Outcome of delayed versus timely esophagectomy after chemoradiation for esophageal adenocarcinoma

Patient, facility, and surgical factors associated with significant delays to esophagectomy and subsequent poor outcomes: An analysis of 16,486 cases

OBJECTIVE

Delays to definitive surgery in esophageal cancer may be associated with disease progression and worsened survival. The objective of this study was to perform a national assessment for predictors of delay to esophagectomy and to assess for their impact on oncologic and survival outcomes.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database, 2010 to 2020, was queried for patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma (stage I-III). Patients were divided into up-front and postneoadjuvant chemoradiation cohorts. The primary outcome was time to surgery. Time to surgery was examined as a continuous and categorical variable, where patients were divided into timely and delayed cohorts (96 days for up-front cohort; 56 days for postneoadjuvant chemoradiation cohort).

RESULTS

Of 16,486 patients, 4066 (24.7%) underwent up-front surgery and 12,420 (75.3%) underwent postneoadjuvant chemoradiation surgery. In the up-front surgery group, median [interquartile range] time to surgery was 61 [40-96] days. Risk-adjusted predictors of delay included lack of insurance, lowest quartile of education, biopsy-based staging or surgical staging, and robotic-assisted approach. In the postneoadjuvant chemoradiation, cohort time to surgery was 55 [44-70] days. Risk-adjusted predictors of delay included Hispanic ethnicity, Medicaid or other government-based insurance, lowest quartile of educational status, and robotic approach. In the up-front surgery group, patients who received delayed surgery had increased odds of pathologic upstaging (1.31, 95% CI, 1.06-1.61). In the postneoadjuvant chemoradiation group, patients with surgical delay had increased odds of 90-day mortality (1.27, 95% CI, 1.06-1.51).

CONCLUSIONS

After risk adjustment for patient, oncologic, facility, and surgical characteristics, there were several predictors of increased time to esophagectomy associated with consequences of upstaging and survival.

Complete pathologic response in esophageal adenocarcinoma: does it make a difference?

Advancements in neoadjuvant regimens for esophageal adenocarcinoma have enabled some patients to achieve complete pathologic response at time of esophagectomy. There are currently limited data detailing this trend or the implications of complete pathologic response on survival. The National Cancer Database was used to identify 16,169 patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma that received trimodal therapy including esophagectomy between 2006 and 2020. Of these, 11.4% had complete pathologic response at esophagectomy. Patient factors, staging characteristics, and survival trends were evaluated. In patients diagnosed between 2016 and 2020, the rate of complete pathologic response was 17.5%. Female sex (OR 1.295, 95% CI 1.134-1.481, p = 0.0001), Black race (OR 1.729, 95% CI 1.362-2.196, p = 0.0002), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.418, 95% CI 1.073-1.875, p = 0.0141), and later era of diagnosis (2016-2020 OR 2.898, 95% CI 2.508-3.349, p < 0.0001) were independent predictors of complete pathologic response. Clinical stage II disease was associated with an increased probability of complete pathologic response (OR 1.492, 95% CI 1.19-1.871) while clinical stage III disease had a decreased probability of complete pathologic response (OR 0.762, 95% CI 0.621-0.936, p < 0.0001). Complete pathologic response conveyed a strong survival benefit, with a median survival of 86.4 months (95% CI 73.9-102.1) versus 30.7 months (95% CI 29.8-31.7, p < 0.0001) in those without complete pathologic response. Four-year median survival was also higher in those with complete pathologic response (63.3%, 95% CI 60.8-66.0% vs. 39.2%, 95% CI 38.4-40.1%, p < 0.0001). In summary, complete pathologic response is associated with a profound survival advantage in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. Such knowledge carries implications for patient counseling, prognostication, and surveillance and demonstrates a need for improved identification of complete clinical response prior to esophagectomy.

Does the time interval from neoadjuvant camrelizumab combined with chemotherapy to surgery affect outcomes for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma?

BACKGROUND

There is currently no consensus on the optimal interval time between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery, and whether prolonged time interval from neoadjuvant therapy to surgery results in bad outcomes for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). In this study, we aim to evaluate outcomes of time intervals ≤ 8 weeks and > 8 weeks in locally advanced ESCC.

