What to do after R1-resection of adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction?

Transthoracic single-port-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic transhiatal approach for Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The surgical approach for patients with Siewert type II AEG remains controversial. Several studies have described a new laparoscopic radical resection approach of Siewert type II AEG through the left diaphragm. However, the technical safety and feasibility of the new surgical approach compared with the transhiatal approach have not yet been tested.

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively reviewed patients with AEG who underwent TSLG and LTH operations in the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine between January 2017 and April 2021. Histologically confirmed AEG and D2 lymphadenectomy with curative R0 patients were included, and patients with Siewert I/III AEG or distant metastasis were excluded. Blood loss, the amount of harvested lymph node, and complications related to surgery were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 99 patients with Siewert type II AEG were analyzed, 44 in the TSLG group and 55 in the LTH group. There was no difference in clinicopathological features between the two groups. The more harvested lymph node (23.33 ± 11.41 vs. 32.18 ± 12.85, p < 0.01), lower mediastinal lymph node (1.07 ± 2.08 vs. 3.25 ± 3.31, p < 0.01), and longer proximal margin length (3.08 ± 1.19 vs. 4.47 ± 0.95 cm, p < 0.01) were observed in the TSLG group. The rate of cure (R0 gastrectomy) in the TSLG group was higher than that in the LTH group (100% vs. 89.09%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

The TSLG approach is associated with improved surgical views, simplified lymphatic dissection in the inferior mediastinum, and more reliable margins. TSLG surgery may be an effective addition to LTH surgery, particularly when lower mediastinal lymph node metastases are suspected.

The definition of "R1" lymph node dissection status in patients undergoing curative-aim gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma: A proof of concept study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to define and investigate the prognostic impact of "R1-Lymph-node dissection" during gastrectomy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study conducted with 499 patients undergoing curative-aim gastrectomy. We defined R1-Lymph dissection as an involvement of lymph node stations anatomically connected with lymph node stations outside the declared level of dissection (D1 to D2+). The primary outcomes were disease-free and disease-specific survival (DFS and DSS).

RESULTS

At multivariable analysis, the type of gastrectomy, pT and pN were associated with DFS, and the type of gastrectomy, R1-Margin status, R1-Lymph status, pT, pN and adjuvant therapy were associated with DSS. Moreover, pT and R1-Lymph status were the only factors associated with overall loco-regional recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we introduced the concept of R1-Lymph-node dissection, which was significantly associated with DSS and appeared to be a stronger prognostic factor for loco-regional recurrence than the R1 status on the resection margin.

Adjuvant therapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery for oesophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with clear resection margins

BACKGROUND

The role of adjuvant therapy in patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and surgery is contentious. In UK practice, surgical resection margin status is often used to classify patients into receiving adjuvant treatment. This study aimed to assess any survival benefit of adjuvant therapy in patients with clear resection margins.

METHODS

This was a retrospective collaborative cohort study combining two prospectively collected UK institutional databases of patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Multivariable Cox regression and propensity matched analyses were used to compare overall and recurrence-free survival according to the adjuvant treatment.

RESULTS

Of 374 patients with clear resection margins, 221 patients (59%) had no adjuvant treatment, 137 patients (37%) had adjuvant chemotherapy and 16 patients (4%) had adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. For patients who had received NAC (290, 76%), when adjuvant chemotherapy was compared to no adjuvant treatment, hazard ratios (HRs) favoured adjuvant chemotherapy but did not reach independent significance (overall survival [OS] HR 0.65 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-1.06; p .0.087). Responders to NAC (Mandard 1-3) were seemingly more likely to demonstrate a survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.42 95% CI 0.15-1.11; p .1.081).

CONCLUSIONS

Although no independent survival benefit was observed, the point estimates favoured adjuvant treatment, predominantly in patients with chemo-responsive tumours.

Impact of resection margin status on survival in advanced N stage pancreatic cancer - a multi-institutional analysis

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to examine the impact of microscopically tumour-infiltrated resection margins (R1) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients with advanced lymphonodular metastasis (pN1-pN2) on overall survival (OS).

METHODS

This retrospective, multi-institutional analysis included patients undergoing surgical resection for PDAC at three tertiary university centres between 2005 and 2018. Subcohorts of patients with lymph node status pN0-N2 were stratified according to the histopathological resection status using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

The OS of the entire cohort (n = 620) correlated inversely with the pN status (26 [pN0], 18 [pN1], 11.8 [pN2] months, P < 0.001) and R status (21.7 [R0], 12.5 [R1] months, P < 0.001). However, there was no statistically significant OS difference between R0 versus R1 in cases with advanced lymphonodular metastases: 19.6 months (95% CI: 17.4-20.9) versus 13.6 months (95% CI: 10.7-18.0) for pN1 stage and 13.7 months (95% CI: 10.7-18.9) versus 10.1 months (95% CI: 7.9-19.1) for pN2, respectively. Accordingly, N stage-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that R status was a prognostic factor in pN0 cases only. Furthermore, there was no significant survival disadvantage for patients with R0 resection but circumferential resection margin invasion (≤ 1 mm; CRM+; 10.7 months) versus CRM-negative (13.7 months) cases in pN2 stages (P = 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

An R1 resection is not associated with worse OS in pN2 cases. If there is evidence of advanced lymph node metastasis and a re-resection due to an R1 situation (e.g. at venous or arterial vessels) may substantially increase the perioperative risk, margin clearance in order to reach local control might be avoided with respect to the OS.

Impact of adjuvant therapy in patients with a microscopically positive margin after resection for gastric and esophageal cancers

Background

A microscopically positive (R1) resection margin following resection for gastric and esophageal cancers has been documented to be a poor prognostic factor. The optimal strategy and impact of different modalities of adjuvant treatment for an R1 resection margin remain unclear.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed for patients with gastric and esophageal adenocarcinoma treated at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PMCC) from 2006-2016. Electronic medical records of all patients with an R1 resection margin were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods were used to analyze recurrence free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) with stage and neoadjuvant treatment as covariates in the multivariate analysis.

Results

We identified 69 gastric and esophageal adenocarcinoma patients with a R1 resection. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was used in 13% of patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 12%, surgery alone in 75%. Margins involved included proximal in 30%, distal in 14%, radial in 52% and multiple margins in 3% of patients. Pathological staging showed 3% with stage I disease, 20% stage II and 74% stage III. Adjuvant therapy was given in 52% of R1 pts (28% CRT, 20% chemotherapy alone, 3% radiation alone, 1% reoperation). Median RFS was 14.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 11.1-17.2]. The site of first recurrence was 72% distant, 12% mixed, 16% locoregional alone. Median OS was 34.5 months (95% CI, 23.3-57.9) for all patients. There was no significant difference in RFS (adjusted P=0.26) or OS (adjusted P=0.83) comparing modality of adjuvant therapy.

Conclusions

Most patients with positive margins after resection for gastric and esophageal cancer had advanced pathologic stage and prognosis was poor. Our study did not find improved RFS or OS with adjuvant treatment and only one patient had reresection. The main failure pattern was distant recurrence, suggesting that patients being considered for adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) should be carefully selected. Further studies are required to determine factors to select patients with good prognosis despite a positive margin, or those who may benefit from adjuvant treatment.

The Role of Continuing Perioperative Chemotherapy Post Surgery in Patients with Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: a Multicenter Cohort Study

PURPOSE

The aim of this cohort study was to assess the benefit that patients with lower esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (E/GEJ) adenocarcinoma receive by continuing perioperative chemotherapy post-surgery.

METHODS

Three hundred twelve patients underwent radical tumor surgical resection after preoperative chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was mainly ECX (epirubicin, cisplatin, capecitabine). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare continuation of chemotherapy post-surgery vs. no postoperative treatment.

RESULTS

Two hundred ten patients (67.3%) had GEJ and 102 (32.7%) lower esophageal adenocarcinoma. Microscopically clear surgical margins (R0), according to the Royal College of Pathologists, were achieved in 208 patients (66.7%). In total, 225 patients (72.1%) continued perioperative chemotherapy post-surgery. PSM was used to create two patient groups, well-balanced for basic epidemiological, clinical, and histopathological characteristics. The first included 148 patients who continued perioperative chemotherapy after surgery and the second 86, who did not receive postoperative treatment. The first group had non-significantly different median time-to-relapse (TTR 22.2 vs. 25.7 months, p = 0.627), overall survival (OS 46.1 vs. 36.7 months, p = 0.199), and post-relapse survival (15.3 vs. 8.7 months, p = 0.122). Subgroup analysis showed that only patients with microscopically residual disease after surgery (R1 resection) benefited from continuation of chemotherapy post-surgery for both TTR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.556, 95% CI 0.330-0.936, p = 0.027) and OS (HR 0.530, 95% CI 0.313-0.898, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuation of perioperative chemotherapy post-surgery was not associated with improved outcome in patients with E/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Patients with microscopically residual disease post-surgery might receive a potential benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.

Novel abdominal approach for dissection of advanced type II/III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a new surgical option

OBJECTIVE

The optimal surgical approach for Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) is controversial. In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of total gastrectomy for Siewert type II/III AEG via the left thoracic surgical approach that is used at our center.

METHODS

We identified 41 patients with advanced AEG in our retrospective database and analyzed their 3-year survival rate, upper surgical margin, postoperative complications, and index of estimated benefit from lymph node dissection.

RESULTS

The 3-year overall survival rate of the whole group was 63%, but no difference was observed between Siewert type II and III AEGs. Esophageal exposure and lymphadenectomy were sufficient. Eight patients developed postoperative complications, but none of the patients developed anastomotic leakage. Dissection of lymph node station Nos. 19 and 110 may be necessary for patients with Siewert type II AEG. Multivariate analysis revealed that the cT category was the only independent risk factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Total gastrectomy via an approach from the abdominal cavity into the thoracic cavity may be an optimal surgical technique for advanced Siewert type II AEG.

Clinical significance of esophageal invasion length for the prediction of mediastinal lymph node metastasis in Siewert type II adenocarcinoma: A retrospective single-institution study

AIM

This study investigated whether esophageal invasion length (EIL) of a tumor from the esophagogastric junction could be a possible indicator of mediastinal lymph node metastasis and survival in patients with Siewert type II adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty-eight patients with Siewert type II tumor who underwent surgery were enrolled. Metastatic stations and recurrent lymph node sites were classified into cervical, upper/middle/lower mediastinal, and abdominal zones. EIL was correlated with overall metastasis or recurrence in individual zones and with survival.

RESULTS

Siewert type II patients with an EIL of more than 25 mm (>25 mm EIL group) had a higher incidence of overall metastasis or recurrence in the upper and middle mediastinal zones than those with an EIL of less than or equal to 25 mm (≤25 mm EIL group) (P = .001 and P < .001). Disease-free and overall survival in the >25 mm EIL group were significantly lower than those of the ≤25 mm EIL group (P < .001). None of the Siewert type II patients with metastasis or recurrence in the upper and middle mediastinal zones survived for more than 5 years. Only an EIL of more than 25 mm was a significant preoperative predictor of overall metastasis or recurrence in the upper and middle mediastinal zones (odds ratio, 8.85; 95% CI, 2.31-33.3; P = .001).

CONCLUSION

A multimodal-therapeutic strategy should be investigated in Siewert type II patients once the tumor has invaded more than 25 mm to the esophageal wall.

[R1 resection of esophageal carcinoma]

The microscopic identification of residual tumor tissue in the oral or aboral resection margins (R1 resection) of esophageal specimens following oncologic esophageal resection, increases the risk of tumor recurrence and disease-related morbidity. Esophageal resection with its associated risks is only meaningful, if an R0 situation can be safely achieved. The relevance of microscopic involvement of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) in esophageal carcinoma in its different definitions by the British and the American Societies of Pathology has up to now never been investigated in a prospective study. According to the German S3 guideline, radiochemotherapy should be performed in a postoperatively proven R1 situation, which cannot be converted by a curative extended re-resection into an R0 situation or in unfavorable conditions for an extended re-resection, independent of neoadjuvant therapy. In the case of an R1 situation in the region of the CRM, an extended re-resection is not simply possible on account of the anatomical conditions with corresponding limitations by the aorta and the spinal column, in contrast to extensions of the re-resection orally or aborally.