Search

Introduction: Interruption of thoracic epidural analgesia may impact the postoperative course following esophagectomy. This study investigates the incidence and causes of epidural interruption in esophagectomy patients along with associated postoperative outcomes., Methods: This single-institution retrospective analysis examined patients undergoing esophagectomy who received a thoracic epidural catheter from 2016 to 2020. Patients were stratified according to whether epidural catheter infusion was interrupted or not postoperatively. Outcomes were compared between the two groups, and predictors of epidural interruption and postoperative complications were estimated using multivariable logistic regression., Results: Of the 168 patients who received a thoracic epidural before esophagectomy, 60 (35.7%) required epidural interruption and 108 (64.3%) did not. Interruption commonly occurred on postoperative day 1 and was due to hypotension 80% of the time. Heart failure (10.0% versus 0.9%, P = 0.009), atrial fibrillation (20.0% versus 3.7%, P = 0.002), preoperative opioid use (30.0% versus 16.7%, P = 0.043), and higher American Society of Anesthesiology classification (88.4% versus 70.4%, P = 0.008) were more prevalent in the epidural interruption cohort. The female gender was associated with epidural interruption on multivariable logistic regression (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.45, P = 0.039). Patients in the epidural interruption cohort had a higher incidence of delirium (30.5% versus 13.9%, P = 0.010), sepsis (13.6% versus 3.7%, P = 0.028), and severe anastomotic leak (18.3% versus 7.4%, P = 0.032). On adjusted analysis, heart disease (AOR 4.26, P = 0.027), BMI <18.5 (AOR 9.83, P = 0.031), and epidural interruption due to hypotension (AOR 3.51, P = 0.037) were associated with severe anastomotic leak., Conclusions: Early epidural interruption secondary to hypotension in esophagectomy patients may be a harbinger of postoperative complications such as sepsis and severe anastomotic leak. Patients requiring epidural interruption due to hypotension should have a low threshold for additional workup and early intervention., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Performing selective esophagectomy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma may spare patients morbidity, but delayed surgery may infer higher risks. This study evaluated the impact of length of time between chemoradiation and esophagectomy on perioperative outcomes and long-term survival., Methods: The impact of surgical timing, stratified by surgery performed < 180 and ≥ 180 days from starting radiation, on perioperative outcomes and survival in patients treated with chemoradiation and esophagectomy for cT1N + M0 and cT2-4, any N, M0 squamous cell carcinoma of the mid-distal esophagus in the National Cancer Database (2006-2016) was evaluated with logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional-hazards methods, and propensity-matched analysis., Results: Median time between starting radiation and esophagectomy in 1641 patients was 93 (IQR 81-114) days. Most patients (96.8%, n = 1589) had surgery within 180 days of starting radiation, while 52 patients (3.2%) had delayed surgery. Black race and clinical T stage were associated with delayed surgery. Rates of pathologic upstaging, downstaging, complete response, and positive margins were not significantly different between the groups. Patients with delayed surgery had increased major morbidity as measured by a composite of length of hospital stay, readmission, and 30-day mortality [42.3% (22/52) vs 22.3% (355/1589), p = 0.001]. However, delayed surgery was not associated with a significant difference in survival in both univariate [5-year survival 32.8% (95% CI 21.1-50.7) vs 47.3% (44.7-50.1), p = 0.19] and multivariable analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 1.23 (0.85-1.78), p = 0.26]., Conclusions: Delaying surgery longer than 180 days after starting chemoradiation for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is associated with worse perioperative outcomes but not long-term survival., (© 2022. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Background: The sensitivity of fluoroscopic esophagography with oral administration of contrast material to exclude anastomotic leak after esophagectomy is not well documented, and the consequences of missing a leak in this setting have not been previously described., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained institutional database of patients undergoing esophagectomy with esophagogastric anastomosis from 2008 to 2020. Relevant details of leaks, management, and outcomes were obtained from the database and formal chart review. Statistical analysis was performed to compare patients with and without leaks and those with false-negative vs positive esophagrams., Results: There were 384 patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastric reconstruction; the majority were Ivor-Lewis (82%), and 51% were wholly or partially minimally invasive. By use of a broad definition of leak, 55 patients (16.7%) developed an anastomotic leak. Of the 55 patients, 27 (49%) who ultimately were found to have a leak initially had a normal esophagram result (performed on average on postoperative