METHODS

This retrospective study consecutively included ESCC patients who received esophagectomy after neoadjuvant camrelizumab combined with chemotherapy at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine. The primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), while the secondary endpoints were pathological response, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

From 2019 to 2021, a total of 80 patients were included in our study and were divided into two groups according to the time interval from neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy to surgery: ≤ 8 weeks group (n = 44) and > 8 weeks group (n = 36). The rate of MPR in the ≤ 8 weeks group was 25.0% and 27.8% in the > 8 weeks group (P = 0.779). The rate of pCR in the ≤ 8 weeks group was 11.4%, with 16.7% in the > 8 weeks group (P = 0.493). The incidence of postoperative complications in the ≤ 8 weeks group was 27.3% and 19.4% in the > 8 weeks group (P = 0.413). The median DFS in the two groups had not yet reached (hazard ratio [HR], 3.153; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.383 to 6.851; P = 0.004). The median OS of ≤ 8 weeks group was not achieved (HR, 3.703; 95% CI 1.584 to 8.657; P = 0.0012), with the > 8 weeks group 31.6 months (95% CI 21.1 to 42.1). In multivariable analysis, inferior DFS and OS were observed in patients with interval time > 8 weeks (HR, 2.992; 95% CI 1.306 to 6.851; and HR, 3.478; 95% CI 1.481 to 8.170, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Locally advanced ESCC patients with time interval from neoadjuvant camrelizumab combined with chemotherapy to surgery > 8 weeks were associated with worse long-term survival.

Factors affecting timing of surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer

Background

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation with esophagectomy is standard management for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Studies have shown that surgical timing following chemoradiation is important for minimizing postoperative complications, however in practice timing is often variable and delayed. Although postoperative impact of surgical timing has been studied, less is known about factors associated with delays.

Materials and methods

A retrospective review was performed for 96 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent chemoradiation then esophagectomy between 2018 and 2020 at a single institution. Univariable and stepwise multivariable analyses were used to assess association between social (demographics, insurance) and clinical variables (pre-operative weight, comorbidities, prior cardiothoracic surgery, smoking history, disease staging) with time to surgery (≤8 weeks "on-time" vs. >8 weeks "delayed").

Results

Fifty-one patients underwent esophagectomy within 8 weeks of chemoradiation; 45 had a delayed operation. Univariate analysis showed the following characteristics were significantly different between on-time and delayed groups: weight loss within 3 months of surgery (3.9 ± 5.1 kg vs. 1.5 ± 3.6 kg; P = 0.009), prior cardiovascular disease (29% vs. 49%; P = 0.05), prior cardiothoracic surgery (4% vs. 22%; P = 0.01), history of ever smoked (69% vs. 87%; P = 0.04), absent nodal metastasis on pathology (57% vs. 82%; P = 0.008). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that prior cardiothoracic surgery (OR 8.924, 95%CI 1.67-47.60; P = 0.01) and absent nodal metastasis (OR 4.186, 95%CI 1.50-11.72; P = 0.006) were associated with delayed surgery.

Conclusions

Delayed esophagectomy following chemoradiotherapy is associated with prior cardiothoracic surgery and absent nodal metastasis. Further investigations should focus on understanding how these factors contribute to delays to guide treatment planning and mitigate sources of outcome disparities.

Salvage Esophagectomy After Definitive Chemoradiotherapy for Squamous Cell Esophageal Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Study in a High-Volume Center

BACKGROUND

Salvage esophagectomy, indicated for some patients with locally recurrent/persistent disease after definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT), reportedly has high postoperative complications. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of dCRT followed by salvage esophagectomy (DCRE) with planned esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRE) in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all locally advanced ESCC patients treated with DCRE or NCRE at Shanghai Chest Hospital from 2018 to 2021. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline differences. DCRE is defined as esophagectomy for recurrent/persistent disease after dCRT.

RESULTS

A total of 302 patients (41 for DCRE and 261 for NCRE) were included. The median interval of chemoradiotherapy-to-surgery was 47d in NCRE, 43d and 440d in DCRE of persistent disease (n = 24) and recurrence (n = 17), respectively. DCRE was observed with advanced ypT stage (63% vs 38%), poorer differentiation (32% vs 15%) and more lymphovascular invasion (29% vs 11%) compared with NCRE (all p < 0.05). The above factors were comparable between the two groups after PSM (all p > 0.05). There were no significant differences before and after PSM in postoperative complications over Clavien-Dindo grade III (e.g., respiratory failure and anastomotic leak), 30/90-day postoperative mortality, and survival.

CONCLUSION

Through a standardized surgical procedure in a high-volume center, DCRE exhibited comparable postoperative complications and prognosis with NCRE.

