Surgery for oesophageal cancer at Galway University Hospital 1993-2008

Modern oncological and operative outcomes in oesophageal cancer: the St. James's hospital experience

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal cancer has a reputation for poor survival, and a relatively high risk of major postoperative morbidity and mortality. Encouragingly, a recent international cancer registry study reports a doubling of survival outcomes in Ireland over the last 20 years. This study focused on both oncologic and operative outcomes in patients treated with curative intent requiring surgery at a high-volume center.

METHODS

All patients undergoing surgery or multimodal therapy with curative intent from 2009 to 2018 were studied. All data was recorded prospectively and maintained internally. The period 2009-2013 was compared with 2014-2018 to monitor any change in trends.

RESULTS

Four hundred and seventy-five patients (adenocarcinoma 77%, mean age 65; 76% male; 64% neoadjuvant therapy) underwent open surgical resection, 54% via en bloc 2-stage, 19.8% en bloc 3-stage, and 26.5% by a transhiatal approach. New onset atrial fibrillation was the commonest index complication, in 108 (22.7%), 80 (18%) developed suspected pneumonia/respiratory tract infection, 20 (4.2%) an anastomotic leak, and 25 (5.2%) a chyle leak. The 90-day mortality rate was 1.2% and 0.8% at 30 days. The median survival was 77.17 months, with a 5-year survival of 56%.

CONCLUSION

Consistent with registry data on population survival for oesophageal cancer, this study highlights markedly improved survival outcomes in patients treated curatively, reflecting international trends, as well as low mortality rates; however, cardiorespiratory complications remain significant.

Hospital and surgeon volume in relation to long-term survival after oesophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Centralisation of healthcare, especially for advanced cancer surgery, has been a matter of debate. Clear short-term mortality benefits have been described for oesophageal cancer surgery conducted at high-volume hospitals and by high-volume surgeons.

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the association between hospital volume, surgeon volume and hospital type in relation to long-term survival after oesophagectomy for cancer, by a meta-analysis.

DESIGN

The systematic literature search included PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library, EMBASE and Science Citation Index, for the period 1990-2013. Eligible articles were those which reported survival (time to death) as HRs after oesophagectomy for cancer by hospital volume, surgeon volume or hospital type. Fully adjusted HRs for the longest follow-up were the main outcomes. Results were pooled by a meta-analysis, and reported as HRs and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies from seven countries met the inclusion criteria. These studies reported hospital volume (N=13), surgeon volume (N=4) or hospital type (N=4). A survival benefit was found for high-volume hospitals (HR=0.82, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.90), and possibly also, for high-volume surgeons (HR=0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.02) compared with their low-volume counterparts. No association with survival remained for hospital volume after adjustment for surgeon volume (HR=1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.06; N=2), while a survival benefit was found in favour of high-volume surgeons after adjustment for hospital volume (HR=0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98; N=2).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrated better long-term survival (even after excluding early deaths) after oesophagectomy with high-volume surgery, and surgeon volume might be more important than hospital volume. These findings support centralisation with fewer surgeons working at large centres.