day 6). Those with a normal initial esophagram result were more likely to have an uncontained leak (81% vs 29%; P < .01), to require unplanned readmission (70% vs 39%; P = .02), and to undergo reoperation (44% vs 11%; P < .01)., Conclusions: Early postoperative esophagrams intended to evaluate anastomotic integrity have a low sensitivity of 51%, and leaks missed on the initial esophagram have greater clinical consequences than those identified on the initial esophagram. These findings suggest that a high index of suspicion must be maintained even after a normal esophagram result and call into question the common practice of using this test to triage patients for diet advancement., (Copyright © 2023 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This study evaluated the treatment of proximal (cervical or upper thoracic) esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), for which chemoradiation is the recommended therapy., Methods: Treatment and outcomes of patients with cT1-3N0-1M0 proximal esophageal SCC in the National Cancer Database between 2004 and 2016 was evaluated using logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and propensity-score matching., Results: Therapy of 2159 patients was chemoradiation (n = 1500, 69.5%), no treatment (n = 205, 9.5%), surgery (n = 203, 9.4%), radiation alone (n = 190, 8.8%), and chemotherapy alone (n = 61, 2.8%). Factors associated with definitive therapy with either chemoradiation or surgery were younger age, non-Black race, being insured, cervical tumor location, clinical T2 and T3 stage, clinical nodal involvement, and treatment at a research/academic program. Five-year survival was significantly better in patients treated with definitive therapy than patients not treated definitively (34.0% vs. 13.3%, p < 0.001). In multivariable survival analysis, receiving definitive therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39, p = 0.017) was associated with improved survival, while increasing age, male sex, clinical T3 stage, positive clinical nodal involvement, and increasing Charlson Comorbidity Index were associated with worse survival. Esophagectomy was not associated with improved survival in multivariable analysis of the definitive therapy cohort (HR 0.84, p = 0.08) or propensity matched analysis. However, the pathologic complete response was only 33.3% (40/120) for patients who did have an esophagectomy after chemoradiation., Conclusions: This national analysis supports definitive chemoradiation for not only cervical but also proximal thoracic esophageal SCC. Routine surgery does not appear to be necessary but may have a role in patients with residual disease after chemoradiation., (© 2022. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Objective: This study investigated the influence of facility volume on long-term survival in patients with esophageal cancer treated with esophagectomy., Methods: Patients treated with esophagectomy for cT1 3N0 3M0 adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the mid-distal esophagus in the National Cancer Database between 2006 and 2013 were stratified by annual facility esophagectomy volume dichotomized as more/less than both 6 and 20. Patient characteristics associated with facility volume were evaluated using logistic regression, and the influence of facility volume on survival was evaluated with Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional hazards methods, and propensity matched analysis., Results: Of 11,739 patients who had esophagectomy at 1018 facilities where annual volume ranged from 1 to 47.6 cases, 4262 (36.3%) were treated at 44 facilities with annual esophagectomy volume > 6 and 1515 (12.9%) were treated at 7 facilities with annual volume > 20. Higher volume was associated with significantly better 5-year survival for both annual volume > 6 (47.6% vs 40.2%; P < .001) and annual volume > 20 (47.2% vs 42.3%; P < .001), which persisted in propensity matched analyses as well as Cox multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.89; P < .001 for facility volume > 6 and hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.95; P = .01 for facility volume > 20). In Cox multivariable analysis that considered facility volume as a continuous variable, higher volume continued to be associated with better survival (hazard ratio, 0.93 per 5 cases; 95% CI, 0.91-0.96; P < .001)., Conclusions: Esophageal cancer patients treated with esophagectomy at higher volume facilities have significantly better long-term survival than patients treated at lower volume facilities., (Copyright © 2021 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The impact of concomitant lung resection during esophagectomy on short-term outcomes is not well characterized. This study tests the hypothesis that lung resection at the time of esophagectomy is not associated with increased perioperative morbidity or mortality., Methods: Perioperative outcomes for esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy alone (EA) were compared to patients who had concurrent esophagectomy and lung resection (EL) using the NSQIP database between 2006-2017. Predictors of morbidity and mortality, including combined surgery, were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression., Results: Among the 6,225 study patients, 6,068 (97.5%) underwent EA and 157 (2.5%) underwent EL. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Operating time for EL was longer than EA (median 416 versus 371 minutes, P < 0.01). Median length of stay was 10 d for both groups. Perioperative mortality was not significantly different between EL and EA patients (5.1% versus 2.8%, P = 0.08). EL patients had higher rates of postoperative pneumonia (22.3% versus 16.2%, P = 0.04) and sepsis (11.5% versus 7.1%, P = 0.03), however major complication rates overall were similar (40.8% versus 35.3%, P = 0.16). Combining lung resection with esophagectomy was not independently associated with increased postoperative morbidity (AOR 1.21 [95% CI 0.87-1.69]) or mortality (AOR 1.63 [95% CI 0.74-3.58])., Conclusions: Concurrent lung resection during esophagectomy is not associated with increased mortality or overall morbidity, but is associated with higher rates of pneumonia beyond esophagectomy alone. Surgeons considering combined lung resection with esophagectomy should carefully evaluate the patient's risk for pulmonary complications and pursue interventions preoperatively to optimize respiratory function., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The purpose of this study was to evaluate practice patterns and outcomes for patients 80 years or older with esophageal cancer using a nationwide cancer data base. Practice patterns for patients 80 years or older with stage I-IV esophageal cancer in the National Cancer Data Base from 2004 to 2014 were analyzed. Overall survival associated with different treatment strategies were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. In the study period, 40.5% and 46.2% of patients with stage I adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, respectively, did not receive any treatment at all. Less than 11% (196/1,865) of patients with stage I-II disease underwent esophagectomy, even though surgery was associated with a better 5-year survival compared to no treatment (stage I: 47.3% [95% confidence interval [CI] 36.2-57.6%] vs 14.9% [95% CI: 11.2-19.1%]; stage II: 29.3% [95% CI 20.1-39.1%] vs 1.2% [95% CI: 0.1-5.5%]). Of the 1,596 (37.7%) patients with stage III disease who received curative-intent treatment (surgery or chemoradiation), the 5-year survival was significantly better than that of patients who received no treatment (11.9% [95% CI: 9.7-14.4% vs 4.3% [95% CI: 1.9-8.3%]). In this national analysis of patients 80 years and older with esophageal cancer, over 40% of patients with stage I disease did not receive treatment. Patients with stage I-III disease had better survival and risks and benefits of treatment for elderly patients should be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare outcomes between induction chemotherapy alone (ICA) and induction chemoradiation (ICR) in patients with locally advanced distal esophageal adenocarcinoma., Methods: Patients in the National Cancer Database treated with ICA or ICR followed by esophagectomy between 2006 and 2012 for cT1-3N1M0 or T3N0M0 adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus were compared using logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards methods., Results: The study group included 4763 patients, of whom 4323 patients (90.8%) received ICR and 440 patients (9.2%) received ICA. There were no differences in age, sex, race, Charlson Comorbidity Index, treatment facility type, clinical T or N status between the 2 groups. Tumor size ≥5 cm (odds ratio, 1.46; P = .006) was the only factor that predicted ICR use. Higher rates of T downstaging (39.7% vs 33.4%; P = .012), N downstaging (32.0% vs 23.4%; P < .001), and complete pathologic response (13.1% vs 5.9%; P < .001) occurred in ICR patients. Positive margins were seen more often in ICA patients (9.6% vs 5.5%; P = .001), but there was no difference in 5-year survival (ICR 35.9% vs ICA 37.2%; P = .33), and ICR was not associated with survival in multivariable analysis (hazard ratio = 1.04; P = .61)., Conclusions: ICR for locally advanced distal esophageal adenocarcinoma is associated with a better local treatment effect, but not improved survival compared with ICA, which suggests that radiation can be used selectively in this clinical situation., (Copyright © 2018 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Black patients with esophageal cancer have worse survival than white patients. This study examines this racial disparity in conjunction with socioeconomic status (SES) and explores whether race-based outcome differences exist using a national database., Methods: The associations between race and SES with overall survival of patients treated with esophagectomy for stages I to III esophageal cancer between 2003 and 2011 in the National Cancer Data Base were investigated using the Kaplan-Meier method and proportional hazards analyses. Median income by zip code and proportion of the zip code residents without a high school diploma were grouped into income and education quartiles, respectively and used as surrogates for SES. The association between race and overall survival stratified by SES is explored., Results: Of 11,599 esophagectomy patients who met study criteria, 3,503 (30.2%) were in the highest income quartile, 2,847 (24.5%) were in the highest education quartile, and 