Planned oesophagectomy after chemoradiotherapy versus salvage oesophagectomy following definitive chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal cancer is the eighth most common cancer and sixth leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Salvage oesophagectomies are associated with an increased risk of mortality, although recent data suggests that long-term survival rates following salvage oesophagectomy are similar to planned oesophagectomy. The aim was therefore to meta-analyse outcomes for patients undergoing salvage versus planned oesophagectomies to assess the differences in short-term mortality and long-term survival.

METHODS

A systematic review of Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed was performed to identify relevant studies. Data were extracted and compared by meta-analysis, using odds ratio and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies meeting inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis, which compared patients in the planned oesophagectomy group (n = 23 555) to patients in the salvage oesophagectomy group (n = 2227). There were significant differences between the groups in terms of rates of postoperative mortality (5.7% salvage oesophagectomy versus 3.1% planned oesophagectomy, P = 0.0004), anastomotic leak (20.6% salvage oesophagectomy versus 14.5% planned oesophagectomy, P < 0.00001), pulmonary complications (37.1% salvage oesophagectomy versus 24.2% planned oesophagectomy, P < 0.0001) and R0 margin (87.6% salvage oesophagectomy versus 91.3% planned oesophagectomy, P < 0.0001). There was no statistical difference between long-term survival rates at 5 years with 39.2% for salvage and 42.6% for planned oesophagectomy (P = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage oesophagectomies do offer a meaningful chance of long-term survival (at 5 years) for select patients with oesophageal cancer, but the elevated risk of post-operative complications and mortality following salvage oesophagectomy should be recognized.

Early versus delayed surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery, is the mainstay of managing locally advanced esophageal cancer. However, the optimal timing of surgery after neoadjuvant therapy is not defined clearly.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases was conducted. 6-8 weeks were used as a cut-off to define early and delayed surgery groups. Overall Survival (OS) was the primary outcome, whereas pathological complete resolution (pCR), R0 resection, anastomotic leak, perioperative mortality, pulmonary complications, and major complication (> Clavien-Dindo grade 2) rates were secondary outcomes. Cohort studies and national registry bases studies were analysed separately. Survival data were pooled as Hazard Ratio (HR) and the rest as Odds Ratio (OR). According to heterogeneity, fixed-effect or random-effect models were used.

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective studies, one RCT, and six registry-based studies (13,600 participants) were included. Pooled analysis of cohort studies showed no difference in OS (HR 1.03, CI 0.91-1.16), pCR (OR 0.98, CI 0.80-1.20), R0 resection (OR 0.90, CI 0.55-I.45), mortality (OR 1.03, CI 0.59-1.77), pulmonary complications (OR 1.26, CI 0.97-1.64) or major complication rates (OR 1.29, CI 0.96-1.73). Delayed surgery led to increased leak (OR 1.48, CI 1.11-1.97). Analysis of registry studies showed that the delayed group had a better pCR rate (OR 1.12, CI 1.01-1.24), with no improvement in survival (HR 1.01, CI 0.92-1.10). Delayed surgery was associated with increased mortality (OR 1.35, CI 1.07-1.69) and major complication rate (OR 1.55, CI 1.20-2.01). Available RCT reported surgical outcomes only.

CONCLUSION

National registry-based studies' analysis shows that delay in surgery is riskier and leads to higher mortality and major complication rates. Further, well-designed RCTs are required.

Circulating Tumor DNA-Based Disease Monitoring of Patients with Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

Simple Summary

The standard of care for patients diagnosed with locally advanced esophageal cancer is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. There is a high clinical need to monitor response to neoadjuvant treatment and recognize patients at risk for recurrence to enable individual treatment strategies. Ultradeep sequencing-based detection of circulating tumor DNA in preoperative plasma of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer can predict which patients have a high risk of recurrence after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery. Circulating tumor DNA-based prediction of the presence of distant metastasis might eventually be used to reconsider surgery and its associated morbidity in patients with detected circulating tumor DNA or stratify patients for adjuvant treatment.

