Search

Objective: To determine the impact of operative approach [open (OE), hybrid minimally invasive (HMIE), and total minimally invasive (TMIE) esophagectomy] on operative and oncologic outcomes for patients treated with curative intent for esophageal and junctional cancer. Background: The optimum oncologic surgical approach to esophageal and junctional cancer is unclear. Methods: This secondary analysis of the European multicenter ENSURE study includes patients undergoing curative-intent esophagectomy for cancer between 2009 and 2015 across 20 highvolume centers. Primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and the incidence and location of disease recurrence. Secondary endpoints included among others R0 resection rate, lymph node yield, and overall survival (OS). Results: In total, 3199 patients were included. Of these, 55% underwent OE, 17% HMIE, and 29% TMIE. DFS was independently increased post-TMIE [hazard ratio (HR): 0.86 (95% CI: 0.76-0.98), P = 0.022] compared with OE. Multivariable regression demonstrated no difference in absolute locoregional recurrence risk according to the operative approach [HMIE vs OE, odds ratio (OR): 0.79, P = 0.257; TMIE vs OE, OR: 0.84, P = 0.243]. The probability of systemic recurrence was independently increased post-HMIE (OR: 2.07, P = 0.031), but not TMIE (OR: 0.86, P = 0.508). R0 resection rates (P = 0.005) and nodal yield (P < 0.001) were independently increased after TMIE, but not HMIE (P = 0.424; P = 0.512) compared with OE. OS was independently improved following both HMIE (HR: 0.79, P = 0.009) and TMIE (HR: 0.82, P = 0.003) as compared with OE. Conclusion: In this European multicenter study, TMIE was associated with improved surgical quality and DFS, whereas both TMIE and HMIE were associated with improved OS as compared with OE for esophageal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that bariatric surgery decreases the risk of esophageal and cardia adenocarcinoma. Background: Obesity is strongly associated with esophageal adenocarcinoma and moderately with cardia adenocarcinoma, but whether weight loss prevents these tumors is unknown. Methods: This population-based cohort study included patients with an obesity diagnosis in Sweden, Finland, or Denmark. Participants were divided into a bariatric surgery group and a nonoperated group. The incidence of esophageal and cardia adenocarcinoma (ECA) was first compared with the corresponding background population by calculating standardized incidence ratios (SIR) with 95% CIs. Second, the bariatric surgery group and the nonoperated group were compared using multivariable Cox regression, providing hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CI, adjusted for sex, age, comorbidity, calendar year, and country. Results: Among 748,932 participants with an obesity diagnosis, 91,731 underwent bariatric surgery, predominantly gastric bypass (n=70,176; 76.5%). The SIRs of ECA decreased over time after gastric bypass, from SIR= 2.2 (95% CI, 0.9--4.3) after 2 to 5 years to SIR= 0.6 (95% CI, <0.1--3.6) after 10 to 40 years. Gastric bypass patients were also at a decreased risk of ECA compared with nonoperated patients with obesity [adjusted HR= 0.6, 95% CI, 0.4--1.0 (0.98)], with decreasing point estimates over time. Gastric bypass was followed by a strongly decreased adjusted risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (HR=0.3, 95% CI, 0.1--0.8) but not of cardia adenocarcinoma (HR=0.9, 95% CI, 0.5--1.6), when analyzed separately. There were no consistent associations between other bariatric procedures (mainly gastroplasty, gastric banding, sleeve gastrectomy, and biliopancreatic diversion) and ECA. Conclusions: Gastric bypass surgery may counteract the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma in morbidly obese individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of endoscopic resection (ER) versus esophagectomy in node-negative cT1a and cT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma. Summary of Background Data: The role of ER in the management of subsets of clinical T1N0 esophageal adenocarcinoma is controversial. Methods: Data from the National Cancer Database (2010-2015) were used to identify patients with clinical T1aN0 (n = 2545) and T1bN0 (n = 1281) esophageal adenocarcinoma that received either ER (cT1a, n = 1581; cT1b, n = 335) or esophagectomy (cT1a, n = 964; cT1b, n = 946). Propensity score matching and Cox analyses were used to account for treatment selection bias. Results: ER for cT1a and cT1b disease was performed more commonly over time. The rates of node-positive disease in patients with cT1a and cT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma were 4% and 15%, respectively. In the matched cohort for cT1a cancers, ER had similar survival to esophagectomy [hazard ratio (HR): 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-1.04, P = 0.1]. The corresponding 5-year survival for ER and esophagectomy were 70% and 74% (P = 0.1), respectively. For cT1b cancers, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the treatment groups (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.66-1.14, P = 0.3). The corresponding 5-year survival for ER and esophagectomy were 53% versus 61% (P = 0.3), respectively. Conclusions: This study demonstrates ER has comparable long-term outcomes for clinical T1aN0 and T1bN0 esophageal adenocarcinoma. However, 15% of patients with cT1b esophageal cancer were found to have positive nodal disease. Future research should seek to identify the subset of T1b cancers at high risk of nodal metastasis and thus would benefit from esophagectomy with lymphadenectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Ongoing randomized controlled trials seek to evaluate the potential organ-preservation strategy of definitive chemoradiotherapy as a primary treatment for esophageal cancer. This population-based cohort study aimed to assess survival following definitive chemoradiotherapy (DCR) with or without salvage esophagectomy (SALV) in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Patients and Methods: Data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004 to 2015, was used to identify patients with nonmetastatic esophageal cancer receiving either DCR (n = 5977) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with planned esophagectomy (NCRS) (n = 13,555). Propensity score matching and multivariable analyses were used to account for treatment selection bias. Subset analyses compared patients receiving SALV after DCR with NCRS. Results: Comparison of baseline demographics of the unmatched cohort revealed that patients receiving NCRS were younger, had a lower burden of medical comorbidities, lower proportion of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and more positive lymph nodes. Following matching, NCRS was associated with significantly improved survival compared with DCR [hazard ratio (HR): 0.60, 95% confidence Interval (CI): 0.57-0.63, P < 0.001], which persisted in subset analyses of patients with adenocarcinoma (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.56-0.63, P < 0.001) and SCC (HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.53-0.63, P < 0.001). Of 829 receiving SALV after DCR, 823 patients were matched to 1643 NCRS. There was no difference in overall survival between SALV and NCRS (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.90-1.11, P = 1.0). Conclusions: Surgery remains an integral component of the management of patients with esophageal cancer. Neoadjuvant therapy followed by planned esophagectomy appears to remain the optimum curative treatment regime in patients with locoregional esophageal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text Objective: To identify the most prevalent symptoms and those with greatest impact upon health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among esophageal cancer survivors. Background: Long-term symptom burden after esophagectomy, and associations with HRQOL, are poorly understood. Patients and Methods: Between 2010 and 2016, patients from 20 European Centers who underwent esophageal cancer surgery, and were disease-free at least 1 year postoperatively were asked to complete LASER, EORTC-QLQ-C30, and QLQ-OG25 questionnaires. Specific symptom questionnaire items that were associated with poor HRQOL as identified by EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25 were identified by multivariable regression analysis and combined to form a tool. Results: A total of 876 of 1081 invited patients responded to the questionnaire, giving a response rate of 81%. Of these, 66.9% stated in the last 6 months they had symptoms associated with their esophagectomy. Ongoing weight loss was reported by 10.4% of patients, and only 13.8% returned to work with the same activities. Three LASER symptoms were correlated with poor HRQOL on multivariable analysis; pain on scars on chest (odds ratio (OR) 1.27; 95% CI 0.97–1.65), low mood (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.15–1.77) and reduced energy or activity tolerance (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.18–1.59). The areas under the curves for the development and validation datasets were 0.81 ± 0.02 and 0.82 ± 0.09 respectively. Conclusion: Two-thirds of patients experience significant symptoms more than 1 year after surgery. The 3 key symptoms associated with poor HRQOL identified in this study should be further validated, and could be used in clinical practice to identify patients who require increased support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to quantify LNM risk and outcomes following treatment of early esophago-gastric (EG) adenocarcinoma., Background: The standard of care for early T1N0 EG cancer is endoscopic resection (ER). Radical surgical resection is recommended for patients perceived to be at risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM). Current models to select organ-preserving vs. surgical treatment are inconsistent., Methods: CONGRESS is a UK-based multicentre retrospective cohort study. Patients diagnosed with clinical or pathological T1N0 EG adenocarcinoma from 2015-2022 were included. Outcomes and rates of LNM were assessed. Cox regression was performed to assess the impact of prognostic and treatment factors on overall survival., Results: 1,601 patients from 26 centres were included, with median follow-up 32 months(IQR 14-53). 