51
|
Feenstra ML, Alkemade L, van den Bergh JE, Gisbertz SS, Daams F, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Eshuis WJ. ASO Visual Abstract: Contrast-Enhanced Radiologic Evaluation of Gastric Conduit Emptying after Esophagectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30:571-572. [PMID: 36210398 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-12639-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Minke L Feenstra
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lily Alkemade
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Janneke E van den Bergh
- Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Freek Daams
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Wietse J Eshuis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
52
|
Henckens SPG, Hagens ERC, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Meijer SL, Eshuis WJ, Gisbertz SS. Impact of increasing lymph node yield on staging, morbidity and survival after esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2023; 49:89-96. [PMID: 35933270 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.07.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2022] [Revised: 06/27/2022] [Accepted: 07/11/2022] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Extended lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy for esophageal cancer may increase survival, but also increase morbidity. This study analyses the influence of lymph node yield after transthoracic esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma on the number of positive lymph nodes, pathological N-stage, complications and survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS Consecutive patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2020 were prospectively recorded (follow-up until January 2022). Lymph node yield was analyzed as continuous and dichotomous variable (≤30 vs. ≥31 nodes). The effect of lymph node yield on number of positive lymph nodes, complications, disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed in multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS 585 patients were included. Median lymph node yield increased from 25 (IQR 20-34) in 2010 to 39 (IQR 32-50) in 2020. Higher lymph node yield was associated with more positive lymph nodes (≥31 vs. ≤30 IRR 1.39, 95%CI 1.11-1.75). In 258 (y)pN + patients, the percentage of (y)pN3-stage increased with 14% between patients with ≤30 and ≥ 31 lymph nodes examined (p 0.014). Higher lymph node yield was not associated with more complications. Superior survival was seen in patients with ≥31 vs. ≤30 lymph nodes examined [DFS: HR 0.73, 95%CI 0.58-0.93, OS: HR 0.71, 95%CI 0.55-0.93)]. CONCLUSIONS A lymph node yield of 31 or higher was associated with upstaging and superior survival after esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma, without increasing morbidity. Extended lymphadenectomy may therefore be regarded as an important part of the multimodal treatment of esophageal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sofie P G Henckens
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Eliza R C Hagens
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sybren L Meijer
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Pathology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Wietse J Eshuis
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
53
|
Feenstra ML, Alkemade L, van den Bergh JE, Gisbertz SS, Daams F, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Eshuis WJ. Contrast-Enhanced Radiologic Evaluation of Gastric Conduit Emptying After Esophagectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30:563-570. [PMID: 36210402 PMCID: PMC9726779 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-12596-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2022] [Accepted: 08/22/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion is the standard of care in many hospitals after esophagectomy for gastric conduit decompression. An upper gastrointestinal contrast passage evaluation (UGI-CE) is a diagnostic test to evaluate passage through the gastric conduit. The authors hypothesized that introducing routine UGI-CE after esophagectomy results in earlier removal of the NGT and resumption of oral intake. METHODS This retrospective study evaluated two consecutive series of patients undergoing esophagectomy, one before (control group) and one after the introduction of a routine UGI-CE on postoperative day (POD) 3 or 4 (UGI-CE group). If contrast passage was found on the UGI-CE, the NGT was capped and removed. In the control group, the NGT was routinely capped and removed on day 5 after surgery. The primary outcome was the POD on which oral diet was initiated. The secondary outcomes were the day of NGT removal, NGT reinsertions, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS Each cohort included 74 patients. In the UGI-CE group, the contrast test was performed on median POD 3.5 (IQR, 3-4). The median day of NGT removal, initiation of clear liquids, and full liquid and solid intake was 1 to 2 days earlier in the UGI-CE group than in the control group (i.e. POD 4, 4, 5, and 6 vs. POD 5, 5, 6.5, and 8; all p < 0.001). The study found no significant differences in NGT reinsertions, pneumonias, anastomotic leakages, or hospital stay. CONCLUSION The routine use of a UGI-CE after esophagectomy led to earlier removal of the NGT and earlier resumption of oral intake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Minke L. Feenstra
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lily Alkemade
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Janneke E. van den Bergh
- Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S. Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Freek Daams
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mark I. van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Wietse J. Eshuis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
54
|
Ubels S, Lubbers M, Verstegen MHP, Bouwense SAW, van Daele E, Ferri L, Gisbertz SS, Griffiths EA, Grimminger P, Hanna G, Hubka M, Law S, Low D, Luyer M, Merritt RE, Morse C, Mueller CL, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, Nilsson M, Reynolds JV, Ribeiro U, Rosati R, Shen Y, Wijnhoven BPL, Klarenbeek BR, van Workum F, Rosman C. Treatment of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: insights of an international case vignette survey and expert discussions. Dis Esophagus 2022; 35:6566833. [PMID: 35411928 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doac020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2021] [Revised: 03/11/2022] [Accepted: 02/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Anastomotic leak (AL) is a severe complication after esophagectomy. Clinical presentation of AL is diverse and there is large practice variation regarding treatment of AL. This study aimed to explore different AL treatment strategies and their underlying rationale. This mixed-methods study consisted of an international survey among upper gastro-intestinal (GI) surgeons and focus groups with expert upper GI surgeons. The survey included 10 case vignettes and data sources were integrated after separate analysis. The survey was completed by 188 respondents (completion rate 69%) and 6 focus groups were conducted with 20 international experts. Prevention of mortality was the most important goal of primary treatment. Goals of secondary treatment were to promote tissue healing, return to oral feeding and safe hospital discharge. There was substantial variation in the preferred treatment principles (e.g. drainage or defect closure) and modalities (e.g. stent or endoVAC) within different presentations of AL. Patients with local symptoms were treated by supportive means only or by non-surgical drainage and/or defect closure. Drainage was routinely performed in patients with intrathoracic collections and often combined with defect closure. Patients with conduit necrosis were predominantly treated by resection and reconstruction of the anastomosis or by esophageal diversion. This mixed-methods study shows that overall treatment strategies for AL are determined by vitality of the conduit and presence of intrathoracic collections. There is large variation in preferred treatment principles and modalities. Future research may investigate optimal treatment for specific AL presentations and aim to develop consensus-based treatment guidelines for AL after esophagectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sander Ubels
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Merel Lubbers
- Department of Surgery, ZGT Hospital Group Twente, Almelo, The Netherlands
| | - Moniek H P Verstegen
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Stefan A W Bouwense
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Elke van Daele
- Department of Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Lorenzo Ferri
- Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ewen A Griffiths
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - Peter Grimminger
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - George Hanna
- Department of Surgery, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - Michal Hubka
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, SE USA
| | - Simon Law
- Department of Surgery, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China
| | - Donald Low
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, SE USA
| | - Misha Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Robert E Merritt
- Department of Surgery, Ohio State University - Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Christopher Morse
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Carmen L Mueller
- Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | | | - Magnus Nilsson
- Department of Surgery, Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, CLINTEC, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - John V Reynolds
- Department of Surgery, Trinity St. James's Cancer Institute, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Ulysses Ribeiro
- Department of Gastroenterology, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Riccardo Rosati
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, San Raffaele Hospital IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Yaxing Shen
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Bas P L Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bastiaan R Klarenbeek
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Frans van Workum
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Camiel Rosman
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
55
|
Zheng KH, Kroon J, Schoormans J, Gurney-Champion O, Meijer SL, Gisbertz SS, Hulshof MC, Vugts DJ, van Dongen GA, Coolen BF, Verberne HJ, Nederveen AJ, Stroes ES, van Laarhoven HW. 89Zr-Labeled High-Density Lipoprotein Nanoparticle PET Imaging Reveals Tumor Uptake in Patients with Esophageal Cancer. J Nucl Med 2022; 63:1880-1886. [PMID: 35738904 PMCID: PMC9730913 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.263330] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2021] [Revised: 04/18/2022] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Nanomedicine holds promise for the delivery of therapeutic and imaging agents to improve cancer treatment outcomes. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that high-density lipoprotein (HDL) nanoparticles accumulate in tumor tissue on intravenous administration. Whether this HDL-based nanomedicine concept is feasible in patients is unexplored. Using a multimodal imaging approach, we aimed to assess tumor uptake of exogenously administered HDL nanoparticles in patients with esophageal cancer. Methods: The HDL mimetic CER-001 was radiolabeled using 89Zr to allow for PET/CT imaging. Patients with primary esophageal cancer staged T2 and above were recruited for serial 89Zr-HDL PET/CT imaging before starting chemoradiation therapy. In addition, patients underwent routine 18F-FDG PET/CT and 3-T MRI scanning (diffusion-weighted imaging/intravoxel incoherent motion imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI) to assess tumor glucose metabolism, tumor cellularity and microcirculation perfusion, and tumor vascular permeability. Tumor biopsies were analyzed for the expression of HDL scavenger receptor class B1 and macrophage marker CD68 using immunofluorescence staining. Results: Nine patients with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma underwent all study procedures. After injection of 89Zr-HDL (39.2 ± 1.2 [mean ± SD] MBq), blood-pool SUVmean decreased over time (11.0 ± 1.7, 6.5 ± 0.6, and 3.3 ± 0.5 at 1, 24, and 72 h, respectively), whereas liver and spleen SUVmean remained relatively constant (4.1 ± 0.6, 4.0 ± 0.8, and 4.3 ± 0.8 at 1, 24, and 72 h, respectively, for the liver; 4.1 ± 0.3, 3.4 ± 0.3, and 3.1 ± 0.4 at 1, 24, and 72 h, respectively, for the spleen) and kidney SUVmean markedly increased over time (4.1 ± 0.9, 9.3 ± 1.4, and 9.6 ± 2.0 at 1, 24, and 72 h, respectively). Tumor uptake (SUVpeak) increased over time (3.5 ± 1.1 and 5.5 ± 2.1 at 1 and 24 h, respectively [P = 0.016]; 5.7 ± 1.4 at 72 h [P = 0.001]). The effective dose of 89Zr-HDL was 0.523 ± 0.040 mSv/MBq. No adverse events were observed after the administration of 89Zr-HDL. PET/CT and 3-T MRI measures of tumor glucose metabolism, tumor cellularity and microcirculation perfusion, and tumor vascular permeability did not correlate with tumor uptake of 89Zr-HDL, suggesting that a specific mechanism mediated the accumulation of 89Zr-HDL. Immunofluorescence staining of clinical biopsies demonstrated scavenger receptor class B1 and CD68 positivity in tumor tissue, establishing a potential cellular mechanism of action. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this was the first 89Zr-HDL study in human oncology. 89Zr-HDL PET/CT imaging demonstrated that intravenously administered HDL nanoparticles accumulated in tumors of patients with esophageal cancer. The administration of 89Zr-HDL was safe. These findings may support the development of HDL nanoparticles as a clinical delivery platform for drug agents. 89Zr-HDL imaging may guide drug development and serve as a biomarker for individualized therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kang H. Zheng
- Department of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jeffrey Kroon
- Department of Experimental Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jasper Schoormans
- Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Oliver Gurney-Champion
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sybren L. Meijer
- Department of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S. Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten C.C.M. Hulshof
- Department of Radiotherapy, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Danielle J. Vugts
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and
| | - Guus A.M.S. van Dongen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and
| | - Bram F. Coolen
- Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hein J. Verberne
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Aart J. Nederveen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Erik S.G. Stroes
- Department of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hanneke W.M. van Laarhoven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
56
|
de Graaff MR, Hogenbirk RNM, Janssen YF, Elfrink AKE, Liem RSL, Nienhuijs SW, de Vries JPPM, Elshof JW, Verdaasdonk E, Melenhorst J, van Westreenen HL, Besselink MGH, Ruurda JP, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Klaase JM, den Dulk M, van Heijl M, Hegeman JH, Braun J, Voeten DM, Würdemann FS, Warps ALK, Alberga AJ, Suurmeijer JA, Akpinar EO, Wolfhagen N, van den Boom AL, Bolster-van Eenennaam MJ, van Duijvendijk P, Heineman DJ, Wouters MWJM, Kruijff S, Koningswoud-Terhoeve CL, Belt E, van der Hoeven JAB, Marres GMH, Tozzi F, von Meyenfeldt EM, Coebergh RRJ, van den Braak, Huisman S, Rijken AM, Balm R, Daams F, Dickhoff C, Eshuis WJ, Gisbertz SS, Zandbergen HR, Hartemink KJ, Keessen SA, Kok NFM, Kuhlmann KFD, van Sandick JW, Veenhof AA, Wals A, van Diepen MS, Schoonderwoerd L, Stevens CT, Susa D, Bendermacher BLW, Olofsen N, van Himbeeck M, de Hingh IHJT, Janssen HJB, Luyer MDP, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, Ramaekers M, Stacie R, Talsma AK, Tissink MW, Dolmans D, Berendsen R, Heisterkamp J, Jansen WA, de Kort-van Oudheusden M, Matthijsen RM, Grünhagen DJ, Lagarde SM, Maat APWM, van der Sluis PC, Waalboer RB, Brehm V, van Brussel JP, Morak M, Ponfoort ED, Sybrandy JEM, Klemm PL, Lastdrager W, Palamba HW, van Aalten SM, Tseng LNL, van der Bogt KEA, de Jong WJ, Oosterhuis JWA, Tummers Q, van der Wilden GM, Ooms S, Pasveer EH, Veger HTC, Molegraafb MJ, Nieuwenhuijs VB, Patijn GA, van der Veldt MEV, Boersma D, van Haelst STW, van Koeverden ID, Rots ML, Bonsing BA, Michiels N, Bijlstra OD, Braun J, Broekhuis D, Brummelaar HW, Hartgrink HH, Metselaar A, Mieog JSD, Schipper IB, de Steur WO, Fioole B, Terlouw EC, Biesmans C, Bosmans JWAM, Bouwense SAW, Clermonts SHEM, Coolsen MME, Mees BME, Schurink GWH, Duijff JW, van Gent T, de Nes LCF, Toonen D, Beverwijk MJ, van den Hoed E, Keizers B, Kelder W, Keller BPJA, Pultrum BB, van Rosum E, Wijma AG, van den Broek F, Leclercq WKG, Loos MJA, Sijmons JML, Vaes RHD, Vancoillie PJ, Consten ECJ, Jongen JMJ, Verheijen PM, van Weel V, Arts CHP, Jonker J, Murrmann-Boonstra G, Pierie JPEN, Swart J, van Duyn EB, Geelkerken RH, de Groot R, Moekotte NL, Stam A, Voshaar A, van Acker GJD, Bulder RMA, Swank DJ, Pereboom ITA, Hoffmann WH, Orsini M, Blok JJ, Lardenoije JHP, Reijne MMPJ, van Schaik P, Smeets L, van Sterkenburg SMM, Harlaar NJ, Mekke S, Verhaakt T, Cancrinus E, van Lammeren GW, Molenaar IQ, van Santvoort HC, Vos AWF, Schouten- van der Velden AP, Woensdregt K, Mooy-Vermaat SP, Scharn DM, Marsman HA, Rassam F, Halfwerk FR, Andela AJ, Buis CI, van Dam GM, ten Duis K, van Etten B, Lases L, Meerdink M, de Meijer VE, Pranger B, Ruiter S, Rurenga M, Wiersma A, Wijsmuller AR, Albers KI, van den Boezem PB, Klarenbeek B, van der Kolk BM, van Laarhoven CJHM, Matthée E, Peters N, Rosman C, Schroen AMA, Stommel MWJ, Verhagen AFTM, van der Vijver R, Warlé MC, de Wilt JHW, van den Berg JW, Bloemert T, de Borst GJ, van Hattum EH, Hazenberg CEVB, van Herwaarden JA, van Hillegerberg R, Kroese TE, Petri BJ, Toorop RJ, Aarts F, Janssen RJL, Janssen-Maessen SHP, Kool M, Verberght H, Moes DE, Smit JW, Wiersema AM, Vierhout BP, de Vos B, den Boer FC, Dekker NAM, Botman JMJ, van Det MJ, Folbert EC, de Jong E, Koenen JC, Kouwenhoven EA, Masselink I, Navis LH, Belgers HJ, Sosef MN, Stoot JHMB. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical care in the Netherlands. Br J Surg 2022; 109:1282-1292. [PMID: 36811624 PMCID: PMC10364688 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znac301] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2022] [Revised: 05/14/2022] [Accepted: 07/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands. METHODS A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018-2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates. RESULTS Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018-2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle R de Graaff
