Salvage esophagectomy: safe therapeutic strategy?

Planned oesophagectomy after chemoradiotherapy versus salvage oesophagectomy following definitive chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal cancer is the eighth most common cancer and sixth leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Salvage oesophagectomies are associated with an increased risk of mortality, although recent data suggests that long-term survival rates following salvage oesophagectomy are similar to planned oesophagectomy. The aim was therefore to meta-analyse outcomes for patients undergoing salvage versus planned oesophagectomies to assess the differences in short-term mortality and long-term survival.

METHODS

A systematic review of Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed was performed to identify relevant studies. Data were extracted and compared by meta-analysis, using odds ratio and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies meeting inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis, which compared patients in the planned oesophagectomy group (n = 23 555) to patients in the salvage oesophagectomy group (n = 2227). There were significant differences between the groups in terms of rates of postoperative mortality (5.7% salvage oesophagectomy versus 3.1% planned oesophagectomy, P = 0.0004), anastomotic leak (20.6% salvage oesophagectomy versus 14.5% planned oesophagectomy, P < 0.00001), pulmonary complications (37.1% salvage oesophagectomy versus 24.2% planned oesophagectomy, P < 0.0001) and R0 margin (87.6% salvage oesophagectomy versus 91.3% planned oesophagectomy, P < 0.0001). There was no statistical difference between long-term survival rates at 5 years with 39.2% for salvage and 42.6% for planned oesophagectomy (P = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage oesophagectomies do offer a meaningful chance of long-term survival (at 5 years) for select patients with oesophageal cancer, but the elevated risk of post-operative complications and mortality following salvage oesophagectomy should be recognized.

Selective Lymphadenectomy for Salvage Esophagectomy in Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Extensive lymph node dissection increases the risk of postoperative complications, especially in salvage surgery, after definitive chemoradiotherapy (≥ 50 Gy) in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The purpose of this retrospective study is to compare the outcomes of salvage esophagectomy with selective lymphadenectomy of only clinically positive lymph nodes.

METHODS

Clinically positive lymph nodes, diagnosed as metastases using computed and positron emission tomography performed before chemoradiotherapy or salvage surgery, were targeted for dissection in selective lymphadenectomy. We compared postoperative complications between 52 patients who underwent salvage esophagectomy with selective lymphadenectomy and 207 controls who underwent nonsalvage esophagectomy with 3-field lymphadenectomy. We also analyzed postoperative recurrence pattern and survival in salvage group.

RESULTS

The mean number of dissected lymph nodes was 12.9 in the salvage esophagectomy group compared with 48.1 in the 3-field lymphadenectomy group (p < 0.001). Differences in the number of postoperative complications, comparing Clavien-Dindo all-grade and ≥ grade 3, were not significant between the groups. Both 30- and 90-day mortality were 0% (0/52) in the salvage group. Five cases had recurrence only in the locoregional area without distant metastasis. Of these five cases, only one had recurrence in the subcarinal lymph node without prophylactic mediastinal lymphadenectomy. A 3-year recurrence-free survival and 3-year overall survival from salvage esophagectomy were 43.3% and 46.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

It may contribute to obtaining good short- and long-term outcomes by dissecting only clinically positive lymph nodes in salvage esophagectomy.

Long-term survival after esophagectomy with distal pancreatectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer with pancreatic invasion: a case report

Background

The treatment for the locally advanced esophageal cancer invading adjacent organs is controversial. We performed a radical surgery for a patient suffering from lower esophageal cancer with pancreatic invasion, and led to long-term survival.

Case presentation

A 62-year-old man with dysphagia, was endoscopically diagnosed lower esophageal cancer. Abdominal computed tomography shows that the tumor formed a mass with the solitary metastatic abdominal lymph node, which invaded pancreas body and gastric body. He was diagnosed locally advanced esophageal cancer cStage IIIC. As chemoradiotherapy was difficult because of the high risk of gastric mucosal damage, radical esophagectomy with distal pancreatectomy and reconstruction of gastric conduit were performed. The postoperative course was uneventful and the patient was discharged 16 days after operation. At present, 7 years after surgery, he is still alive with disease-free condition.

Conclusion

Esophagectomy with distal pancreatectomy may be feasible for locally advanced esophageal cancer with pancreatic invasion in terms of curability and long-term survival.

Salvage Esophagectomy

Salvage esophagectomy is an option for patients with recurrent or persistent esophageal cancer after definitive chemoradiation therapy or those who undergo active surveillance after induction chemoradiation therapy. Salvage resection is associated with higher rates of morbidity compared with planned esophagectomy but offers patients with locally advanced disease a chance at improved long-term survival. Salvage resection should be preferentially performed in a multidisciplinary setting by high-volume and experienced surgeons. Technical considerations, such as prior radiation dosage, radiation field, and choice of conduit, should be taken into account.

