Prognostic impact of circumferential resection margin in esophageal cancer with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

Experiences in reverse sequence esophagectomy: a promising alternative for esophageal cancer surgery

OBJECTIVES

McKeown esophagectomy is a standard and significant component of multimodality therapy in esophageal cancer, however, experience in switching the resection and reconstruction sequence in esophageal cancer surgery is not available. Here, we have retrospectively reviewed the experience of reverse sequencing procedure at our institute.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 192 patients who had undergone minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with McKeown esophagectomy between August 2008 and Dec 2015. The patient's demographics and relevant variables were evaluated. The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 192 patients, 119 (61.98%) received the reverse sequence MIE (the reverse group) and 73 patients (38.02%) received the standard operation (the standard group). Both patient groups had similar demographics. There were no inter-group differences existed in blood loss, hospital stay, conversion rate, resection margin status, operative complication, and mortality. The reverse group had shorter total operation time (469.83 ± 75.03 vs 523.63 ± 71.93, p < 0.001) and thoracic operation time (181.22 ± 42.79 vs 230.41 ± 51.93, p < 0.001). The 5-year OS and DFS for both groups were similar (44.77% and 40.53% in the reverse group vs 32.66% and 29.42% in the standard group, p = 0.252 and 0.261, respectively). Similar results were observed even after propensity matching.

CONCLUSIONS

The reverse sequence procedure had shorter operation times, especially in the thoracic phase. The reverse sequence MIE is a safe and useful procedure when postoperative morbidity, mortality, and oncological outcomes are considered.

The prognostic significance of the circumferential resection margin in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients without neoadjuvant treatment

Background

Circumferential resection margin (CRM) is very important in esophageal cancer, but its diagnostic criteria has not been unified. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) and the Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) provide two different criteria. The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term prognostic significance of CRM status with different CRM criteria in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

Methods

Influence of CRM status according to the CAP and RCP criteria on long-term survival of 838 patients with resected pT3 tumors and without neoadjuvant therapy was analyzed. Patients stratified into three groups on the basis of tumor distance from the CRM (CRM > 1 mm, 0-1 mm, and 0 mm) were also analysed.

Results

Positive CRM was found in 59 (7%) patients according to the CAP criteria and 317 (37.8%) patients according to the RCP criteria. Univariate and multivariate survival analysis showed that CRM status, according to three different criteria, was independent prognostic factor. However, subgroup analysis showed that the prognostic value of CRM status was limited to certain metastatic lymph node load. In pN0 subgroup, patients with CRM > 1 mm had better prognosis than patients with CRM 0-1 mm. Patients with CRM 0 mm had worse outcome than patients with CRM > 0 mm in pN1-2 subgroup. But CRM status had no prognosis value in pN3 subgroup.

Conclusions

The CRM status is an important prognostic factor in ESCC patients, but this effect was limited to patients without or with less lymph node metastasis (pN0-2). In clinical practice, we recommend the 1 mm-three-tier criteria as it provides more prognostic value than the traditional two-tier criteria.

Effect of circumferential resection margin status on survival and recurrence in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate whether circumferential resection margin (CRM) status has an impact on survival and recurrence in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Methods

We screened patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy from January 2017 to December 2019. The CRM was reassessed. Patients were grouped into a CRM of 1 mm or less (0 &lt; CRM ≤ 1 mm) and a CRM greater than 1 mm (CRM&gt;1 mm). The impact of CRM on survival was investigated using Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox regression modeling. The optimal CRM cut point was evaluated using restricted cubic spline curve.

Results

A total of 89 patients were enrolled in this study. The CRM status was an independent risk factor for the prognosis (HR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16-0.73). Compared with a CRM of 1 mm or less, a CRM greater than 1 mm had better overall survival (HR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16-0.73, log-rank P = 0.011), longer disease-free survival (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.27-0.95, log-rank P = 0.040), and less recurrence (HR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.23-0.85, log–rank P = 0.015). We visualized the association between CRM and the hazard ratio of survival and identified the optimal cut point at 1 mm.

Conclusions

A CRM greater than 1 mm had better survival and less recurrence compared to a CRM of 1 mm or less. A more radical resection with adequate CRM could benefit survival in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant therapy.

Positive circumferential resection margin in locally advanced esophageal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of positive circumferential resection margin on prognosis in esophageal cancer is under controversy. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses had limitations. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prognostic impact of positive circumferential resection margin in esophageal cancer.PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies investigating the association between circumferential resection margin status and prognosis in esophageal cancer. Study population were focused on T3 and/or T4a patients. Study selection was based on availability of survival information (Kaplan-Meier curves and adjusted analysis). Random-effects models were used to summarize hazard ratios for overall survival and disease-free survival.According to College of American Pathologists criteria, circumferential resection margin-positive patients had shorter median overall survival (P < 0.0001) and shorter median disease-free survival (P < 0.0001) compared with circumferential resection margin-negative patients. The pooled hazard ratios for overall survival and disease-free survival were 2.06 (95% confidence interval, 1.68-2.53; P < 0.0001) and 2.00 (95% confidence interval, 1.41-2.84; P < 0.0001), respectively. According to the Royal College of Pathologists criteria, circumferential resection margin-positive patients had shorter median overall survival (P < 0.0001) and shorter median disease-free survival (P < 0.0001) compared with circumferential resection margin-negative patients. The pooled hazard ratios for overall survival and disease-free survival were 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.48; P < 0.0001) and 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.57; P < 0.0001), respectively.ompared with negative circumferential resection margin, positive circumferential resection margin is associated with worse survival outcomes in esophageal cancer.

Variation in histopathological assessment and association with surgical quality indicators following oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Histopathological outcomes, such as lymph node yield and margin positivity, are used to benchmark and assess surgical centre quality, and are reported annually by the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit (NOGCA) in England and Wales. The variation in pathological specimen assessment and how this affects these outcomes is not known.

METHODS

A survey of practice was circulated to all tertiary oesophagogastric cancer centres across England and Wales. Questions captured demographic data, and information on how specimens were prepared and analysed. National performance data were retrieved from the NOGCA. Survey results were compared for tertiles of lymph node yield, and circumferential and longitudinal margins.

RESULTS

Survey responses were received from 32 of 37 units (86 per cent response rate), accounting for 93.1 per cent of the total oesophagectomy volume in England and Wales. Only 5 of 32 units met or exceeded current guidelines on specimen preparation according to the Royal College of Pathologists guidelines. There was wide variation in how centres defined positive (R1) margins, and how margins and lymph nodes were assessed. Centres with the highest nodal yield were more likely to use systematic fat blocking, and to re-examine specimens when the initial load was low. Systematic blocking of lesser curve fat resulted in significantly higher rates of patients with at least 15 lymph nodes examined (91.4 versus 86.5 per cent; P = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Preparation and histopathological assessment of specimens varies significantly across institutions. This challenges the validity of currently used surgical quality metrics for oesophageal and other tumours.