Comparison of Outcomes Between McKeown and Sweet Esophagectomy in the Elderly Patients for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Surgical quality determines the long-term survival superiority of right over left thoracic esophagectomy for localized esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients: a real-world multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to compare the long-term overall survival (OS) of right versus left thoracic esophagectomy, and to evaluate whether surgical quality impacts comparison result.

BACKGROUND

Controversy regarding the optimal thoracic esophagectomy approach persists for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). No study has assessed the effect of surgical quality in comparison between right and left approaches.

METHODS

The authors consecutively recruited 5556 operable ESCC patients from two high-volume centers in China, of whom 2220 and 3336 received right and left thoracic esophagectomy, respectively. Cumulative sum was used to evaluate the learning curve for operation time of right approach, as the indicator of surgical proficiency.

RESULTS

With a median follow-up of 83.1 months, right approach, harvesting more lymph nodes, tended to have a better OS than left approach (Mean: 23.8 vs. 16.7 nodes; adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=0.93, 95% CI: 0.85-1.02). Subset analysis by the extent of lymphadenectomy demonstrated that right approach with adequate lymphadenectomy (≥15 nodes) resulted in statistically significant OS benefit compared with left approach (adjusted HR=0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.95), but not with limited lymphadenectomy. Subset analysis by surgical proficiency showed that proficient right approach conferred a better OS than left approach (adjusted HR=0.75, 95% CI: 0.64-0.88), but improficient right approach did not have such survival advantage.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical quality plays a crucial role in survival comparison between surgical procedures. Right thoracic esophagectomy performed with adequate lymphadenectomy and surgical proficiency, conferring more favorable survival than left approach, should be recommended as the preferred surgical procedure for localized ESCC.

Left compared with right thoracic approach thoracotomy in esophageal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy is regarded as one of the optimal treatments for resectable esophageal cancer. However, the impact of surgical approach on the long-term prognosis of esophageal cancer remains controversial. This study attempted to compare the long-term survival outcomes of patients receiving left and right thoracic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 985 patients underwent esophagectomy (including 453 left and 532 right thoracic approach) for esophageal cancer in Henan Cancer Hospital from January 2015 to December 2016 were enrolled. Their 5 year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were retrospectively collected. Cox regression was performed to compare OS and DFS in patients who underwent left and right thoracic esophagectomy. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to balance confounding factors.

RESULTS

The 5 year OS rates were 60.21% in the left and 51.60% in the right thoracic esophagectomy, respectively (P = 0.67). The 5 year DFS rates were 56.73% in the left and 47.93% and in the right thoracic esophagectomy, respectively (P = 0.36). Cox regression analysis showed there was no significant difference in long-term survival between patients with left and right surgical access (OS: HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.77-1.18; DFS: HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.74-1.12). In the cohort of patients obtained by PSM, Cox regression analysis yielded the similar results.

CONCLUSION

For patients with resectable esophageal cancer, the surgical treatment through left thoracic approach can achieve the same long-term survival outcomes as the right thoracic approach.

Implementation of the Esophagectomy Complication Consensus Group definitions: the benefits of speaking the same language

In 2015 the Esophagectomy Complication Consensus Group (ECCG) reported consensus definitions for complications after esophagectomy. This aimed to reduce variation in complication reporting, attributed to heterogeneous definitions. This systematic review aimed to describe the implementation of this definition set, including the effect on complication frequency and variation. A systematic literature review was performed, identifying all observational and randomized studies reporting complication frequencies after esophagectomy since the ECCG publication. Recruitment periods before and subsequent to the index ECCG publication date were included. Coefficients of variance were calculated to assess outcome heterogeneity. Of 144 studies which met inclusion criteria, 70 (48.6%) used ECCG definitions. The median number of separately reported complication types was five per study; only one study reported all ECCG complications. The coefficients of variance of the reported frequencies of eight of the 10 most common complications were reduced in studies which used the ECCG definitions compared with those that did not (P = 0.036). Among ECCG studies, the frequencies of postoperative pneumothorax, reintubation, and pulmonary emboli were significantly reduced in 2020-2021, compared with 2015-2019 (P = 0.006, 0.034, and 0.037 respectively). The ECCG definition set has reduced variation in esophagectomy morbidity reporting. This adds greater confidence to the observed gradual improvement in outcomes with time, and its ongoing use and wider dissemination should be encouraged. However, only a handful of outcomes are widely reported, and only rarely is it used in its entirety.

