Does endoscopic treatment for early oesophageal cancers give equivalent oncological outcomes as compared with oesophagectomy? Best evidence topic (BET)

Workload, Recurrence, Quality of Life and Long-term Efficacy of Endoscopic Therapy for High-grade Dysplasia and Intramucosal Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To review the workload, type and frequency of recurrence, long-term quality of life (QOL), and late oncologic outcomes with endoscopic therapy.

BACKGROUND

The short-term oncologic efficacy of endoscopic resection (ER) and ablation for patients with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or intramucosal adenocarcinoma (IMC) is well-established in the literature.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of the initial 40 patients who had endoscopic therapy from 2001 to 2010 at 1 center by 1 physician.

RESULTS

Initial pathology was HGD in 22 and IMC in 18 patients, but 9 patients (41%) with HGD progressed to invasive cancer during endotherapy. The median follow-up was 82 months. Four patients had an esophagectomy, and in the remaining 36 patients, 70 ERs and 111 ablations were performed. The median number of endoscopic sessions was 4 in patients with short segment compared with 7 in patients with long-segment Barrett's. Complete resolution of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) was achieved in 30 patients (83%) at a median of 21 months. In 18 patients (60%), CRIM was maintained, whereas 12 patients developed recurrence at a median of 14 months. Additional endotherapy (n = 11) led to CRIM again in 10 patients (83%). There were no cancer deaths when CRIM was achieved. Overall survival with endotherapy was 73% at 5 years and 67% at 10 years. Quality of life (QOL) was below population means in 4 of 8 areas, but alimentary satisfaction was good after endotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Endotherapy is successful in most patients, but multiple sessions are usually required and disease progression can occur. Once CRIM is achieved, recurrence is common and mandates continued endoscopic follow-up. QOL is impaired with endotherapy, but alimentary satisfaction and oncologic outcomes support esophageal preservation with endotherapy for patients with HGD or IMC.

Esophagectomy after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal carcinoma

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been used to treat early stage esophageal cancer, but reports about additional esophagectomy after ESD and postoperative outcomes are lacking. Complete removal of cancer tissue together with lymph nodes was the advantage of esophagectomy; however, invasiveness, organ loss, postoperative complications, and worse postoperative quality of life were serious disadvantages. The purpose of this study was to find the clear indication of additional esophagectomy after ESD, and help the other patients avoid excessive surgery.

Methods

We reviewed the clinicopathologic data and outcomes consecutive patients who had esophageal cancer confirmed by endoscopic biopsy and who were treated with ESD and subsequent esophagectomy between October 2011 and December 2016 in our department. The esophagectomy necessity following ESD was defined and the groups with necessity (+) vs. (-) were compared retrospectively. The esophagectomy necessity outcomes were retrospectively analyzed to judge whether the surgery option was correct.

Results

Total 214 patients with esophageal and esophagogastric cancer have undergone ESD treatment in our center, of which 32 patients (23 men and 9 women; mean age, 60±8 years) ultimately required esophagectomy after ESD. All patients had complete resection (R0) from esophagectomy. Postoperative TNM staging included TisN0M0 (6 patients), T1aN0M0 (6 patients), T1bN0M0 (18 patients), T1bN1M0 (1 patient), and T2N3M0 (1 patient). Necessity of esophagectomy after ESD was associated with residual margin status. There was a significant difference in ESD specimen margin status between the esophagectomy necessity (+) vs. (-) groups (positive/negative margin: 8/3 vs. 2/9 patients; P=0.03). Esophagectomy should be delayed at least 30 days after ESD to enable resolution of esophageal edema (P=0.017) (206±68 vs. 163±56 mL, P=0.057). Median follow-up was 16.8 months (range, 11.2-54.5 months); 3 patients were lost to follow-up (9%) and 1 patient died of metastasis after esophagectomy. All other patients were alive with excellent postoperative disease-free survival.

Conclusions

Indications for esophagectomy after ESD include ESD failure, cancer recurrence, esophageal rupture, esophageal stricture refractory to endoscopic dilation, and residual tumor at the ESD specimen margin. Stage T1b alone is not an indication for esophagectomy. According to our study, we recommend that esophagectomy should be delayed ≥30 dafter ESD unless urgent esophagectomy is indicated.

Oesophagectomy is a safe option for early adenocarcinoma arising from Barrett's oesophagus

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, there has been a shift towards endoscopic treatment of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and T1 stage adenocarcinoma arising in Barrett's oesophagus. Although short-term outcomes are promising, longer-term outcomes remain uncertain and the role of these therapies versus surgery is debated, with surgical mortality rates assumed. However, few studies have specifically determined the outcome for oesophagectomy in the subgroup with HGD or T1 adenocarcinoma. To determine this, we evaluated experience with oesophagectomy for HGD and T1 adenocarcinoma in Barrett's oesophagus.

METHODS

Data were analysed from a prospective audit database for oesophagectomy performed at two public and four associated private hospitals in Adelaide, South Australia. Patients with HGD, T1a and T1b adenocarcinoma who underwent oesophagectomy from 20 February 1998 to 17 February 2012 were identified, and their perioperative, post-operative and survival outcomes were determined.

RESULTS

From 452 oesophagectomy procedures, 63 (13.9%) individuals who underwent surgery for HGD or T1 adenocarcinoma were identified; HGD - 19 (30.1%), T1a - 18 (28.5 %), T1b - 26 (41.3%). Major complications occurred in eight (12.7%) patients including one (1.6%) death following surgery. Five-year survival for HGD and T1a cancers using Kaplan-Meier analysis was not significantly different from a matched general population without cancer.