610 patients (5%) were black. Before adjustment for SES, black patients had worse overall survival than white patients (median survival 23.0 versus 34.7 months, log rank p < 0.001), and overall, survival times improved with increasing income and education (p < 0.001 for both). After adjustment for putative prognostic factors, SES was associated with overall survival, whereas race was not., Conclusions: Prior studies have suggested that survival of esophageal cancer patients after esophagectomy is associated with race. Our study suggests that race is not significantly related to overall survival when adjusted for other prognostic variables. Socioeconomic status, however, remains significantly related to overall survival in our model., (Copyright © 2017 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: An association between volume and outcomes has been observed for esophagectomy, though little is known about why or how patients choose low- or high-volume centers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how travel burden and hospital volume influence treatment and outcomes of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer., Methods: Predictors of receiving esophagectomy for patients with T1-3N1M0 mid or distal esophageal cancer in the National Cancer Data Base from 2006 to 2011 were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Survival was compared using propensity score-matched groups: patients in the bottom quartile of travel distance who underwent treatment at low-volume facilities (Local) and patients in the top quartile of travel distance who underwent treatment at high-volume facilities (Travel)., Results: Of 4979 patients who met inclusion criteria, we identified 867 Local patients who traveled 2.7 [interquartile range (IQR): 1.6-4 miles] miles to centers that treated 2.6 (IQR: 1.9-3.3) esophageal cancers per year, and 317 Travel patients who traveled 107.1 (IQR: 65-247) miles to centers treating 31.9 (IQR: 30.9-38.5) cases. Travel patients were more likely to undergo esophagectomy (67.8% vs 42.9%, P < 0.001) and had significantly better 5-year survival (39.8% vs 20.6%, P < 0.001) than Local patients., Conclusions: Patients who travel longer distances to high-volume centers have significantly different treatment and better outcomes than patients who stay close to home at low-volume centers. Strategies that support patient travel for treatment at high-volume centers may improve esophageal cancer outcomes., Competing Interests: The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Survival of esophageal cancer generally is poor but has been improving. Induction chemoradiation is recommended before esophagectomy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma. Both induction chemotherapy and induction chemoradiation are found to be beneficial for locally advanced adenocarcinoma. Although a clear advantage of either strategy has not yet been demonstrated, consensus-based guidelines recommend induction chemoradiation for locally advanced adenocarcinoma., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy using population-level data., Methods: Multivariable regression modeling was used to determine predictors associated with the use of minimally invasive approaches for patients in the National Cancer Data Base who underwent resection of middle and distal clinical T13N03M0 esophageal cancers from 2010 to 2012. Perioperative outcomes and 3-year survival were compared between propensity-matched groups of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) or open esophagectomy (OE). A subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of using robotic-assisted operations as part of the minimally invasive approach., Results: Among 4,266 patients included, 1,308 (30.6%) underwent MIE. It was more likely to be used in patients treated at academic (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 10.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2-33.1) or comprehensive cancer facilities (adjusted OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 2.6-21.1). Compared with propensity-matched patients who underwent OE, patients who underwent MIE had significantly more lymph nodes examined (15 versus 13; p = 0.016) and shorter hospital lengths of stay (10 days versus 11 days; p = 0.046) but similar resection margin positivity, readmission, and 30-day mortality (all p > 0.05). Survival was similar between the matched groups at 3 years for both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (p > 0.05). Compared with MIE without robotic assistance, use of a robotic approach was not associated with any significant differences in perioperative outcomes (p > 0.05)., Conclusions: The use of minimally invasive techniques to perform esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is associated with modestly improved perioperative outcomes without compromising survival., (Copyright © 2016 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multimodality treatment that includes esophagogastrectomy may represent the best option for curing accurately staged patients with esophageal cancer. We analyzed the impact of incomplete resection on outcomes after esophagogastrectomy for esophageal cancer., Methods: The incidence of positive margins for patients who underwent esophagogastrectomy without induction therapy for pathologic T1-3N0-1M0 esophageal cancer of the mid and lower esophagus from 2003 to 2006 in the National Cancer Database was analyzed with multivariate logistic regression. The impact of positive margins on survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analysis., Results: Positive margins occurred in 342 of 3,125 patients (10.9%) who met study criteria. Increasing clinical T status was an independent predictor of positive margins in multivariate analysis, but the chance of positive margins decreased with larger facility case volumes. The presence of clinical nodal disease was not predictive of an incomplete resection. The 5-year survival of patients with positive margins (13.