Left thoracotomy for middle or lower thoracic esophageal carcinoma: still Sweet enough?

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.

Left versus right approach for middle and lower esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A propensity score-matched study

Background

Despite superior short-term outcomes, there is considerable debate about the oncological efficacy of the left approach esophagectomy for middle and lower squamous esophageal carcinoma (ESCC). A propensity score-matched retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the left approach's short- and long-term effects.

Methods

We recorded data from patients with ESCC who underwent curative resection via the left or right approach between January 2010 and December 2015. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, and maximally selected rank statistics (MSRS) were utilized to determine the appropriate number of lymph nodes to resect during esophagectomy.

Results

One hundred and forty-eight ESCC patients underwent esophagectomy via the right approach, and 108 underwent the left approach esophagectomy. After PSM, the left approach esophagectomy showed statistically significant superiority in operative time and time to oral intake, and there was a trend toward a shorter length of hospital stay. Fewer cervical, upper thoracic, and recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph nodes were harvested via the left approach than the right approach; the total number of lymph nodes harvested via the left and right approaches was similar. Similar long-term survival outcomes were achieved. MSRS suggested that at least 25 lymph nodes are needed to be resected during esophagectomy to improve survival in N0 patients.

Conclusions

The left approach esophagectomy might facilitate postoperative recovery in patients with middle and lower ESCC. With adequate lymphadenectomy, the left approach esophagectomy might achieve similar long-term outcomes for middle and lower ESCC patients.

Optimal Range of Lymphadenectomy in Pathological Stage T1 and T2 Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Lymph node metastasis is a primary contributor to tumor progression in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), and the optimal extent of lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the appropriate number of lymph nodes to be dissected in pT1-2Nany stage ESCC to achieve the best prognosis and avoid missing positive lymph nodes (PLNs).

METHODS

A total of 497 patients with pT1 to pT2 esophageal cancer from two institutions were retrospectively analyzed and their surgical and pathological records were critically reviewed. Stepwise analyses were conducted by calculating a serial of hazard ratios and odd ratios to determine the optimal range of lymphadenectomy for overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The best survival outcome can be obtained when the number of lymph node examined (NLNE) is 10-18 in pT1N0 ESCC, while the NLNE should exceed 24 in pT2N0 diseases. In patients with pT1-2Nany and pT2Nany ESCC, resection of 15-25 and 24-37 lymph nodes, respectively, could provide significant added value for identifying positive nodal metastasis. When the NLNE exceeds this appropriate range, resection of extra lymph node is not helpful to improve the probability of finding PLNs.

CONCLUSIONS

For ESCC patients undergoing radical esophagectomy, the optimal extent of lymphadenectomy is 15-25 for pT1Nany disease and 24-37 for pT2Nany disease.

Comparison of Ivor Lewis and Sweet esophagectomy for middle and lower esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review and pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

Lack of robust evidence highlights the important need to address the controversy on the clinical safety and effectiveness between Ivor Lewis versus Sweet procedure for middle and lower esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

METHODS

Search results were filtered according to certain criteria and were analyzed in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

FINDINGS

The inter-study heterogeneity was high. Ivor Lewis procedure might be associated with longer operation time (p < 0.01) and higher lymph node yield (p < 0.01) compared with Sweet procedure. There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay and postoperative complications with similar reoperation rate between the two procedures (p > 0.05). As the combined analysis of survival data revealed, there was no statistical difference in the oncologic efficacy of them (p = 0.97).

INTERPRETATION

The present study based on retrospective data with high heterogeneity indicated that Ivor Lewis esophagectomy might be associated with increased lymph node yield but longer operation time than Sweet. Prospective studies are warranted to compare the long-term survival of Ivor Lewis esophagectomy versus Sweet for middle and lower ESCC.

Comparison of Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and Sweet esophagectomy for the treatment of middle-lower esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Background

For cancer of the middle and/or lower segment of thoracic esophagus, the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is the mainstream standard surgery, whereas the Sweet procedure is widely used in China. As no consensus has been reached about the choice of different thoracic approaches, we designed this retrospective study to investigate and compare oncological benefits of the two surgical approaches.

Methods

After propensity score matching, 150 patients who underwent the Sweet or Ivor Lewis esophagectomy from August 2003 to December 2009 in the Beijing Cancer Hospital were reviewed. We compared the postoperative recovery, nutritional parameters, and survival of the two different surgical approaches.

Results

The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate for the whole group was 48.5%, and the 10-year OS rate was 35.6%. The Ivor Lewis group had a longer operation time, longer duration of chest tube drainage, and a larger volume of total thoracic drainage. No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of the duration of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), length of postoperative hospital stay, duration of postoperative nasogastric tube use, incidence of major complications, and nutritional status after the esophagectomy. The OS rates were similar in both groups.

Conclusions

The Sweet and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy are both safe and effective. A change of the surgical incision may not be the best way to increase survival, and the choice of surgical procedure should depend on the preference of the thoracic surgeon to secure the safety of the operation.

Comparison of Long-term Quality of Life in Patients with Esophageal Cancer after Ivor-Lewis, Mckeown, or Sweet Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term quality of life (QoL) in patients after Sweet, Ivor-Lewis, or Mckeown esophagectomy.

METHODS

Esophageal cancer patients after Sweet, Ivor-Lewis, or Mckeown esophagectomy from 2010 to 2012 were included. QoL was assessed according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer general questionnaire: QLQ-C30 and esophagus-specific questionnaire: QLQ-OES18.

RESULTS

A total of 126 qualified patients who have been alive for more than 3 years without tumor recurrence were divided into three groups: the Sweet group (n = 40), Ivor-Lewis group (n = 38), and Mckeown group (n = 48). Among these three groups, the QLQ-C30 mean scores of global health status, functional and symptom scales, and general QoL were similar. The symptom scales of QLQ-OSE18 showed that patients who had a Mckeown operation experienced more problem of eating (P = 0.029), choking when swallowing (P = 0.010) and coughing (P = 0.016), while patients undergoing Sweet operation complained more symptom of reflux (P = 0.003) and pain (P = 0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

All three types of esophagectomy provided a generally good long-term QoL. However, patients in Sweet and Mckeown group tend to suffer from a higher symptomatic burden as compared to Ivor-Lewis approach.