Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Provides Equivalent Survival to Open Esophagectomy: An Analysis of the National Cancer Database

Association of operative time and approach on postoperative complications for esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is associated with decreased postoperative complications compared with open esophagectomy. However, the risks of complications for minimally invasive esophagectomy compared with open esophagectomy may be affected by operative time. The objectives of this study are to (1) compare the incidence of postoperative complications for minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy and (2) evaluate the association of postoperative complications on operative approach and operative time.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis of patients who underwent an esophagectomy in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Procedure-Targeted Data File was performed from 2016 to 2020. For analysis, minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy were stratified into tertiles of operative time. A bivariate analysis of postoperative complications comparing minimally invasive esophagectomy with open esophagectomy was performed. Multivariable Poisson regression models were estimated evaluating the association of the likelihood of postoperative complications with operative approach and operative time.

RESULTS

In total, 8,574 patients who underwent esophagectomy were included: 5,369 patients underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy, and 3,205 patients underwent open esophagectomy. Median operative time was 402 minutes for minimally invasive esophagectomy and 321 minutes for open esophagectomy. The incidence of postoperative complications and 30-day mortality was lower in the minimally invasive esophagectomy group than the open esophagectomy group within the same tertiles of operative time. When we compared patients who underwent short open esophagectomy with those who underwent long minimally invasive esophagectomy, there were no significant differences in complications.

CONCLUSION

There is no significant association of postoperative complications for short open esophagectomy compared with long minimally invasive esophagectomy. Patients should be selected for minimally invasive esophagectomy when there is appropriate surgeon experience and hospital resources.

National trends in technique use for esophagectomy: Does primary surgeon specialty matter?

BACKGROUND

Cardiothoracic surgeons and general surgeons (including surgical oncologists) perform most esophagectomies. The purpose of this study was to explore whether specialty-driven differences in surgical techniques and the use of minimally invasive surgical approaches exist and are associated with postoperative outcomes after esophagectomy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program esophagectomy-targeted participant user file (2016-2018). Patients who underwent esophagectomy were sorted into cardiothoracic and general surgeon cohorts based on surgeon specialty. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared using the χ2 analysis or independent t test. Multivariable logistic regression controlling for perioperative variables was performed to generate risk-adjusted rates of postoperative outcomes compared by surgical specialty.

RESULTS

Of 3,247 patients included, 1,792 (55.2%) underwent esophagectomy by cardiothoracic surgeons and 1,455 (44.5%) by general surgeons as the primary surgeon. Cardiothoracic surgeons were more likely to use traditional minimally invasive surgical (P = .0004) or open approaches (P < .0001) and less likely to use robotic (P = .04) or a hybrid robotic and traditional approaches (P < .0001). Cardiothoracic surgeons performed more Ivor Lewis esophagectomies and fewer transhiatal and McKeown esophagectomies (P < .0001). After risk adjustment, there were no differences in rates of postesophagectomy complications, such as anastomotic leaks or positive margins, between cardiothoracic surgeons and general surgeons (all P > .05). However, cardiothoracic surgeons were more likely than general surgeons to treat anastomotic leaks with surgery rather than procedural interventions (odds ratio = 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.52).

CONCLUSION

Cardiothoracic surgeons and general surgeons use minimally invasive surgical subtypes differently when performing esophagectomy. However, there were no risk-adjusted differences in postoperative complications when compared by surgical subspecialty. Esophagectomy is being performed safely by surgeons with different specialties and training pathways.

The Effect of Neoadjuvant Therapy on Esophagectomy for cT2N0M0 Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

For cT2N0M0 esophageal adenocarcinomas, the effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NT) on surgical outcomes and the oncological benefits to the patients are debatable. In this study, we investigated the optimal management for cT2N0M0 adenocarcinoma (1) assessing the perioperative impact of NT on esophagectomy and (2) evaluating the oncologic effect of NT in a homogeneous group of patients with clinical stage IIA. We hypothesized that NT does not negatively affect perioperative outcomes and provides an oncologic benefit to selected patients with cT2N0M0 disease.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried (2010-2019) for patients with cT2N0M0 esophageal adenocarcinoma undergoing esophagectomy. After propensity-matching to adjust for differences in patient and tumor characteristics, we compared postoperative outcomes (logistic regression) and survival (Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression) among those who underwent NT vs upfront surgery (S).