Salvage endoscopic resection after definitive chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer: a Western experience

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is increasingly used as a nonsurgical treatment for esophageal cancer. In Japanese studies, salvage endoscopic resection (ER) has emerged as a promising strategy for local failure after definitive CRT. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of salvage ER in a Western setting.

METHODS

Gastroenterologists from Europe and the United States were invited to submit their experience with salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) after definitive CRT. Participating gastroenterologists completed an anonymized database, including patient demographics, clinicopathologic variables, and follow-up on survival and recurrence.

RESULTS

Gastroenterologists from 10 endoscopic units in 6 European countries submitted information on 25 patients. A total of 35 salvage ER procedures were performed, of which 69% were ESD and 31% EMR. Most patients had squamous cell carcinoma (64%) of the middle or lower esophagus (68%) staged as cT2-3 (68%) and cN+ (52%) before definitive CRT. The median time from end of definitive CRT to ER was 22 months (interquartile range, 6-47). The en-bloc resection rate was 92% for ESD and 46% for EMR. During a median of 24 months (interquartile range, 12-59) of follow-up after salvage ER, 52% developed a recurrence (11 locoregional, 2 distant). The 5-year recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and disease-specific survival were 36%, 52%, and 79%, respectively. No major intra- or postprocedural adverse events, such as bleeding or perforation, were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In carefully selected esophageal cancer patients, salvage ER is technically feasible after definitive CRT. Further prospective research is recommended to validate the safety and effectivity of salvage ER for the management of local failure.

Failure to Cure in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Esophageal Carcinoma: Hospital of Surgery Influences Prospects for Cure: A Nation-wide Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe failure to cure in terms of incidence, hospital variation, and as an outcome parameter for salvage esophagectomy.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Failure to cure is a composite outcome measure that could be used for hospital comparison in esophageal carcinoma care.

METHODS

All patients registered in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit who underwent potentially curative esophageal carcinoma surgery in 2011 to 2018, were included in this nationwide cohort study. Failure to cure was defined as: 1) no surgical resection due to intraoperative metastasis or locally irresectable tumor, 2) macroscopically or microscopically incomplete resection, or 3) 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Association of baseline characteristics with failure to cure was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression in the total population and in salvage patients.

RESULTS

Some 5894 patients from 22 hospitals were included, of whom 630 (10.7%) had failure to cure (hospital variation [5.5%-19.1%]). Higher age, preoperative weight loss, higher ASA-score, higher N-stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or no neoadjuvant therapy (compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy), open surgery, and resection before 2014 were associated with failure to cure. After case-mix correction, 2 hospitals had statistically significant higher failure to cure percentages, whereas 2 had lower percentages. Of 151 salvage esophagectomy patients, 32.5% had failure to cure. The failure to cure rate after salvage surgery was 27.6% in high-volume hospitals and 47.6% in medium-volume hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of failure to cure was 10.7%. Given the significant hospital variation in the percentage of failure to cure, improvement is needed. Since salvage procedures are more often successful in high-volume hospitals, further centralization of this procedure is warranted.

Time to surgery in thoracic cancers and prioritization during COVID-19: a systematic review

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has overwhelmed hospital resources worldwide, requiring widespread cancellation of non-emergency operations, including lung and esophageal cancer operations. In the United States, while hospitals begin to increase surgical volume and tackle the backlog of cases, the specter of a “second wave,” with a potential vaccine months to years away, highlights the ongoing need to triage cases based upon the risk of surgical delay. We synthesize the available literature on time to surgery and its impact on outcomes along with a critical appraisal of the released triage guidelines in the United States.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature review using PubMed according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines evaluating relevant literature from the past 15 years.

Results

Out of 679 screened abstracts, 12 studies investigating time to surgery in lung cancer were included. In stage I–II lung cancer, delayed resection beyond 6 to 8 weeks is consistently associated with lower survival. No identified evidence justifies a 2 cm cutoff for immediate versus delayed surgery. For stage IIIa lung cancer, time to surgery greater than 6 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy is similarly associated with worse survival. For esophageal cancer, 254 abstracts were screened and 23 studies were included. Minimal literature addresses primary esophagectomy, but time to surgery over 8 weeks is associated with lower survival. In the neoadjuvant setting, longer time to surgery is associated with increased pathologic complete response, but also decreased survival. The optimal window for esophagectomy following neoadjuvant therapy is 6 to 8 weeks.

Conclusions

In the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, timely resection of lung and esophageal cancer should be prioritized whenever possible based upon local resources and disease-burden.