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.,Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Gelre Ziekenhuizen, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands
| | - Rianne N M Hogenbirk
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Yester F Janssen
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Arthur K E Elfrink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ronald S L Liem
- Department of Surgery, Dutch Obesity Clinic, Gouda, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Groene Hart Hospital, Gouda, the Netherlands
| | - Simon W Nienhuijs
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | | | - Jan-Willem Elshof
- Department of Surgery, VieCuri Medical Centre, Venlo, the Netherlands
| | - Emiel Verdaasdonk
- Department of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands
| | - Jarno Melenhorst
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Marc G H Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jelle P Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Joost M Klaase
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Marcel den Dulk
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Mark van Heijl
- Department of Surgery, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Johannes H Hegeman
- Department of Surgery, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente Almelo-Hengelo, Almelo, Hengelo, the Netherlands
| | - Jerry Braun
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Daan M Voeten
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Franka S Würdemann
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Anne-Loes K Warps
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Anna J Alberga
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Vascular Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - J Annelie Suurmeijer
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Erman O Akpinar
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Nienke Wolfhagen
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | - David J Heineman
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Michel W J M Wouters
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Schelto Kruijff
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
57
|
Joosten JJ, Gisbertz SS, Heineman DJ, Daams F, Eshuis WJ, van Berge Henegouwen MI. The role of fluorescence angiography in colonic interposition after esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 2022; 36:6779887. [PMID: 36309805 PMCID: PMC10150173 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doac076] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2022] [Revised: 09/08/2022] [Accepted: 09/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Colonic interposition is an alternative for gastric conduit reconstruction after esophagectomy. Anastomotic leakage (AL) occurs in 15-25% of patients and may be attributed to reduced blood supply after vascular ligation. Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) can visualize tissue perfusion. We aimed to give an overview of the first experiences of ICG-FA and AL rate in colonic interposition. This study included all consecutive patients who underwent a colonic interposition between January 2015 and December 2021 at a tertiary referral center. Surgery was performed for the following indications: inability to use the stomach because of previous surgery or extensive tumour involvement, cancer recurrence in the gastric conduit, or because of complications after initial esophagectomy. Since 2018 ICG-FA was performed before anastomotic reconstruction by administration of ICG injection (0.1 mg/kg/bolus), using the Spy-phi (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI). Twenty-eight patients (9 female, mean age 62.8), underwent colonic interposition of whom 15 (54%) underwent ICG-FA-guided surgery. Within the ICG-FA group, three (20%) AL occurred, whereas in the non-ICG-FA group, three AL and one graft necrosis (31%) occurred (P=0.67). There was a change of management due to the FA assessment in three patients in the FA group (20%) which led to the choice of a different bowel segment for the anastomosis. Mean operative times in the ICG-FA and non-ICG-FA groups were 372±99 and 399±113 minutes, respectively (P=0.85). ICG-FA is a safe, easy and feasible technique to assess perfusion of colonic interpositions. ICG-FA is of added value leading to a change in management in a considerable percentage of patients. Its role in prevention of AL remains to be elucidated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J J Joosten
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - D J Heineman
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - F Daams
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - W J Eshuis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
58
|
Schuring N, Markar SR, Hagens ERC, Jezerskyte E, Sprangers MAG, Lagergren P, Johar A, Gisbertz SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Health-related quality of life following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus perioperative chemotherapy and esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a European multicenter study. Dis Esophagus 2022; 36:6761045. [PMID: 36241253 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doac069] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2022] [Revised: 09/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Curative treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer consists of (neo)adjuvant treatment followed by esophagectomy. Both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and perioperative chemotherapy improve the 5-year overall survival rate compared with surgery alone. However, it is unknown whether these treatment strategies are associated with differences in long-term health-related quality of life (HRQL). The aim of this study is to compare long-term HRQL in patients after esophagectomy treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy. Disease-free cancer patients having undergone esophagectomy and (neo)adjuvant treatment in one of the participating lasting symptoms after esophageal resection (LASER) study centers between 2010 and 2016, were identified from the LASER study dataset. Included patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ-OG25, and LASER questionnaires at least 1 year after the completion of treatment. Long-term HRQL was compared between patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy, using univariable and multivariable regression and presented as differences in mean score. Among the 565 included patients, 349 (61.8%) received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and 216 (38.2%) perioperative chemotherapy. Patients treated with perioperative chemotherapy reported more symptomatology for diarrhea (difference in means 5.93), reflux (difference in means 7.40), and odynophagia (difference in means 4.66). The differences did not exceed the 10 points to be of clinical relevance. No significant differences for the LASER key symptoms were observed. The observed differences in long-term HRQL are in favor of patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared with patients treated with perioperative chemotherapy; however, the differences were small. Patients need to be informed about long-term HRQL when considering allocation of (neo)adjuvant treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N Schuring
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S R Markar
- Nuffield Department of Surgery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,Department of Molecular Medicine & Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - E R C Hagens
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E Jezerskyte
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M A G Sprangers
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - P Lagergren
- Department of Molecular Medicine & Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - A Johar
- Department of Molecular Medicine & Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
59
|
Li S, Hoefnagel SJM, Read M, Meijer S, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS, Bonora E, Liu DSH, Phillips WA, Calpe S, Correia ACP, Sancho-Serra MDC, Mattioli S, Krishnadath KK. Selective targeting BMP2 and 4 in SMAD4 negative esophageal adenocarcinoma inhibits tumor growth and aggressiveness in preclinical models. Cell Oncol 2022; 45:639-658. [PMID: 35902550 PMCID: PMC9333053 DOI: 10.1007/s13402-022-00689-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Abnormalities within the Sonic Hedgehog (SHH), Bone Morphogenetic Protein (BMP) and SMAD4 signalling pathways have been associated with the malignant behavior of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We recently developed two specific llama-derived antibodies (VHHs), C4C4 and C8C8, which target BMP4 and BMP2/4, respectively. Here we aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of the VHHs for the treatment of EAC and to elucidate its underlying mechanism. Methods Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) was performed on a TCGA dataset, while expression of SHH, BMP2/4 and SMAD4 was validated in a cohort of EAC patients. The effects of the VHHs were tested on the recently established SMAD4(-) ISO76A primary EAC cell line and its counterpart SMAD4(+) ISO76A. In a patient-derived xenograft (PDX) model, the VHHs were evaluated for their ability to selectively target tumor cells and for their effects on tumor growth and survival. Results High expression of BMP2/4 was detected in all SMAD4 negative EACs. SHH upregulated BMP2/4 expression and induced p38 MAPK signaling in the SMAD4(-) ISO76A cells. Inhibition of BMP2/4 by VHHs decreased the aggressive and chemo-resistant phenotype of the SMAD4(-) ISO76A but not of the SMAD4(+) ISO76A cells. In the PDX model, in vivo imaging indicated that VHHs effectively targeted tumor cells. Both VHHs significantly inhibited tumor growth and acted synergistically with cisplatin. Furthermore, we found that C8C8 significantly improved survival of the mice. Conclusions Our data indicate that increased BMP2/4 expression triggers aggressive non-canonical BMP signaling in SMAD4 negative EAC. Inhibiting BMP2/4 decreases malignant behavior and improves survival. Therefore, VHHs directed against BMP2/4 hold promise for the treatment of SMAD4 negative EAC. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13402-022-00689-2.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shulin Li
- Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sanne J M Hoefnagel
- Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Matthew Read
- Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.,Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Sybren Meijer
- Department of Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Elena Bonora
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, U.O. Genetica Medica, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - David S H Liu
- Upper Gatrointestinal Unit, Department of Surgery, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.,Division of Cancer Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Wayne A Phillips
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.,Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| | - Silvia Calpe
- Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ana C P Correia
- Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Maria D C Sancho-Serra
- Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sandro Mattioli
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, U.O. Genetica Medica, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.,Division of Thoracic Surgery, Maria Cecilia Hospital, GVM Care & Research Group, Cotignola, 48022, Ravenna, Italy
| | - Kausilia K Krishnadath
- Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. .,Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. .,Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. .,Laboratory of Experimental Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
| | | |
Collapse
|
60
|
Slaman AE, Eshuis WJ, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS. Improved anastomotic leakage rates after the "flap and wrap" reconstruction in Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for cancer. Dis Esophagus 2022; 36:6611911. [PMID: 35724430 PMCID: PMC9817821 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doac036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2022] [Revised: 04/29/2022] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
Anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy has serious consequences. In Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, a shorter and possibly better vascularized gastric conduit is created than in McKeown esophagectomy. Intrathoracic anastomoses can additionally be wrapped in omentum and concealed behind the pleura ("flap and wrap" reconstruction). Aims of this observational study were to assess the anastomotic leakage incidence after transhiatal esophagectomy (THE), McKeown esophagectomy (McKeown), Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (IL) without "flap and wrap" reconstruction, and IL with "flap and wrap" reconstruction. Consecutive patients undergoing esophagectomy at a tertiary referral center between January 2013 and April 2019 were included. Primary outcome was the anastomotic leakage rate. Secondary outcomes were postoperative outcomes, mortality, and 3-year overall survival. A total of 463 patients were included. The anastomotic leakage incidence after THE (n = 37), McKeown (n = 97), IL without "flap and wrap" reconstruction (n = 39), and IL with "flap and wrap" reconstruction (n = 290) were 24.3, 32.0, 28.2, and 7.2% (P < 0.001). THE and IL with "flap and wrap" reconstruction required fewer reoperations for anastomotic leakage (0 and 1.4%) than McKeown and IL without "flap and wrap" reconstruction (6.2 and 17.9%, P < 0.001). Fewer anastomotic leakages are observed after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with "flap and wrap" reconstruction compared to transhiatal, McKeown and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy without "flap and wrap" reconstruction. The "flap and wrap" reconstruction seems a promising technique to further reduce anastomotic leakages and its severity in esophageal cancer patients who have an indication for Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annelijn E Slaman
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Wietse J Eshuis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Address correspondence to: Dr S.S. Gisbertz, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, AZ 1105, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
61
|
Fabbi M, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Fumagalli Romario U, Gandini S, Feenstra M, De Pascale S, Gisbertz SS. End-to-side circular stapled versus side-to-side linear stapled intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis following minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: comparison of short-term outcomes. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2022; 407:2681-2692. [PMID: 35639136 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-022-02567-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2022] [Accepted: 05/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The search for the optimal procedure for creation of a safe gastroesophageal intrathoracic anastomosis with a lower risk of leakage in totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (TMIIL) is ongoing. In the present study, we compared the outcomes of end-to-side (with circular stapler [CS]) and side-to-side (with linear stapler [LS]) techniques for intrathoracic anastomosis during TMIIL performed in 2 European high-volume centers for upper gastrointestinal surgery. A propensity score method was used to compare the CS and LS groups. METHODS We retrospectively evaluated patients with lower esophageal cancer or Siewert type 1 or 2 esophagogastric junction carcinoma who underwent a planned TMIIL esophagectomy, performed from January 2017 to September 2020. The anastomosis was created by a semi-mechanical technique using a LS in one center and by a mechanical technique using a CS in the other center. General features, operative techniques, pathology data, and short-term outcomes were analyzed. Statistical evaluations were performed on the whole cohort, stratifying the analyses by risk strata factors identified with the propensity scores, and on a subgroup of patients matched by propensity score. The primary endpoint of the study was the rate of anastomotic leakage in the two groups. Secondary endpoints included rates of anastomotic stricture and overall postoperative complications. RESULTS Considering the whole population, 256 patients were included; of those, 220 received the anastomosis with a circular stapler (CS group), and 36 received the anastomosis with a linear stapler (LS group). No significant differences by group in terms of sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, and type of neoplasm were showed. The rate of anastomotic leakage did not differ in the two groups (9.6% CS vs. 5.6% LS, p = 0.438), as well as the rate of anastomotic stricture in the 3-month follow-up (0.9% CS vs. 2.8% LS, p = 0.367). The rate of chyle leakage and of pulmonary, cardiac, and infective complications was not significantly different in the groups. After propensity score matching, 72 patients were included in the analysis. The 2 obtained propensity score matched groups did not differ for any of the clinical and pathologic variables considered for the analysis, resulting in well-balanced cohorts. The results obtained on the whole population were confirmed in the matched groups. CONCLUSIONS The results of our study suggest that both techniques for esophagogastric anastomosis during TMIIL are feasible, safe, and effective, with comparable rates of postoperative anastomotic leakage and stricture.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manrica Fabbi
- Department of Digestive Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IRCCS), Milan, Italy.