RESULTS

This study included 3413 patients, of whom 2359 (69%) received NT, and 1054 (31%) S. In contrast to those who underwent S, in the matched cohort, patients treated with NT had comparable conversion rates (8% vs11.1%, p = 0.06), length of stay (9 vs 10 days, p = 0.078), unplanned readmission (5.4% vs 8.8%, p = 0.109), and 30- (3.9% vs 3.7%, p = 0.90) and 90-day mortality (5.7% vs 4.7%, p = 0.599). In addition, NT associated with improved survival in patients with cT2N0M0 tumors > 5 cm (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17-0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

NT does not appear to increase technical complexity or to adversely affect postoperative outcomes after esophagectomy. Furthermore, minimally invasive esophagectomy is feasible following NT, with comparable conversion rates to those who had upfront surgery. Lastly, NT was selectively associated with improved survival in patients with cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer.

Anastomotic Stricture After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Despite improved outcomes, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) continues to be associated with anastomotic strictures. Most resolve after a single dilation; however, some become refractory. Little is known about strictures after MIE in North America.

METHODS

We performed a single-institution retrospective review of MIEs from 2015 to 2019. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients requiring anastomotic dilation and the dilation rate per year. Univariate analyses of patients undergoing dilation by various risk factors were performed with nonparametric tests, and multivariate analyses of the dilation rate were conducted using generalized linear models.

RESULTS

Of 391 included patients, 431 dilations were performed on 135 patients (34.5%, 3.2 dilations per patient who required at least 1 per patient). One complication occurred after dilation. Comorbidities, tumor histology, and tumor stage were not significantly associated with stricture. Three-field MIE was associated with a higher percentage of patients undergoing dilation (48.9% vs 27.1%, P < .001) and a higher rate of dilations (0.944 vs 0.441 dilations per year, P = .007) than 2-field MIE, and this association remained significant after controlling for covariates. When accounting for surgeon variability, this difference was no longer significant. Among patients with 1 or more dilations, those receiving dilation within 100 days of surgery needed more subsequent dilations (2.0 vs 0.6 dilations per year, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

After controlling for multiple variables, a 3-field MIE approach was associated with a higher rate of repeat dilations in patients undergoing MIE. A shorter interval between esophagectomy and initial dilation is strongly associated with the need for repeated dilations.

Minimally Invasive or Open Esophagectomy for Treatment of Resectable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma? Answer From a Real-world Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term and short-term outcomes of MIE compared with OE in localized ESCC patients in real-world settings.

BACKGROUND

MIE is an alternative to OE, despite the limited evidence regarding its effect on long-term survival.

METHODS

We recruited 5822 consecutive patients with resectable ESCC in 2 typical high-volume centers in southern and northern China, 1453 of whom underwent MIE. Propensity score-based overlap weighted regression adjusted for multifaceted confounding factors was used to compare outcomes in the MIE and OE groups.

RESULTS

Five-year OS was 62.7% in the MIE group and 57.7% in the OE group. The overlap weighted Cox regression showed slightly better OS in the MIE group (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.82-1.06). Although duration of surgery was longer and treatment cost higher in the MIE group than in the OE group, the number of lymph nodes harvested was larger, the proportion of intraoperative blood transfusions lower, and postoperative complications less in the MIE group. 30-day (risk ratio [RR] 0.77, 0.381.55) and 90-day (RR 0.79, 0.46-1.35) mortality were lower in the MIE group versus the OE group, although not statistically significant. These findings were consistent across different analytic approaches and subgroups, notably in the subset of ESCC patients with large tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

MIE can be performed safely with OS comparable to OE for patients with localized ESCC, indicating MIE may be recommended as the primary surgical approach for resectable ESCC in health facilities with requisite technical capacity.

Why pay more for robot in esophageal cancer surgery?

Esophagectomy is the gold standard for the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer. Traditionally, it is performed through a laparotomy and a thoracotomy, and is associated with high rates of postoperative complications and mortality. The advent of robotic surgery has represented a technological evolution in the field of esophageal cancer treatment. Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been progressively widely adopted following the first reports on the safety and feasibility of this procedure in 2004. The robotic approach has better short-term postoperative outcomes than open esophagectomy, without jeopardizing oncologic radicality. The results of the comparison between RAMIE and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy are less conclusive. This article will focus on the role of RAMIE in the current clinical scenario with particular attention to its possible benefits and perspectives.

Survival Comparison Between Open and Thoracoscopic Upfront Esophagectomy in Patients With Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The survival outcomes of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after open or thoracoscopic upfront esophagectomy remained unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare overall survival between open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy for ESCC patients without neoadjuvant chemodatiotherapy (CRT).

METHODS

The Taiwan Cancer Registry was investigated for ESCC cases from 2008 to 2016. We enrolled 2053 ESCC patients receiving open (n = 645) or thoracoscopic (n = 1408) upfront esophagectomy. One-to-two propensity score matching between the two groups was performed. Stage-specific survival was compared before and after propensity score matching. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were used to identify risk factors.