1285/1612(80.3%) underwent ER, 497/1601(31.0%) underwent surgery. Overall rate of LNM was 13.5%. On ER staging, tumour depth (T1bsm2-3 17.6% vs. T1a 7.1%), lymphovascular invasion (17.2% vs. 12.6%), or signet cells (28.6% vs. 13.0%) were associated with LNM. In multivariable regression analysis, these were not significantly associated with LNM rates or survival. Adjusting for demographic and tumour variables, surgery after ER was associated with significant survival benefit, HR 0.33(0.15-0.77),P=0.010., Conclusion: This large multicentre dataset suggests that early EG adenocarcinoma is associated with significant risk of LNM. This data is representative of current real clinical practice with ER-based staging, and suggests previously held beliefs regarding reliability of predictive factors for LNM may need to be reconsidered. Further research to identify patients who may benefit from organ-preserving vs. surgical treatment is urgently required., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: Authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To clarify the impact of the preoperative time intervals on short-term postoperative and pathological outcomes in esophageal cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by esophagectomy., Summary Background Data: The impact of preoperative intervals on esophageal cancer patients who received multimodality treatment remains unknown., Methods: Patients(cT1-4aN0-3M0) treated with nCRT plus esophagectomy were included using the Dutch national DUCA-database. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the effect of different time intervals upon short-term postoperative and pathological outcomes: diagnosis-to-nCRT intervals (≤5, 5-8 and 8-12 wk), nCRT-to-surgery intervals (5-11, 11-17 and >17 wk) and total preoperative intervals (≤16, 16-25 and >25 wk)., Results: Between 2010-2021, a total of 5052 patients were included. Compared to diagnosis-to-nCRT interval ≤5 weeks, the interval 8-12 weeks was associated with higher risk of overall complications (P=0.049). Compared to nCRT-to-surgery interval 5-11 weeks, the longer intervals (11-17 wk and >17 wk) were associated with higher risk of overall complications (P-value=0.016; P-value<0.001) and anastomotic leakage (P-value=0.004; P-value=0.030), but the interval >17 weeks was associated with lower risk of ypN+ (P-value=0.021). The longer total preoperative intervals were not associated with the risk of 30-day mortality and complications compared to the interval ≤16 weeks, but the longer total preoperative interval (>25 wk) was associated with higher ypT stage (P-value=0.010) and lower pCR rate (P-value=0.013)., Conclusion: In patients with esophageal cancer undergoing nCRT and esophagectomy, prolonged preoperative time intervals may lead to higher morbidity and disease progression, and the causal relationship requires further confirmation., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate prognostic differences between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) in patients with surgery after a prolonged interval (>12 wk) following chemoradiotherapy (CRT)., Background: Previously, we established that a prolonged interval after CRT prior to esophagectomy was associated with poorer long-term survival., Methods: This was an international multi-center cohort study involving seventeen tertiary centers, including patients who received CRT followed by surgery between 2010-2020. Patients undergoing MIE were defined as thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approach., Results: 428 patients (145 MIE and 283 OE) had surgery between 12 weeks and two years after CRT. Significant differences were observed in ASA grade, radiation dose, clinical T stage, and histological subtype. There were no significant differences between the groups in age, sex, BMI, pathological T or N stage, resection margin status, tumor location, surgical technique, or 90-day mortality. Survival analysis showed MIE was associated with improved survival in univariate (P=0.014), multivariate analysis after adjustment for smoking, T and N stage, and histology (HR=1.69; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.5) and propensity matched analysis (P=0.02). Further subgroup analyses by radiation dose and interval after CRT showed survival advantage for MIE, in 40-50Gy dose groups (HR=1.9; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.0), and in patients having surgery within six months of CRT (HR=1.6; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.2)., Conclusion: MIE was associated with an improved overall survival compared to OE in patients with a prolonged interval from CRT to surgery. The mechanism for this observed improvement in survival remains unknown, with potential hypotheses including a reduction in complications and improved functional recovery after MIE., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)