Search

Introduction Esophagectomy is a key component in the curative treatment of esophageal cancer. Little is understood about the impact of smoking status on perioperative morbidity and mortality and the long-term outcome of patients following esophagectomy. Objective This study aimed to evaluate morbidity and mortality according to smoking status in patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing two-stage transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE) for esophageal cancers (adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma) between January 1997 and December 2016 at the Northern Oesophagogastric Unit were included from a prospectively maintained database. The main explanatory variable was smoking status, defined as current smoker, ex-smoker, and non-smoker. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), while secondary outcomes included perioperative complications (overall, anastomotic leaks, and pulmonary complications) and survival (cancer-specific survival [CSS], recurrence-free survival [RFS]). Results During the study period, 1168 patients underwent esophagectomy for cancer. Of these, 24% (n = 282) were current smokers and only 30% (n = 356) had never smoked. The median OS of current smokers was significantly shorter than ex-smokers and non-smokers (median 36 vs. 42 vs. 48 months; p = 0.015). However, on adjusted analysis, there was no significant difference in long-term OS between smoking status in the entire cohort. The overall complication rates were significantly higher with current smokers compared with ex-smokers or non-smokers (73% vs. 66% vs. 62%; p = 0.018), and there were no significant differences in anastomotic leaks and pulmonary complications between the groups. On subgroup analysis by receipt of neoadjuvant therapy and tumor histology, smoking status did not impact long-term survival in adjusted multivariable analyses. Conclusion Although smoking is associated with higher rates of short-term perioperative morbidity, it does not affect long-term OS, CSS, and RFS following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Therefore, implementation of perioperative pathways to optimize patients may help reduce the risk of complications.

Background Esophageal cancer has seen a considerable change in management and outcomes over the last 30 years. Historically, the overall prognosis has been regarded as poor; however, the use of multimodal treatment and the integration of enhanced recovery pathways have improved short- and long-term outcomes. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the changing trends in presentation, management, and outcomes for patients undergoing surgical treatment for esophageal cancer over 30 years from a single-center, high-volume unit in the UK. Patients and Methods Data from consecutive patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer (adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma) between 1989 and 2018 from a single-center, high-volume unit were reviewed. Presentation method, management strategies, and outcomes were evaluated. Patients were grouped into successive 5-year cohorts for comparison and evaluation of changing trends. Results Between 1989 and 2018, 1486 patients underwent esophagectomy for cancer. Median age was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR] 59–71) and 1105 (75%) patients were male. Adenocarcinoma constituted 1105 (75%) patients, and overall median survival was 29 months (IQR 15–68). Patient presentation changed, with epigastric discomfort now the most common presentation (70%). An improvement in mortality from 5 to 2% (p p p = 0.004). Conclusions Long-term outcomes have significantly improved over the 30-year study period. In addition, mortality and length of stay have improved despite an increase in complications. The reasons for this are multifactorial and include the use of perioperative chemo(radio)therapy, the introduction of an enhanced recovery pathway, and improved patient selection.

Objective To determine the impact of downstaging on outcomes in esophageal cancer, the prognostic value of clinical and pathological stage, and the difference in survival in patients with similar pathological stages with and without neoadjuvant treatment. Background There is little data evaluating adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and difference in outcomes for similar pathological stage with and without neoadjuvant treatment. Patients and Methods Consecutive patients with esophageal cancer from a single center were evaluated. Patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or SCC treated with transthoracic esophagectomy and two-field lymphadenectomy were included. Comparison of outcomes with those primarily treated with surgery was made. The cTNM and ypTNM 8th edition was used. Results This study included 992 patients, of whom 417 received surgery alone and 575 received neoadjuvant therapy and surgery. In the neoadjuvant group, 7 (1%) had cTNM stage 2 and 418 (73%) had cTNM stage 3. Downstaging rates were similar between adenocarcinoma and SCC (54% vs. 61%, p = 0.5). Downstaging was associated with longer survival than patients with no change (adenocarcinoma, median: 82 vs. 26 months, p p Conclusions Pathological stage provides a better estimate of prognosis compared with clinical stage. Downstaged patients may have an improved outcome over those with comparable pathological stage who did not receive neoadjuvant treatment.

BackgroundEsophagectomy is a technically demanding procedure associated with high levels of morbidity. Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common complication with potentially major ramifications for patients. It has also been associated with poorer long-term overall survival (OS) and disease recurrence.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine whether AL contributes to poor OS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) for patients with esophageal cancer.MethodsConsecutive patients undergoing a two-stage, two-field transthoracic esophagectomy from a single high-volume unit between 1997 and 2016 were evaluated. Clinicopathologic characteristics, along with oncological and postoperative outcomes, were stratified by no AL versus non-severe leak (NSL) versus severe esophageal AL (SEAL). SEAL was defined as ALs associated with Clavien–Dindo grade III/IV complications.ResultsThis study included 1063 patients, of whom 8% (87/1063) developed AL; 45% of those who developed AL were SEALs (39/87). SEAL was associated with a prolonged critical care stay (median 8 vs. 3 vs. 2 days;p p ConclusionThese results demonstrate that AL leads to prolonged critical care and in-hospital length of stay; however, contrary to previous reports, our results do not compromise long-term outcomes and are unlikely to have a detrimental oncological impact.