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.5% to 18.1%) was significantly worse than that for patients with negative margins (46.3%, 95% CI: 44.4% to 48.3%, p < 0.001). Both microscopic residual disease (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.60, p < 0.001) and gross residual disease (hazard ratio 1.98, 95% CI: 1.62 to 2.42, p < 0.001) predicted worse survival in multivariate analysis of the entire cohort. Receiving adjuvant chemoradiation therapy slightly improved 5-year survival of patients with positive margins (16.9%, 95% CI: 11.3% to 23.6%, versus 13.5%, 95% CI: 9% to 20.3%, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Positive margins are associated with poor survival, and adjuvant therapy only marginally improved prognosis. Future studies are needed to better evaluate whether induction therapy can lower the incidence of positive margins., (Copyright © 2016 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We examined survival of patients who underwent esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer with foci that were suspicious for metastatic disease on initial imaging but whose disease did not progress after induction chemoradiation treatment (CRT)., Methods: The impact of pre- and posttherapy staging characteristics on survival of patients who underwent esophagectomy after CRT between 2003 and 2009 was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Survival of patients with and without possible metastatic disease on initial imaging was compared with the log-rank test., Results: During the study period, 71 (32%) of 220 patients who underwent CRT followed by esophagectomy had possible distant metastatic disease on initial imaging. Patients with initial suspicion of metastases had a 5-year survival of 24.8%. Overall survival of patients with and without possible metastatic disease on initial imaging was not significantly different (p = 0.4), but pretreatment positron emission tomography (PET) suggesting a liver lesion (hazard ratio [HR] 3.2, p = 0.003) predicted worse survival. Additional predictors of worse survival were clinical T4 status (HR 3.1, p = 0.001), post-CRT pathologic nodal status (HR 1.6, p = 0.04), and pathologically confirmed metastatic disease at or before resection (HR 3.1, p = 0.01). None of 10 patients with pathologic metastatic disease at resection lived longer than 2.5 years., Conclusions: Patients with possible liver metastases on pretreatment PET and patients with confirmed metastatic disease at the time of surgery do not benefit from resection. However, patients with pretreatment imaging that shows possible metastatic disease in sites other than the liver still have reasonable long-term survival after resection.

Background: This study investigated adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) use after esophagectomy without induction therapy for node-positive (pN+) adenocarcinoma using the National Cancer Database, including the impact of complications related to surgery (CRS) on outcomes., Methods: Predictors of AC use in 1694 patients in the National Cancer Data Base who underwent R0 esophagectomy from 2003-2011 without induction therapy for pN+ adenocarcinoma of the middle or lower esophagus and survived more than 30 days were identified with multivariable logistic regression. The impact of AC on survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox-proportional hazards methods., Results: AC was given to 874 of 1694 (51.6%) patients; 618 (70.7%) AC patients received radiation. Older age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.58/decade, p < 0.001), longer travel distance (AOR 0.78 per 100 miles, p = 0.03) and CRS (AOR 0.45, p < 0.001) predicted that AC was not used. Patients given AC had better 5-year survival than patients not given AC (24.2% versus 14.9%, p < 0.001), and AC use predicted improved survival in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 0.67, p = 0.008). Receiving radiation in addition to AC did not improve survival (p = 0.35). Although CRS was associated with worse survival, patients who had CRS but received AC had superior survival compared to patients who did not have CRS or get AC (p = 0.016)., Conclusions: AC after esophagectomy is associated with improved survival but was only used in half of patients with pN+ esophageal adenocarcinoma. We also found that the addition of radiation to AC was not associated with a survival benefit. CRS predict worse long-term survival and lower the chance of getting AC, but even patients with CRS had improved survival when given AC.