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - Sara Gandini
- Department of Experimental Oncology, European Institute of Oncology (IRCCS), Milan, Italy
| | - Minke Feenstra
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Stefano De Pascale
- Department of Digestive Surgery, European Institute of Oncology (IRCCS), Milan, Italy
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
62
|
Slaman AE, Pirozzolo G, Eshuis WJ, Bergman JJGHM, Hulshof MCCM, van Laarhoven HWM, Meijer SL, Gisbertz SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Improved clinical and survival outcomes after esophagectomy for cancer over 25 years. Ann Thorac Surg 2022; 114:1118-1126. [PMID: 35421354 DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.02.085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2021] [Revised: 01/12/2022] [Accepted: 02/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/01/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In recent decades, there have been major developments in the curative treatment of esophageal cancer, such as the implementation of PET/CT, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, minimally invasive surgery and postoperative care programs. This observational study examined clinical and survival outcomes after esophagectomy for cancer over 25 years. METHODS Consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer at a tertiary referral center between 1993 and 2018 were selected from a prospectively maintained database. Patients were assigned to five periods: 1993-1997, 1998-2002, 2003-2007, 2008-2012, and 2013-2017. The primary outcome was the 5-year overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier log-rank tests for trends. RESULTS A total of 1616 patients were analyzed. The median follow-up of surviving patients was 91.0 months (IQR 62.6-127.5).The 5-year overall survival improved gradually from 32.8 to 48.2% over 25 years, P<.001. Hospital length of stay reduced from 16 days (median, IQR 14-24) in 1993-1997 to 11 days (IQR 8-18) in 2013-2017, P<.001. No decrease in mortality was encountered over 25 years, although over the last 5 years, in-hospital and 90-day mortality dropped from 4.2% and 8.3% in 2013 to 0% in 2017, P<.05. Anastomotic leakages reduced from 26.4 to 9.7% between 2013 and 2017, P<.001. CONCLUSIONS Over the last 25 years, clinical outcomes and 5-year overall survival significantly improved in patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer at this tertiary referral center.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annelijn E Slaman
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery
| | | | - Wietse J Eshuis
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery
| | - Jacques J G H M Bergman
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Gastroenterology
| | - Maarten C C M Hulshof
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Radiotherapy
| | - Hanneke W M van Laarhoven
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology
| | - Sybren L Meijer
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Pathology
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery
| | | |
Collapse
|
63
|
van der Wilk BJ, Hagens ERC, Eyck BM, Gisbertz SS, van Hillegersberg R, Nafteux P, Schröder W, Nilsson M, Wijnhoven BPL, Lagarde SM, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Outcomes after totally minimally invasive versus hybrid and open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy: results from the International Esodata Study Group. Br J Surg 2022; 109:283-290. [PMID: 35024794 PMCID: PMC10364762 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znab432] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2021] [Accepted: 11/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Large studies comparing totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIE) with laparoscopically assisted (hybrid) oesophagectomy are lacking. Although randomized trials have compared TMIE invasive with open oesophagectomy, daily clinical practice does not always resemble the results reported in such trials. The aim of the present study was to compare complications after totally minimally invasive, hybrid and open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy in patients with oesophageal cancer. METHODS The study was performed using data from the International Esodata Study Group registered between February 2015 and December 2019. The primary outcome was pneumonia, and secondary outcomes included the incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage, (major) complications, duration of hospital stay, escalation of care, and 90-day mortality. Data were analysed using multivariable multilevel models. RESULTS Some 8640 patients were included between 2015 and 2019. Patients undergoing TMIE had a lower incidence of pneumonia than those having hybrid (10.9 versus 16.3 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0.56, 95 per cent c.i. 0.40 to 0.80) or open (10.9 versus 17.4 per cent; OR 0.60, 0.42 to 0.84) oesophagectomy, and had a shorter hospital stay (median 10 (i.q.r. 8-16) days versus 14 (11-19) days (P = 0.041) and 11 (9-16) days (P = 0.027) respectively). The rate of anastomotic leakage was higher after TMIE than hybrid (15.1 versus 10.7 per cent; OR 1.47, 1.01 to 2.13) or open (15.1 versus 7.3 per cent; OR 1.73, 1.26 to 2.38) procedures. CONCLUSION Compared with hybrid and open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy, TMIE resulted in a lower pneumonia rate, a shorter duration of hospital stay, but higher anastomotic leakage rates. Therefore, no clear advantage was seen for either TMIE, hybrid or open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy when performed in daily clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Berend J van der Wilk
- Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Eliza R C Hagens
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cancer Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ben M Eyck
- Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cancer Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Philippe Nafteux
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven Cancer Institute, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Wolfgang Schröder
- Department of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Magnus Nilsson
- Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Bas P L Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sjoerd M Lagarde
- Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cancer Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
64
|
Pape M, Vissers PAJ, de Vos-Geelen J, Hulshof MCCM, Gisbertz SS, Jeene PM, van Laarhoven HWM, Verhoeven RHA. Treatment patterns and survival in advanced unresectable esophageal squamous cell cancer: a population-based study. Cancer Sci 2022; 113:1038-1046. [PMID: 34986523 PMCID: PMC8898723 DOI: 10.1111/cas.15262] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2021] [Revised: 12/18/2021] [Accepted: 12/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Data on treatment and survival of patients with advanced unresectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) from Western populations are limited. Here we describe treatment and survival in patients with advanced unresectable ESCC: patients with cT4b disease without metastases (cT4b), metastases limited to the supraclavicular lymph nodes (SCLNM) or distant metastatic ESCC at population level. All patients with unresectable (cT4b) or synchronous metastatic ESCC at primary diagnosis (2015-2018) or patients with metachronous metastases after primary non-metastatic diagnosis in 2015-2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Fifteen percent of patients had cT4b disease (n=146), 12% SCLNM (n=118) and 72% distant metastases (n=681). Median OS was 6.3, 11.2 and 4.4 months in patients with cT4b, SCLNM and distant metastases, respectively (P<0.001). Multivariable Cox regression showed that patients with cT4b (hazard ratio 1.44, 95% CI 1.04-1.99) and patients with distant metastases (hazard ratio 1.42, 95% CI 1.12-1.80) had a worse survival compared to patients with SCLNM. Among patients who received chemoradiotherapy and/or underwent resection (primary tumor and/or metastases), median OS was 11.9, 16.1 and 14.0 months in patients with cT4b, SCLNM and distant metastases, respectively (P=0.76). Patients with SCLNM had a better survival compared to patients with cT4b and patients with distant metastases. Survival of patients with advanced unresectable ESCC in clinical practice was poor, even in patients treated with curative intent.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marieke Pape
- Department of Research & Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Godebaldkwartier 419, 3511 DT, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Pauline A J Vissers
- Department of Research & Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Godebaldkwartier 419, 3511 DT, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Judith de Vos-Geelen
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht UMC+, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten C C M Hulshof
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Paul M Jeene
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Radiotherapiegroep, location Deventer, Nico, Bolkesteinlaan 85, 7416 SE, Deventer, The Netherlands
| | - Hanneke W M van Laarhoven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rob H A Verhoeven
- Department of Research & Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Godebaldkwartier 419, 3511 DT, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
65
|
Kalff MC, Wagner AD, Verhoeven RHA, Lemmens VEPP, van Laarhoven HWM, Gisbertz SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Sex differences in tumor characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of gastric and esophageal cancer surgery: nationwide cohort data from the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit. Gastric Cancer 2022; 25:22-32. [PMID: 34365540 PMCID: PMC8732809 DOI: 10.1007/s10120-021-01225-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2021] [Accepted: 07/27/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Sex differences in clinicopathological characteristics, treatment, and postoperative outcomes of gastric and esophageal cancer are largely undefined. This study aimed to compare tumor and treatment characteristics and outcomes of gastric and esophageal cancer surgery between male and female patients. METHODS Patients after elective surgery for primary esophageal (EAC) or gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) registered in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit between 2011 and 2016 were included. The primary endpoint, 5-year relative survival with relative excess risk (RER), i.e., adjusted for the normal life expectancy, was compared between male and female patients with EAC and GAC. RESULTS In total, 4937 patients were included (75% male) with a mean age of 66 years. cT and cN-stages showed a similar distribution in male and female patients. In females, antrum GAC was more frequent (47% vs. 38%, p < 0.001). Female patients with EAC less frequently received neo-adjuvant treatment (OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.38-0.96, p = 0.033). For GAC, less postoperative morbidity (33% vs. 38% p = 0.017) and less re-interventions (12% vs. 16%, p = 0.008) were observed in females, although they had inferior 5-year relative survival (49% vs. 56%, RER = 1.31, 95% CI 1.09-1.58, p = 0.004). No differences in relative survival of EAC were observed. CONCLUSIONS In addition to significant sex differences in tumor location, female patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma less frequently received neo-adjuvant therapy, and female patients with gastric adenocarcinoma had inferior relative survival. Further consideration and exploration of sex differences in surgical treatment and outcomes are necessary to improve tailored treatment and outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marianne C. Kalff
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Anna D. Wagner
- Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Rob H. A. Verhoeven
- Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, the Netherlands ,Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Valery E. P. P. Lemmens
- Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, the Netherlands ,Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S. Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mark I. van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
66
|
van der Wilk BJ, Noordman BJ, Neijenhuis LKA, Nieboer D, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, Sosef MN, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Lagarde SM, Spaander MCW, Valkema R, Biermann K, Wijnhoven BPL, van der Gaast A, van Lanschot JJB, Doukas M, Nikkessen S, Luyer M, Schoon EJ, Roef MJ, van Lijnschoten I, Oostenbrug LE, Riedl RG, Gisbertz SS, Krishnadath KK, Bennink RJ, Meijer SL. Active Surveillance Versus Immediate Surgery in Clinically Complete Responders After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer: A Multicenter Propensity Matched Study. Ann Surg 2021; 274:1009-1016. [PMID: 31592898 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000003636] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study compared outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer and clinically complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) undergoing active surveillance or immediate surgery. BACKGROUND Since nearly one-third of patients with esophageal cancer show pathologically complete response after nCRT according to CROSS regimen, the oncological benefit of immediate surgery in cCR is topic of debate. METHODS Patients with cCR based on endoscopic biopsies and endoscopic ultrasonography with fine-needle aspiration initially declining or accepting immediate surgery after nCRT were identified between 2011 and 2018. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), rate and timing of distant dissemination, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS Some 98 patients with cCR were identified: 31 in the active surveillance- and 67 in the immediate surgery group with median followup of survivors of 27.7 and 34.8 months, respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 2 comparable groups (n = 29 in both groups). Patients undergoing active surveillance or immediate surgery had a 3-year OS of 77% and 55% (HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.14-1.20, P = 0.104), respectively. The 3-year PFS was 60% and 54% (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.44-2.67, P = 0.871), respectively. Patients undergoing active surveillance or immediate surgery had a comparable distant dissemination rate (both groups 28%), radical resection rate (both groups 100%), and severity of postoperative complications (Clav- ien-Dindo grade ≥ 3: 43% vs 45%, respectively). CONCLUSION In this retrospective study, OS and PFS in patients with cCR undergoing active surveillance or immediate surgery were not significantly different. Active surveillance with postponed surgery for recurrent disease was not associated with a higher distant dissemination rate or more severe adverse postoperative outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Berend J van der Wilk
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Bo J Noordman
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Daan Nieboer
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Meindert N Sosef
- Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers-location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cancer Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sjoerd M Lagarde
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Manon C W Spaander
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Roelf Valkema
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Katharina Biermann
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Bas P L Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ate van der Gaast
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - J Jan B van Lanschot
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Michael Doukas
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Suzan Nikkessen
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Misha Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Erik J Schoon
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Mark J Roef
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | | | - Liekele E Oostenbrug
- Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Zuyder- land Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands
| | - Robert G Riedl
- Department of Pathology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers-location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cancer Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Kausilia K Krishnadath
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers - location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cancer Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Roel J Bennink
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers - location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cancer Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sybren L Meijer
- Department of Pathology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers - location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cancer Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
67
|
Bartella I, Fransen LFC, Gutschow CA, Bruns CJ, van Berge Henegouwen ML, Chaudry MA, Cheong E, Cuesta MA, Van Daele E, Gisbertz SS, van Hillegersberg R, Hölscher A, Mercer S, Moorthy K, Nafteux P, Nilsson M, Pattyn P, Piessen G, Räsanen J, Rosman C, Ruurda JP, Schneider PM, Sgromo B, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, Luyer MDP, Schröder W. Technique of open and minimally invasive intrathoracic reconstruction following esophagectomy-an expert consensus based on a modified Delphi process. Dis Esophagus 2021; 34:6102597. [PMID: 33846718 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doaa127] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2020] [Revised: 10/11/2020] [Accepted: 11/21/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In recent years, minimally invasive Ivor Lewis (IL) esophagectomy with high intrathoracic anastomosis has emerged as surgical standard of care for esophageal cancer in expert centers. Alongside this process, many divergent technical aspects of this procedure have been devised in different centers. This study aims at achieving international consensus on the surgical steps of IL reconstruction using Delphi methodology. METHODS The expert panel consisted of specialized esophageal surgeons from 8 European countries. During a two-round Delphi process, a detailed analysis and consensus on key steps of intrathoracic gastric tube reconstruction (IL esophagectomy) was performed. RESULTS Response rates in Delphi rounds 1 and 2 were 100% (22 of 22 experts) and 83.3% (20 of 24 experts), respectively. Three essential technical areas of intrathoracic gastric tube reconstruction were identified: first, vascularization of the gastric conduit, second, gastric mobilization, tube formation and pull-up, and third, anastomotic technique. In addition, 3 main techniques for minimally invasive intrathoracic anastomosis are currently practiced: (i) end-to-side circular stapled, (ii) end-to-side double stapling, and (iii) side-to-side linear stapled technique. The step-by-step procedural analysis unveiled common approaches but also different expert practice. CONCLUSION This precise technical description may serve as a clinical guideline for intrathoracic reconstruction after esophagectomy. In addition, the results may aid to harmonize the technical evolution of this complex surgical procedure and thereby facilitate surgical training.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Isabel Bartella
- Department of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Laura F C Fransen
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Christian A Gutschow
- Department of General and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Christiane J Bruns
- Department of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Mark L van Berge Henegouwen
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M Asif Chaudry
- Department of Surgery, The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK
| | - Edward Cheong
- Department of Upper GI Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
| | - Miguel A Cuesta
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Elke Van Daele
- Department of GI Surgery, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Arnulf Hölscher
- Center for Esophageal and Gastric Cancer Surgery, Markushospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Stuart Mercer
- Department of Upper GI Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK
| | - Krishna Moorthy
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, St. Mary's Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Philippe Nafteux
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Magnus Nilsson
- Department of Upper Abdominal Disease, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Piet Pattyn
- Department of GI Surgery, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Guillaume Piessen
- Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France
| | - Jari Räsanen
- Department of General Thoracic and Esophageal Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Camiel Rosman
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Jelle P Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Paul M Schneider
- Department of General and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Bruno Sgromo
- Department of Upper GI Surgery, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Misha D P Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Wolfgang Schröder
- Department of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
68
|
van Kleef JJ, Dijksterhuis WPM, van den Boorn HG, Prins M, Verhoeven RHA, Gisbertz SS, Slingerland M, Mohammad NH, Creemers GJ, Neelis KJ, Heisterkamp J, Rosman C, Ruurda JP, Kouwenhoven EA, van de Poll-Franse LV, van Oijen MGH, Sprangers MAG, van Laarhoven HWM. Prognostic value of patient-reported quality of life for survival in oesophagogastric cancer: analysis from the population-based POCOP study. Gastric Cancer 2021; 24:1203-1212. [PMID: 34251543 PMCID: PMC8502147 DOI: 10.1007/s10120-021-01209-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2021] [Accepted: 06/29/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accumulating evidence of trials demonstrates that patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at diagnosis is prognostic for overall survival (OS) in oesophagogastric cancer. However, real-world data are lacking. Moreover, differences in disease stages and tumour-specific symptoms are usually not taken into consideration. The aim of this population-based study was to assess the prognostic value of HRQoL, including tumour-specific scales, on OS in patients with potentially curable and advanced oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS Data were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the patient reported outcome registry (POCOP). Patients included in POCOP between 2016 and 2018 were stratified for potentially curable (cT1-4aNallM0) or advanced (cT4b or cM1) disease. HRQoL was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the tumour-specific OG25 module. Cox proportional hazards models assessed the impact of HRQoL, sociodemographic and clinical factors (including treatment) on OS. RESULTS In total, 924 patients were included. Median OS was 38.9 months in potentially curable patients (n = 795) and 10.6 months in patients with advanced disease (n = 129). Global Health Status was independently associated with OS in potentially curable patients (HR 0.89, 99%CI 0.82-0.97), together with several other HRQoL items: appetite loss, dysphagia, eating restrictions, odynophagia, and body image. In advanced disease, the Summary Score was the strongest independent prognostic factor (HR 0.75, 99%CI 0.59-0.94), followed by fatigue, pain, insomnia and role functioning. CONCLUSION In a real-world setting, HRQoL was prognostic for OS in patients with potentially curable and advanced oesophagogastric cancer. Several HRQoL domains, including the Summary Score and several OG25 items, could be used to develop or update prognostic models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J J van Kleef
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Office D3-312, PO Box 22660, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - W P M Dijksterhuis
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Office D3-312, PO Box 22660, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - H G van den Boorn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Office D3-312, PO Box 22660, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Prins
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Office D3-312, PO Box 22660, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R H A Verhoeven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Office D3-312, PO Box 22660, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Slingerland
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - N Haj Mohammad
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - G-J Creemers
- Department of Medical Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - K J Neelis
- Department of Radiotherapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - J Heisterkamp
- Department of Surgery, Elizabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands
- Comprehensive Cancer Network EMBRAZE, Breda, The Netherlands
| | - C Rosman
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - J P Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - E A Kouwenhoven
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo, The Netherlands
| | - L V van de Poll-Franse
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Center of Research on Psychological and Somatic Disorders (CoRPS), Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - M G H van Oijen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Office D3-312, PO Box 22660, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M A G Sprangers
