Outcomes of Esophageal Stent Therapy for the Management of Anastomotic Leaks

Drug Delivery Opportunities in Esophageal Cancer: Current Treatments and Future Prospects

With one of the highest mortality rates of all malignancies, the 5-year survival rate for esophageal cancer is under 20%. Depending on the stage and extent of the disease, the current standard of care treatment paradigm includes chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical esophagogastrectomy, with consideration for adjuvant immunotherapy for residual disease. This regimen has high morbidity, due to anatomic changes inherent in surgery, the acuity of surgical complications, and off-target effects of systemic chemotherapy and immunotherapy. We begin with a review of current treatments, then discuss new and emerging targets for therapies and advanced drug delivery systems. Recent and ongoing preclinical and early clinical studies are evaluating traditional tumor targets (e.g., human epidermal growth factor receptor 2), as well as promising new targets such as Yes-associated protein 1 or mammalian target of rapamycin to develop new treatments for this disease. Due the function and location of the esophagus, opportunities also exist to pair these treatments with a drug delivery strategy to increase tumor targeting, bioavailability, and intratumor concentrations, with the two most common delivery platforms being stents and nanoparticles. Finally, early results with antibody drug conjugates and chimeric antigenic receptor T cells show promise as upcoming therapies. This review discusses these innovations in therapeutics and drug delivery in the context of their successes and failures, with the goal of identifying those solutions that demonstrate the most promise to shift the paradigm in treating this deadly disease.

Emergency thoracic surgery patients have worse risk-adjusted outcomes than non-emergency patients

BACKGROUND

Outcomes for patients undergoing emergency thoracic operations have not been well described. This study was designed to compare postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing emergency versus nonemergency thoracic operations.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2005-2018). We identified patients who underwent emergency thoracic operations using current procedural technology codes. Patients were then sorted into 1 of 4 cohorts: lung and chest wall, hiatal hernia, esophagus, and pericardium. Emergency versus nonemergency outcomes were compared. Univariate logistic regression was performed with "emergency status" as the independent variable and 30-day postoperative outcomes as the dependent variables. Multiple logistic regression models were performed to control for preoperative factors.

RESULTS

Of 90,398 thoracic operations analyzed, 4,044 (4.5%) were emergency. Common emergency operations were pericardial window (n = 580, 10.2%), laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair (n = 366, 8.9%), thoracoscopic partial lung decortication (n = 334, 8.1%), thoracoscopic wedge resection (n = 301, 7.3%), thoracoscopic total lung decortication (n = 256, 6.2%), and open repair of hiatal hernia without mesh (n = 254, 6.2%). In all 4 cohorts, 30-day postoperative complications occurred more frequently after emergency surgery. After controlling for patient characteristics, 8 complications were more frequent after emergency lung and chest wall surgery, 5 complications were more frequent after emergency hiatal hernia surgery, and 3 complications were more frequent after emergency pericardium surgery. Risk-adjusted complications were not different after emergency esophageal surgery.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing emergency thoracic operations have worse risk-adjusted outcomes than those undergoing nonemergency thoracic operations. Subset analysis is needed to determine what factors contribute to increased adverse outcomes in specific patient populations.

The Association between Neoadjuvant Radio-Chemotherapy and Prolonged Healing of Anastomotic Leakage after Esophageal Resection Treated with EndoVAC Therapy

(1) Background: Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has become the mainstay in the treatment of early anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophageal resection. The effect of nRCT on the efficacy of EVT is currently unknown. (2) Methods: Data of 427 consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy between 2013 and 2022 were analyzed. A total of 26 patients received EVT for AL after esophagectomy between 2010 and 2021. We compared a cohort of 13 patients after treatment with EVT for anastomotic leakage after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (nRCT) with a control group of 13 patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) using inverse propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline characteristics between the groups. EVT therapy was assessed regarding patient survival, treatment failure as defined by a change in treatment to stent/operation, duration of treatment, and secondary complications. Statistical analysis was performed using linear regression analysis. (3) Results: Time to EVT after initial tumor resection did not vary between the groups. The duration of EVT was longer in patients after nRCT (14.69 days vs. 20.85 days, p = 0.002) with significantly more interventions (4.38 vs. 6.85, p = 0.001). The success rate of EVT did not differ between the two groups (nCT n = 8 (61.54%) vs. nCT n = 5 (38.46%), p = 0.628). The rate of operative revision did not vary between the groups. Importantly, no mortality was reported within 30 days and 90 days in both groups. (4) Conclusions: EVT is a valuable tool for the management of AL after esophageal resection in patients after nRCT. While the success rates were comparable, EVT was associated with a significantly longer treatment duration. Anastomotic leakages after nRCT often require prolonged and multimodal treatment strategies while innovative strategies such as prophylactic endoVAC placement or use of a VAC-Stent may be considered.

Recent Updates in Gastrointestinal Stent Placement from the Esophagus to the Colon: A Radiological Perspective

Fluoroscopic-guided stent placement has become an advantageous treatment option for diverse gastrointestinal disorders. In addition to palliative stent placement in patients with inoperable cancers, stenting has gradually expanded to other conditions, including as a bridge to surgery, as well as in patients' benign lesions and anastomotic strictures or leaks. This narrative review describes the indications, efficacy and safety of stent placement from the esophagus to the colon, including current recommendations, recent updates, and novel stents.