Study protocol for a multicenter prospective cohort study on esophagogastric anastomoses and anastomotic leak (the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit/OGAA)

Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic on Treatment Pathways and Outcomes of Esophagogastric Cancer: A Pre- Versus Post-Pandemic Comparison of International Prospective Cohort Data

Introduction:

This study aimed to characterize the outcomes of esophagogastric (OG) cancer patients and compare perioperative outcomes with pre-pandemic data.

Methods:

Three international prospective cohort studies were included in this analysis. First, COVIDSurg-Cancer (n = 1999) included patients with an OG cancer planned for surgery from the start of the pandemic up to 14th April 2020 with follow-up until 31st August 2020. Treatment pathways and outcomes were compared against patients undergoing treatment for OG cancers before the pandemic, Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA, n = 2246) and GlobalSurg 3 (n = 1256) study. The surgical composite outcome was defined as in patients achieving margin negative resection, resectability and no postoperative mortality.

Results:

This study included 1999 patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, of which 32.4% had a change from standard pre-pandemic management. Patients with delay to surgery had significantly higher rates of no surgery (24.7%vs 7.5%, P  < .001) and less likely to have achieve a composite outcome (57.8%vs 73.4%, P  < .001) than those without any delay in surgery. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (3.5% vs 3.4%; OR: 0.98, CI95%: 0.69-1.37) or anastomotic leak rate (10.9% vs 10.2%%; OR: 1.11, CI95%: 0.90-1.37) but higher reoperation rates (13.6% vs 10.4%; OR: 1.59, CI95%: 1.30-1.92) in patients between pre-pandemic and pandemic cohorts.

Conclusion:

The pandemic appears to have led to widespread changes in management pathways affecting one-third of patients. Developing elective surgical pathways resilient to periods of system “stress” are key to minimizing future harm from treatment delay for OG cancer patients.

Advances in the curative management of oesophageal cancer

The incidence of oesophageal cancer, in particular adenocarcinoma, has markedly increased over the last four decades with adenocarcinoma becoming the dominant subtype in the West, and mortality rates are high. Nevertheless, overall survival of patients with oesophageal cancer has doubled in the past 20 years, with earlier diagnosis and improved treatments benefiting those patients who can be treated with curative intent. Advances in endotherapy, surgical approaches, and multimodal and other combination therapies have been reported. New vistas have emerged in targeted therapies and immunotherapy, informed by new knowledge in genomics and molecular biology, which present opportunities for personalised cancer therapy and novel clinical trials. This review focuses exclusively on the curative intent treatment pathway, and highlights emerging advances.

Role of Radiology in the Preoperative Detection of Arterial Calcification and Celiac Trunk Stenosis and Its Association with Anastomotic Leakage Post Esophagectomy, an Up-to-Date Review of the Literature

Simple Summary

Esophageal cancer is the sixth deadliest among all cancers worldwide. Multimodal treatment, including surgical resection of the esophagus, offers the potential for cure even in advanced cases, but esophagectomy is still associated with serious complications. Among these, anastomotic leakage has the most significant clinical impact, both in terms of prognosis and health-related quality of life. Identifying patients at a high risk for leakage is of great importance in order to modify their treatment and, if possible, avoid this complication. This review aims to study the current literature regarding the role of radiology in detecting potential risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage. The measurement of calcium plaques on the aorta, as well as the detection of narrowing of the celiac trunk and its branches, can be easily assessed by preoperative computed tomography, and can be used to individualize perioperative patient management to effectively reduce the rate of leakage.

Abstract

Surgical resection of the esophagus remains a critical component of the multimodal treatment of esophageal cancer. Anastomotic leakage (AL) is the most significant complication following esophagectomy, in terms of clinical implications. Identifying risk factors for AL is important for modifying patient management and improving surgical outcomes. This review aims to examine the role of radiological risk factors for AL after esophagectomy, and in particular, arterial calcification and celiac trunk stenosis. Eligible publications prior to 25 August 2021 were retrieved from Medline and Google Scholar using a predefined search algorithm. A total of 68 publications were identified, of which 9 original studies remained for in-depth analysis. The majority of these studies found correlations between calcifications in the aorta, celiac trunk, and right post-celiac arteries and AL following esophagectomy. Some studies suggest celiac trunk stenosis as a more appropriate surrogate. Our up-to-date review highlights the need for automated quantification of aortic calcifications, as well as the degree of celiac trunk stenosis in preoperative computed tomography in patients undergoing esophagectomy, to obtain robust and reproducible measurements that can be used for a definite correlation.

