FA01.02: THE EFFECT OF POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS AFTER MIE ON LONG-TERM SURVIVAL: A RETROSPECTIVE, MULTI-CENTER COHORT STUDY

Survival after Ivor Lewis versus McKeown esophagectomy for cancer: propensity score matched analysis

It is unknown whether Ivor Lewis (IL) or McKeown (McK) esophagectomy is preferred in patients with potentially curable esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. Patients with mid- and distal esophageal and GEJ cancer without distant metastases who underwent IL or McK esophagectomy in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2017, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were propensity score matched for sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologist classification, comorbidity, tumor type, tumor location, clinical stage, neoadjuvant treatment and year of diagnosis. The primary outcome was a 3-year relative survival (RS). Secondary outcome parameters were number of lymph nodes examined, number of positive lymph nodes, radical resection rate, tumor regression grade, post-operative complications and mortality. A total of 1627 patients who underwent IL (n = 1094) or McK (n = 533) esophagectomy were included. Patient and tumor characteristics were balanced after propensity score matching, leaving 658 patients to be compared. The 3-year RS was 54% after IL and 50% after McK esophagectomy, P = 0.140. The median number of lymph nodes examined, median number of positive lymph nodes, radical resection rate and tumor regression grade were comparable between both groups. Recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (2 vs. 5%, P = 0.006) occurred less frequently after IL esophagectomy. No differences were observed in post-operative anastomotic leakage rate, pulmonary complication rate and mortality rates. There was no statistically significant difference in the 3-year RS between IL and McK esophagectomy. Based on these results, both IL and McK esophagectomy can be performed in patients with mid to distal esophageal and GEJ cancer.

Early versus the traditional start of oral intake following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Nil by mouth is considered the standard of care during the first days following esophagectomy. However, with the routine implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery, early oral intake is more likely to be the preferred mode of nutrition following esophagectomy. The present study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of early oral intake following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated as the effect sizes for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with a total of 1947 patients were included. Length of hospital stay (WMD =  - 3.94, CI: - 4.98 to - 2.90; P < 0.001), the time to first flatus (WMD =  - 1.13, CI: - 1.25 to - 1.01; P < 0.001) and defecation (WMD =  - 1.26, CI: - 1.82 to - 0.71; P < 0.001) favored the early oral intake group. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (OR = 1.23, CI: 0.45 to 3.36; P = 0.69). Early oral intake also did not increase the risk of pneumonia and overall postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence indicates early oral intake following esophagectomy seems to be safe and effective. It may be the preferred mode of nutrition following esophagectomy. However, more high-quality studies are still needed to further validate this conclusion.

Long-Term Quality of Life After Total Gastrectomy Versus Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

There is scarce evidence on whether a total gastrectomy or an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is preferred for gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers regarding effects on morbidity, pathology, survival and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in long-term HR-QoL in patients undergoing total gastrectomy versus Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in a tertiary referral center.

METHODS

Patients with a follow-up of >1 year after a total gastrectomy or an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for GEJ/cardia carcinoma completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OG25 questionnaires. 'Problems with eating,' 'reflux,' and 'nausea and vomiting' were the primary HR-QoL endpoints. The secondary endpoints were the remaining HR-QoL domains, postoperative complications and pathology results.

RESULTS

Thirty patients after gastrectomy and 71 after esophagectomy were included. Mean age was 63 years. Median follow-up was 2 years (range 12-84 months). Patients after gastrectomy reported less 'choking when swallowing' and 'coughing' (β = - 5.952, 95% CI - 9.437 to - 2.466; β = - 13.084, 95% CI - 18.525 to - 7.643). More lymph nodes were resected in esophagectomy group (p = 0.008). No difference was found in number of positive lymph nodes, R0 resection or postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

After a follow-up of >1 year 'choking when swallowing' and 'coughing' were less common after a total gastrectomy. No differences were found in postoperative complications or radicality of surgery. Based on this study, no general preference can be given to either of the procedures for GEJ cancer. These results support shared decision making when a choice between the two treatment options is possible.

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.