RESULTS

After one-to-two propensity score matching, a total of 1299 ESCC patients with comparable clinic-pathologic features were identified. There were 433 patients in the open group and 866 patients in the thoracoscopic group. The 3-year overall survival of matched patients in the thoracoscopic group was better than that of matched patients in the open group (58.58% vs 47.62%, P = 0.0002). Stage-specific comparisons showed thoracoscopic esophagectomy is associated with better survival than open esophagectomy in patients with pathologic I/II ESCC. In multivariate analysis, surgical approach was still an independent prognostic factor before and after one-to-two propensity score matching.

CONCLUSION

This propensity-matched study revealed that thoracoscopic esophagectomy could provide better survival than open esophagectomy in ESCC patients without neoadjuvant CRT.

Minimally invasive surgery is associated with decreased postoperative complications after esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Although some studies have compared esophagectomy outcomes by technique or approach, there is opportunity to strengthen our knowledge surrounding these outcomes. We aimed to perform a comprehensive comparison of esophagectomy postoperative complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2007-2018). Esophagectomies were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes and grouped by operative technique (Ivor Lewis, transhiatal, McKeown) and surgical approach (minimally invasive vs open esophagectomy). Twelve postoperative complications were compared. Significant complications underwent risk adjustment using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Analysis was performed on 13,457 esophagectomies: 11,202 (83.2%) open and 2255 (16.8%) minimally invasive. There were 7611 (56.6%) Ivor Lewis, 3348 (24.9%) transhiatal, and 2498 (18.6%) McKeown procedures. There were significant differences among the surgical techniques in 6 of 12 risk-adjusted complications. When comparing the outcomes of minimally invasive techniques, there were only significant differences in 2 of 12 complications: overall morbidity (minimally invasive Ivor Lewis 30.5%, minimally invasive transhiatal 43.4%, minimally invasive McKeown 40.3%, P = .0009) and infections (minimally invasive Ivor Lewis 15.4%, minimally invasive transhiatal 26.0%, minimally invasive McKeown 25.3%, P = .0003). Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery were less likely to have overall morbidity (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.75), respiratory complications (odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.87), urinary tract infection (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.88), renal complications (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.81), bleeding complications (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.43), and nonhome discharge (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.64), and had shorter length of stay (9.7 vs 13.2 days, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy have lower rates of postoperative complications regardless of esophagectomy techniques. The minimally invasive approach was associated with reduced complication variance among 3 common esophagectomy techniques.

McKeown esophagectomy: robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive technique-systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This meta-analysis assesses the surgical outcomes between robot-assisted minimally-invasive McKeown esophagectomy and conventional one.

METHOD

This meta-analysis searched the Web of Science, PUBMED, and EMBASE from the database's inception to January 2022. Altogether, 1073 records were identified in the literature search. Studies that evaluated the outcomes between robot-assisted minimally-invasive McKeown esophagectomy and conventional one among postoperative patients with oesophageal neoplasms were included. The assessed outcomes involved complications and clinical outcomes. In addition, heterogeneity was analyzed, and evidence quality was evaluated.

RESULT

Evidence indicated that RAMIE (minimally-invasive esophagectomy assisted with robot) decreased incidences of lung complications and hospital stay as well as increased harvested lymph nodes.

CONCLUSIONS

There was currently little evidence from randomized studies depicting that robot surgery manifested a clear overall advantage, but there was growing evidence regarding the clinical benefits of robot-assisted minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy over conventional one.

Minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

In this study, we present our minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy technique and survival rates of this technique.

METHODS

Between September 2013 and December 2020, a total of 140 patients (56 males, 84 females; mean age: 55.5±10.3 years; range, 32 to 76 years) who underwent minimally invasive Ivor- Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were retrospectively analyzed. Preoperative patient data, oncological and surgical outcomes, pathological results, and complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Primary diagnosis was esophageal cancer in all cases. Minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy was carried out in all of the cases included in the study. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was administrated in 97 (69.3%) of the cases. The mean duration of surgery was 261.7±30.6 (range, 195 to 330) min. The mean amount of intraoperative blood loss was 115.1±190.7 (range, 10 to 800) mL. In 60 (42.9%) of the cases, complications occurred in intraoperative and early-late postoperative periods. The anastomotic leak rate was 7.1% and the pulmonary complication rate was 22.1% in postoperative complications. The mean hospital stay length was 10.6±8.4 (range, 5-59) days and hospital mortality rate was 2.1%. The median follow-up duration was 37 (range, 2-74) months and the three- and five-year overall survival rates were 61.8% and 54.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy can be used safely with low mortality and long-time survival rates in esophageal cancer.