Abstract

Patients diagnosed with locally advanced esophageal cancer are often treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. This study explored whether detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in plasma can be used to predict residual disease during treatment. Diagnostic tissue biopsies from patients with esophageal cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery were analyzed for tumor-specific mutations. These tumor-informed mutations were used to measure the presence of ctDNA in serially collected plasma samples using hybrid capture-based sequencing. Plasma samples were obtained before chemoradiotherapy, and prior to surgery. The association between ctDNA detection and progression-free and overall survival was measured. Before chemoradiotherapy, ctDNA was detected in 56% (44/78) of patients and detection was associated with tumor stage and volume (p = 0.05, Fisher exact and p = 0.02, Mann-Whitney, respectively). After chemoradiotherapy, ctDNA was detected in 10% (8/78) of patients. This preoperative detection of ctDNA was independently associated with recurrent disease (hazard ratio 2.8, 95% confidence interval 1.1–6.8, p = 0.03, multivariable Cox-regression) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio 2.9, 95% confidence interval 1.2–7.1, p = 0.02, multivariable Cox-regression).Ultradeep sequencing-based detection of ctDNA in preoperative plasma of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer may help to assess which patients have a high risk of recurrence after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery.

The Key Clinical Questions of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer—A Review

Over 50% of individuals with esophageal cancer (EC) present with advanced stages of the disease; therefore, their outcome following surgery alone is poor, with only 25%–36% being alive 5 years post-surgery. Based on the evidence that the CROSS and NEOCRTEC5010 trials provided, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is now the standard therapy for patients with locally advanced EC. However, there are still many concerning clinical questions that remain controversial such as radiation dose, appropriate patient selection, the design of the radiation field, the time interval between chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery, and esophageal retention. With immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) rapidly becoming a mainstay of cancer therapy, along with radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery, the combination mode of immunotherapy is also becoming a hot topic of discussion. Here, we try to provide constructive suggestions to answer the perplexing problems and clinical concerns for the progress of nCRT for EC in the future.

Salvage Esophagectomy Definition Influences Comparative Outcomes in Esophageal Squamous Cell Cancers

BACKGROUND

In retrospective studies, the definition of salvage esophagectomy has been inconsistent and is a source of bias. We sought to describe how variability in the definition of salvage affects comparative outcomes of TMT and BMT therapy.

METHODS

Patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who completed chemoradiation (CRT) from 2002-2017 were identified. TMT included patients who had a planned esophagectomy after CRT. BMT included patients treated with CRT only, plus salvage esophagectomy, variably defined as an esophagectomy occurring either A) 3 months after CRT; B) 3 months after CRT, excluding delayed recovery; C) 3 months after CRT, excluding delayed work-up; or D) 6 months after CRT. Long-term survival outcomes between the TMT and BMT groups were compared for each definition of salvage esophagectomy. Time to surgery was included a priori in a multivariable model for overall survival.

RESULTS

The study included 143 patients. Ninety (63%) underwent esophagectomy; 53(37%) received CRT only. While the total patients remained the same, the composition of the TMT and BMT groups varied by salvage definitions A-D. Various definitions resulted in different 5-year survival rates for TMT vs. BMT groups. A), 56% vs. 39%; B), 61% vs. 34%; C), 50% vs. 42%; and D), 51% vs. 39%. In a Cox multivariable analysis, age and proximal/middle esophageal tumors were associated with worse post-operative survival, but time to surgery was not.

CONCLUSIONS

Slight variations in the definition of salvage esophagectomy can influence the interpretation of TMT and BMT outcomes. Future studies should consistently define treatment groups.

Socioeconomic factors in timing of esophagectomy and association with outcomes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Disparities in esophageal cancer are well-established. The standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer is chemoradiation followed by surgery. We sought to evaluate the association between socioeconomic factors, time to surgery, and patient outcomes.

METHODS

All patients ≥18 years old diagnosed with T2/3/4 or node-positive esophageal cancer between 2004 and 2016 and who underwent chemoradiation and esophagectomy in the National Cancer Database were included. Multivariable regression was used to assess the association between socioeconomic variables and time to surgery (grouped into <56, 56-84, and 85-112 days).

RESULTS

A total of 12 157 patients were included. Five-year overall survival was 39%, 35%, and 35% for the three groups examined. Postoperative 30- and 90-day mortality was increased in both the 56-84 days to surgery group (odds ratio [OR]: 1.30 and 1.20, respectively) and the 85-112 days group (OR: 1.37 and 1.56, respectively) when compared to <56 days. Patients of a minority race, public insurance, or lower income were more likely to have a longer time to surgery.

CONCLUSION

Longer time to surgery is associated with increased postoperative mortality and is more common in patients with lower socioeconomic status. Further research exploring reasons for delays to esophagectomy among disadvantaged patients could help target interventions to reduce disparities.