CONCLUSION

Oesophagectomy for HGD and T1 stage adenocarcinoma in Barrett's oesophagus is associated with favourable outcomes. Outcomes following endoscopic treatments should be benchmarked against these outcomes, not those following oesophagectomy for advanced cancer.

Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the preferred treatment for resectable oesophageal cancers, and can be performed in different ways. Transhiatal oesophagectomy (oesophagectomy without thoracotomy, with a cervical anastomosis) is one way to resect oesophageal cancers. It can be performed laparoscopically or by open method. With other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay compared to open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy in terms of post-operative complications and oncological clearance compared with open transhiatal oesophagectomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic versus open oesophagectomy for people with oesophageal cancer undergoing transhiatal oesophagectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We electronically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers until August 2015. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies comparing laparoscopic with open transhiatal oesophagectomy in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer, regardless of language, blinding, or publication status for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently identified trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using both fixed-effect and random-effects models, with RevMan 5, based on intention-to-treat analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised controlled trials on this topic. We included six non-randomised studies (five retrospective) that compared laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy (334 patients: laparoscopic = 154 patients; open = 180 patients); five studies (326 patients: laparoscopic = 151 patients; open = 175 patients) provided information for one or more outcomes. Most studies included a mixture of adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma and different stages of oesophageal cancer, without metastases. All the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias; the overall quality of evidence was very low for all the outcomes.The differences between laparoscopic and open transhiatal oesophagectomy were imprecise for short-term mortality (laparoscopic = 0/151 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 0.5%) versus open = 2/175 (1.1%); RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.05 to 4.09; participants = 326; studies = 5; I² = 0%); long-term mortality (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; participants = 193; studies = 2; I² = 0%); anastomotic stenosis (laparoscopic = 4/36 (11.1%) versus open = 3/37 (8.1%); RR 1.37; 95% CI 0.33 to 5.70; participants = 73; studies = 1); short-term recurrence (laparoscopic = 1/16 (6.3%) versus open = 0/4 (0%); RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.04 to 18.47; participants = 20; studies = 1); long-term recurrence (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; participants = 173; studies = 2); proportion of people who required blood transfusion (laparoscopic = 0/36 (0%) versus open = 6/37 (16.2%); RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.00 to 1.35; participants = 73; studies = 1); proportion of people with positive resection margins (laparoscopic = 15/102 (15.8%) versus open = 27/111 (24.3%); RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.12; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); and the number of lymph nodes harvested during surgery (median difference between the groups varied from 12 less to 3 more lymph nodes in the laparoscopic compared to the open group; participants = 326; studies = 5).The proportion of patients with serious adverse events was lower in the laparoscopic group (10/99, (10.3%) compared to the open group = 24/114 (21.1%); RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); as it was for adverse events in the laparoscopic group = 37/99 (39.9%) versus the open group = 71/114 (62.3%); RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); and the median lengths of hospital stay were significantly less in the laparoscopic group than the open group (three days less in all three studies that reported this outcome; number of participants = 266). There was lack of clarity as to whether the median difference in the quantity of blood transfused was statistically significant favouring laparoscopic oesophagectomy in the only study that reported this information. None of the studies reported post-operative dysphagia, health-related quality of life, time-to-return to normal activity (return to pre-operative mobility without caregiver support), or time-to-return to work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are currently no randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open transhiatal oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy is associated with fewer overall complications and shorter hospital stays than open transhiatal oesophagectomy. However, this association is unlikely to be causal. There is currently no information to determine a causal association in the differences between the two surgical approaches. Randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy with other methods of oesophagectomy are required to determine the optimal method of oesophagectomy.

An audit of best evidence topic reviews in the International Journal of Surgery

INTRODUCTION

IJS launched best evidence topic reviews (BETs) in 2011, when the guidelines for conducting and reporting these reviews were published in the journal.

AIMS

(1) Audit the adherence of all published BETs in IJS to these guidelines. (2) Assess the reach and impact of BETs published in IJS.

METHODS

BETs published between 2011 and February 2014 were identified from http://www.journal-surgery.net/. Standards audited included: completeness of description of study attrition, and independent verification of searches. Other extracted data included: relevant subspecialty, duration between searches and publication, and between acceptance and publication. Each BET's number of citations (http://scholar.google.co.uk/), number of tweets (http://www.altmetric.com/) and number of Researchgate views (https://www.researchgate.net/) were recorded.

RESULTS

Thirty-four BETs were identified: the majority, 19 (56%), relating to upper gastrointestinal surgery and none to cardiothoracic, orthopaedic or paediatric surgery. Twenty-nine BETs (82%) fully described study attrition. Twenty-one (62%) had independently verified search results. The mean times from literature searching to publication and acceptance to publication were 38.5 weeks and 13 days respectively. There were a mean 40 (range 0-89) Researchgate views/article, mean 2 (range 0-7) citations/article and mean 0.36 (range 0-2) tweets/article.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to BET guidelines has been variable. Authors are encouraged to adhere to journal guidelines and reviewers and editors to enforce them. BETs have received similar citation levels to other IJS articles. Means of increasing the visibility of published BETs such as social media sharing, conference presentation and deposition of abstracts in public repositories should be explored. More work is required to encourage more submissions from other surgical subspecialties other than gastrointestinal specialties.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy in esophageal cancer: an essential step towards individualized care

Lymph node status is the most important prognostic factor in esophageal cancer. Through improved detection of lymph node metastases, using the sentinel lymph node concept, accurate staging and more tailored therapy may be achieved. This review article outlines two principle ways in which the sentinel lymph node concept could dramatically influence current standard of care for patients with esophageal cancer. We discuss three limitations to universal acceptance of the technique, and propose next steps for increasing enthusiasm amongst physicians and surgeons including the development of a universal tracer, and improved contrast agents with novel dual-modality 'visibility'.