Long-term survival of patients with T1bN0M0 esophageal cancer after thoracoscopic esophagectomy using data from JCOG0502: a prospective multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

Thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) is considered the standard surgery for esophageal cancer because of its superiority over open esophagectomy (OE) in terms of short-term outcomes. However, few prospective multicenter studies have evaluated its long-term survival after TE. This study aimed to investigate whether the prognosis for patients with T1bN0M0 esophageal cancer after TE is not inferior to OE using data from the Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study (JCOG0502), a prospective multicenter trial comparing esophagectomy with chemoradiotherapy.

METHODS

Data of patients in JCOG0502 after esophagectomy were used to compare the overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) after OE versus TE. OE or TE was selected at the surgeon's discretion. A hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated via Cox proportional-hazards model.

RESULTS

Of the 210 patients who underwent esophagectomy, 109 underwent OE, whereas 101 underwent TE. The 5-year OS was 88.9% after OE and 85.0% after TE. The hazard ratio of TE for OS was 1.53 (95% CI, 0.84-2.78; p = 0.16) and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.52-2.35; p = 0.80) in the univariable and multivariable analyses, respectively. The 5-year RFS was 85.3% after OE and 79.1% after TE. The hazard ratio of TE for RFS was 1.39 (95% CI, 0.81-2.38; p = 0.23) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.44-1.74; p = 0.70) in the univariable and multivariable analyses, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The prognosis for patients with T1bN0M0 esophageal cancer after TE was not inferior to OE.

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Is Associated with Superior Survival Compared to Open Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has not been associated with a long-term survival advantage compared to open esophagectomy (OE). We investigated survival differences between MIE, including laparoscopic and robotic, and OE.

METHODS

Patients undergoing esophagectomy from 2010 to 2014 with T_1-4N_0-3M₀, adenocarcinoma or squamous cell histology, in middle or lower esophagus were queried from the National Cancer Database and stratified into groups based on their surgical procedure: robotic, laparoscopic, or OE. Propensity matching (1:1) was done between robotic and laparoscopic to produce an MIE group. The MIE group was matched to OE yielding a 1:1:2 matching of robotic:laparoscopic:OE. Postoperative outcomes and survival (Kaplan-Meier) were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Prior to matching, 7,163 patients met inclusion criteria and a greater portion underwent OE (67.7%) than MIE (laparoscopic 24.9% and robotic 7.4%). Matching yielded similar groups (robotic = 527, laparoscopic = 527, and OE =1054). Compared to OE, MIE patients had a significantly greater number of nodes sampled and trended toward increased R0 resections (96.1% vs 94.3%, P = .053). OE was associated with a longer median postoperative stay (10 vs 9 days, P = .001). Mortality at 30 and 90 days was similar. However, postoperative survival for MIE was significantly greater than OE (P < .001). No survival difference existed between robotic and laparoscopic (P = .723).

CONCLUSIONS

MIE is associated with increased number of nodes examined and a shorter postoperative length of stay. After propensity matching, patients undergoing MIE had better long but not short-term survival than OE. This benefit seems to be independent of the use of robotic technology.

Comparative analysis of long-term oncologic outcomes for minimally invasive and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a propensity score matched observational study

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is typically treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy (trimodality therapy). We compared the long-term oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (M-ILE) cohort with a propensity score weighted cohort of open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (O-ILE) cases after trimodality therapy.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 223 patients diagnosed with esophageal carcinoma who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by M-ILE or O-ILE from April 2009 to February 2019. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjustment was used to balance the baseline characteristics between study groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated for overall survival and recurrence-free survival comparing the two groups. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine predictive variables for overall and recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

The IPTW cohort included patients with esophageal carcinoma who underwent M-ILE (n = 142) or O-ILE (n = 68). The overall rate of postoperative adverse events was not significantly different after IPTW adjustment between the O-ILE and M-ILE trimodality groups (53.4% vs. 39.2%, p = 0.089). The 3-year overall survival (OS) for the M-ILE group was 59.4% (95% CI: 49.8-67.8) compared to 55.7% (95% CI: 39.2-69.4) for the O-ILE group (p = 0.670). The 3-year recurrence-free survival for the M-ILE group was 59.9% (95% CI: 50.2-68.2) compared to 61.6% (95% CI: 41.9-76.3) for the O-ILE group (p = 0.357). A complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation was significantly predictive of improved OS and RFS.

CONCLUSION

The overall and recurrence-free survival rates for M-ILE were not significantly different from O-ILE for esophageal carcinoma after trimodality therapy. Complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation was predictive of improved overall and recurrence- free survival.

Learning curve for minimally invasive oesophagectomy of oesophageal cancer and survival analysis

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy is a technically demanding procedure, and the learning curve for this procedure should be explored. A survival analysis should also be performed.