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H W M van Laarhoven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Office D3-312, PO Box 22660, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
69
|
Kalff MC, Gottlieb-Vedi E, Verhoeven RHA, van Laarhoven HWM, Lagergren J, Gisbertz SS, Markar SR, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Presentation, Treatment, and Prognosis of Esophageal Carcinoma in a Nationwide Comparison of Sweden and the Netherlands. Ann Surg 2021; 274:743-750. [PMID: 34353984 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000005127] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This population-based study aimed to compare presentation, treatment allocation and survival of potentially curable esophageal cancer patients between Sweden and the Netherlands. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Identification of inter-country differences in treatment allocation and survival may be used for targeted esophageal cancer care improvement. METHODS Nationwide datasets were acquired from a Swedish cohort study and the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients with potentially curable (cT1-T4a/Tx, cN0/+, cM0/x) esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) diagnosed in 2011-2015 were included. Multivariable logistic regression provided odds ratios (OR) for treatment allocation, and multivariable Cox model provided hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for age, sex, year, tumor sub-location and stage. RESULTS Among 1980 Swedish and 7829 Dutch esophageal cancer patients, Swedish patients were older (71 vs 69 years, P <0.001) and had higher cT-stage (cT3: 49% vs 46%, P <0.001). After adjustment for confounders, Swedish patients were less frequently allocated to curative treatment (adenocarcinoma: OR=0.31, 95%CI 0.26-0.36; SCC: OR=0.28, 95%CI 0.22-0.36). Overall survival was lower in Swedish patients (adenocarcinoma: HR=1.36, 95%CI 1.27-1.46; SCC: HR=1.38, 95%CI 1.24-1.53), also when allocated to curative treatment (adenocarcinoma: HR=1.12, 95%CI 1.01-1.24; SCC: HR=1.34, 95%CI 1.14-1.59). CONCLUSION Swedish patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer were less frequently allocated to curative treatment, and showed lower survival compared to Dutch patients. The less pronounced inter-country survival difference after curative treatment suggests that the overall survival difference could at least partly be due to relative undertreatment of Swedish patients. Shared curative treatment thresholds across Europe may help improve survival of esophageal cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marianne C Kalff
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Eivind Gottlieb-Vedi
- Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Molecular medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Rob H A Verhoeven
- Department of Research & Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Hanneke W M van Laarhoven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Jesper Lagergren
- Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Molecular medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Sheraz R Markar
- Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Molecular medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, United Kingdom
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
70
|
Gertsen EC, Brenkman HJF, van Hillegersberg R, van Sandick JW, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS, Luyer MDP, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, van Lanschot JJB, Lagarde SM, Wijnhoven BPL, de Steur WO, Hartgrink HH, Stoot JHMB, Hulsewe KWE, Spillenaar Bilgen EJ, van Det MJ, Kouwenhoven EA, van der Peet DL, Daams F, van Grieken NCT, Heisterkamp J, van Etten B, van den Berg JW, Pierie JP, Eker HH, Thijssen AY, Belt EJT, van Duijvendijk P, Wassenaar E, van Laarhoven HWM, Wevers KP, Hol L, Wessels FJ, Haj Mohammad N, van der Meulen MP, Frederix GWJ, Vegt E, Siersema PD, Ruurda JP. 18F-Fludeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Laparoscopy for Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Prospective Dutch Cohort Study (PLASTIC). JAMA Surg 2021; 156:e215340. [PMID: 34705049 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.5340] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Importance The optimal staging for gastric cancer remains a matter of debate. Objective To evaluate the value of 18F-fludeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography with computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in addition to initial staging by means of gastroscopy and CT in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter prospective, observational cohort study included 394 patients with locally advanced, clinically curable gastric adenocarcinoma (≥cT3 and/or N+, M0 category based on CT) between August 1, 2017, and February 1, 2020. Exposures All patients underwent an FDG-PET/CT and/or SL in addition to initial staging. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the number of patients in whom the intent of treatment changed based on the results of these 2 investigations. Secondary outcomes included diagnostic performance, number of incidental findings on FDG-PET/CT, morbidity and mortality after SL, and diagnostic delay. Results Of the 394 patients included, 256 (65%) were men and mean (SD) age was 67.6 (10.7) years. A total of 382 patients underwent FDG-PET/CT and 357 underwent SL. Treatment intent changed from curative to palliative in 65 patients (16%) based on the additional FDG-PET/CT and SL findings. FDG-PET/CT detected distant metastases in 12 patients (3%), and SL detected peritoneal or locally nonresectable disease in 73 patients (19%), with an overlap of 7 patients (2%). FDG-PET/CT had a sensitivity of 33% (95% CI, 17%-53%) and specificity of 97% (95% CI, 94%-99%) in detecting distant metastases. Secondary findings on FDG/PET were found in 83 of 382 patients (22%), which led to additional examinations in 65 of 394 patients (16%). Staging laparoscopy resulted in a complication requiring reintervention in 3 patients (0.8%) without postoperative mortality. The mean (SD) diagnostic delay was 19 (14) days. Conclusions and Relevance This study's findings suggest an apparently limited additional value of FDG-PET/CT; however, SL added considerably to the staging process of locally advanced gastric cancer by detection of peritoneal and nonresectable disease. Therefore, it may be useful to include SL in guidelines for staging advanced gastric cancer, but not FDG-PET/CT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma C Gertsen
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Hylke J F Brenkman
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Richard van Hillegersberg
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Johanna W van Sandick
- Department of Surgery, the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Misha D P Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | | | - Jan J B van Lanschot
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sjoerd M Lagarde
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Bas P L Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Wobbe O de Steur
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Henk H Hartgrink
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Jan H M B Stoot
- Department of Surgery, Zuyderland MC, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands
| | - Karel W E Hulsewe
- Department of Surgery, Zuyderland MC, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands
| | | | - Marc J van Det
- Department of Surgery, ZGT hospital, Almelo, the Netherlands
| | | | - Donald L van der Peet
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location VUmc, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Freek Daams
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location VUmc, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Nicole C T van Grieken
- Department of Pathology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location VUmc, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Joos Heisterkamp
- Department of Surgery, Elisabeth Twee-Steden Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands
| | - Boudewijn van Etten
- Department of Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Jan Willem van den Berg
- Department of Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Jean Pierre Pierie
- Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands
| | - Hasan H Eker
- Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands
| | - Annemieke Y Thijssen
- Department of Gastroenterology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Eric J T Belt
- Department of Surgery, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Eelco Wassenaar
- Department of Surgery, Gelre Ziekenhuizen, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands
| | - Hanneke W M van Laarhoven
- Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Oesophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP) of the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Group, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location AMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Kevin P Wevers
- Department of Surgery, Isala Ziekenhuis, Zwolle, the Netherlands
| | - Lieke Hol
- Department of Gastroenterology, Maasstad Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Frank J Wessels
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Nadia Haj Mohammad
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Miriam P van der Meulen
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Geert W J Frederix
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Erik Vegt
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Peter D Siersema
- Department of Gastroenterology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Jelle P Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
71
|
Schuring N, Matsuda S, Hagens ERC, Sano J, Mayanagi S, Kawakubo H, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Kitagawa Y, Gisbertz SS. A proposal for uniformity in classification of lymph node stations in esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus 2021; 34:doab009. [PMID: 33884407 PMCID: PMC8503476 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doab009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2020] [Revised: 01/08/2021] [Accepted: 01/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
The 11th edition of the "Japanese Classification of Esophageal Cancer" by the Japan Esophageal Society (JES) and the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) "Cancer Staging Manual" are two separate classification systems both widely used for the clinical and pathological staging of esophageal cancer. Furthermore, the lymph node stations from these classification systems are combined for research purposes in the multinational TIGER study, which investigates the distribution pattern of lymph node metastases. The existing classification systems greatly differ with regard to number, location and anatomical boundaries of locoregional lymph node stations. The differences in these classifications cause significant heterogeneity in studies on lymph node metastases in esophageal cancer. This makes data interpretation difficult and comparison of studies challenging. In this article, we propose a match for these two commonly used classification systems and additionally for the TIGER study classification, in order to be able to compare results of studies and exchange knowledge and to make steps towards one global uniform classification system for all patients with esophageal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N Schuring
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S Matsuda
- Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - E R C Hagens
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J Sano
- Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - S Mayanagi
- Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - H Kawakubo
- Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Y Kitagawa
- Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
72
|
Plat VD, Kasteleijn A, Greve JWM, Luyer MDP, Gisbertz SS, Demirkiran A, Daams F. Esophageal Cancer After Bariatric Surgery: Increasing Prevalence and Treatment Strategies. Obes Surg 2021; 31:4954-4962. [PMID: 34494230 PMCID: PMC8490213 DOI: 10.1007/s11695-021-05679-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2021] [Revised: 08/17/2021] [Accepted: 08/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/02/2022]
Abstract
Purpose The number of bariatric procedures has increased exponentially over the last 20 years. On the background of ever-increasing incidence of esophageal malignancies, the altered anatomy after bariatric surgery poses challenges in treatment of these cancers. In this study, an epidemiological estimate is presented for the future magnitude of this problem and treatment options are described in a retrospective multicenter cohort. Methods The number of bariatric procedures, esophageal cancer incidence, and mortality rates of the general population were used for epidemiological estimates. A retrospective multicenter cohort was composed; patients were treated in three large oncological centers with a high upper gastrointestinal cancer caseload. Consecutive patients with preceding bariatric surgery who developed esophageal cancer between 2014 and 2019 were included. Results Approximately 3200 out of 6.4 million post bariatric surgery patients are estimated to have developed esophageal cancer between 1998 and 2018 worldwide. In a multicenter cohort, 15 patients with esophageal cancer or Barrett’s esophagus and preceding bariatric surgery were identified. The majority of patients had a history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (46.7%) and had an adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus (60%). Seven patients received curative surgical treatment, five of whom are still alive at last follow-up (median follow-up 2 years, no loss to follow-up). Conclusion Based on worldwide data, esophageal cancer development following bariatric surgery has increased over the past decades. Treatment of patients with esophageal cancer after bariatric surgery is challenging and requires a highly individualized approach in which optimal treatment and anatomical limitations are carefully balanced. Graphical abstract ![]()
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victor D Plat
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Postbus 7075, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Anne Kasteleijn
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Postbus 7075, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jan Willem M Greve
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands
- School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Center Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Misha D P Luyer
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Postbus 7075, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ahmet Demirkiran
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Rode Kruis Hospital, Beverwijk, The Netherlands
| | - Freek Daams
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Postbus 7075, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
73
|
D'Journo XB, Boulate D, Fourdrain A, Loundou A, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS, O'Neill JR, Hoelscher A, Piessen G, van Lanschot J, Wijnhoven B, Jobe B, Davies A, Schneider PM, Pera M, Nilsson M, Nafteux P, Kitagawa Y, Morse CR, Hofstetter W, Molena D, So JBY, Immanuel A, Parsons SL, Larsen MH, Dolan JP, Wood SG, Maynard N, Smithers M, Puig S, Law S, Wong I, Kennedy A, KangNing W, Reynolds JV, Pramesh CS, Ferguson M, Darling G, Schröder W, Bludau M, Underwood T, van Hillegersberg R, Chang A, Cecconello I, Ribeiro U, de Manzoni G, Rosati R, Kuppusamy M, Thomas PA, Low DE. Risk Prediction Model of 90-Day Mortality After Esophagectomy for Cancer. JAMA Surg 2021; 156:836-845. [PMID: 34160587 PMCID: PMC8223144 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.2376] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2020] [Accepted: 03/13/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Importance Ninety-day mortality rates after esophagectomy are an indicator of the quality of surgical oncologic management. Accurate risk prediction based on large data sets may aid patients and surgeons in making informed decisions. Objective To develop and validate a risk prediction model of death within 90 days after esophagectomy for cancer using the International Esodata Study Group (IESG) database, the largest existing prospective, multicenter cohort reporting standardized postoperative outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants In this diagnostic/prognostic study, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients from 39 institutions in 19 countries between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019. Patients with esophageal cancer were randomly assigned to development and validation cohorts. A scoring system that predicted death within 90 days based on logistic regression β coefficients was conducted. A final prognostic score was determined and categorized into homogeneous risk groups that predicted death within 90 days. Calibration and discrimination tests were assessed between cohorts. Exposures Esophageal resection for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Main Outcomes and Measures All-cause postoperative 90-day mortality. Results A total of 8403 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [9.0] years; 6641 [79.0%] male) were included. The 30-day mortality rate was 2.0% (n = 164), and the 90-day mortality rate was 4.2% (n = 353). Development (n = 4172) and validation (n = 4231) cohorts were randomly assigned. The multiple logistic regression model identified 10 weighted point variables factored into the prognostic score: age, sex, body mass index, performance status, myocardial infarction, connective tissue disease, peripheral vascular disease, liver disease, neoadjuvant treatment, and hospital volume. The prognostic scores were categorized into 5 risk groups: very low risk (score, ≥1; 90-day mortality, 1.8%), low risk (score, 0; 90-day mortality, 3.0%), medium risk (score, -1 to -2; 90-day mortality, 5.8%), high risk (score, -3 to -4: 90-day mortality, 8.9%), and very high risk (score, ≤-5; 90-day mortality, 18.2%). The model was supported by nonsignificance in the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64-0.72) in the development cohort and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.60-0.69) in the validation cohort. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, on the basis of preoperative variables, the IESG risk prediction model allowed stratification of an individual patient's risk of death within 90 days after esophagectomy. These data suggest that this model can help in the decision-making process when esophageal cancer surgery is being considered and in informed consent.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xavier Benoit D'Journo
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Aix-Marseille University, North Hospital, Marseille, France
| | - David Boulate
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Aix-Marseille University, North Hospital, Marseille, France
| | - Alex Fourdrain
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Aix-Marseille University, North Hospital, Marseille, France
| | - Anderson Loundou
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Aix-Marseille University, North Hospital, Marseille, France
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - J Robert O'Neill
- Department of Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Surgery, Cambridge Oesophago-Gastric Centre, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Arnulf Hoelscher
- Center for Esophageal Diseases, Elisabeth Hospital Essen, University Medicine Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Guillaume Piessen
- Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, Claude Huriez University Hospital, Lille, France
| | - Jan van Lanschot
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Bas Wijnhoven
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Blair Jobe
- Esophageal and Lung Institute, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Andrew Davies
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Guy's & St Thomas' National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Paul M Schneider
- Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, Hirslanden Medical Center, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Manuel Pera
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Magnus Nilsson
- Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Philippe Nafteux
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Yuko Kitagawa
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Wayne Hofstetter
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Daniela Molena
- Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, New York
| | - Jimmy Bok-Yan So
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Arul Immanuel
- Department of Surgery, Northern Oesophagogastric Cancer Unit, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Simon L Parsons
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | | | - James P Dolan
- Digestive Health Center, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland
| | - Stephanie G Wood
- Digestive Health Center, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland
| | - Nick Maynard
- Oesophagogastric Cancer Multidisciplinary Team, Oxford University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Mark Smithers
- Department of Surgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Sonia Puig
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Simon Law
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Mary Hospital, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
| | - Ian Wong
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Mary Hospital, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
| | - Andrew Kennedy
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Wang KangNing
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Chengdu, China
| | - John V Reynolds
- Department of Surgery, St James's Hospital Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
| | - C S Pramesh
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - Mark Ferguson
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Gail Darling
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Wolfgang Schröder
- Department of Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Marc Bludau
- Department of Digestive Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Tim Underwood
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospital Southampton National Health Service Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | | | - Andrew Chang
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor
| | - Ivan Cecconello
- Department of Digestive Surgery, University of Sao Paulo School of Medicine, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Ulysses Ribeiro
- Department of Digestive Surgery, University of Sao Paulo School of Medicine, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Giovanni de Manzoni
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Riccardo Rosati
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | | | | | - Donald E Low
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
| |
Collapse
|
74
|
van der Wielen N, Daams F, Rosati R, Parise P, Weitz J, Reissfelder C, Diez Del Val I, Loureiro C, Parada-González P, Pintos-Martínez E, Vallejo FM, Achirica CM, Sánchez-Pernaute A, Campos AR, Bonavina L, Asti ELG, Poza AA, Gilsanz C, Nilsson M, Lindblad M, Gisbertz SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Romario UF, De Pascale S, Akhtar K, Bonjer HJ, Cuesta MA, van der Peet DL, Straatman J. Health related quality of life following open versus minimally invasive total gastrectomy for cancer: Results from a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Surg Oncol 2021; 48:553-560. [PMID: 34503850 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.08.031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2021] [Revised: 07/19/2021] [Accepted: 08/23/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Minimally invasive techniques show improved short-term and comparable long-term outcomes compared to open techniques in the treatment of gastric cancer and improved survival has been seen with the implementation of multimodality treatment. Therefore, focus of research has shifted towards optimizing treatment regimens and improving quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS A randomized trial was performed in thirteen hospitals in Europe. Patients were randomized between open total gastrectomy (OTG) or minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This study investigated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following OTG or MITG, using the Euro-Qol-5D (EQ-5D) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires, modules C30 and STO22. Due to multiple testing a p-value < 0.001 was deemed statistically significant. RESULTS Between January 2015 and June 2018, 96 patients were included in this trial. Forty-nine patients were randomized to OTG and 47 to MITG. A response compliance of 80% was achieved for all PROMs. The EQ5D overall health score one year after surgery was 85 (60-90) in the open group and 68 (50-83.8) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.049). The median EORTC-QLQ-C30 overall health score one year postoperatively was 83,3 (66,7-83,3) in the open group and 58,3 (35,4-66,7) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.002). This was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION No differences were observed between open total gastrectomy and minimally invasive total gastrectomy regarding HRQoL data, collected using the EQ-5D, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-STO22 questionnaires.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole van der Wielen
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center Location VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Freek Daams
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center Location VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Paolo Parise
- Department of Surgery, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Jürgen Weitz
- Department of of Visceral, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany
| | - Christoph Reissfelder
- Department of Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Germany
| | | | - Carlos Loureiro
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Universitario de Basurto, Bilbao, Spain
| | | | - Elena Pintos-Martínez
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | - Luigi Bonavina
- Department of Surgery, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato University Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Emanuele L G Asti
- Department of Surgery, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato University Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Carlos Gilsanz
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Del Sureste, Madrid, Spain
| | - Magnus Nilsson
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet and Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Mats Lindblad
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet and Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Khurshid Akhtar
- Department of Surgery, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - H Jaap Bonjer
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center Location VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Miguel A Cuesta
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center Location VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Donald L van der Peet
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center Location VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jennifer Straatman
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center Location VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
75
|
Verstegen MHP, Slaman AE, Klarenbeek BR, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS, Rosman C, van Workum F. Outcomes of Patients with Anastomotic Leakage After Transhiatal, McKeown or Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy: A Nationwide Cohort Study. World J Surg 2021; 45:3341-3349. [PMID: 34373937 PMCID: PMC8476360 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-021-06250-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/10/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Background Anastomotic leakage has a great impact on clinical outcomes after esophagectomy. It has never been studied whether anastomotic leakage is of equal severity between different types of esophagectomy (i.e., transhiatal, McKeown and Ivor Lewis) in terms of postoperative mortality and morbidity. Methods All esophageal cancer patients with anastomotic leakage after transhiatal, McKeown or Ivor Lewis esophagectomy between 2011 and 2019 were selected from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) registry. The primary outcome was 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, re-operation and ICU readmission rate. Results Data from 1030 patients with anastomotic leakage after transhiatal (n=287), McKeown (n=397) and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (n=346) were evaluated. The 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate was 4.5% in patients with leakage after transhiatal esophagectomy, 8.1% after McKeown and 8.1% after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (P=0.139). After correction for confounders, leakage after transhiatal resection was associated with lower mortality (OR 0.152–0.699, P=0.004), but mortality after McKeown and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was similar. Re-operation rate was 24.0% after transhiatal, 40.6% after McKeown and 41.3% after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (P<0.001). ICU readmission rate was 24.0% after transhiatal, 37.8% after McKeown and 43.4% after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (P<0.001). Conclusion This study in patients with anastomotic leakage confirms a strong association between severity of clinical consequences and different types of esophagectomy. It supports the hypothesis that cervical leakage is generally less severe than intrathoracic leakage. The clinical impact of anastomotic leakage should be taken into account, in addition to its incidence, when different types of esophagectomy are compared by clinicians or researchers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Moniek H P Verstegen
- Department of Surgery and Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Annelijn E Slaman
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bastiaan R Klarenbeek
- Department of Surgery and Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Camiel Rosman
- Department of Surgery and Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Frans van Workum
- Department of Surgery and Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
76
|
van Workum F, Verstegen MHP, Klarenbeek BR, Bouwense SAW, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Daams F, Gisbertz SS, Hannink G, Haveman JW, Heisterkamp J, Jansen W, Kouwenhoven EA, van Lanschot JJB, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, van der Peet DL, Polat F, Ubels S, Wijnhoven BPL, Rovers MM, Rosman C. Intrathoracic vs Cervical Anastomosis After Totally or Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg 2021; 156:601-610. [PMID: 33978698 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.1555] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
Background Transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly performed as part of curative multimodality treatment. There appears to be no robust evidence on the preferred location of the anastomosis after transthoracic MIE. Objective To compare an intrathoracic with a cervical anastomosis in a randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants This open, multicenter randomized clinical superiority trial was performed at 9 Dutch high-volume hospitals. Patients with midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer planned for curative resection were included. Data collection occurred from April 2016 through February 2020. Intervention Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to transthoracic MIE with intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was anastomotic leakage requiring endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes were overall anastomotic leak rate, other postoperative complications, length of stay, mortality, and quality of life. Results Two hundred sixty-two patients were randomized, and 245 were eligible for analysis. Anastomotic leakage necessitating reintervention occurred in 15 of 122 patients with intrathoracic anastomosis (12.3%) and in 39 of 123 patients with cervical anastomosis (31.7%; risk difference, -19.4% [95% CI, -29.5% to -9.3%]). Overall anastomotic leak rate was 12.3% in the intrathoracic anastomosis group and 34.1% in the cervical anastomosis group (risk difference, -21.9% [95% CI, -32.1% to -11.6%]). Intensive care unit length of stay, mortality rates, and overall quality of life were comparable between groups, but intrathoracic anastomosis was associated with fewer severe complications (risk difference, -11.3% [-20.4% to -2.2%]), lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (risk difference, -7.3% [95% CI, -12.1% to -2.5%]), and better quality of life in 3 subdomains (mean differences: dysphagia, -12.2 [95% CI, -19.6 to -4.7]; problems of choking when swallowing, -10.3 [95% CI, -16.4 to 4.2]; trouble with talking, -15.3 [95% CI, -22.9 to -7.7]). Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial, intrathoracic anastomosis resulted in better outcome for patients treated with transthoracic MIE for midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. Trial Registration Trialregister.nl Identifier: NL4183 (NTR4333).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Frans van Workum
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Moniek H P Verstegen
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Bastiaan R Klarenbeek
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Stefan A W Bouwense
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Freek Daams
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Gerjon Hannink
- Department of Operating Rooms, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Jan Willem Haveman
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Joos Heisterkamp
- Department of Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands
| | - Walther Jansen
- Department of Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands
| | - Ewout A Kouwenhoven
- Department of Surgery, Ziekenhuisgroep (Hospital Group) Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands
| | - Jan J B van Lanschot
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Fatih Polat
- Department of Surgery, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Sander Ubels
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Bas P L Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Maroeska M Rovers
- Department of Operating Rooms, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Camiel Rosman
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
77
|
Alkhaffaf B, Metryka A, Blazeby JM, Glenny AM, Adeyeye A, Costa PM, Diez del Val I, Gisbertz SS, Guner A, Law S, Lee HJ, Li Z, Nakada K, Reim D, Vorwald P, Baiocchi GL, Allum W, Chaudry MA, Griffiths EA, Williamson PR, Bruce IA. Core outcome set for surgical trials in gastric cancer (GASTROS study): international patient and healthcare professional consensus. Br J Surg 2021; 108:znab192. [PMID: 34165555 PMCID: PMC10364901 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znab192] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2021] [Accepted: 05/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgery is the primary treatment that can offer potential cure for gastric cancer, but is associated with significant risks. Identifying optimal surgical approaches should be based on comparing outcomes from well designed trials. Currently, trials report different outcomes, making synthesis of evidence difficult. To address this, the aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS)-a standardized group of outcomes important to key international stakeholders-that should be reported by future trials in this field. METHODS Stage 1 of the study involved identifying potentially important outcomes from previous trials and a series of patient interviews. Stage 2 involved patients and healthcare professionals prioritizing outcomes using a multilanguage international Delphi survey that informed an international consensus meeting at which the COS was finalized. RESULTS Some 498 outcomes were identified from previously reported trials and patient interviews, and rationalized into 56 items presented in the Delphi survey. A total of 952 patients, surgeons, and nurses enrolled in round 1 of the survey, and 662 (70 per cent) completed round 2. Following the consensus meeting, eight outcomes were included in the COS: disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, and 'serious' adverse events. CONCLUSION A COS for surgical trials in gastric cancer has been developed with international patients and healthcare professionals. This is a minimum set of outcomes that is recommended to be used in all future trials in this field to improve trial design and synthesis of evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Alkhaffaf
- Department of Oesophago-Gastric Surgery, Salford Royal Hospital, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - A Metryka
- Paediatric Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - J M Blazeby
- Centre for Surgical Research and Bristol and Weston National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - A -M Glenny
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - A Adeyeye
- University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital, Ilorin, Nigeria
| | - P M Costa
- Cirurgia Geral, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
| | | | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Centre, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - A Guner
- Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey
| | - S Law
- Department of Surgery, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - H -J Lee
- Department of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, South Korea
| | - Z Li
- Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China
| | - K Nakada
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - D Reim
- Department of Surgery, TUM School of Medicine, Munich, Germany
| | - P Vorwald
- Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Diaz, Madrid, Spain
| | - G L Baiocchi
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
| | - W Allum
- Department of Academic Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - M A Chaudry
- Department of Academic Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - E A Griffiths
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - P R Williamson
- Medical Research Council North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - I A Bruce
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Division of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
78
|
Alkhaffaf B, Blazeby JM, Metryka A, Glenny AM, Adeyeye A, Costa PM, Del Val ID, Gisbertz SS, Guner A, Law S, Lee HJ, Li Z, Nakada K, Nuñez RMR, Reim D, Reynolds JV, Vorwald P, Zanotti D, Allum W, Chaudry MA, Griffiths E, Williamson PR, Bruce IA. Methods for conducting international Delphi surveys to optimise global participation in core outcome set development: a case study in gastric cancer informed by a comprehensive literature review. Trials 2021; 22:410. [PMID: 34154641 PMCID: PMC8218463 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05338-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2020] [Accepted: 05/21/2021] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Core outcome sets (COS) should be relevant to key stakeholders and widely applicable and usable. Ideally, they are developed for international use to allow optimal data synthesis from trials. Electronic Delphi surveys are commonly used to facilitate global participation; however, this has limitations. It is common for these surveys to be conducted in a single language potentially excluding those not fluent in that tongue. The aim of this study is to summarise current approaches for optimising international participation in Delphi studies and make recommendations for future practice. Methods A comprehensive literature review of current approaches to translating Delphi surveys for COS development was undertaken. A standardised methodology adapted from international guidance derived from 12 major sets of translation guidelines in the field of outcome reporting was developed. As a case study, this was applied to a COS project for surgical trials in gastric cancer to translate a Delphi survey into 7 target languages from regions active in gastric cancer research. Results Three hundred thirty-two abstracts were screened and four studies addressing COS development in rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, vascular malformations and polypharmacy were eligible for inclusion. There was wide variation in methodological approaches to translation, including the number of forward translations, the inclusion of back translation, the employment of cognitive debriefing and how discrepancies and disagreements were handled. Important considerations were identified during the development of the gastric cancer survey including establishing translation groups, timelines, understanding financial implications, strategies to maximise recruitment and regulatory approvals. The methodological approach to translating the Delphi surveys was easily reproducible by local collaborators and resulted in an additional 637 participants to the 315 recruited to complete the source language survey. Ninety-nine per cent of patients and 97% of healthcare professionals from non-English-speaking regions used translated surveys. Conclusion Consideration of the issues described will improve planning by other COS developers and can be used to widen international participation from both patients and healthcare professionals. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05338-x.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bilal Alkhaffaf
- Department of Oesophago-Gastric Surgery, Salford Royal Hospital, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Stott Lane, Manchester, M6 8HD, UK. .,Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- Centre for Surgical Research and Bristol and Weston NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Aleksandra Metryka
- Paediatric ENT Department, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Anne-Marie Glenny
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Paulo Matos Costa
- Hospital Garcia de Orta, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
| | | | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ali Guner
- Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey
| | - Simon Law
- Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Hyuk-Joon Lee
- Department of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Ziyu Li
- Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China
| | - Koji Nakada
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Jikei University Daisan Hospital, Komae, Japan
| | | | - Daniel Reim
- Department of Surgery, TUM School of Medicine, Munich, Germany
| | - John V Reynolds
- Department of Surgery, Trinity Translational Medicine Institute and St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Peter Vorwald
- Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Diaz, Madrid, Spain
| | - Daniela Zanotti
- Regional Centre for Oesophago-gastric Surgery, Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford, UK
| | - William Allum
- Department of Academic Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - M Asif Chaudry
- Department of Academic Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ewen Griffiths
- Upper GI Unit, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Paula R Williamson
- MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool and a member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, UK
| | - Iain A Bruce
- Division of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
79
|
Müller PC, Kapp JR, Vetter D, Bonavina L, Brown W, Castro S, Cheong E, Darling GE, Egberts J, Ferri L, Gisbertz SS, Gockel I, Grimminger PP, Hofstetter WL, Hölscher AH, Low DE, Luyer M, Markar SR, Mönig SP, Moorthy K, Morse CR, Müller-Stich BP, Nafteux P, Nieponice A, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, Nilsson M, Palanivelu C, Pattyn P, Pera M, Räsänen J, Ribeiro U, Rosman C, Schröder W, Sgromo B, van Berge Henegouwen MI, van Hillegersberg R, van Veer H, van Workum F, Watson DI, Wijnhoven BPL, Gutschow CA. Fit-for-Discharge Criteria after Esophagectomy: An International Expert Delphi Consensus. Dis Esophagus 2021; 34:5909885. [PMID: 32960264 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doaa101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2020] [Revised: 07/03/2020] [Accepted: 08/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
There are no internationally recognized criteria available to determine preparedness for hospital discharge after esophagectomy. This study aims to achieve international consensus using Delphi methodology. The expert panel consisted of 40 esophageal surgeons spanning 16 countries and 4 continents. During a 3-round, web-based Delphi process, experts voted for discharge criteria using 5-point Likert scales. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Consensus was reached if agreement was ≥75% in round 3. Consensus was achieved for the following basic criteria: nutritional requirements are met by oral intake of at least liquids with optional supplementary nutrition via jejunal feeding tube. The patient should have passed flatus and does not require oxygen during mobilization or at rest. Central venous catheters should be removed. Adequate analgesia at rest and during mobilization is achieved using both oral opioid and non-opioid analgesics. All vital signs should be normal unless abnormal preoperatively. Inflammatory parameters should be trending down and close to normal (leucocyte count ≤12G/l and C-reactive protein ≤80 mg/dl). This multinational Delphi survey represents the first expert-led process for consensus criteria to determine 'fit-for-discharge' status after esophagectomy. Results of this Delphi survey may be applied to clinical outcomes research as an objective measure of short-term recovery. Furthermore, standardized endpoints identified through this process may be used in clinical practice to guide decisions regarding patient discharge and may help to reduce the risk of premature discharge or prolonged admission.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P C Müller
- Department of Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - J R Kapp
- Department of Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - D Vetter
- Department of Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - L Bonavina
- IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Division of General and Foregut Surgery, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - W Brown
- Oesophago-Gastric and Bariatric Unit, Department of General Surgery, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - S Castro
- Department of Surgery, Vall d'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| | - E Cheong
- Department of General Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
| | - G E Darling
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Toronto General Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - J Egberts
- Department of General, Visceral-, Thoracic-, Transplantation-, and Pediatric Surgery, Kurt-Semm Center for Laparoscopic and Robotic Assisted Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - L Ferri
- Departments of Surgery and Oncology, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - I Gockel
- Department of Visceral, Thoracic, Transplant and Vascular surgery, University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - P P Grimminger
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
| | - W L Hofstetter
- Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - A H Hölscher
- Center for Oesophageal and Gastric Surgery, AGAPLESION Markus Krankenhaus, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - D E Low
- Department of General, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, USA
| | - M Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - S R Markar
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College, London, UK
| | - S P Mönig
- Division of Visceral Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Geneva, Hospitals and School of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - K Moorthy
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College, London, UK
| | - C R Morse
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA
| | - B P Müller-Stich
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - P Nafteux
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - A Nieponice
- Esophageal Institute, Hospital Universitario Fundacion Favaloro, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | | | - M Nilsson
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - C Palanivelu
- Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, GEM Hospital & Research Centre, Coimbatore, India
| | - P Pattyn
- Department of Surgery, University Center Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
| | - M Pera
- Department of Surgery, Section of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Hospital Universitario del Mar, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - J Räsänen
- Department of General Thoracic and Esophageal Surgery, Heart and Lung Centre, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - U Ribeiro
- Department of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - C Rosman
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - W Schröder
- Department of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, University of Cologne, Germany
| | - B Sgromo
- Department of Upper GI Surgery, Oxford University Hospitals, UK
| | | | - R van Hillegersberg
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - H van Veer
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - F van Workum
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - D I Watson
- Flinders University Department of Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, Australia
| | - B P L Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - C A Gutschow
- Department of Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
80
|
Jezerskyte E, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Sprangers MAG, Gisbertz SS. ASO Author Reflections: Postoperative Complications are not Associated with Decreased Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients Following Esophagectomy for Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 28:7277-7278. [PMID: 34089106 PMCID: PMC8519846 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10234-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2021] [Accepted: 05/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/02/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Egle Jezerskyte
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mirjam A G Sprangers
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
81
|
Feenstra ML, Ten Hoope W, Hermanides J, Gisbertz SS, Hollmann MW, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Eshuis WJ. Optimal Perioperative Pain Management in Esophageal Surgery: An Evaluation of Paravertebral Analgesia. Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 28:6321-6328. [PMID: 34050429 PMCID: PMC8460583 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10172-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2021] [Accepted: 04/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
Background For esophagectomy, thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is the standard of care for perioperative pain management. Although effective, TEA is associated with moderate to serious adverse events such as hypotension and neurologic complications. Paravertebral analgesia (PVA) may be a safe alternative. The authors hypothesized that TEA and PVA are similar in efficacy for pain treatment in thoracolaparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Methods This retrospective cohort study compared TEA with PVA in two consecutive series of 25 thoracolaparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomies. In this study, TEA consisted of continuous epidural bupivacaine and sufentanil infusion with a patient-controlled bolus function. In PVA, the catheter was inserted by the surgeon under thoracoscopic vision during surgery. Administration of PVA consisted of continuous paravertebral bupivacaine infusion after a bolus combined with patient-controlled analgesia using intravenous morphine. The primary outcome was the median highest recorded Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS) during the 3 days after surgery. The secondary outcomes were vasopressor consumption, fluid administration, and length of hospital stay. Results In both groups, the median highest recorded NRS was 4 or lower during the first three postoperative days. The patients with PVA had a higher overall NRS (mean difference, 0.75; 95% confidence interval 0.49–1.44). No differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes. Conclusion For the patients undergoing thoracolaparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, TEA was superior to PVA, as measured by NRS during the first three postoperative days. However, both modes provided adequate analgesia, with a median highest recorded NRS of 4 or lower. These results could form the basis for a randomized controlled trial. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10172-1.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Minke L Feenstra
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Werner Ten Hoope
- Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Anesthesiology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Jeroen Hermanides
- Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Markus W Hollmann
- Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Wietse J Eshuis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
82
|
Jezerskyte E, van Berge Henegouwen MI, van Laarhoven HWM, van Kleef JJ, Eshuis WJ, Heisterkamp J, Hartgrink HH, Rosman C, van Hillegersberg R, Hulshof MCCM, Sprangers MAG, Gisbertz SS. Postoperative Complications and Long-Term Quality of Life After Multimodality Treatment for Esophageal Cancer: An Analysis of the Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Esophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP). Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 28:7259-7276. [PMID: 34036429 PMCID: PMC8519926 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10144-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2020] [Accepted: 04/29/2021] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Esophagectomy has major effects on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). Postoperative complications might contribute to a decreased HR-QOL. This population-based study aimed to investigate the difference in HR-QoL between patients with and without complications after esophagectomy for cancer. METHODS A prospective comparative cohort study was performed with data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) and Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Esophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP). All patients with esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer after esophagectomy in the period 2015-2018 were enrolled. The study investigated HR-QoL at baseline, then 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months postoperatively, comparing patients with and without complications as well as with and without anastomotic leakage. RESULTS The 486 enrolled patients comprised 270 patients with complications and 216 patients without complications. Significantly more patients with complications had comorbidities (69.6% vs 57.3%; p = 0.001). No significant difference in HR-QoL was found over time between the patients with and without complications. In both groups, a significant decline in short-term HR-QoL was found in various HR-QoL domains, which were restored to the baseline level during the 12-month follow-up period. No significant difference was found in HR-QoL between the patients with and without anastomotic leakage. The patients with grades 2 and 3 anastomotic leakage reported significantly more "choking when swallowing" at 6 months (ß = 14.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 24.833 to - 4.202; p = 0.049), 9 months (ß = 22.4, 95% CI, - 34.259 to - 10.591; p = 0.007), and 24 months (ß = 24.6; 95% CI, - 39.494 to - 9.727; p = 0.007) than the patients with grade 1 or no anastomotic leakage. CONCLUSION In general, postoperative complications were not associated with decreased short- or long-term HR-QoL for patients after esophagectomy for esophageal or GEJ cancer. The temporary decrease in HR-QoL likely is related to the nature of esophagectomy and reconstruction itself.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Jezerskyte
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H W M van Laarhoven
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J J van Kleef
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - W J Eshuis
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J Heisterkamp
- Department of Surgery, Embraze Comprehensive Cancer Network, Elisabeth- Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - H H Hartgrink
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - C Rosman
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - R van Hillegersberg
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M C C M Hulshof
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Radiotherapy, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M A G Sprangers
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Psychology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | |
Collapse
|
83
|
van den Ende T, Creemers A, van der Pol Y, Boers D, Van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS, Geijsen ED, Hulshof MC, Dijk F, van Grieken NC, Pegtel DM, Derks S, Bijlsma MF, Moulière F, Van Laarhoven HW. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis by low-coverage whole genome sequencing (lcWGS) of resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma (rEAC) patients. J Clin Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.4033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
4033 Background: ctDNA is becoming an established marker to assess tumor burden, relapse after surgery, and to identify responders in immunotherapy studies. In the phase II PERFECT trial rEAC patients were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and a PD-L1 inhibitor (van den Ende et al. CCR. 2021). Here we evaluated the potential of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) to predict pathological complete response (pCR) and recurrence. Methods: The cohort consisted of 40 patients and 145 plasma samples. EDTA blood samples were drawn at baseline (B, N = 40), in week 5 of nCRT (W5, N = 40), before surgery (OR, N = 33) and 3 months after surgery (FU, N = 32). cfDNA was isolated by affinity columns (CNAkit, QIAgen) quantified by spectrofluorometer (BioAnalyzer, Agilent), sequencing libraries were prepared for lcWGS ( < 5-fold coverage, Tag-seq, Takara) and sequenced on a NovaSeq (S4, PE150). Sequencing data were processed with an in-house pipeline. Copy number aberrations (CNA) and the tumor fraction were estimated using the ichorCNA tool. Insert sizes were recovered and we determined a Tumor Enriched Fragment Fraction (TEFF), calculated by doing the ratio of fragments between 90-150 bp and 250-320 bp (enriched in tumor signal) and fragments between 150-250 bp and 320-360 bp (poor in tumor signal). ichorCNA and TEFF were used to quantify the ctDNA fraction in plasma samples. pCR was defined as ypT0N0. Residual tumor, progression or death before surgery were considered non-pCR. Relapse-free survival (RFS) was defined as the time after surgery until recurrence. Results: The pCR rate was 25% (10/40). The median fold change TEFF between B and W5 was -0.15 (range -0.67 to 0.44) in the pCR group and 0.16 (range -1.40 to 0.76) in the non-pCR group (Mann–Whitney U; p = 0.047). Of the 17 patients in whom ctDNA was detected (TEFF≥0.3 and/or ichorCNA≥0.03) in the FU sample, 13 (76%) showed a recurrence. Of the 15 patients with no ctDNA detected 5 (33%) showed a recurrence. Patients with ctDNA detected at FU had worse RFS, HR = 2.72 (95%CI 0.96-7.71; p = 0.050). Recurrences were detected earlier by FU ctDNA than by imaging due to physical complaints with a median of 312 days (163-798 days). Conclusions: lcWGS appears to be a useful tool to predict pCR and recurrence in resectable esophageal cancer. These lcWGS results will be further combined with fragmentomics analysis and targeted mutational data (Ion Torrent next-generation sequencing) in order to assess response to immunotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT03087864.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tom van den Ende
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Aafke Creemers
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Ymke van der Pol
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Dries Boers
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Mark I. Van Berge Henegouwen
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S. Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - E. Debby Geijsen
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Radiotherapy, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Maarten C.C.M. Hulshof
- Department of Radiotherapy, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location VUMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Frederike Dijk
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Nicole C.T. van Grieken
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - D. Michiel Pegtel
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Sarah Derks
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Oncode Institute, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Maarten F. Bijlsma
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Laboratory for Experimental Oncology and Radiobiology, Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Oncode Institute, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Florent Moulière
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Hanneke W.M. Van Laarhoven
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
84
|
Scheijmans JCG, Borgstein ABJ, Puylaert CAJ, Bom WJ, Bachiri S, van Bodegraven EA, Brandsma ATA, Ter Brugge FM, de Castro SMM, Couvreur R, Franken LC, Gaspersz MP, de Graaff MR, Groenen H, Kleipool SC, Kuypers TJL, Martens MH, Mens DM, Orsini RG, Reneerkens NJMM, Schok T, Sedee WJA, Tavakoli Rad S, Volders JH, Weeder PD, Prins JM, Gietema HA, Stoker J, Gisbertz SS, Besselink MGH, Boermeester MA. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incidence and severity of acute appendicitis: a comparison between 2019 and 2020. BMC Emerg Med 2021; 21:61. [PMID: 33980150 PMCID: PMC8114672 DOI: 10.1186/s12873-021-00454-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2021] [Accepted: 04/23/2021] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, a decrease in the number of patients presenting with acute appendicitis was observed. It is unclear whether this caused a shift towards more complicated cases of acute appendicitis. We compared a cohort of patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic with a 2019 control cohort. Methods We retrospectively included consecutive adult patients in 21 hospitals presenting with acute appendicitis in a COVID-19 pandemic cohort (March 15 – April 30, 2020) and a control cohort (March 15 – April 30, 2019). Primary outcome was the proportion of complicated appendicitis. Secondary outcomes included prehospital delay, appendicitis severity, and postoperative complication rates. Results The COVID-19 pandemic cohort comprised 607 patients vs. 642 patients in the control cohort. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a higher proportion of complicated appendicitis was seen (46.9% vs. 38.5%; p = 0.003). More patients had symptoms exceeding 24 h (61.1% vs. 56.2%, respectively, p = 0.048). After correction for prehospital delay, presentation during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was still associated with a higher rate of complicated appendicitis. Patients presenting > 24 h after onset of symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic were older (median 45 vs. 37 years; p = 0.001) and had more postoperative complications (15.3% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.002). Conclusions Although the incidence of acute appendicitis was slightly lower during the first wave of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, more patients presented with a delay and with complicated appendicitis than in a corresponding period in 2019. Spontaneous resolution of mild appendicitis may have contributed to the increased proportion of patients with complicated appendicitis. Late presenting patients were older and experienced more postoperative complications compared to the control cohort. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-021-00454-y.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jochem C G Scheijmans
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Amstserdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Alexander B J Borgstein
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Carl A J Puylaert
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Wouter J Bom
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Amstserdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Said Bachiri
- Department of Surgery, Noordwest Hospital Group, Alkmaar, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | - Roy Couvreur
- Department of Surgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, the Netherlands
| | - Lotte C Franken
- Departement of Surgery, Flevo Hospital, Almere, the Netherlands
| | - Marcia P Gaspersz
- Department of Surgery, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Hannah Groenen
- Department of Surgery, Tergooi Hospitals, Hilversum, the Netherlands
| | | | - Toon J L Kuypers
- Department of Surgery, Elisabeth - Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands
| | - Milou H Martens
- Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen/Heerlen, the Netherlands
| | - David M Mens
- Department of Surgery, Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands
| | - Ricardo G Orsini
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht UMC+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Thomas Schok
- Department of Surgery, VieCuri Medisch Centrum for Noord-Limburg, Venlo, the Netherlands
| | - Wouter J A Sedee
- Department of Emergency Medicine, St Jansdal Hospital, Harderwijk, the Netherlands
| | | | - José H Volders
- Department of Surgery, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands
| | - Pepijn D Weeder
- Department of Surgery, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem, and Hoofddorp, the Netherlands
| | - Jan M Prins
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity (AI&II), Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Hester A Gietema
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht UMC+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Jaap Stoker
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marc G H Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marja A Boermeester
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Amstserdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | | |
Collapse
|
85
|
Markar SR, Sounderajah V, Johar A, Zaninotto G, Castoro C, Lagergren P, Elliott JA, Gisbertz SS, Mariette C, Alfieri R, Huddy J, Pinto E, Scarpa M, Klevebro F, Sunde B, Murphy CF, Greene C, Ravi N, Piessen G, Brenkman H, Ruurda J, van Hillegersberg R, Lagarde SM, Wijnhoven BP, Pera M, Roigg J, Castro S, Matthijsen R, Findlay J, Antonowicz S, Maynard N, McCormack O, Ariyarathenam A, Sanders G, Cheong E, Jaunoo S, Allum W, van Lanschot J, Nilsson M, Reynolds JV, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Hanna GB. Patient-reported outcomes after oesophagectomy in the multicentre LASER study. Br J Surg 2021; 108:1090-1096. [PMID: 33975337 PMCID: PMC10364861 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znab124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2020] [Accepted: 03/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Data on the long-term symptom burden in patients surviving oesophageal cancer surgery are scarce. The aim of this study was to identify the most prevalent symptoms and their interactions with health-related quality of life. METHODS This was a cross-sectional cohort study of patients who underwent oesophageal cancer surgery in 20 European centres between 2010 and 2016. Patients had to be disease-free for at least 1 year. They were asked to complete a 28-symptom questionnaire at a single time point, at least 1 year after surgery. Principal component analysis was used to assess for clustering and association of symptoms. Risk factors associated with the development of severe symptoms were identified by multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS Of 1081 invited patients, 876 (81.0 per cent) responded. Symptoms in the preceding 6 months associated with previous surgery were experienced by 586 patients (66.9 per cent). The most common severe symptoms included reduced energy or activity tolerance (30.7 per cent), feeling of early fullness after eating (30.0 per cent), tiredness (28.7 per cent), and heartburn/acid or bile regurgitation (19.6 per cent). Clustering analysis showed that symptoms clustered into six domains: lethargy, musculoskeletal pain, dumping, lower gastrointestinal symptoms, regurgitation/reflux, and swallowing/conduit problems; the latter two were the most closely associated. Surgical approach, neoadjuvant therapy, patient age, and sex were factors associated with severe symptoms. CONCLUSION A long-term symptom burden is common after oesophageal cancer surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S R Markar
- Department Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.,Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - V Sounderajah
- Department Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - A Johar
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - G Zaninotto
- Department Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - C Castoro
- Unit of Surgical Oncology of the Oesophagus and Digestive Tract, Veneto Institute of Oncology, Padua, Italy
| | - P Lagergren
- Department Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.,Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - J A Elliott
- Department of Surgery, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St James's Hospital and Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - C Mariette
- Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, University of Lille, Claude Huriez University Hospital, F-59000 Lille, France
| | - R Alfieri
- Unit of Surgical Oncology of the Oesophagus and Digestive Tract, Veneto Institute of Oncology, Padua, Italy
| | - J Huddy
- Department Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - E Pinto
- Unit of Surgical Oncology of the Oesophagus and Digestive Tract, Veneto Institute of Oncology, Padua, Italy
| | - M Scarpa
- Unit of Surgical Oncology of the Oesophagus and Digestive Tract, Veneto Institute of Oncology, Padua, Italy
| | - F Klevebro
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - B Sunde
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - C F Murphy
- Department of Surgery, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St James's Hospital and Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - C Greene
- Department of Surgery, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St James's Hospital and Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - N Ravi
- Department of Surgery, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St James's Hospital and Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - G Piessen
- Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, University of Lille, Claude Huriez University Hospital, F-59000 Lille, France
| | - H Brenkman
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - J Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - R van Hillegersberg
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - S M Lagarde
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - B P Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M Pera
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
| | - J Roigg
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
| | - S Castro
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
| | - R Matthijsen
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, ETZ Tildburg, Tildburg, the Netherlands
| | - J Findlay
- Oesophago-gastric Centre, Churchill Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - S Antonowicz
- Oesophago-gastric Centre, Churchill Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - N Maynard
- Oesophago-gastric Centre, Churchill Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - O McCormack
- Department of Oesophago-Gastric Surgery, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK
| | - A Ariyarathenam
- Department of Oesophago-Gastric Surgery, Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK
| | - G Sanders
- Department of Oesophago-Gastric Surgery, Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK
| | - E Cheong
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich Hospitals NHS Trust, Norwich, UK
| | - S Jaunoo
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, UK
| | - W Allum
- Department of Oesophago-Gastric Surgery, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK
| | - J van Lanschot
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M Nilsson
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - J V Reynolds
- Department of Surgery, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St James's Hospital and Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - G B Hanna
- Department Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
86
|
Jansen SM, de Bruin DM, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Bloemen PR, Strackee SD, Veelo DP, van Leeuwen TG, Gisbertz SS. Quantitative change of perfusion in gastric tube reconstruction by sidestream dark field microscopy (SDF) after esophagectomy, a prospective in-vivo cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol 2021; 47:1034-1041. [PMID: 33077296 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.09.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2019] [Revised: 08/19/2020] [Accepted: 09/08/2020] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Anastomotic leakage is one of the most severe complications in patients undergoing esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction. Transection of the left gastric and gastro-epiploic artery and vein results in compromised perfusion which is seen as the major contributing factor for anastomotic dehiscence. The main objective of this prospective, observational, in-vivo pilot study is to microscopically evaluate gastric tube perfusion with Sidestream Darkfield Microscopy (SDF). METHODS Intra-operative microscopic images of gastric-microcirculation were obtained with SDF directly after reconstruction in 22 patients. Quantitative perfusion related parameters were: velocity, Microvascular Flow Index(MFI), Total Vessel Density(TVD), Perfusion Vessel Density(PVD), Proportion of Perfused Vessels(PPV) and De Backer Score(DBS). Dedicated software was used to assess parameters predictive for compromised perfusion. RESULTS SDF was feasible to accurately visualize and evaluate microcirculation in all patients. Velocity(μm/sec) was significantly decreased towards the fundus (p = 0.001). MFI, PVD and PVD were decreased distal of the watershed - between the right and left gastro-epiploic artery and vein - and in the fundus, compared to the base of the gastric tube(p = 0.0002). No differences in TVD and DBS were observed; because of vessel-dilation in the fundus-area. This suggests that venous congestion results in comprised inflow of oxygen rich blood and plays a role in the development of ischaemia. CONCLUSION We present quantitative perfusion imaging with SDF of the gastric tube. Velocity, MFI, TVD and PPV are accurate parameters to observe perfusion decrease. Also, venous congestion is visible in the fundus, suggesting an important role in the development of ischaemia. These parameters could allow early risk stratification, and, potentially, can accomplish a reduction in anastomotic leakage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sanne M Jansen
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Biomedical Engineering & Physics, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Daniel M de Bruin
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Biomedical Engineering & Physics, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Urology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Paul R Bloemen
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Biomedical Engineering & Physics, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Simon D Strackee
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Plastic, Reconstructive & Hand Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Denise P Veelo
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Anesthesiology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ton G van Leeuwen
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
87
|