Postoperative outcomes in oesophagectomy with trainee involvement

BACKGROUND

The complexity of oesophageal surgery and the significant risk of morbidity necessitates that oesophagectomy is predominantly performed by a consultant surgeon, or a senior trainee under their supervision. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of trainee involvement in oesophagectomy on postoperative outcomes in an international multicentre setting.

METHODS

Data from the multicentre Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group (OGAA) cohort study were analysed, which comprised prospectively collected data from patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April 2018 and December 2018. Procedures were grouped by the level of trainee involvement, and univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to compare patient outcomes across groups.

RESULTS

Of 2232 oesophagectomies from 137 centres in 41 countries, trainees were involved in 29.1 per cent of them (n = 650), performing only the abdominal phase in 230, only the chest and/or neck phases in 130, and all phases in 315 procedures. For procedures with a chest anastomosis, those with trainee involvement had similar 90-day mortality, complication and reoperation rates to consultant-performed oesophagectomies (P = 0.451, P = 0.318, and P = 0.382, respectively), while anastomotic leak rates were significantly lower in the trainee groups (P = 0.030). Procedures with a neck anastomosis had equivalent complication, anastomotic leak, and reoperation rates (P = 0.150, P = 0.430, and P = 0.632, respectively) in trainee-involved versus consultant-performed oesophagectomies, with significantly lower 90-day mortality in the trainee groups (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Trainee involvement was not found to be associated with significantly inferior postoperative outcomes for selected patients undergoing oesophagectomy. The results support continued supervised trainee involvement in oesophageal cancer surgery.

Comparison of short-term outcomes from the International Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA), the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG), and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA)

BACKGROUND

The Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) have set standards in reporting outcomes after oesophagectomy. Reporting outcomes from selected high-volume centres or centralized national cancer programmes may not, however, be reflective of the true global prevalence of complications. This study aimed to compare complication rates after oesophagectomy from these existing sources with those of an unselected international cohort from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA).

METHODS

The OGAA was a prospective multicentre cohort study coordinated by the West Midlands Research Collaborative, and included patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April and December 2018, with 90 days of follow-up.

RESULTS

The OGAA study included 2247 oesophagectomies across 137 hospitals in 41 countries. Comparisons with the ECCG and DUCA found differences in baseline demographics between the three cohorts, including age, ASA grade, and rates of chronic pulmonary disease. The OGAA had the lowest rates of neoadjuvant treatment (OGAA 75.1 per cent, ECCG 78.9 per cent, DUCA 93.5 per cent; P < 0.001). DUCA exhibited the highest rates of minimally invasive surgery (OGAA 57.2 per cent, ECCG 47.9 per cent, DUCA 85.8 per cent; P < 0.001). Overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts (OGAA 63.6 per cent, ECCG 59.0 per cent, DUCA 62.2 per cent), with no statistically significant difference in Clavien-Dindo grades (P = 0.752). However, a significant difference in 30-day mortality was observed, with DUCA reporting the lowest rate (OGAA 3.2 per cent, ECCG 2.4 per cent, DUCA 1.7 per cent; P = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Despite differences in rates of co-morbidities, oncological treatment strategies, and access to minimal-access surgery, overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts.

Critical Appraisal of the Impact of Oesophageal Stents in the Management of Oesophageal Anastomotic Leaks and Benign Oesophageal Perforations: An Updated Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic placement of oesophageal stents may be used in benign oesophageal perforation and oesophageal anastomotic leakage to control sepsis and reduce mortality and morbidity by avoiding thoracotomy. This updated systematic review aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of oesophageal stents in these two scenarios.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of all published studies reporting use of metallic and plastic stents in the management of post-operative anastomotic leaks, spontaneous and iatrogenic oesophageal perforations were identified. Primary outcomes were technical (deploying ≥ 1 stent to occlude site of leakage with no evidence of leakage of contrast within 24-48 h) and clinical success (complete healing of perforation or leakage by placement of single or multiple stents irrespective of whether the stent was left in situ or was removed). Secondary outcomes were stent migration, perforation and erosion, and mortality rates. Subgroup analysis was performed for plastic versus metallic stents and anastomotic leaks versus perforations separately.