METHODS

A total of 214 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive oesophagectomy were retrospectively reviewed. To evaluate the development of thoracoscopic-laparoscopic oesophagectomy and compare mature minimally invasive oesophagectomy and open oesophagectomy, we comprehensively studied the clinical and surgical parameters. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) plot was used to evaluate the learning curve for systemic lymphadenectomy. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to explore the clinical factors affecting survival.

RESULTS

The bleeding volume, operation time, and postoperative mortality within 3 months significantly decreased after 20 patients. The rise point for node dissection was visually determined to occur at patient 57 in the CUSUM plots. Patients who underwent mature thoracoscopic-laparoscopic oesophagectomy had better surgical data and short-term benefits than patients who underwent an open procedure. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis showed that the maximum diameter of the tumour cross-sectional area and the number of positive nodes significantly influenced survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that thoracoscopic-laparoscopic oesophagectomy has short-term benefits. There was no evidence that it was associated with a significantly better prognosis for patients with oesophageal cancer. ClinicalTrials Gov ID: NCT04217239; January 2, 2020 retrospectively registered.

Modeling the impact of delaying surgery for early esophageal cancer in the era of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Surgical society guidelines have recommended changing the treatment strategy for early esophageal cancer during the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Delaying resection can allow for interim disease progression, but the impact of this delay on mortality is unknown. The COVID-19 infection rate at which immediate operative risk exceeds benefit is unknown. We sought to model immediate versus delayed surgical resection in a T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A decision analysis model was developed, and sensitivity analyses performed. The base case was a 65-year-old male smoker presenting with cT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma scheduled for esophagectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic. We compared immediate surgical resection to delayed resection after 3 months. The likelihood of key outcomes was derived from the literature where available. The outcome was 5-year overall survival.

RESULTS

Proceeding with immediate esophagectomy for the base case scenario resulted in slightly improved 5-year overall survival when compared to delaying surgery by 3 months (5-year overall survival 0.74 for immediate and 0.73 for delayed resection). In sensitivity analyses, a delayed approach became preferred when the probability of perioperative COVID-19 infection increased above 7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate resection of early esophageal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic did not decrease 5-year survival when compared to resection after 3 months for the base case scenario. However, as the risk of perioperative COVID-19 infection increases above 7%, a delayed approach has improved 5-year survival. This balance should be frequently re-examined by surgeons as infection risk changes in each hospital and community throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Short-term and intermediate-term readmission after esophagectomy

Background

The objective of this study was to characterize short- and intermediate-term readmissions following esophagectomy and to identify predictors of readmission in these two groups.

Methods

Patients who underwent esophagectomy in the National Readmissions Database (2013–2014) were grouped according to whether first readmission was “short-term” (readmitted <30 days) or “intermediate-term” (readmitted 31–90 days) following index admission for esophagectomy. Predictors of readmission were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression modeling.

Results

Of the 3,005 patients who underwent esophagectomy, 544 (18.1%) had a short-term readmission and 305 (10.1%) had an intermediate-term readmission. The most frequent reasons for short-term readmission were post-operative infection (7.5%), dysphagia (6.3%) and pneumonia (5.1%). The most common intermediate-term complications were pneumonia (7.2%), gastrointestinal stricture/stenosis (6.9%) and dysphagia (5.9%). In multivariable analysis, being located in a micropolitan area, increasing number of comorbidities and higher severity of illness score were associated with an increased likelihood of having a short-term readmission while being discharged to a facility (as opposed to directly home) was associated with increased likelihood of both short- and intermediate-term readmission (all P<0.05).

Conclusions

In this analysis, postoperative infection was the most common reason for short-term readmission. Dysphagia and pneumonia were common reasons for both short- and intermediate-term readmission of patients following esophagectomy. Interventions focused on reducing the risk of postoperative infection and pneumonia may reduce hospital readmissions. Gastrointestinal stricture and dysphagia were associated with increased risk of intermediate readmission and should be examined in the context of morbidity associated with pyloric procedures (e.g., pyloromyotomy) at the time of esophagectomy.

Retrospective analysis of predictive factors for lymph node metastasis in superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

This study aimed to identify the risk factors of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and use these factors to establish a prediction model. We retrospectively analyzed the data from training set (n = 280) and validation set (n = 240) underwent radical esophagectomy between March 2005 and April 2018. Our results of univariate and multivariate analyses showed that tumor size, tumor invasion depth, tumor differentiation and lymphovascular invasion were significantly correlated with LNM. Incorporating these 4 variables above, model A achieved AUC of 0.765 and 0.770 in predicting LNM in the training and validation sets, respectively. Adding macroscopic type to the model A did not appreciably change the AUC but led to statistically significant improvements in both the integrated discrimination improvement and net reclassification improvement. Finally, a nomogram was constructed by using these five variables and showed good concordance indexes of 0.765 and 0.770 in the training and validation sets, and the calibration curves had good fitting degree. Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the nomogram was clinically useful in both sets. It is possible to predict the status of LNM using this nomogram score system, which can aid the selection of an appropriate treatment plan.

