic or surgical resection, depending on the clinical staging. Endoscopic resection is a safe and adequate treatment option for HGD, mucosal tumors, and low-risk submucosal tumors. Its role in the treatment of high-risk submucosal tumors and the role of organ-preserving sentinel node navigated surgery are still under investigation. Esophagectomy with neoadjuvant chemoradiation or perioperative chemotherapy is considered the standard of care for locally advanced Barrett's adenocarcinoma. Regarding operative technique, there is no proven superiority of one technique over another, although a minimally invasive transthoracic technique seems most commonly applied nowadays. In this review, state-of-the-art evidence and future expectations are presented regarding indications for resection, neoadjuvant or perioperative therapy, type of surgery, and postoperative follow-up for Barrett's adenocarcinoma.

Key Messages

In Barrett's adenocarcinoma, endoscopic resection is the standard treatment option for low-risk mucosal and submucosal tumors. For high-risk submucosal tumors, endoscopic submucosal dissection with close surveillance and sentinel node navigated surgery are currently being studied. For locally advanced cancer, a multimodal therapy including esophagectomy is the standard of care. Nowadays, in high-volume centers, a minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy with an intrathoracic anastomosis is the most common procedure for Barrett's adenocarcinoma.

Current status of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: what is the real benefit?

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer has been performed increasingly frequently over the last few years. Robotic systems with articulated devices and tremor filtration allow surgeons to perform such procedures more meticulously than by hand. The feasibility of RAMIE has been demonstrated in several retrospective comparative studies, which showed similar short-term outcomes to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (cMIE). Considering the number of harvested lymph nodes, RAMIE may be superior to cMIE in terms of left upper mediastinal lymph node dissection. However, whether or not the addition of a robotic system to cMIE can help improve perioperative and oncological outcomes remains unclear. Given the lack of established evidence from randomized controlled trials, we must await the results of ongoing studies to reach any meaningful conclusions. Further advancements in robotic platforms, as well as the reduction in medical expenses, will be essential to demonstrate the real benefit of RAMIE.