Population-Based Cohort Study from a Prospective National Registry: Better Long-Term Survival in Esophageal Cancer After Minimally Invasive Compared with Open Transthoracic Esophagectomy

CRP as an early indicator for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy for cancer: a single tertiary gastro-esophageal center study

PURPOSE

To determine the relationship between postoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) as an early indicator of anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

We reviewed patients diagnosed with esophageal or esophagogastric junctional cancer who underwent esophagectomy between 2006 and 2022 at the Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated relative risk for AL by calculating the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The cut-off values for CRP were based on the maximum Youden's index using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 612 patients were included, with 464 (75.8%) in the non-AL (N-AL) group and 148 (24.2%) in the AL group. Preoperative body mass index and the proportion of patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification 3 were significantly higher in the AL group than in the N-AL group. The median day of AL occurrence was the postoperative day (POD) 8. Trends in CRP levels from POD 2 to 3 and POD 3 to 4 were significantly higher in the AL than in the N-AL group. An increase in CRP of ≥ 4.65% on POD 2 to 3 was an independent risk factor for AL with the highest OR of 3.67 (95% CI 1.66-8.38, p = 0.001) in patients with CRP levels on POD 2 above 211 mg/L.

CONCLUSION

Early changes in postoperative CRP levels may help to detect AL early following esophageal cancer surgery.

Impact of neoadjuvant FLOT treatment of advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer following surgical therapy

Introduction

Therapeutic treatment for advanced-stage (T2–T4) gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) and gastric cancer involves neoadjuvant chemotherapy with subsequent surgical intervention.

Method

Neoadjuvant oncological treatment for GEJ and gastric cancer previously consisted of the intravenous administration of epirubicin, cisplatin and fluorouracil (ECF) or epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) combination (Group 1). The new protocol (FLOT, F: 5-FU, L: leucovorin, O: oxaliplatin, T: docetaxel), included patients with resectable GEJ and gastric cancer who had a clinical stage cT2 or higher nodal positive cN+ disease (Group 2). Between 31 December 2008 and 31 October 2022, the effect of different oncological protocols in terms of surgical outcomes in cases of T2–T4 tumours were retrospectively evaluated. Results of randomly assigned patients from the earlier ECF/ECX protocol (n = 36) (Group 1) and the new FLOT protocol (n = 52) (Group 2) were compared. Effect of different neoadjuvant therapies on tumour regression, types of possible side effects, type of surgery, and oncological radicality of surgical procedures were analysed.

Results

When comparing the two groups, we found that in case of the FLOT neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Group 2, n = 52), complete regression was achieved in 13.95% of patients, whereas in the case of ECF/ECX (Group 1, n = 36), complete regression occurred in only 9.10% of patients. Furthermore, in the FLOT group, the mean number of lymph nodes removed was slightly higher (24.69 vs. 20.13 in the ECF/ECX group). In terms of the safety resection margin (proximal), no significant difference was found between the two treatment groups. Nausea and vomiting were the most common side effects. The occurrence of diarrhea was significantly higher in the FLOT group (p = 0.006). Leukopenia and nausea occurred more commonly with the old protocol (Group 1). The rate of neutropenia was lower following FLOT treatment (p = 0.294), with the lack of grade II and III cases. Anaemia occured at a significantly higher rate (p = 0.036) after the ECF/ECX protocol.

Conclusions

As a result of the FLOT neoadjuvant oncological protocol for advanced gastro-esophageal junction and gastric cancer, the rate of complete tumour regression increased significantly. The rate of side effects was also appreciably lower following the FLOT protocol. These results strongly suggest a significant advantage of the FLOT neoadjuvant treatment used before surgery.

Patterns of Recurrence and Long-Term Survival of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Open Esophagectomy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) as a treatment for patients with esophageal cancer has recently become more common worldwide. However, differences in the pattern of recurrence between MIE and open esophagectomy (OE) using the transthoracic approach have not been fully investigated, particularly in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

We searched the prospective databases of two institutes for patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by esophagectomy between 2011 and 2018. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to reduce bias from confounding patient-related variables. Operative outcomes, regionally harvested lymph nodes (LNs), recurrence pattern, and prognosis were investigated in two groups.

RESULTS

We identified 410 patients who underwent OE (n = 263) and MIE (n = 147). After propensity score matching, 131 pairs of patients were selected. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics after matching. The total number of harvested LNs in both groups was similar (55.1 vs. 58.9, P = 0.132). The incidence of LN recurrence in the MIE group was significantly lower than that in the OE group (27% vs. 15%, P = 0.010). In particular, the incidence of mediastinal LN recurrence in the MIE group was significantly lower than that in the OE group (16% vs. 6%, P = 0.017). There were no significant differences between the two groups in hematogenous (19% vs.12%, P = 0.173), dissemination (5% vs. 4%, P = 0.769), local (4% vs. 1%. P = 0.213), and other recurrence (3% vs. 3%, P = 1.000). The 3-year disease-free and overall survival of MIE were significantly better than OE (71.4% vs. 50.5%, P = 0.004 and 80.3% vs. 61.2%, P = 0.002, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that the thoracic approach (OE vs. MIE) (HR 1.93, P = 0.004) was an independent prognostic factor, along with the pathological N stage (HR 3.05, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

MIE has less intramediastinal LN recurrence than OE and may lead to a better long-term prognosis in patients with advanced esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy.