Minimally Invasive transCervical oEsophagectomy (MICE) for oesophageal cancer: prospective cohort study (IDEAL stage 2A)

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive transcervical oesophagectomy is a surgical technique that offers radical oesophagectomy without the need for transthoracic access. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the minimally invasive transcervical oesophagectomy procedure and to report the refinement of this technique in a Western cohort.

METHODS

A single-centre prospective cohort study was designed as an IDEAL stage 2A study. Patients with oesophageal cancer (cT1b-4a N0-3 M0) who were scheduled for oesophagectomy with curative intent were eligible for inclusion in the study. The main outcome parameter was the postoperative pulmonary complication rate and the secondary outcomes were the anastomotic leakage, recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, and R0 resection rates, as well as the lymph node yield.

RESULTS

In total, 75 patients underwent minimally invasive transcervical oesophagectomy between January 2021 and November 2023. Several modifications to the surgical technique were registered, evaluated, and implemented in the context of IDEAL stage 2A. A total of 12 patients (16%) had postoperative pulmonary complications, including pneumonia (4 patients) and pleural effusion with drainage or aspiration (8 patients). Recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy was observed in 33 of 75 patients (44%), with recovery in 30 of 33 patients (91%). A total of 5 of 75 patients (7%) had anastomotic leakage. The median number of resected lymph nodes was 29 (interquartile range 22-37) and the R0 resection rate was 96% (72 patients).

CONCLUSION

Introducing minimally invasive transcervical oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer in a Dutch institution is associated with a low rate of postoperative pulmonary complications and a high rate of temporary recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy.

Five-year Survival after McKeown Compared to Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Population-based Nationwide Study in Finland

OBJECTIVE

The aim of study was to compare overall 5-year survival of esophageal cancer patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy with either neck or intrathoracic anastomosis, that is, McKeown and Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND

No national studies comparing long-term survival after McKeown and ivor-Lewis esophagectomies in the West exist.

METHODS

This population-based nationwide study included all curatively intended transthoracic esophagectomies for esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma in Finland in 1987 to 2016, with follow-up until December 31, 2019. Cox proportional hazard models provided hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (ci) of all-cause 5-year mortality. The results were adjusted for age, sex, year of the operation, comorbidities, histology, stage, and neoadjuvant treatment. Adjusted model 2 included also tumor location and lymph node yield.

RESULTS

A total of 990 patients underwent McKeown (n = 278) or Ivor-Lewis (n = 712) esophagectomy The observed overall 5-year survival was 43.1% after McKeown, and 45.9% after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. McKeown esophagectomy was not associated with the overall 5-year mortality (adjusted HR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.89-1.38), compared to Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. Additional adjustment for tumor location and lymphadenectomy further attenuated the point estimate (HR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.85-1.33). Surgical approach was not associated with 90-day mortality rate (adjusted HR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.67-1.97).

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based nationwide study suggests that overall 5-year survival or 90-day survival with McKeown and Ivor-Lewis esopha-gectomy for esophageal cancer are comparable.

Long-Term Survival After Transhiatal Versus Transthoracic Esophagectomy: A Population-Based Nationwide Study in Finland

BACKGROUND

No population-based studies comparing long-term survival after transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) and transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE) exist. This study aimed to compare the 5-year survival of esophageal cancer patients undergoing THE or TTE in a population-based nationwide setting.

METHODS

This study included all curatively intended THE and TTE for esophageal cancer in Finland during 1987-2016, with follow-up evaluation until 31 December 2019. Cox proportional hazard models provided hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of 5-year and 90-day mortality. The results were adjusted for age, sex, year of operation, comorbidities, histology, neoadjuvant treatment, and pathologic stage.

RESULTS

A total of 1338 patients underwent THE (n = 323) or TTE (n = 1015). The observed 5-year survival rate was 39.3% after THE and 45.0% after TTE (p = 0.072). In adjusted model 1, THE was not associated with greater 5-year mortality (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.82-1.20) than TTE. In adjusted model 2, including T stage instead of pathologic stage, the 5-year mortality hazard rates after THE (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72-1.05) and TTE were comparable. The 90-day mortality rate for THE was higher than for TTE (adjusted HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.45-1.14). In subgroup analyses, no differences between THE and TTE were observed in Siewert II gastroesophageal junction cancers, esophageal cancers, or pN0 tumors, nor in the comparison of THE and TTE with two-field lymphadenectomy. The sensitivity analysis, including patients with missing patient records, who underwent surgery during 1996-2016 mirrored the main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This Finnish population-based nationwide study suggests no difference in 5-year or 90-day mortality after THE and TTE for esophageal cancer.

Implementation of the Esophagectomy Complication Consensus Group definitions: the benefits of speaking the same language

In 2015 the Esophagectomy Complication Consensus Group (ECCG) reported consensus definitions for complications after esophagectomy. This aimed to reduce variation in complication reporting, attributed to heterogeneous definitions. This systematic review aimed to describe the implementation of this definition set, including the effect on complication frequency and variation. A systematic literature review was performed, identifying all observational and randomized studies reporting complication frequencies after esophagectomy since the ECCG publication. Recruitment periods before and subsequent to the index ECCG publication date were included. Coefficients of variance were calculated to assess outcome heterogeneity. Of 144 studies which met inclusion criteria, 70 (48.6%) used ECCG definitions. The median number of separately reported complication types was five per study; only one study reported all ECCG complications. The coefficients of variance of the reported frequencies of eight of the 10 most common complications were reduced in studies which used the ECCG definitions compared with those that did not (P = 0.036). Among ECCG studies, the frequencies of postoperative pneumothorax, reintubation, and pulmonary emboli were significantly reduced in 2020-2021, compared with 2015-2019 (P = 0.006, 0.034, and 0.037 respectively). The ECCG definition set has reduced variation in esophagectomy morbidity reporting. This adds greater confidence to the observed gradual improvement in outcomes with time, and its ongoing use and wider dissemination should be encouraged. However, only a handful of outcomes are widely reported, and only rarely is it used in its entirety.

Similar Quality of Life After Conventional and Robotic Transhiatal Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) have demonstrated benefits compared to open transthoracic or 3-hole esophagectomy. PROs including quality of life (QoL) and fear of recurrence (FoR) comparing open transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) and transhiatal robotic-assisted MIE (Th-RAMIE) have been limited.

METHODS

At a single, high-volume academic center, patients undergoing THE and Th-RAMIE with gastric conduit for clinical stage I-III esophageal cancer from 2013 to 2018 were evaluated. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire in Esophageal Cancer (QLQ-OES18), and FoR survey were administered preoperatively, and at 1, 6- and 12-months post-operatively. Linear mixed-effects models were used for QoL and FoR score comparisons. Perioperative outcomes were also compared.

RESULTS

309 patients (212 THE and 97 Th-RAMIE) were included. The Th-RAMIE cohort had a significantly higher number of lymph nodes harvested (14 ±0.8 vs. 11.2 ±0.4; p = 0.01), shorter length of stay (days, 10.0 ± 6.7 vs. 12.1 ±7.0; p = 0.03), lower rates of postoperative ileus (5% vs. 15%; p = 0.02), and had fewer opioids prescribed at discharge (71% vs. 85%; p = 0.03). After adjustment, there were no significant differences in QLQ-C30, QLQ-OES18, and FoR scores between groups out to 1 year following surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no clear patient-reported benefits of Th-RAMIE over THE for esophageal cancer. However, Th-RAMIE conferred a number of perioperative benefits.

Long-Term Quality of Life Following Transthoracic and Transhiatal Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The impact of transthoracic (TTE) and transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) on long-term health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in patients with distal esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer has been studied with variable results. This study investigates long-term HR-QoL in patients having undergone TTE or THE.

METHODS

Disease-free patients after TTE or THE for distal esophageal or GEJ cancer with a follow-up > 2 years were included. Patients who visited the outpatient clinic of a tertiary referral center between 2014 and 2018 were asked to complete EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-OG25 questionnaires. Uni- and multivariable linear regression analysis of HR-QoL was performed in all patients and in subgroups of minimally invasive esophagectomy and neoadjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients after TTE and 56 after THE were included. When compared with the general population, all patients reported worse HR-QoL in 'role functioning' and 'social functioning' and in a range of disease- and/or treatment-specific symptoms. The only significant difference between TTE and THE was a better HR-QoL score for "hair loss" following TTE (ß = 29.4,95%CI = -49.108 - -9.671, p = 0.016). Subgroup analysis of minimally invasively operated patients showed better scores in "physical functioning" following TTE (ß = 13.8,95%CI = 2.755-24.933, p = 0.030). No significant differences in HR-QoL were found between TTE and THE after neoadjuvant therapy.

CONCLUSION

Long-term HR-QoL is largely comparable in disease-free patients following TTE or THE for distal esophageal or GEJ cancer. If there were differences between the surgical groups, they were in favor of TTE. These findings may aid in preoperative counseling of patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer.

Treatment of Locally Advanced Esophageal Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist in clinical decision making for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer.

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of the more recently published literature (1999-2019) on therapy options for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer and provide recommended care options for this patient population.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Where possible, data were extracted separately for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Multimodality therapy for patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is recommended. For the subgroup of patients with adenocarcinoma, preoperative chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy should be offered. For the subgroup of patients with squamous cell carcinoma, preoperative chemoradiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy without surgery should be offered. Additional subgroup considerations are provided to assist with implementation of these recommendations. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Predicting the Risk of Weight Loss After Esophageal Cancer Surgery

Background

Malnutrition after esophageal cancer surgery is associated with reduced health-related qualify of life. Therefore, a prediction model identifying patients at risk for severe weight loss after surgery was developed.

Methods

Data from a Swedish population-based cohort study, including 616 patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery in 2001–2005, was used. Candidate predictors included risk factors available before and immediately after surgery. Severe weight loss was defined as ≥ 15% loss of body weight between the time of surgery and 6 months postoperatively. The prediction model was developed using multivariable models. The accuracy of the model was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) with bootstrap validation. The model was externally validated in a hospital-based cohort of 91 surgically treated esophageal cancer patients in the United Kingdom in 2011–2016. Each predictor in the final model was assigned a corresponding risk score. The sum of risk scores was equivalent to an estimated probability for severe weight loss.

Results

Among the 351 patients with 6 months follow-up data, 125 (36%) suffered from severe postoperative weight loss. The final prediction model included body mass index at diagnosis, preoperative weight loss, and neoadjuvant therapy. The AUC for the model was 0.78 (95% CI 0.74–0.83). In the validation cohort, the AUC was 0.76. A clinical risk assessment guide was derived from the prediction model.

Conclusions

This prediction model can preoperatively identify individuals with high risk of severe weight loss after esophageal cancer surgery. Intensive nutritional interventions for these patients are recommended.

Quality of life and patient-reported outcomes

The lay view