Transthoracic esophagectomy compared to transhiatal extended gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

Comparison of thoracoabdominal versus abdominal-transhiatal surgical approaches in Siewert type II adenocarcinoma at the esophagogastric junction: Protocol for a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background

Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (Siewert II AEG) can be resected by the right thoracoabdominal surgical approach (RTA) or abdominal-transhiatal surgical approach (TH) under minimally invasive conditions. Although both surgical methods achieve complete tumor resection, there is a debate as to whether the former method is superior to or at least noninferior to the latter in terms of surgical safety. Currently, a small number of retrospective studies have compared the two surgical approaches, with inconclusive results. As such, a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial is necessary to validate the value of RTA (Ivor-Lewis) compared to TH.

Methods

The planned study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Patients (n=212) with Siewert II AEG that could be resected by either of the above two surgical approaches will be included in this trial and randomized to the RTA group (n=106) or the TH group (n=106). The primary outcome will be 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary outcomes will include 5-year overall survival (OS), incidence of postoperative complications, postoperative mortality, local recurrence rate, number and location of removed lymph nodes, quality of life (QOL), surgical Apgar score, and duration of the operation. Follow-ups are scheduled every three months for the first 3 years after the surgery and every six months for the next 2 years.

Discussion

Among Siewert II AEG patients with resectable tumors, this is the first prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing the surgical safety of minimally invasive RTA and TH. RTA is hypothesized to provide better digestive tract reconstruction and dissection of mediastinal lymph nodes while maintaining a high quality of life and good postoperative outcome. Moreover, this trial will provide a high level of evidence for the choice of surgical procedures for Siewert II AEG.

Clinical trial registration

Chinese Ethics Committee of Registering Clinical Trials, identifier (ChiECRCT20210635); Clinical Trial.gov, identifier (NCT05356520).

Robotic versus open Ivor–Lewis esophagectomy: A more accurate lymph node dissection without burdening the leak rate

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) combines the beneficial effects of minimally invasive surgery on postoperative complications, especially on pulmonary ones, with the safety of the anastomosis performed in open surgery. Moreover, RAMIE could allow a more accurate lymphadenectomy.

METHODS

We reviewed our database to identify all patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus treated by Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in the period January 2014 to June 2022. Patients were divided according to the thoracic approach into RAMIE and open esophagectomy (OE) groups. We compared the groups for early surgical outcomes, 90-day mortality as well as R0 rate, and the number of lymph nodes harvested.

RESULTS

We identified 47 patients in RAMIE and 159 patients in the OE group. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Operative time was significantly longer for RAMIE procedures (p < 0.01); however, we did not observe the difference in overall (RAMIE 55.5% vs. OE 61%, p = 0.76) and severe complications rate (RAMIE 17% vs. OE 22.6%, p = 0.4). The anastomotic leak rate was 2.1% after RAMIE and 6.9% after OE (p = 0.56). We did not report the difference in 90-day mortality (RAMIE 2.1% vs. OE 1.9%, p = 0.65). In the RAMIE group, we observed a significantly higher number of thoracic lymph nodes harvested, with a median of 10 lymph nodes in the RAMIE group versus 8 in the OE group (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, RAMIE has morbimortality rates comparable to OE. Moreover, it allows a more accurate thoracic lymphadenectomy which results in a higher thoracic lymph nodes retrieval rate.

Surgical Treatment of Siewert II Gastroesophagel Junction Adenocarcinoma: Esophagectomy or Gastrectomy? Review

Introduction. Surgery is the only curative treatment option for patients with gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. These tumors can be resected by gastrectomy or esophagectomy depending on tumor localization. Although, both surgeries are available for Siewert type II GEJ cancer, it remains unknown which one is superior. This review summarizes current evidences on the optimal surgical approach for Siewert type II GEJ adenocarcinoma. Methods. The literature search was performed within the PubMed database and 9 stu­dies comparing gastrectomy and esophagectomy for Siewert type II GEJ adenocarcinoma were included. The outcomes of interest included: length of surgery, numbers of retrieved lymph nodes, resection margins, postoperative morbidity and mortality, hospitalization time, 5-year overall, and disease-free survival rates. Results. Current studies do not favor any type of surgery in terms of length of the surgery, R0 resection rate, or postoperative morbidity. There is some tendency towards higher anastomotic leakage and postoperative surgical site infections rate after gastrectomy, while a higher incidence of pneumonia after esophagectomy. Similar, available studies suggest, that esophagectomy may lead to improved long-term outcomes. Conclusions. There is a lack of high-quality studies comparing gastrectomy and esophagectomy for Siewert type II GEJ adenocarcinoma. Esophagectomy may lead to improved long-term outcomes, but this preliminary data has to be confirmed in large, randomized control trials.