Background: Analyses of adequacy of lymph node dissection during resection of esophageal cancer are based on patients who have not undergone induction chemoradiotherapy. We sought to determine the minimum number of dissected lymph nodes necessary to ensure adequate staging after induction chemoradiotherapy., Methods: A prospectively maintained thoracic surgery database was queried to identify consecutive patients undergoing postinduction esophagectomy from 1996 to 2010. Cox proportional hazard and recursive partitioning survival analyses were performed., Results: Complete lymph node data were available for 395 patients. Mean age was 59.5 years, and 64 patients (16%) were female. The median number of dissected lymph nodes was 8 (range, 0 to 63). When pathologic (p)T stage, pN stage, and the number of dissected lymph nodes were used as predictors, only pN stage (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 1.7) and age (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.04) independently predicted survival. Recursive partitioning was performed on 262 pN0 patients using T stage and the number of dissected lymph nodes as predictors. No pN0 patient with 28 lymph nodes dissected died during follow-up. For patients with fewer than 28 lymph nodes dissected, the next prognostic factor was T stage. For pT1-2 N0 patients, the number of lymph nodes dissected did not affect survival. For pT3-4 N0 patients, a significant survival decrement was noted for patients with fewer than 7 lymph nodes dissected compared with those with more than 7 lymph nodes dissected., Conclusions: T stage determines prognosis in postinduction pN0 patients with fewer than 28 lymph nodes evaluated. Postinduction pT3N0 patients with fewer than 7 lymph nodes evaluated are understaged., (Copyright © 2015 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This study compared survival after initial treatment with esophagectomy as primary therapy to induction therapy followed by esophagectomy for patients with clinical T2N0 (cT2N0) esophageal cancer in the National Cancer Database (NCDB)., Methods: Predictors of therapy selection for patients with cT2N0 esophageal cancer in the NCDB from 1998 to 2011 were identified with multivariable logistic regression. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods., Results: Surgery was used in 42.9% (2057 of 4799) of cT2N0 patients. Of 1599 esophagectomy patients for whom treatment timing was recorded, induction therapy was used in 44.1% (688). Pretreatment staging was proven accurate in only 26.7% of patients (210 of 786) who underwent initial surgery without induction treatment and had complete pathologic data available: 41.6% (n = 327) were upstaged and 31.7% (n = 249) were downstaged. Adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy or radiation therapy) was given to 50.2% of patients treated initially with surgery who were found after resection to have nodal disease. There was no significant difference in long-term survival between strategies of primary surgery and induction therapy followed by surgery (median 41.1 versus 41.9 months, p = 0.51). In multivariable analysis, induction therapy was not independently associated with risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16, p = 0.32)., Conclusions: Current clinical staging for early-stage esophageal cancer is highly inaccurate, with only a quarter of surgically resected cT2N0 patients found to have had accurate pretreatment staging. Induction therapy for patients with cT2N0 esophageal cancer in the NCDB is not associated with improved survival.