Slooter MD, Mansvelders MSE, Bloemen PR, Gisbertz SS, Bemelman WA, Tanis PJ, Hompes R, van Berge Henegouwen MI, de Bruin DM. Defining indocyanine green fluorescence to assess anastomotic perfusion during gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review. BJS Open 2021; 5:6249560. [PMID: 33893811 PMCID: PMC8271268 DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraa074] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2020] [Accepted: 04/09/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The aim of this systematic review was to identify all methods to quantify intraoperative fluorescence angiography (FA) of the gastrointestinal anastomosis, and to find potential thresholds to predict patient outcomes, including anastomotic leakage and necrosis. Methods This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. A PubMed and Embase literature search was performed. Articles were included when FA with indocyanine green was performed to assess gastrointestinal perfusion in human or animals, and the fluorescence signal was analysed using quantitative parameters. A parameter was defined as quantitative when a diagnostic numeral threshold for patient outcomes could potentially be produced. Results Some 1317 articles were identified, of which 23 were included. Fourteen studies were done in patients and nine in animals. Eight studies applied FA during upper and 15 during lower gastrointestinal surgery. The quantitative parameters were divided into four categories: time to fluorescence (20 studies); contrast‐to‐background ratio (3); pixel intensity (2); and numeric classification score (2). The first category was subdivided into manually assessed time (7 studies) and software‐derived fluorescence–time curves (13). Cut‐off values were derived for manually assessed time (speed in gastric conduit wall) and derivatives of the fluorescence–time curves (Fmax, T1/2, TR and slope) to predict patient outcomes. Conclusion Time to fluorescence seems the most promising category for quantitation of FA. Future research might focus on fluorescence–time curves, as many different parameters can be derived and the fluorescence intensity can be bypassed. However, consensus on study set‐up, calibration of fluorescence imaging systems, and validation of software programs is mandatory to allow future data comparison.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M D Slooter
- Departments of Surgery, Amsterdam the Netherlands
| | | | - P R Bloemen
- Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Departments of Surgery, Amsterdam the Netherlands
| | - W A Bemelman
- Departments of Surgery, Amsterdam the Netherlands
| | - P J Tanis
- Departments of Surgery, Amsterdam the Netherlands
| | - R Hompes
- Departments of Surgery, Amsterdam the Netherlands
| | | | - D M de Bruin
- Departments of Surgery, Amsterdam the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
88
|
Dijksterhuis WPM, Kalff MC, Wagner AD, Verhoeven RHA, Lemmens VEPP, van Oijen MGH, Gisbertz SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, van Laarhoven HWM. Gender Differences in Treatment Allocation and Survival of Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: a Population-Based Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113:1551-1560. [PMID: 33837791 PMCID: PMC8562959 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djab075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2020] [Revised: 12/01/2020] [Accepted: 04/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Biological sex and gender have been reported to affect incidence and overall survival (OS) of curatively treated gastroesophageal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare palliative treatment allocation and OS between women and men with advanced gastroesophageal cancer. Methods Patients with an unresectable or metastatic esophageal (including cardia) adenocarcinoma (EAC) or squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) or gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) diagnosed in 2015-2018 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Treatment allocation was compared using χ2 tests and multivariable logistic regression analyses, and OS using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards analysis. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Of patients with EAC (n = 3077), ESCC (n = 794), and GAC (n = 1836), 18.0%, 39.4%, and 39.1% were women, respectively. Women less often received systemic treatment compared with men for EAC (42.7% vs 47.4%, P = .045) and GAC (33.8% vs 38.8%, P = .03) but not for ESCC (33.2% vs 39.5%, P = .07). Women had a lower probability of receiving systemic treatment for GAC in multivariable analyses (odds ratio [OR] = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62 to 1.00) but not for EAC (OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.06) and ESCC (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.57 to 1.14). Median OS was lower in women with EAC (4.4 vs 5.2 months, P = .04) but did not differ after adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics and systemic treatment administration. Conclusions We observed statistically significant and clinically relevant gender differences in systemic treatment administration and OS in advanced gastroesophageal cancer. Causes of these disparities may be sex based (ie, related to tumor biology) as well as gender based (eg, related to differences in treatment choices).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Willemieke P M Dijksterhuis
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Research & Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Marianne C Kalff
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Anna D Wagner
- Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Rob H A Verhoeven
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Research & Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Valery E P P Lemmens
- Department of Research & Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Martijn G H van Oijen
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Research & Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hanneke W M van Laarhoven
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
89
|
Borgstein ABJ, Brunner S, Hayami M, Moons J, Fuchs H, Eshuis WJ, Gisbertz SS, Bruns CJ, Nafteux P, Nilsson M, Schröder W, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Safety of Esophageal Cancer Surgery During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Europe: A Multicenter Study. Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 28:4805-4813. [PMID: 33830357 PMCID: PMC8028574 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-09886-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2020] [Accepted: 02/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Background Many hospitals postponed elective surgical care during the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Some centers continued elective surgery, including esophageal cancer surgery, with the use of preoperative screening methods; however, there is no evidence supporting the safety of this strategy as postoperative outcomes after esophageal cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic have not yet been investigated. Methods This multicenter study in four European tertiary esophageal cancer referral centers included consecutive adult patients undergoing elective esophageal cancer surgery from a prospectively maintained database in a COVID-19 pandemic cohort (1 March 2020–31 May 2020) and a control cohort (1 October 2019–29 February 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. Results The COVID-19 cohort consisted of 139 patients, versus 168 patients in the control cohort. There was no difference in the rate of respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (13.7% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.127) and number of pulmonary complications (32.4% vs. 29.9%, p = 0.646) between the COVID-19 cohort and the control cohort. Overall, postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were comparable between both cohorts. History taking and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were used as preoperative screening methods to detect a possible severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in all centers. No patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 pre- or postoperatively. Conclusion Esophageal cancer surgery during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was not associated with an increase in pulmonary complications as no patients were diagnosed with COVID-19. Esophageal cancer surgery can be performed safely with the use of adequate preoperative SARS-CoV-2 screening methods. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-09886-z.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander B J Borgstein
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Stefanie Brunner
- Department of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Masaru Hayami
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinskja Institutet, Solna, Sweden.,Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Johnny Moons
- Department of Surgery, Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Hans Fuchs
- Department of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Wietse J Eshuis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Christiane J Bruns
- Department of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Philippe Nafteux
- Department of Surgery, Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Magnus Nilsson
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinskja Institutet, Solna, Sweden.,Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Wolfgang Schröder
- Department of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
90
|
Kalff MC, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS. Textbook outcome for esophageal cancer surgery: an international consensus-based update of a quality measure. Dis Esophagus 2021; 34:6178961. [PMID: 33744921 PMCID: PMC8275976 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doab011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2020] [Revised: 01/18/2021] [Accepted: 01/31/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Textbook outcome for esophageal cancer surgery is a composite quality measure including 10 short-term surgical outcomes reflecting an uneventful perioperative course. Achieved textbook outcome is associated with improved long-term survival. This study aimed to update the original textbook outcome based on international consensus. Forty-five international expert esophageal cancer surgeons received a personal invitation to evaluate the 10 items in the original textbook outcome for esophageal cancer surgery and to rate 18 additional items divided over seven subcategories for their importance in the updated textbook outcome. Items were included in the updated textbook outcome if ≥80% of the respondents agreed on inclusion. In case multiple items within one subcategory reached ≥80% agreement, only the most inclusive item with the highest agreement rate was included. With a response rate of 80%, 36 expert esophageal cancer surgeons, from 34 hospitals, 16 countries, and 4 continents responded to this international survey. Based on the inclusion criteria, the updated quality indicator 'textbook outcome for esophageal cancer surgery' should consist of: tumor-negative resection margins, ≥20 lymph nodes retrieved and examined, no intraoperative complication, no complications Clavien-Dindo ≥III, no ICU/MCU readmission, no readmission related to the surgical procedure, no anastomotic leakage, no hospital stay ≥14 days, and no in-hospital mortality. This study resulted in an international consensus-based update of a quality measure, textbook outcome for esophageal cancer surgery. This updated textbook outcome should be implemented in quality assurance programs for centers performing esophageal cancer surgery, and could standardize quality measures used internationally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marianne C Kalff
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Address correspondence to: Dr Suzanne S. Gisbertz, Department of Surgery, G4-186, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, PO Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
91
|
van der Veen A, Brenkman HJF, Seesing MFJ, Haverkamp L, Luyer MDP, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, Stoot JHMB, Tegels JJW, Wijnhoven BPL, Lagarde SM, de Steur WO, Hartgrink HH, Kouwenhoven EA, Wassenaar EB, Draaisma WA, Gisbertz SS, van der Peet DL, May AM, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R. Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer (LOGICA): A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial. J Clin Oncol 2021; 39:978-989. [PMID: 34581617 DOI: 10.1200/jco.20.01540] [Citation(s) in RCA: 95] [Impact Index Per Article: 31.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The oncological efficacy and safety of laparoscopic gastrectomy are under debate for the Western population with predominantly advanced gastric cancer undergoing multimodality treatment. METHODS In 10 experienced upper GI centers in the Netherlands, patients with resectable (cT1-4aN0-3bM0) gastric adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. No masking was performed. The primary outcome was hospital stay. Analyses were performed by intention to treat. It was hypothesized that laparoscopic gastrectomy leads to shorter hospital stay, less postoperative complications, and equal oncological outcomes. RESULTS Between 2015 and 2018, a total of 227 patients were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 115) or open gastrectomy (n = 112). Preoperative chemotherapy was administered to 77 patients (67%) in the laparoscopic group and 87 patients (78%) in the open group. Median hospital stay was 7 days (interquartile range, 5-9) in both groups (P = .34). Median blood loss was less in the laparoscopic group (150 v 300 mL, P < .001), whereas mean operating time was longer (216 v 182 minutes, P < .001). Both groups did not differ regarding postoperative complications (44% v 42%, P = .91), in-hospital mortality (4% v 7%, P = .40), 30-day readmission rate (9.6% v 9.1%, P = 1.00), R0 resection rate (95% v 95%, P = 1.00), median lymph node yield (29 v 29 nodes, P = .49), 1-year overall survival (76% v 78%, P = .74), and global health-related quality of life up to 1 year postoperatively (mean differences between + 1.5 and + 3.6 on a 1-100 scale; 95% CIs include zero). CONCLUSION Laparoscopic gastrectomy did not lead to a shorter hospital stay in this Western multicenter randomized trial of patients with predominantly advanced gastric cancer. Postoperative complications and oncological efficacy did not differ between laparoscopic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arjen van der Veen
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Hylke J F Brenkman
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Maarten F J Seesing
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Leonie Haverkamp
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Misha D P Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | | | - Jan H M B Stoot
- Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen and Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands
| | - Juul J W Tegels
- Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen and Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands
| | - Bas P L Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sjoerd M Lagarde
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Wobbe O de Steur
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Henk H Hartgrink
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Werner A Draaisma
- Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, the Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Donald L van der Peet
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Anne M May
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Jelle P Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Richard van Hillegersberg
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
92
|
van den Boorn HG, Abu-Hanna A, Haj Mohammad N, Hulshof MCCM, Gisbertz SS, Klarenbeek BR, Slingerland M, Beerepoot LV, Rozema T, Sprangers MAG, Verhoeven RHA, van Oijen MGH, Zwinderman KH, van Laarhoven HWM. SOURCE: Prediction Models for Overall Survival in Patients With Metastatic and Potentially Curable Esophageal and Gastric Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021; 19:403-410. [PMID: 33636694 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7631] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2020] [Accepted: 07/30/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Personalized prediction of treatment outcomes can aid patients with cancer when deciding on treatment options. Existing prediction models for esophageal and gastric cancer, however, have mostly been developed for survival prediction after surgery (ie, when treatment has already been completed). Furthermore, prediction models for patients with metastatic cancer are scarce. The aim of this study was to develop prediction models of overall survival at diagnosis for patients with potentially curable and metastatic esophageal and gastric cancer (the SOURCE study). METHODS Data from 13,080 patients with esophageal or gastric cancer diagnosed in 2015 through 2018 were retrieved from the prospective Netherlands Cancer Registry. Four Cox proportional hazards regression models were created for patients with potentially curable and metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer. Predictors, including treatment type, were selected using the Akaike information criterion. The models were validated with temporal cross-validation on their C-index and calibration. RESULTS The validated model's C-index was 0.78 for potentially curable gastric cancer and 0.80 for potentially curable esophageal cancer. For the metastatic models, the c-indices were 0.72 and 0.73 for esophageal and gastric cancer, respectively. The 95% confidence interval of the calibration intercepts and slopes contain the values 0 and 1, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The SOURCE prediction models show fair to good c-indices and an overall good calibration. The models are the first in esophageal and gastric cancer to predict survival at diagnosis for a variety of treatments. Future research is needed to demonstrate their value for shared decision-making in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ameen Abu-Hanna
- 2Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam
| | - Nadia Haj Mohammad
- 3Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht
| | | | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- 4Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam
| | | | - Marije Slingerland
- 6Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden
| | | | - Tom Rozema
- 8Department of Radiotherapy, Verbeeten Institute, Tilburg
| | - Mirjam A G Sprangers
- 9Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam
| | - Rob H A Verhoeven
- 5Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen.,10Department of Research & Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht; and
| | - Martijn G H van Oijen
- 1Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, and.,10Department of Research & Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht; and
| | - Koos H Zwinderman
- 11Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
93
|
van den Ende T, de Clercq NC, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS, Geijsen ED, Verhoeven RHA, Meijer SL, Schokker S, Dings MPG, Bergman JJGHM, Haj Mohammad N, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R, Mook S, Nieuwdorp M, de Gruijl TD, Soeratram TTD, Ylstra B, van Grieken NCT, Bijlsma MF, Hulshof MCCM, van Laarhoven HWM. Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Combined with Atezolizumab for Resectable Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Single-arm Phase II Feasibility Trial (PERFECT). Clin Cancer Res 2021; 27:3351-3359. [PMID: 33504550 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-20-4443] [Citation(s) in RCA: 119] [Impact Index Per Article: 39.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2020] [Revised: 01/03/2021] [Accepted: 01/22/2021] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The CROSS trial established neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma (rEAC). In the PERFECT trial, we investigated the feasibility and efficacy of nCRT combined with programmed-death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibition for rEAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with rEAC received nCRT according to the CROSS regimen combined with five cycles of atezolizumab (1,200 mg). The primary endpoint was the feasibility of administering five cycles of atezolizumab in ≥75% patients. A propensity score-matched nCRT cohort was used to compare pathologic response, overall survival, and progression-free survival. Exploratory biomarker analysis was performed on repeated tumor biopsies. RESULTS We enrolled 40 patients of whom 85% received all cycles of atezolizumab. Immune-related adverse events of any grade were observed in 6 patients. In total, 83% proceeded to surgery. Reasons for not undergoing surgery were progression (n = 4), patient choice (n = 2), and death (n = 1). The pathologic complete response rate was 25% (10/40). No statistically significant difference in response or survival was found between the PERFECT and the nCRT cohort. Baseline expression of an established IFNγ signature was higher in responders compared with nonresponders (P = 0.043). On-treatment nonresponders showed either a high number of cytotoxic lymphocytes (CTL) with a transcriptional signature consistent with expression of immune checkpoints, or a low number of CTLs. CONCLUSIONS Combining nCRT with atezolizumab is feasible in patients with rEAC. On the basis of our exploratory biomarker study, future studies are necessary to elucidate the potential of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patient subgroups.See related commentary by Catenacci, p. 3269.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tom van den Ende
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Nicolien C de Clercq
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Internal and Vascular Medicine, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - E D Geijsen
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Radiotherapy, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - R H A Verhoeven
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Sybren L Meijer
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sandor Schokker
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M P G Dings
- Amsterdam UMC, Laboratory for Experimental Oncology and Radiobiology, Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jacques J G H M Bergman
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Gastroenterology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Nadia Haj Mohammad
- Department of Medical Oncology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Jelle P Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Stella Mook
- Department of Radiotherapy, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Max Nieuwdorp
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Internal and Vascular Medicine, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Tanja D de Gruijl
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Tanya T D Soeratram
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Bauke Ylstra
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Nicole C T van Grieken
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Maarten F Bijlsma
- Amsterdam UMC, Laboratory for Experimental Oncology and Radiobiology, Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Maarten C C M Hulshof
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Radiotherapy, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - H W M van Laarhoven
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
94
|
Voeten DM, van der Werf LR, Gisbertz SS, Ruurda JP, van Berge Henegouwen MI, van Hillegersberg R. Postoperative intensive care unit stay after minimally invasive esophagectomy shows large hospital variation. Results from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit. Eur J Surg Oncol 2021; 47:1961-1968. [PMID: 33485673 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.01.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2020] [Revised: 12/01/2020] [Accepted: 01/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The value of routine intensive care unit (ICU) admission after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been questioned. This study aimed to investigate Dutch hospital variation regarding length of direct postoperative ICU stay, and the impact of this hospital variation on short-term surgical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) undergoing curative MIE were included. Length of direct postoperative ICU stay was dichotomized around the national median into short ICU stay ( ≤ 1 day) and long ICU stay ( > 1 day). A case-mix corrected funnel plot based on multivariable logistic regression analyses investigated hospital variation. The impact of this hospital variation on short-term surgical outcomes was investigated using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS Between 2017 and 2019, 2110 patients from 16 hospitals were included. Median length of postoperative ICU stay was 1 day [hospital variation: 0-4]. The percentage of short ICU stay ranged from 0 to 91% among hospitals. Corrected for case-mix, 7 hospitals had statistically significantly higher short ICU stay rates and 6 hospitals had lower rates. ICU readmission, in-hospital/30-day mortality, failure to rescue, postoperative pneumonia, cardiac complications and anastomotic leakage were not associated with hospital variation in length of ICU stay. Total length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in hospitals with relatively short ICU stay. CONCLUSION This study showed significant hospital variation in postoperative length of ICU stay after MIE. Short ICU stay was associated with shorter overall hospital admission and did not negatively impact short-term surgical outcomes. More selected use of ICU resources could result in a national significant cost reduction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daan M Voeten
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, the Netherlands.