Definitive Chemoradiotherapy Versus Trimodality Therapy for Resectable Oesophageal Carcinoma: Meta-analyses and Systematic Review of Literature

BACKGROUND

Standard therapy for loco-regionally advanced, resectable oesophageal carcinoma is trimodality therapy (TMT) consisting of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and oesophagectomy. Evidence of survival advantage of TMT over organ-preserving definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is inconclusive. The aim of this study is to compare survival between TMT and dCRT.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies on resectable, curatively treated, oesophageal carcinoma patients above 18 years were included. Three online databases were searched for studies comparing TMT with dCRT. Primary outcomes were 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools for RCTs and cohort studies. Quality of evidence was evaluated according to Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies described in 35 articles were included in this systematic review, and 33 were included in the meta-analyses. Two-, three- and five-year overall survival was significantly lower in dCRT compared to TMT, with relative risks (RRs) of 0.69 (95% CI 0.57-0.83), 0.76 (95% CI 0.63-0.92) and 0.57 (95% CI 0.47-0.71), respectively. When only analysing studies with equal patient groups at baseline, no significant differences for 2-, 3- and 5-year overall survival were found with RRs of 0.83 (95% CI 0.62-1.10), 0.81 (95% CI 0.57-1.14) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.36-1.12).

CONCLUSION

These meta-analyses do not show clear survival advantage for TMT over dCRT. Only a non-significant trend towards better survival was seen, assuming comparable patient groups at baseline. Non-operative management of oesophageal carcinoma patients might be part of a personalised and tailored treatment approach in future. However, to date hard evidence proving its non-inferiority compared to operative management is lacking.

Can We Increase the Resection Rate by Minimally Invasive Approach? Experience from 100 Minimally Invasive Esophagectomies

Background

Whether we can increase the resection rate of esophageal cancer by minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is unknown. The aim was to report the number and results of MIE in high-risk patients considered unsuitable for open surgery and compare these results to other operated patients and to high-risk patients not undergoing surgery.

Methods

At Central Finland Central Hospital, between September 2012 and July 2018, the number of operated MIEs was 100. Of these, 10 patients were prospectively considered unfit for open approach. Nineteen additional high-risk patients with operable disease were ruled out of surgery. The short- and long-term outcomes of these 3 groups were compared.

Results

In patients eligible for any approach (n=90), MIE only (n=10), and no surgery (n=19), WHO performance status Grade 0 was observed in 66.7%, 20.0%, and 5.3%, respectively; stair climbing with ≥4 stairs was successfully completed in 77.8%, 50%, and 36.8%, respectively. Between any approach and MIE only groups, rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a) was 6.7% vs. 50.0% (p<0.001) without a difference in median hospital stay (9 vs. 10 days, p=0.542). Readmission rates were 4.4% vs. 30.0% (p=0.003). Survival rates were 100% vs. 80% (p<0.001) at 90-days, 91.5% vs. 66.7% (p=0.005) at 1-year, and 68.9% vs. 53.3% (p=0.024) at 3-years, respectively. In comparison between MIE only and no surgery groups, these survival rates from day of diagnosis were 80% vs. 100%, 68.6% vs. 67.1%, and 45.7% vs. 32.0% (p=0.290), respectively.

Conclusions

By operating patients unsuitable for open approach with MIE, the resection rate increased 11.1%. These high-risk patients had, however, higher early morbidity and reduced long-term survival compared to other operated patients. Though there seems to be long-term benefit of surgery compared to nonsurgical patients, we have to be cautious when offering surgery to those considered unfit for open surgery.

Salvage Surgery for Esophageal Cancer: How to Improve Outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Locoregional recurrence rates after definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) for locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) are high. Salvage surgery (SALV) is considered the best treatment option in case of persistent or recurrent disease for operable patients, but SALV has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study is to identify factors linked to outcomes after SALV to better select candidates and to optimize perioperative care.

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively analyzed data from 308 consecutive SALV patients from a large multicenter European cohort. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with in-hospital postoperative morbidity, anastomotic leakage (AL), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The in-hospital postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were 8.4 and 34.7%, respectively. Squamous cell histology (p = 0.040) and radiation dose ≥ 55 Gy (p = 0.047) were independently associated with major morbidity. The AL rate was 12.7%, and cervical anastomosis was independently associated with AL (p = 0.002). OS at 5 years was 34.0%. Radiation dose ≥ 55 Gy (p = 0.003), occurrence of postoperative complications (p = 0.006), ypTNM stage 3 (p = 0.019), and positive surgical margins (p < 0.001) were linked to poor prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

SALV is a valuable option for patients with persistent or recurrent disease after dCRT and offers long-term survival. Factors such as radiation dose and anastomosis location identified here will help to optimize outcomes after SALV, which may be considered a standard treatment in the EC therapeutic armamentarium.