Background: To investigate the role of nonsurgical treatment for early-stage esophageal cancer, we compared the outcomes of local therapy to esophagectomy, using a large, national database., Methods: Five-year cancer-specific and overall survival (OS) of patients, with T1N0M0 squamous cell or adenocarcinoma of the mid or distal esophagus treated with either surgery or local therapy, with ablative and/or excision techniques, in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results cancer registry from 1998 to 2008, were compared using the Kaplan-Meier approach, and multivariable and propensity-score adjusted Cox proportional hazard, and competing risk models., Results: Of 1458 patients with T1N0 esophageal cancer, 1204 (83%) had surgery and 254 (17%) had local therapy only. The use of local therapy increased significantly from 8.1% in 1998 to 24.1% in 2008 (p < 0.001). The 5-year OS after local excisional therapy and surgery was not significantly different (55.5% versus 64.1% respectively, p = 0.07), and 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) also did not differ (81.7% versus 75.8%, p = 0.10). However, after propensity-score adjustment, CSS was better for patients who underwent local therapy compared with those who underwent surgery (hazard ratio: 0.46, 95% confidence interval: 0.27-0.77, p = 0.003), whereas OS remained similar., Conclusion: The use of local therapy for T1N0 esophageal cancers increased significantly from 1998 to 2008. Compared with those treated with esophagectomy, patients treated with local therapy had similar OS but improved CSS, indicating a higher chance of dying from other causes. Further studies are needed to confirm the oncologic efficacy of local therapy when used in patients whose lifespans are not limited by conditions other than esophageal cancer.

Background: The prognosis of even early-stage esophageal cancer is poor. Because there is not a consensus on how to manage T2 N0 disease, we examined survival after resection of T2 N0 esophageal cancer, with or without radiation therapy., Methods: Patients who underwent resection for T2 N0 squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the mid or distal esophagus, with or without radiation therapy, were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results cancer registry from 1998 to 2008. The 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) after resection alone and combined resection with radiation therapy were compared using the Kaplan-Meier approach, risk-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models, and competing risk models., Results: The 5-year OS of 490 T2 N0 patients was 40.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35.2% to 45.4%). Surgical resection alone was used in 267 patients (54%) and combined therapy in 223 (46%). The 5-year OS was 38.6% (95% CI, 31.7% to 45.5%) in patients undergoing resection only and 42.3% (95% CI, 34.7% to 49.6%) for combined therapy (p = 0.48). No difference in OS was found, even after risk adjustment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.48; p = 0.35). However, in landmark studies with left truncation for 3 and 6 months, resection only showed better OS than combined therapy (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.75; p = 0.04 vs HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.83; p = 0.04, respectively). No such difference for CSS was detected, even for the landmark study after 6 months (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.39, p = 0.09)., Conclusions: Combining radiation therapy with esophagectomy did not result in improved outcomes compared with esophagectomy alone for patients with T2 N0 esophageal cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database., (Copyright © 2013 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We examined survival associated with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell cancer (SCC) to evaluate if treatment without surgery could be considered adequate., Study Design: Patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Registry (SEER) registry with stage II-III SCC of the mid or distal esophagus from 1998-2008 were grouped by treatment with definitive radiation versus esophagectomy with or without radiation. Information on chemotherapy is not recorded in SEER. Tumor stage was defined as first clinical tumor stage in case of neo-adjuvant therapy and pathological report if no neo-adjuvant therapy was performed. Cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier approach and propensity-score adjusted Cox proportional hazard models., Results: Of the 2,431 patients analyzed, there were 844 stage IIA (34.7%), 428 stage IIB (17.6%), 1,159 stage III (47.7%) patients. Most were treated with definitive radiation (n = 1,426, 58.7%). Of the 1,005 (41.3%) patients who underwent surgery, 369 (36.7%) had preoperative radiation, 160 (15.9%) had postoperative radiation, and 476 (47.4%) had no radiation. Five-year survival was 17.9% for all patients, and 22.1%, 18.5%, and 14.5% for stages IIA, IIB, and stage III, respectively. Compared to treatment that included surgery, definitive radiation alone predicted worse propensity-score adjusted survival for all patients (CSS Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.48, p < 0.001; OS HR 1.46, p < 0.001) and for stage IIA, IIB, and III patients individually (all p values ≤ 0.01). Compared to surgery alone, surgery with radiation predicted improved survival for stage III patients (CSS HR 0.62, p = 0.001, OS HR 0.62, p < 0.001) but not stage IIA or IIB (all p values > 0.18)., Conclusions: Esophagectomy is associated with improved survival for patients with locally advanced SCC and should be considered as an integral component of the treatment algorithm if feasible., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)