Impact of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in Post-Operative Atrial Fibrillation and Long-Term Mortality in Patients Among Esophageal Cancer

Aims:

Postoperative Atrial fibrillation (POAF) after esophagectomy may prolong stay in intensive care and increase risk of perioperative complications. A minimally invasive approach is becoming the preferred option for esophagectomy, yet its implications for POAF risk remains unclear. The association between POAF and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was examined in this study.

Methods:

We used a dataset of 575 patients who underwent esophagectomy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the association between MIE and POAF. A cox proportional hazards model was applied to assess the long-term mortality (MIE vs open esophagectomy, OE).

Results:

Of the 575 patients with esophageal cancer, 62 developed POAF. MIE was negatively associated with the occurrence of POAF (Odds ratio: 0.163, 95%CI: 0.033-0.801). No significant difference was observed in long-term mortality (Odds ratio: 2.144, 95%CI: 0.963-4.775).

Conclusions:

MIE may reduced the incidence of POAF without compromising the survival of patients with esophageal cancer. Moreover, the specific mechanism of MIE providing this possible advantage needs to be determined by larger prospective cohort studies with specific biomarker information from laboratory tests.

Three-Field Lymphadenectomy in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been used widely for the treatment of esophageal cancer. However, there is still a lack of consensus on the extent of lymphadenectomy in MIE. The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of three-field lymphadenectomy (3-FL) in MIE, compared with the standard two-field lymphadenectomy (2-FL).

METHODS

A single-center randomized controlled trial was conducted, enrolling patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (cT1-3,N0-3,M0) between June 2016 and May 2019. Eligible patients were randomized into two groups to receive either 3-FL or 2-FL during MIE procedures. Perioperative outcomes of the two groups were compared. The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-INR-16007957).

RESULTS

Seventy-six eligible patients were randomly assigned to the 3-FL group (n = 38) and the 2-FL group (n = 38). Compared with patients in the 2-FL group, patients in the 3-FL group had more lymph nodes harvested (54.7 ± 16.5vs 30.9 ± 9.6, P < .001) and more metastatic lymph nodes identified (3.5 ± 4.5 vs 1.7 ± 2.0, P = .027). Patients in the 3-FL group were diagnosed with a more advanced final pathologic TNM stage than patients in the 2-FL group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in blood loss, major postoperative complications, or duration of hospital stay, except that the operation time was longer in the 3-FL group than in the 2-FL group (270.5 ± 45.4 minutes vs 236.7 ± 47.0 minutes, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Three-field lymphadenectomy allowed harvesting of more lymph nodes and more accurate staging without increased surgical risks compared with 2-FL MIE for esophageal cancer.

Lymph node dissection around left recurrent laryngeal nerve: robot-assisted vs. video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the advantages of robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (RAME) for extensive superior mediastinal lymph node dissection (LND) versus video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (VAME).

METHODS

The cases of 184 consecutive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy (109 with RAME, 75 with VAME) performed by a single surgical group between June 2017 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Overall, 59.8% (110/181) patients (70 treated with RAME, 40 treated with VAME; 64.2% vs. 53.3%, respectively, p = 0.139) underwent complete LND around the left recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) by pathological assessment. Cumulative sum plots showed increased numbers of LND around the left RLN (3.6 ± 2.0 vs. 5.4 ± 2.7, p = 0.008) and a decreased incidence of recurrent nerve injury (27.9% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.037) after RAME learning curve. Despite similar overall LND results (30.6 ± 10.2 vs. 28.1 ± 10.2, p > 0.05), RAME yielded more LND (5.4 ± 2.7 vs. 4.4 ± 2.2, p = 0.016) and a greater proportion of lymph node metastases (37.0% vs. 7.5%) around the left RLN but induced a lower proportion of recurrent nerve injuries (7.4% vs. 22.5%, p = 0.178) compared with VAME. Further analysis revealed that the complete LND around the left RLN was associated with recurrent nerve injury in the RAME (20.0% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.035) and VAME (22.5% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.041) groups but did not affect other clinical outcomes including surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, and other complications.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with ESCC, RAME has great advantages in LND around the left RLN and recurrent nerve protection after learning curve of robotic esophagectomy.