| | - Leonie R van der Werf
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jelle P Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
95
|
Fabbi M, Hagens ERC, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS. Anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: definitions, diagnostics, and treatment. Dis Esophagus 2021; 34:doaa039. [PMID: 32476017 PMCID: PMC7801633 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doaa039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/17/2020] [Revised: 04/15/2020] [Accepted: 04/17/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Anastomotic leakage is one of the most severe complications after esophagectomy and is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Several projects ranging from small retrospective studies to large collaborations have aimed to identify potential pre- and perioperative risk factors and to improve the diagnostic processes and management. Despite the increase in available literature, many aspects of anastomotic leakage are still debated, without the existence of widely accepted guidelines. The purpose of this review is to provide a cutting edge overview of the recent literature regarding the definition and classification of anastomotic leakage, risk factors, novel diagnostic modalities, and emerging therapeutic options for treatment and prevention of anastomotic leakage following esophagectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Fabbi
- Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda, Maggiore Policlinico Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - E R C Hagens
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
96
|
van der Wielen N, Straatman J, Daams F, Rosati R, Parise P, Weitz J, Reissfelder C, Diez Del Val I, Loureiro C, Parada-González P, Pintos-Martínez E, Mateo Vallejo F, Medina Achirica C, Sánchez-Pernaute A, Ruano Campos A, Bonavina L, Asti ELG, Alonso Poza A, Gilsanz C, Nilsson M, Lindblad M, Gisbertz SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Fumagalli Romario U, De Pascale S, Akhtar K, Jaap Bonjer H, Cuesta MA, van der Peet DL. Open versus minimally invasive total gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results of a European randomized trial. Gastric Cancer 2021; 24:258-271. [PMID: 32737637 PMCID: PMC7790799 DOI: 10.1007/s10120-020-01109-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2020] [Accepted: 07/17/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgical resection with adequate lymphadenectomy is regarded the only curative option for gastric cancer. Regarding minimally invasive techniques, mainly Asian studies showed comparable oncological and short-term postoperative outcomes. The incidence of gastric cancer is lower in the Western population and patients often present with more advanced stages of disease. Therefore, the reproducibility of these Asian results in the Western population remains to be investigated. METHODS A randomized trial was performed in thirteen hospitals in Europe. Patients with an indication for total gastrectomy who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible for inclusion and randomized between open total gastrectomy (OTG) or minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG). Primary outcome was oncological safety, measured as the number of resected lymph nodes and radicality. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, recovery and 1-year survival. RESULTS Between January 2015 and June 2018, 96 patients were included in this trial. Forty-nine patients were randomized to OTG and 47 to MITG. The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 43.4 ± 17.3 in OTG and 41.7 ± 16.1 in MITG (p = 0.612). Forty-eight patients in the OTG group had a R0 resection and 44 patients in the MITG group (p = 0.617). One-year survival was 90.4% in OTG and 85.5% in MITG (p = 0.701). No significant differences were found regarding postoperative complications and recovery. CONCLUSION These findings provide evidence that MITG after neoadjuvant therapy is not inferior regarding oncological quality of resection in comparison to OTG in Western patients with resectable gastric cancer. In addition, no differences in postoperative complications and recovery were seen.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole van der Wielen
- Department of Gastro-Intestinal Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VU University, De Boelelaan 1117, ZH 7F020, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Jennifer Straatman
- Department of Gastro-Intestinal Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VU University, De Boelelaan 1117, ZH 7F020, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Freek Daams
- Department of Gastro-Intestinal Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VU University, De Boelelaan 1117, ZH 7F020, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Paolo Parise
- Department of Surgery, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Jürgen Weitz
- Department of Visceral-, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany
| | - Christoph Reissfelder
- Department of Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Carlos Loureiro
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Universitario de Basurto, Bilbao, Spain
| | | | - Elena Pintos-Martínez
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | - Luigi Bonavina
- Department of Surgery, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Milan, Italy
| | | | | | - Carlos Gilsanz
- Department of Surgery, Hospital del Sureste, Madrid, Spain
| | - Magnus Nilsson
- Department of Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Mats Lindblad
- Department of Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Gastro-intestinal Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Gastro-intestinal Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Khurshid Akhtar
- Department of Surgery, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - H Jaap Bonjer
- Department of Gastro-Intestinal Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VU University, De Boelelaan 1117, ZH 7F020, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Miguel A Cuesta
- Department of Gastro-Intestinal Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VU University, De Boelelaan 1117, ZH 7F020, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Donald L van der Peet
- Department of Gastro-Intestinal Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VU University, De Boelelaan 1117, ZH 7F020, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
97
|
Jezerskyte E, Saadeh LM, Hagens ERC, Sprangers MAG, Noteboom L, van Laarhoven HWM, Eshuis WJ, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS. Long-Term Quality of Life After Total Gastrectomy Versus Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy. World J Surg 2020; 44:838-848. [PMID: 31732762 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-019-05281-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is scarce evidence on whether a total gastrectomy or an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is preferred for gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers regarding effects on morbidity, pathology, survival and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in long-term HR-QoL in patients undergoing total gastrectomy versus Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in a tertiary referral center. METHODS Patients with a follow-up of >1 year after a total gastrectomy or an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for GEJ/cardia carcinoma completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OG25 questionnaires. 'Problems with eating,' 'reflux,' and 'nausea and vomiting' were the primary HR-QoL endpoints. The secondary endpoints were the remaining HR-QoL domains, postoperative complications and pathology results. RESULTS Thirty patients after gastrectomy and 71 after esophagectomy were included. Mean age was 63 years. Median follow-up was 2 years (range 12-84 months). Patients after gastrectomy reported less 'choking when swallowing' and 'coughing' (β = - 5.952, 95% CI - 9.437 to - 2.466; β = - 13.084, 95% CI - 18.525 to - 7.643). More lymph nodes were resected in esophagectomy group (p = 0.008). No difference was found in number of positive lymph nodes, R0 resection or postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS After a follow-up of >1 year 'choking when swallowing' and 'coughing' were less common after a total gastrectomy. No differences were found in postoperative complications or radicality of surgery. Based on this study, no general preference can be given to either of the procedures for GEJ cancer. These results support shared decision making when a choice between the two treatment options is possible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Jezerskyte
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - L M Saadeh
- General Surgery Unit, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - E R C Hagens
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M A G Sprangers
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - L Noteboom
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H W M van Laarhoven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - W J Eshuis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
98
|
Puylaert CAJ, Scheijmans JCG, Borgstein ABJ, Andeweg CS, Bartels-Rutten A, Beets GL, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Braak SJ, Couvreur R, Daams F, van Es HW, Franken LC, Grotenhuis BA, Hendriks ER, de Hingh IHJT, Hoeijmakers F, Ten Holder JT, Huisman PM, Kazemier G, van Kesteren F, van Kesteren J, Keywani K, Kuiper SZ, Lange MDJ, Lobatto ME, du Mée AWF, Poeze M, van Praag EM, van Rossen J, van Santvoort HC, Sedee WJA, Seelen LWF, Sharabiany S, Sosef NL, Quanjel MJR, Veltman J, Verhagen T, van de Vlasakker VCJ, Weeder PD, van Werven JR, Wesdorp NJ, van Dieren S, Han AX, Russell CA, de Jong MD, Bossuyt PMM, Quarles van Ufford JME, Prokop MW, Gisbertz SS, Prins JM, Besselink MG, Boermeester MA, Gietema HA, Stoker J. Yield of Screening for COVID-19 in Asymptomatic Patients Before Elective or Emergency Surgery Using Chest CT and RT-PCR (SCOUT): Multicenter Study. Ann Surg 2020; 272:919-924. [PMID: 33021367 PMCID: PMC7668335 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000004218] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the yield of preoperative screening for COVID-19 with chest CT and RT-PCR in patients without COVID-19 symptoms. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Many centers are currently screening surgical patients for COVID-19 using either chest CT, RT-PCR or both, due to the risk for worsened surgical outcomes and nosocomial spread. The optimal design and yield of such a strategy are currently unknown. METHODS This multicenter study included consecutive adult patients without COVID-19 symptoms who underwent preoperative screening using chest CT and RT-PCR before elective or emergency surgery under general anesthesia. RESULTS A total of 2093 patients without COVID-19 symptoms were included in 14 participating centers; 1224 were screened by CT and RT-PCR and 869 by chest CT only. The positive yield of screening using a combination of chest CT and RT-PCR was 1.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8-2.1]. Individual yields were 0.7% (95% CI: 0.2-1.1) for chest CT and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6-1.7) for RT-PCR; the incremental yield of chest CT was 0.4%. In relation to COVID-19 community prevalence, up to ∼6% positive RT-PCR was found for a daily hospital admission rate >1.5 per 100,000 inhabitants, and around 1.0% for lower prevalence. CONCLUSIONS One in every 100 patients without COVID-19 symptoms tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR; this yield increased in conjunction with community prevalence. The added value of chest CT was limited. Preoperative screening allowed us to take adequate precautions for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients in a surgical population, whereas negative patients needed only routine procedures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carl A J Puylaert
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jochem C G Scheijmans
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Alexander B J Borgstein
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Geerard L Beets
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sicco J Braak
- Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands
| | - Roy Couvreur
- Department of Surgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, Den Haag, the Netherlands
| | - Freek Daams
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam UMC, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Hendrik W van Es
- Department of Radiology, Sint Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
| | - Lotte C Franken
- Department of Surgery, Flevo Hospital, Almere, the Netherlands
| | - Brechtje A Grotenhuis
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Eduard R Hendriks
- Department of Surgery, Tergooi Hospitals, Hilversum, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Joris T Ten Holder
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Haaglanden Medical Center, Den Haag, the Netherlands
| | - Peter M Huisman
- Department of Radiology, Tergooi Hospitals, Hilversum, the Netherlands
| | - Geert Kazemier
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam UMC, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Floortje van Kesteren
- Department of Radiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Kammy Keywani
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sara Z Kuiper
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht UMC+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Maurits D J Lange
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mark E Lobatto
- Department of Radiology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem and Hoofddorp, the Netherlands
| | | | - Martijn Poeze
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht UMC+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Elise M van Praag
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jorit van Rossen
- Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands
| | - Hjalmar C van Santvoort
- Department of Surgery, Sint Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Wouter J A Sedee
- Department of Emergency Medicine, St Jansdal Hospital, Harderwijk, the Netherlands
| | - Leonard W F Seelen
- Department of Surgery, Sint Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
| | - Sarah Sharabiany
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Nico L Sosef
- Department of Surgery, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem and Hoofddorp, the Netherlands
| | - Marian J R Quanjel
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Sint Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
| | - Jeroen Veltman
- Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands
| | - Tim Verhagen
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo, the Netherlands
| | | | - Pepijn D Weeder
- Department of Surgery, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem and Hoofddorp, the Netherlands
| | | | - Nina J Wesdorp
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam UMC, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Susan van Dieren
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Alvin X Han
- Laboratory of Applied Evolutionary Biology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Colin A Russell
- Laboratory of Applied Evolutionary Biology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Menno D de Jong
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Patrick M M Bossuyt
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jan M Prins
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity (AI&II), Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marja A Boermeester
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Hester A Gietema
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht UMC+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Jaap Stoker
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
99
|
Borgstein ABJ, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Lameris W, Eshuis WJ, Gisbertz SS. Staging laparoscopy in gastric cancer surgery. A population-based cohort study in patients undergoing gastrectomy with curative intent. Eur J Surg Oncol 2020; 47:1441-1448. [PMID: 33234483 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.11.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2020] [Revised: 10/02/2020] [Accepted: 11/11/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Studies on the value of a staging laparoscopy in detecting metastases in gastric cancer patients show great variation. This study investigates the avoidable surgery rate in patients with and without a staging laparoscopy scheduled for surgery with curative intent. METHODS This population-based cohort study included all patients with an intentional resection for a potentially curable gastric adenocarcinoma, between 2011 and 2016, registered in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer audit. Patients with and without a staging laparoscopy were compared. The primary outcome was the avoidable surgery rate (detection of metastases and/or locoregional non-resectable tumor during intentional gastrectomy). Secondary outcomes were the negative predictive value, postoperative morbidity and pathology parameters. RESULTS 2849 patients who underwent an intentional gastrectomy were included. 414 of 2849 (14.5%) patients underwent a staging laparoscopy before initiation of treatment. The avoidable surgery rate was 16.2% in the staging laparoscopy group, compared to 8.5% in the non-staging group (P < 0.001), resulting in a negative predictive value of 83.8%. The avoidable surgery rate remained significantly different after correction for possible confounders. The main reason for not executing the gastrectomy was the presence of distant metastasis in both groups. cT and cN stage were significantly higher in patients who underwent a staging laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS The staging laparoscopy group had a higher cTN and pTN stage, implicating selection of patients with more advanced disease for a staging laparoscopy. Despite the staging laparoscopy, a higher rate of avoidable surgery was found, suggesting a low sensitivity for detecting metastases or locoregional non-resectability in this patient group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander B J Borgstein
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | | | - Wytze Lameris
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Wietse J Eshuis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | -
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
100
|
van der Werf LR, Marra E, Gisbertz SS, Wijnhoven BPL, van Berge Henegouwen MI. A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study to Evaluate the Association of Lymph Node Retrieval with Long-Term Overall Survival in Patients with Esophageal Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2020; 28:133-141. [PMID: 33067746 PMCID: PMC7752882 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-09142-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2020] [Accepted: 07/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Background Previous studies evaluating the association of lymph node (LN) yield and survival presented conflicting results and many may be influenced by confounding and stage migration. Objective This study aimed to evaluate whether the quality indicator ‘retrieval of at least 15 LNs’ is associated with better long-term survival and more accurate pathological staging in patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and resection. Methods Data of esophageal cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery between 2011 and 2016 were retrieved from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit. Patients with < 15 and ≥ 15 LNs were compared after propensity score matching based on patient and tumor characteristics. The primary endpoint was 3-year survival. To evaluate the effect of LN yield on the accuracy of pathological staging, pathological N stage was evaluated and 3-year survival was analyzed in a subgroup of patients with node-negative disease. Results In 2260 of 3281 patients (67%) ≥ 15 LNs were retrieved. In total, 992 patients with ≥ 15 LNs were matched to 992 patients with < 15 LNs. The 3-year survival did not differ between the two groups (57% vs. 54%; p = 0.28). pN+ was scored in 41% of patients with ≥ 15 LNs versus 35% of patients with < 15 LNs. For node-negative patients, the 3-year survival was significantly better for patients with ≥ 15 LNs (69% vs. 61%, p = 0.01). Conclusions n this propensity score-matched cohort, 3-year survival was comparable for patients with ≥ 15 LNs, although increasing nodal yield was associated with more accurate staging. In node-negative patients, 3-year survival was higher for patients with ≥ 15 LNs. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1245/s10434-020-09142-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leonie R van der Werf
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. .,Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands.
| | - Elske Marra
- Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Suzanne S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bas P L Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mark I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|