RESULTS

A total of 66 studies (n = 1752 patients) were included. Technical and clinical success rates were 96% and 87%, respectively. Plastic stents had significantly higher migration rates (24% vs 16%, p = 0.001) and repositioning (11% vs 3%, p < 0.001) and lower technical success (91% vs 95%, p = 0.032) than metallic stents. In patients with anastomotic leaks, plastic stents were associated with higher stent migration (26% vs 15%, p = 0.034), perforation (2% vs 0%, p = 0.013), repositioning (10% vs 0%, p < 0.001), and lower technical success (95% vs 100%, p = p = 0.002). In patients with perforations only, plastic stents were associated with significantly lower technical success (85% vs 99%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Covered metallic oesophageal stents appear to be more effective than plastic stents in the management of oesophageal perforation and anastomotic leakage. However, quality of evidence of generally poor and high-quality randomised trial is needed to further evaluate best management option for oesophageal perforation and anastomotic leakage.

Nutritional jejunostomy in esophagectomy for cancer, a national register-based cohort study of associations with postoperative outcomes and survival

Purpose

Insertion of a nutritional jejunostomy in conjunction with esophagectomy is performed with the intention to decrease the risk for postoperative malnutrition and improve recovery without adding significant catheter-related complications. However, previous research has shown no clear benefit and there is currently no consensus of practice.

Methods

All patients treated with esophagectomy due to cancer during the period 2006–2017 reported in the Swedish National Register for Esophageal and Gastric Cancer were included in this register-based cohort study from a national database. Patients were stratified into two groups: esophagectomy alone and esophagectomy with jejunostomy.

Results

A total of 847 patients (45.27%) had no jejunostomy inserted while 1024 patients (54.73%) were treated with jejunostomy. The groups were comparable, but some differences were seen in histological tumor type and tumor stage between the groups. No significant differences in length of hospital stay, postoperative surgical complications, Clavien-Dindo score, or 90-day mortality rate were seen. There was no evidence of increased risk for significant jejunostomy-related complications. Patients in the jejunostomy group with anastomotic leaks had a statistically significant lower risk for severe morbidity defined as Clavien-Dindo score ≥ IIIb (adjusted odds ratio 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04–0.94, P = 0.041) compared to patients with anastomotic leaks and no jejunostomy.

Conclusion

A nutritional jejunostomy is a safe method for early postoperative enteral nutrition which might decrease the risk for severe outcomes in patients with anastomotic leaks. Nutritional jejunostomy should be considered for patients undergoing curative intended surgery for esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction cancer.

Risk factors and outcomes associated with anastomotic leaks following esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Anastomotic leaks (AL) are a major complication after esophagectomy. This meta-analysis aimed to determine identify risks factors for AL (preoperative, intra-operative, and post-operative factors) and assess the consequences to outcome on patients who developed an AL. This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines, and eligible studies were identified through a search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to 31 December 2018. A meta-analysis was conducted with the use of random-effects modeling and prospectively registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration CRD42018130732). This review identified 174 studies reporting outcomes of 74,226 patients undergoing esophagectomy. The overall pooled AL rates were 11%, ranging from 0 to 49% in individual studies. Majority of studies were from Asia (n = 79). In pooled analyses, 23 factors were associated with AL (17 preoperative and six intraoperative). AL were associated with adverse outcomes including pulmonary (OR: 4.54, CI95%: 2.99-6.89, P < 0.001) and cardiac complications (OR: 2.44, CI95%: 1.77-3.37, P < 0.001), prolonged hospital stay (mean difference: 15 days, CI95%: 10-21 days, P < 0.001), and in-hospital mortality (OR: 5.91, CI95%: 1.41-24.79, P = 0.015). AL are a major complication following esophagectomy accounting for major morbidity and mortality. This meta-analysis identified modifiable risk factors for AL, which can be a target for interventions to reduce AL rates. Furthermore, identification of both modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors will facilitate risk stratification and prediction of AL enabling better perioperative planning, patient counseling, and informed consent.