Hiatal hernia after oesophagectomy: a large European survey

OBJECTIVES

Hiatal hernias (HH) after oesophagectomy are rare, and their surgical management is not well standardized. Our goal was to report on the management of HH after oesophagectomy in high-volume tertiary European French-speaking centres.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective multicentre study among 19 European French-speaking departments of upper gastrointestinal and/or thoracic surgery. All patients scheduled or operated on for the repair of an HH after oesophagectomy were collected between 2000 and 2016. Demographics, details of the initial procedure, surgical management and long-term outcome were analysed.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine of 6608 (1.2%) patients who had oesophagectomies were included in the study. The postoesophagectomy diagnostic interval of an HH after oesophagectomy was ≤90 days (n = 17; 21%), 13 were emergency cases; between 91 days and 1 year, n = 21 (27%), 13 in emergency; ≥1 year, n = 41 (52%), 17 in emergency. The time to occurrence of HH after oesophagectomy was shorter after laparoscopy (median 308 days; interquartile range 150-693) compared to that after laparotomy (median 562 days, interquartile range 138-1768; P = 0.01). The incidence of HH after oesophagectomy was 0.73% (22/3010) after open surgery and 1.4% (26/1761) after laparoscopy (P = 0.03). Among the 79 patients, 78 were operated on: 35 had laparotomies (45%), 19 had laparoscopies (24%) and 24 (31%) had transthoracic approaches. Among the 43 urgent surgeries, 35 were open (25 laparotomies and 10 transthoracic approaches) and 8 were laparoscopies (conversion rate, 25%). Nine patients required bowel resections. Morbidity occurred in 36 (46%) patients with 1 postoperative death (1.2%). During the follow-up period, recurrent HH after oesophagectomy requiring revisional surgery developed in 8 (6 days-26 months) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical management of HH after oesophagectomy could be done by laparoscopy in patients with scheduled surgery but laparotomy or thoracotomy was preferred in urgent situations. The incidence of HH after oesophagectomy is higher and its onset earlier when laparoscopy is used at the initial oesophagectomy.

Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy with Linear Stapled Anastomosis Associated with Low Leak and Stricture Rates

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive foregut surgery is increasingly performed for both benign and malignant diseases. We present a retrospective series of patients who underwent minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIE) with linear stapled anastomosis performed at two centers in the USA, with a focus on evaluating leak and stricture rates.

METHODS

Patients treated from 2007 to 2018 were included, and data on demographics, oncologic treatment, pathology, and outcomes were analyzed. The surgical technique utilized laparoscopic and thoracoscopic access, with an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis using a 6-cm linear stapled side-to-side technique.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients were included and 114 resections (91.9%) were completed in a minimally invasive fashion with a 6-cm linear stapled side-to-side anastomosis. Patients were predominantly male (90.7%) with a median age of 66.0 years and body mass index of 28.8 kg/m². Of 121 patients with malignancy, negative margins were obtained in 94.3% and median lymph node yield was 15 (IQR 12-22). In the intention to treat analysis, median operative time was 463 min (IQR 403-515), blood loss was 150 mL (IQR 100-200), and length of stay was 8 days (IQR 7-11). Postoperative complications were experienced by 64 patients (51.6%) including respiratory failure in 14 (11.3%) and pneumonia in 12 (9.7%). In patients who successfully underwent a 6-cm stapled side-to-side anastomosis, anastomotic leaks occurred in 6 patients (5.1%) without need for operative intervention, and anastomotic strictures occurred in 6 patients (5.1%) requiring endoscopic management.

CONCLUSIONS

Ivor Lewis MIE with a 6-cm linear stapled anastomosis can be completed with a high technical success rate, and low rates of anastomotic leak and stricture.

Influence of Induction Therapy on Robot-Assisted McKeown Esophagectomy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The present study was to investigate the influence of induction therapy on robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (RAME) with radical superior mediastinal lymph node dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in a high-volume cancer center.

METHODS

A consecutive patient cohort who underwent RAME from January 2017 to May 2019 were reviewed. The perioperative outcomes of patients with induction therapy were compared with those who had surgery alone.

RESULTS

In total, 118 patients underwent RAME during the study period. The average age was 59.1 ± 7.5 years, including 100 male and 18 female patients. Thirty patients (25.4%) had induction therapy, and 88 patients did not receive induction therapy. The average age of the patients treated with induction therapy was younger than those received surgery alone (56.8 ± 6.1 vs. 59.5 ± 7.6 years, p = 0.039). There were no statistically significant differences in the mean operative time and estimated blood loss between both groups. Complications occurred in 46 (39.0%) patients. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of any complications between both groups (p = 0.951). There were no deaths in either group. The hospital stay was prolonged in patients with induction therapy than those in the surgery-alone group (20.8 ± 8.9 vs. 16.8 ± 6.0, p = 0.048). There was no statistically significant difference in the average number of dissected lymph nodes in total and both recurrent laryngeal nerve stations between both groups.

CONCLUSION

For patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, induction therapy has no influence on RAME with radical superior mediastinal lymph node dissection.