Salvage Esophagectomy

Salvage esophagectomy is an option for patients with recurrent or persistent esophageal cancer after definitive chemoradiation therapy or those who undergo active surveillance after induction chemoradiation therapy. Salvage resection is associated with higher rates of morbidity compared with planned esophagectomy but offers patients with locally advanced disease a chance at improved long-term survival. Salvage resection should be preferentially performed in a multidisciplinary setting by high-volume and experienced surgeons. Technical considerations, such as prior radiation dosage, radiation field, and choice of conduit, should be taken into account.

Surveillance Following Treatment of Esophageal Cancer

We describe the surveillance strategies after esophageal cancer treatment, whether local therapy, induction chemoradiation, or other definitive treatment such as trimodality therapy. We discuss the shortcomings of the different invasive and imaging studies, and the recommended stage-specific surveillance after local and organ-sparing approaches to esophageal cancer treatment.

A narrative review of socioeconomic disparities in the treatment of esophageal cancer

The persistent challenges of disparities in healthcare have led to significantly distinct outcomes among patients from different racial, ethnic, and underserved populations. Esophageal Cancer, not unlike other surgical diseases, has seen significant disparities in care. Esophageal cancer is currently the 6th leading cause of death from cancer and the 8th most common cancer in the world. Surgical disparities in the care of patients with Esophageal Cancer have been described in the literature, with a prevailing theme associating minority status with worse outcomes. The goal of this review is to provide an updated account of the literature on disparities in Esophageal Cancer presentation and treatment. We will approach this task through a conceptual framework that highlights the five main themes of surgical disparities: patient-level factors, provider-level factors, system and access issues, clinical care and quality, and postoperative outcomes, care and rehabilitation. All five categories play a complex role in the delivery of high-quality, equitable care for patients with Esophageal Cancer. While describing disparities in care is the first step to correcting them, moving forward, we should focus on developing effective interventions to mitigate disparities, policies linking disparities to quality-of-care metrics, and delivery system change to enable minority patients to more easily access high volume centers.

[Surgical treatment of esophageal cancer-Indicators for quality in diagnostics and treatment]

BACKGROUND

Within the framework of the quality initiative of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) a review article was compiled based on a systematic literature search. Recommendations for the current diagnostics and treatment of esophageal cancer were also elaborated.

METHODS

The systematic literature search was carried out in March 2019 according to the PRISMA criteria using the MEDLINE databank. The recommendations were formulated based on a consensus in the DGAV.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Operations below the currently valid minimum quantity threshold should no longer be carried out. There are many indications that the minimum quantity in Germany should be raised to ≥20 resections/year/hospital in order to comprehensively improve the quality. Prehabilitation programs with endurance, strength and intensive breathing training as well as nutritional therapy improve patient outcome. The current treatment of esophageal cancer is stage-dependent and incorporates endoscopic resection of (sub)mucosal low-risk tumors (T1m1-3 or T1sm1 low risk), primary esophagectomy of submucosal high-risk tumors (T1a), submucosal cancer (T1sm2-3) and T2N0 tumors, multimodal treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy and operations for advanced stages. Esophagectomy is nowadays carried out in one stage as a so-called hybrid procedure (laparoscopy and muscle-preserving thoracotomy) or as a total minimally invasive operation (laparoscopy and thoracoscopy).

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Lung Cancer Screening Program and Subsequent Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Low-dose CT (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer mortality by at least 20%. The COVID-19 pandemic required an unprecedented shutdown in our institutional LDCT program. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of COVID-19 on lung cancer screening and subsequent cancer diagnosis.

STUDY DESIGN

We analyzed our prospective institutional LDCT screening database, which began in 2012. In all, 2,153 patients have participated. Monthly mean number of LDCTs were compared between baseline (January 2017 to February 2020) and COVID-19 periods (March 2020 to July 2020).

RESULTS

LDCT was suspended on March 13, 2020 and 818 screening visits were cancelled. Phased reopening began on May 5, 2020 and full opening on June 1, 2020. Total monthly mean ± SD LDCTs (146 ± 31 vs 39 ± 40; p < 0.01) and new patient monthly LDCTs (56 ± 14 vs 15 ± 17; p < 0.01) were significantly decreased during the COVID-19 period. New patient monthly LDCTs have remained low despite resuming full operations. Three- and 6-month interval follow-up LDCTs were prioritized and were significantly increased compared with baseline (11 ± 4 vs 30 ± 4; p < 0.01). The "no-show" rate was significantly increased from baseline (15% vs 40%; p < 0.04). Most concerning, the percentage of patients with lung nodules suspicious for malignancy (Lung-RADS 4) were significantly increased after screenings resumed (8% vs 29%; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 caused significant disruption in lung cancer screening, leading to a decrease in new patients screened and an increased proportion of nodules suspicious for malignancy once screening resumed. Using lung cancer and the LDCT screening program as a model, this early analysis showed the unrecognized consequences related to the pandemic for screening programs and cancer care.

