Minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer - benefits and controversies

Feasibility analysis of combined surgery for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

As the preoperative examination of esophageal cancer has improved, the likelihood of finding diseases in other organs that require surgical treatment has also increased. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of combined surgery for esophageal cancer by analyzing the occurrence of postoperative complications in patients with esophageal cancer.

METHODS

The clinical characteristics of 1566 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent thoracic surgery in our hospital between January 2017 and September 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. The feasibility of combined surgery for esophageal cancer was analyzed by comparing postoperative complications in patients who underwent simple esophageal cancer surgery (SEC) with those in patients who underwent combined surgery for esophageal cancer (COEC). The tendency scores of patients in the COEC and SEC groups (1:2) were matched to balance the confounding clinical factors, and the difference in postoperative complications was further analyzed. Moreover, we performed a subgroup analysis of esophagectomy combined with lung resection (ECL). In addition, the independent risk factors for postoperative Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade III complications of esophageal cancer were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 1566 patients (1147 (73.2%) males and 419 (26.8%) females), with an average age of 64.2 years, were analyzed. There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the SEC and COEC groups according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (P=0.713). An analysis of the complications revealed that those in the COEC group had a higher incidence of lung consolidation than those in the SEC group (P=0.007). However, when we performed propensity score matching (PSM) on the SEC and COEC groups, there was still no significant difference in complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (P=0.346); furthermore, when a detailed analysis of complications was performed, there was no significant difference between the two. In subgroup analysis, after we performed PSM in ECL patients and SEC patients, we also found no significant difference in postoperative complications between patients with ECL and patients with SEC. In addition, we found that a history of diabetes (OR=1.604, P=0.029, 95% CI=1.049-2.454), a history of coronary heart disease (OR=1.592, P=0.046, 95% CI=1.008-2.515), diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) (OR=0.916, P=0.024, 95% CI=0.849-0.988), and ALB level (OR=0.955, P=0.007, 95% CI=0.924-0.987) were independent factors that influenced postoperative complications in esophageal cancer patients with grade III or higher complications.

CONCLUSION

Combined surgery for esophageal cancer does not increase the incidence of postoperative complications. In addition, a history of diabetes mellitus or coronary heart disease, carbon monoxide dispersion, and preoperative ALB level are independent risk factors for grade III or higher postoperative complications of esophageal cancer.

Diabetes Adversely Influences Postoperative Outcomes After Oesophagectomy: An Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes is a recognised risk for several chronic and acute illnesses, including increased complications in surgery for oesophageal cancer. Our primary aim is to determine the impact of diabetes on postoperative surgical and medical complications after oesophagectomy.

METHODS

All oesophagectomies for malignancy as reflected in the 2016-2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) datasets were extracted and analysed. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes used were 1) open procedures (43107, 43108, 43112, 43113, 43116, 43117, 43118, 43121, 43122, and 43123) and 2) hybrid procedures (43186, 43287, and 43288). Logistic regression models examined associations between diabetic status and adverse outcomes. The associations were adjusted for sex, race, age group, operation year, CPT code, body mass index (BMI), smoking, congestive heart failure, antihypertensives, renal failure, and dyspnoea.

RESULTS

Two thousand five hundred and thirty-eight oesophagectomies were identified. 86.45% (n=2,194) underwent open procedures and 13.55% (n=344) had hybrid procedures. There were 177 insulin-dependent diabetics (IDDM) and 320 (12.61%) non-insulin-dependent diabetics (NIDDM). 84.14% were male and 77.74% were Caucasian. 89.48% of the patients were between 50 and 79 years of age. 40.27% experienced postoperative complications. Medical complications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.7, p-value: 0.002), surgical complications (OR: 1.9, p-value: <0.001), wound complications (OR: 2.9, p-value: <0.001), and anastomotic leaks (OR: 2.4, p-value: <0.001) were more common in diabetic patients. Subgroup analysis showed that in hybrid procedures, there is a statistically significant increase in the OR of surgical complications (OR: 3.61, p-value: 0.05), medical complications (OR: 3.76, p-value: 0.04), and anastomotic leak (OR: 3.49, p-value: 0.27) in IDDM as compared to NIDDM.

CONCLUSION

Insulin-dependent diabetes doubles the risk of all major complications compared to nondiabetics. When considering surgical approach and diabetic status (IDDM vs nondiabetics, NIDDM vs nondiabetics), the risk of complications further doubles for hybrid oesophagectomies compared to open procedures.

Trends in Oncology: an Updated Review of Minimally Invasive Surgery vs. Traditional Open Surgery

Objective: To review the recent trends in methodology for the most frequent oncological surgeries. More specifically, this paper will compare the minimally invasive methods to the conventional open method. It aims to find out whether minimally invasive surgeries are feasible treatments for certain types of cancers.

Methods: A review of retrospective studies searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library etc. was used to identify the studies published on this topic within a period of 6 years. Oncologic outcomes, postoperative complications/outcomes, and intraoperative outcomes were the main variables in the comparison to the surgical methods under review.