Propensity score-matched comparison between open and minimal invasive hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

This study compared the outcome between patients who had an open and those who had a hybrid esophagectomy for T1 or T3 esophageal adenocarcinoma (eAC). No clear data are available concerning this question based on T-category.

METHODS

Two groups of patients with esophagectomy and high intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy for eAC were analyzed: hybrid (laparoscopy + right thoracotomy) (n = 835) and open (laparotomy + right thoracotomy) (n = 188). Outcome criteria were 30- and 90-day mortality, R0-resection rate (R0), number of resected lymph nodes (rLNs), and 5-year survival rate (5y-SR). For each type of surgery, three patient groups were analyzed: pT1-carcinoma (group-1), cT3Nx and neoadjuvant chemoradiation (group-2), and pT3N0-3 without neoadjuvant therapy (group-3). The comparison was based on a propensity score matching in relation of 1:2 for open versus hybrid.

RESULTS

In group-1 (38 open vs 76 hybrid) R0-resection (100%), 30-day mortality (0%), 90-day mortality (2.6% vs 0%), and rLNs (median 29.5 vs 28.5) were not significantly different. The pN0-rate was 76% in the open and 92% in the hybrid group (p = 0.036). Accordingly, the 5y-SR was 69% and 87% (p = 0.016), but the prognosis of the subgroups pT1pN0 or pT1pN+ was not significantly different between open or hybrid. In group-2 (68 open vs 135 hybrid) R0-resection (97%), 30-day (0% vs 0.7%) and 90-day (4%) mortality, rLNs (28.5 vs 26), and 5y-SR (36% vs 41%) were not significantly different. In group-3 (37 open vs 75 hybrid) R0, postoperative mortality, rLNs, and 5y-SR were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

In a propensity score-matched comparison of patients with an open or hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma the quality of oncologic resection, postoperative mortality and prognosis are not different.

The impact of cirrhosis on esophageal cancer surgery: An up-to-date meta-analysis

AIM

The incidence of esophageal malignancies is higher in cirrhotic patients due to the fact that cirrhosis and esophageal cancer share common risk factors. Our goal was to define the impact of cirrhosis on postoperative outcomes following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

This study was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies were identified through search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane (end-of-search date: March 8th, 2019). A meta-analysis was conducted using random effects modeling.

RESULTS

We included 12 observational studies reporting on a total of 1938 patients who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer. Cirrhotic patients were more likely to develop postoperative pulmonary complications (OR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.53-4.42), ascites (OR: 37.77; 95% CI: 10.95-130.28) and anastomotic leak/fistula within 30 days (OR: 2.81; 95% CI: 1.05-7.49) after esophageal cancer surgery. Cirrhotic patients had higher 30-day (OR: 3.04; 95% CI: 1.71-5.39) mortality rate. Liver disease did not appear to influence 90-day (OR: 2.84; 95% CI: 0.94-8.93) or late mortality rates (at a mean of 24 months of postoperative follow up) (OR: 1.70; 95% CI: 0.53-5.51). Esophagectomy for carcinoma in Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A cirrhotic patients was associated with significantly lower 30-day mortality rates compared to class B patients (OR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.04-0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Cirrhotic patients have higher odds of developing pulmonary complications, ascites, and anastomotic leak during the first postoperative month. Although, 30-day mortality was higher among cirrhotic patients after esophagectomy, liver disease does not seem to influence long-term prognosis.

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.

Predicting lymph node metastasis for endoscopic resection of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to identify risk factors for lymph node metastasis and develop a reliable risk stratification system.

METHODS

Between May 2001 and December 2015, 262 patients who underwent endoscopic resection or surgery for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were enrolled. We evaluated possible predictive factors for lymph node metastasis: age, gender, tumor length, tumor area, circumferential spread, tumor location, gross appearance, depth of invasion, tumor differentiation, and lymphovascular invasion.

RESULTS

The incidence of lymph node metastasis was 14.5% (38/262). In multivariate analysis, tumor size (>15 mm), depth of invasion (submucosal invasion), and lymphovascular invasion were significantly associated with lymph node metastasis. These factors were included in the risk stratification system and assigned scores; the total risk stratification system score was 0 to 6. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting lymph node metastasis was 0.869 (95% confidence interval, 0.813-0.926). The high-risk group (risk stratification system score ≥3) exhibited a significantly higher risk of lymph node metastasis than the low-risk group (score <3) (26.5% vs 1.6%). There was no lymph node metastasis in patients with a risk stratification system of 0. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the risk stratification system were 94.7%, 55.4%, 26.5%, 98.4%, and 61.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a risk stratification system that should facilitate the identification of patients with a high or low risk of lymph node metastasis. This may aid the precise selection of patients who can undergo endoscopic resection.