Search

Background: Staging is inaccurate for cT2N0 esophageal cancer, and patients often are clinically mis-staged. This study aimed to evaluate the outcome after upfront surgery or neoadjuvant therapy, considering the impact of clinical "mis-staging.", Methods: This study reviewed patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma (ADK) of the esophagus who underwent upfront surgery (S group) or neoadjuvant treatment (chemoradiotherapy [CRT] group) for cT2N0 cancer. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), morbidity, and mortality were evaluated. Correctly staged (cTNM = pTNM), understaged (cTNM < pTNM), and overstaged (cTNM > pTNM) patients in the S group and the CRT group were analyzed. Risk factors for unexpected lymph-node involvement were identified in the S group and for cancer-related death in the whole study cohort., Results: The study enrolled 229 patients with cT2N0 esophageal cancer. The 5-year OS rate was 34.2% in the S group versus 55.7% in the CRT group (p = 0.0088). The DFS also was significantly higher (p = 0.01). The morbidity and mortality rates were similar. In the S group, the cTNM was correctly staged for 21.4% and understaged for 63.4% of the patients, with 48.7% of the patients showing unexpected nodal involvement. A tumor length of 3 cm or more was an independent predictor of nodal metastases in SCC (p = 0.03), as was lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in ADK (p < 0.01). Cancer-related mortality was independently associated with lymph-node metastases (p = 0.03) and treatment by upfront surgery (p = 0.01)., Conclusion: Given the high rate of understaged patients in this study (63.4%), the authors advocate for combining the induction therapy with surgery in cT2N0, achieving better survival with similar morbidity and mortality., (© 2021. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Background: Few studies have examined optimal treatment specifically for cervical esophageal carcinoma. This study evaluated the outcome of three common treatment strategies with a focus on the debated role of surgery., Methods: All patients with cervical esophageal cancer treated at a single center were identified and their outcomes analyzed in terms of morbidity, mortality, and recurrence according to the treatment they received, i.e. surgery alone, definitive platinum-based chemoradiation (CRT), or CRT followed by surgery., Results: The study population included 148 patients with cervical esophageal cancer from a prospective database of 3445 patients. Primary surgery was the treatment of choice for 56 (37.83%) patients, definitive CRT was the treatment of choice for 52 (35.13%) patients, and CRT followed by surgery was the treatment of choice for 40 (27.02%) patients. CRT-treated patients obtained 36.96% complete clinical response, with overall morbidity and mortality rates of 36.95 and 2.17%, respectively. Surgical complete resection was achieved in 71.88% of surgically treated cases, with morbidity and mortality rates of 52.17 and 6.25%, respectively. No significant survival difference existed among the three treatments, but patients who underwent surgery alone had a significantly lower stage of disease (p = 0.031). Compared with patients with complete response after CRT, surgery did not confer any significant survival benefit, and overall 5-year survival was lower than definitive CRT alone. In contrast, surgery improved survival significantly in patients with non-complete response after definitive CRT (p = 0.023)., Conclusions: Definitive platinum-based CRT should be the treatment of choice for cervical esophageal cancer. Surgery has a role for patients with non-complete response as it adds significant survival benefit, with acceptable morbidity and mortality.

Background: Cirrhosis is a risk factor with nonhepatic surgery, but only three series regarding esophagectomy are reported. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score has shown benefit in risk evaluation, but there is no experience regarding esophagectomy. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of surgery for esophageal cancer between cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients and to evaluate whether the MELD score has a prognostic value for risk stratification., Methods: From the authors' esophageal cancer database, they selected all the patients with concomitant cirrhosis who underwent surgery with curative intent and a matched cohort of patients without cirrhosis. The preoperative data included demographics, medical history, blood work, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score, and MELD score. The operative data included type of surgery, radicality, operative time, and blood loss. The postoperative data included hemoderivatives, 90-day morbidity and mortality rates, lab works, and hospital length of stay. The cirrhotic patients were further divided and analyzed according to a MELD score cutoff of 9., Results: Of 3445 esophageal cancer patients, 73 cirrhotic patients underwent surgery. Their 90-day morbidity and mortality rates were higher than those for 146 noncirrhotic patients. The cirrhotic patients also had more respiratory events (p = 0.013) and infections (p = 0.005). The anastomotic complications among the cirrhotic patients were significantly more severe (p = 0.046). No difference in 5-year survival rates was registered. Stratification according to the MELD score showed that patients with a MELD score higher than 9 had a significantly worse postoperative course (5-year survival: p = 0.004). The patients with a MELD score of 9 or lower showed an outcome similar to that of the noncirrhotic patients., Conclusions: Liver cirrhosis is not an absolute contraindication to esophagectomy. The MELD score can be applicable for esophagectomy risk assessment for cirrhotic patients.