Conclusion: Despite the recent controversy with minimally invasive surgery being contraindicated for cervical cancer, it is still an acceptable method for other types of common cancers. However, there are limitations to the approach, and the surgeon should make a prudent selection between minimally invasive and open surgery depending on the type of tumor and patient characteristics. Further studies, especially with randomized control trials, must be conducted.

Transition from open to minimally invasive en bloc esophagectomy can be achieved without compromising surgical quality

BACKGROUND

En bloc esophagectomy results in higher lymph node (LN) retrieval than standard esophagectomy. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has gained traction due to improved short-term outcomes, but many large series report LN yields well below the international benchmark of 23. We sought to determine if an established approach to open en bloc resection can be safely transferred to MIE using LN yield as a quality benchmark.

METHODS

An open approach to en bloc esophagectomy (OE) was established over 5 years (~ 300 cases) before en bloc MIE was introduced in 2010. Patients undergoing curative-intent en bloc Ivor-Lewis and McKeown esophagectomy for cancer from 2010 to 2019 by a single surgeon with formal minimally invasive surgery training were identified from a prospectively collected database. Mann-Whitney U and χ² tests and cumulative sum analysis were used for statistical analysis. "Failure" was defined as LN yield less than AJCC's 8th edition guidelines: 10 LNs for pT1 cancers, 20 for pT2 and 30 for pT3-4.

RESULTS

A total of 269 esophageal resections met inclusion criteria [193(72%) OE; 76(28%) MIE]. Age, sex, BMI and comorbidities were comparable between groups. Tumors were larger and more often locally advanced in OE. Median LN retrieval was sufficient by international standards in both groups [OE:34(27-46); MIE:28(22-39); p = 0.01]. "Failures" occurred in 33(17%) of OE and 12(16%) MIE cases (p = 0.63). No learning effect was observed for LN yield. R0 resection rate was comparable [OE:191(99%); MIE:73(96%); p = 0.90]. Operative time was longer for MIE [275(246-300)] than OE [240(210-270) minutes], p < 0.0001, while estimated blood loss (OE:350(250-500)mL; MIE:300(200-400)mL; p = 0.02] and length of stay [OE:8(6-13); MIE7(6-9) days; p = 0.02] were higher for OE. Morbidity and mortality were comparable between groups and LN yield did not impact survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Under appropriate conditions, an established approach to open en bloc esophagectomy can be safely transferred to MIE without compromising surgical quality.

Treatment of early stage (T1) esophageal adenocarcinoma: Personalizing the best therapy choice

Esophagectomy is considered the primary form of management for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC); however, the surgery is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. For patients with early-stage EAC, endoscopic resection (ER) presents a potential curative treatment option that is less invasive and carries fewer risks procedure related risks, but it is associated with higher rates of cancer recurrence following the procedure. For some patients, age and comorbidities may prevent them from having esophagectomy as a treatment option, while other patients may be operative candidates but do not wish to undergo esophagectomy for a variety of reasons related to their values and preferences. Furthermore, while anxiety of cancer recurrence following ER may significantly diminish a patient’s quality of life (QOL), so might the morbidity surrounding esophagectomy. In addition to considering health status, patient preferences, and impacts on QOL, physicians and patients must also consider what treatments would be both beneficial and available to the patient, considering esophagectomy methods-minimally invasive vs open-or the use of chemoradiotherapy in addition to ER. Our article reviews and summarizes available treatment options for patients with early EAC and their potential effects on the health and wellbeing of patients based on the current data. We conclude with a request for more research of available options for early EAC patients, the conditions that determine when each option should be employed, and their effects not only on patient health but also QOL.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

Open esophagectomy (OE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) reduces complications in resectable esophageal cancer. The aim of this study is to explore the superiority of MIO in reducing complications and in-hospital mortality than OE.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Wanfang, and Wiley Online Library were thoroughly searched. Odds ratio (OR)/weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the strength of association.

Results

Fifty-seven studies containing 15,790 cases of resectable esophageal cancer were included. MIO had less intraoperative blood loss, short hospital stay, and high operative time (P < 0.05) than OE. MIO also had reduced incidence of total complications; (OR = 0.700, 95% CI = 0.626 ~ 0.781, P_V < 0.05), pulmonary complications (OR = 0.527, 95% CI = 0431 ~ 0.645, P_V < 0.05), cardiovascular complications (OR = 0.770, 95% CI = 0.681 ~ 0.872, P_V < 0.05), and surgical technology related (STR) complications (OR = 0.639, 95% CI = 0.522 ~ 0.781, P_V < 0.05), as well as lower in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.668, 95% CI = 0.539 ~ 0.827, P_V < 0.05). However, the number of harvested lymph nodes, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, gastrointestinal complications, anastomotic leak (AL), and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (RLNP) had no significant difference.

Conclusions

MIO is superior to OE in terms of perioperative complications and in-hospital mortality.