Prognostic prediction by a novel integrative inflammatory and nutritional score based on least absolute shrinkage and selection operator in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to establish and validate a novel predictive model named integrative inflammatory and nutritional score (IINS) for prognostic prediction in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively recruited 494 pathologically confirmed ESCC patients with surgery and randomized them into training (n = 346) or validation group (n = 148). The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression analysis was initially used to construct a novel predictive model of IINS. The clinical features and prognostic factors with hazard ratio (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) grouped by IINS were analyzed. Nomogram was also established to verify the prognostic value of IINS.

RESULTS

According to the LASSO Cox PH regression analysis, a novel score of IINS was initially constructed based on 10 inflammatory and nutritional indicators with the optimal cut-off level of 2.35. The areas under the curve (AUCs) of IINS regarding prognostic ability in 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years prediction were 0.814 (95% CI: 0.769-0.854), 0.748 (95% CI: 0.698-0.793), and 0.792 (95% CI: 0.745-0.833) in the training cohort and 0.802 (95% CI: 0.733-0.866), 0.702 (95% CI: 0.621-0.774), and 0.748 (95% CI: 0.670-0.816) in the validation cohort, respectively. IINS had the largest AUCs in the two cohorts compared with other prognostic indicators, indicating a higher predictive ability. A better 5-years cancer-specific survival (CSS) was found in patients with IINS ≤ 2.35 compared with those with IINS > 2.35 in both training cohort (54.3% vs. 11.1%, P < 0.001) and validation cohort (53.7% vs. 18.2%, P < 0.001). The IINS was then confirmed as a useful independent factor (training cohort: HR: 3.000, 95% CI: 2.254-3.992, P < 0.001; validation cohort: HR: 2.609, 95% CI: 1.693-4.020, P < 0.001). Finally, an IINS-based predictive nomogram model was established and validated the CSS prediction (training set: C-index = 0.71 and validation set: C-index = 0.69, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative IINS is an independent predictor of CSS in ESCC. The nomogram based on IINS may be used as a potential risk stratification to predict individual CSS and guide treatment in ESCC with radical resection.

Management of elderly patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer

This review focuses on the treatment about elderly esophageal cancer to clarify the current situation regarding our clinical question. Although there are several reviews about elderly esophageal cancer treatment, there are fundamental differences between Japan and the rest of the world. Two main differences are raised: histological differences and treatment strategies for resectable patients. We overview each status according to following clinical questions. First, there are no established evaluation criteria for frail. Second, selection criteria for surgery or non-surgery are not established. Third, few specific treatments for elderly patients (EPs) are investigated. In conclusion, there are many reports about treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma for EPs, although treatment strategy is still controversial. We have to consider well-designed prospective trial to confirm specific treatment strategy according to each stage.

Esophageal Cancer in Elderly Patients, Current Treatment Options and Outcomes; A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

Simple Summary

Any given treatment may provide improve survival for elderly patients with oesophageal cancer compared to best supportive care. Although surgery may be related to a higher rate of complications in these patients, it also offers the best chance for survival, especially when combined with perioperative chemo-or chemoradiation. Definitive chemoradiation remains also a valid and widely used curative approach in this population. Quality of life after oesophageal cancer treatment does not seem to be particularly compromised in elderly patients, although the risk of loss of autonomy after the disease is higher. Based on the available data, excluding a priori elderly patients from curative treatment based on age alone cannot be supported. A thorough general health status and geriatric assessment is necessary to offer the optimal treatment, tailored to the individual patient.

Abstract

Esophageal cancer, despite its tendency to increase among younger patients, remains a disease of the elderly, with the peak incidence between 70–79 years. In spite of that, elderly patients are still excluded from major clinical trials and they are frequently offered suboptimal treatment even for curable stages of the disease. In this review, a clear survival benefit is demonstrated for elderly patients treated with neoadjuvant treatment, surgery, and even definitive chemoradiation compared to palliative or no treatment. Surgery in elderly patients is often associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients and may put older frail patients at increased risk of autonomy loss. Definitive chemoradiation is the predominant modality offered to elderly patients, with very promising results especially for squamous cell cancer, although higher rates of acute toxicity might be encountered. Based on the all the above, and although the best available evidence comes from retrospective studies, it is not justified to refrain from curative treatment for elderly patients based on their age alone. Thorough assessment and an adapted treatment plan as well as inclusion of elderly patients in ongoing clinical trials will allow better understanding and management of esophageal cancer in this heterogeneous and often frail population.