It's not always too late: a case for minimally invasive salvage esophagectomy

INTRODUCTION

Standard of care for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) and surgical resection 4-8 weeks after completion of nCRT. It is recommended that the CRT to surgery interval not exceed 90 days. Many patients do not undergo surgery within this timeframe due to patient/physician preference, complete clinical response, or poor performance status. Select patients are offered salvage esophagectomy (SE), defined in two ways: resection for recurrent/persistent disease after complete response to definitive CRT (dCRT) or esophagectomy performed > 90 days after completion of nCRT. Salvage esophagectomy reportedly has higher postoperative morbidity and poor survival outcomes. In this study, we assessed outcomes, overall, and disease-free survival of patients undergoing salvage esophagectomy by both definitions (recurrent/persistent disease after dCRT and/or > 90 days), compared to planned (resection after nCRT/within 90 days) esophagectomy (PE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy at a single institution from 2009 to 2019. Esophagectomy for benign disease and patients who did not receive nCRT were excluded. Outcomes included postoperative complications, length of stay (LOS), disease-free survival, and overall survival.

RESULTS

97 patients underwent minimally invasive esophageal resection for esophageal carcinoma. 89.7% of patients were male. Mean age was 64.9 years (range 36-85 years). 94.8% of patients had adenocarcinoma, with 16 transthoracic and 81 transhiatal approaches. On comparing planned esophagectomy (n = 87) to esophagectomy after dCRT failure (n = 10), no significant differences were identified in overall survival (p = 0.73), disease-free survival (p = 0.32), 30-day or major complication rate, anastomotic leak, or LOS. Similarly, when comparing esophagectomy < 90 days after CRT (n = 62) to > 90 days after CRT completion (n = 35), no significant differences were identified in overall survival (p = 0.39), disease-free survival (p = 0.71), 30-day or major complication rate, LOS, or anastomotic leak rate between groups. In this comparison, local recurrence was noted to be elevated with SE as compared to PE (64.3% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Overall survival and disease-free survival were equivalent between SE and PE. Local recurrence was noted to be increased with SE, though this did not appear to affect survival. Although planned esophagectomy remains the standard of care, salvage esophagectomy has comparable outcomes and is appropriate for selected patients.

The Year in Thoracic Anesthesia: Selected Highlights from 2019

THIS special article is the 4th in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the editor-in-chief, Dr. Kaplan; the associate editor-in-chief, Dr. Augoustides; and the editorial board for the opportunity to expand this series, the research highlights of the year that specifically pertain to the specialty of thoracic anesthesia. The major themes selected for 2019 are outlined in this introduction, and each highlight is reviewed in detail in the main body of the article. The literature highlights in this specialty for 2019 include updates in the preoperative assessment and optimization of patients undergoing lung resection and esophagectomy, updates in one lung ventilation (OLV) and protective ventilation during OLV, a review of recent meta-analyses comparing truncal blocks with paravertebral catheters and the introduction of a new truncal block, meta-analyses comparing nonintubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) with those performed using endotracheal intubation, a review of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) recent composite score rating for pulmonary resection of lung cancer, and an update of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines for both lung and esophageal surgery.

COVID-19 guidance for triage of operations for thoracic malignancies: A consensus statement from Thoracic Surgery Outcomes Research Network

The extraordinary demands of managing the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the world's ability to care for patients with thoracic malignancies. As a hospital's COVID-19 population increases and hospital resources are depleted, the ability to provide surgical care is progressively restricted, forcing surgeons to prioritize among their cancer populations. Representatives from multiple cancer, surgical, and research organizations have come together to provide a guide for triaging patients with thoracic malignancies as the impact of COVID-19 evolves as each hospital.

COVID-19 Guidance for Triage of Operations for Thoracic Malignancies: A Consensus Statement From Thoracic Surgery Outcomes Research Network

The extraordinary demands of managing the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the world’s ability to care for patients with thoracic malignancies. As a hospital’s COVID-19 population increases and hospital resources are depleted, the ability to provide surgical care is progressively restricted, forcing surgeons to prioritize among their cancer populations. Representatives from multiple cancer, surgical, and research organizations have come together to provide a guide for triaging patients with thoracic malignancies as the impact of COVID-19 evolves as each hospital.