The impact of operative approaches on outcomes of middle and lower third esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

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.

Right Compared With Left Thoracic Approach Esophagectomy for Patients With Middle Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Background: In China, open surgical approaches for esophageal cancer (EC) can be divided into two techniques, the right- and left- transthoracic esophagectomy. Although there is an increasing number of instances that use the right side, the optimal surgical technique remains unclear. Based in a large cancer center with rich experience of both transthoracic side approaches, this study compared the long-term survival of patients treated by these two surgical techniques.

Methods: The patients included in this study underwent a right transthoracic esophagectomy (Right, McKeown) or left transthoracic esophagectomy (Left, Sweet, or chest neck dual-incision) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) between January 2015 and October 2018. The overall survival(OS) rate and perioperative data between the two groups were then retrospectively analyzed.

Results: We included 437 patients who underwent Right (n = 202) and Left (n = 235) approaches for ESCC. There was a significantly longer median operative time (250 vs. 190 min, P < 0.001) and longer median postoperative hospital stay (17 vs. 14 days, P < 0.001) in the Right side group. The OS at 5-years was 49.9% in the Right group and 52.45% in the Left group; hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI): 1.002 (0.752–1.337), p = 0.987.

Conclusions: For middle thoracic ESCC without suspected lymph node metastasis in the upper mediastinum, the esophagectomy through the Left thoracic approach could achieve the same OS as the Right side, with better short-term outcomes.

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 versus Sweet procedure for middle and lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A STROBE compliant study

Our study compared the Ivor-Lewis and Sweet procedures used for treating middle and lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and assessed the associated perioperative complications and long-term survival rates of the patients.This retrospective study involved 624 middle and lower thoracic esophageal squamous carcinoma patients who received either Ivor-Lewis (n = 325) or Sweet (n = 299) procedures at our hospital. Further, the perioperative conditions and long-term survival rates were analyzed for both groups.Relative to the Sweet group, the Ivor-Lewis group showed lower volume of drainage within 24 hours after operation (400 (300-500) ml vs 550 (400-658) ml, P = .031). Although we found no significant differences in major postoperative complications between the groups (72 (22.2) vs 65 (21.7), P = .90), there were significant differences observed in minor postoperative complications between the Ivor-Lewis and Sweet groups (59 (18.2) vs 32 (10.7), P = .008). Perioperative death rates remained comparable for the 2 groups (2 (0.6) vs 2 (0.7), P > .99). Further, comparison of the 2 groups revealed that the Ivor-Lewis group had increased number of dissected lymph nodes, (20 (4-42) vs 16 (3-31), P < .001), especially in the upper mediastinum (4 (0-5) vs 2 (0-2), P < .001). The long-term survival rates did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (Kaplan-Meier method, P = .95; Cox regression, P = .20).These findings suggest that perioperative complications and long-term survival rates were comparable for both patients groups. Patients receiving the Sweet procedure had reduced minor postoperative complications compared to those receiving the Ivor-Lewis procedure. Due to improved quality of lymph node dissection in the upper mediastinum, the Ivor-Lewis procedure may have advantages over the Sweet procedure for treating patients with esophageal cancer with enlarged lymph nodes in the upper mediastinum.

[ARTICLE WITHDRAWN] MicroRNA-539 Inhibits the Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition of Esophageal Cancer Cells by Twist-Related Protein 1-Mediated Modulation of Melanoma-Associated Antigen A4

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the publisher in December 2020.

Survival comparison between radical surgery and definitive chemoradiation in 267 esophageal squamous cell carcinomas in a single institution: A propensity-matched study

OBJECTIVE

To compare radical surgery with definitive chemoradiation (CRT) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma using propensity score (PS) matching at our single institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 386 consecutive, surgically treated and 243 CRT-treated cases between 2001 and 2014 were analyzed. PS was calculated using multivariable analysis (logistic regression) for pairs of variables such as treatment time, age, sex, primary tumor location, clinical stage, and clinical T- and N-stage for patients after excluding clinical T4 and M1 cases. According to PS, 133 surgically-treated and 134 CRT-treated cases were selected randomly by software.

RESULTS

The patients' median age was 68 years in the CRT group and 71 years in the surgery group. Clinical stage II-III, T3, N0 (according to the 7th American Joint Committee on Cancer-2009), and upper plus middle thoracic esophageal disease were seen in 68%, 44%, 54%, and 59%, respectively, in the CRT group and 64%, 47%, 55%, and 64%, respectively, in the surgery group. The 3- and 5-year overall survival was 47.1% and 34.0% in the CRT group and 68.3% and 54.4% in the surgery group (p = 0.0019). The 3- and 5-year progression-free survival was 45.3% and 38.8% in the CRT group and 61.1% and 54.4% in the surgery group (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

CRT may be inferior to surgery in survival, although a selection bias for patients selected for a non-operative approach cannot be excluded, especially since surgery is the standard of care at this institution. A prospective randomized clinical trial will be necessary to draw a definite conclusion.