1
|
Pucher PH, Maynard N, Body S, Bowling K, Chaudry MA, Forshaw M, Hornby S, Markar SR, Mercer SJ, Preston SR, Sgromo B, van Boxel GI, Gossage JA. Association of Upper GI Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS) Delphi consensus recommendations on the adoption of robotic upper GI surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2024. [PMID: 38445587 DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2024.0014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/07/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The adoption of robotic platforms in upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery is expanding rapidly. The absence of centralised guidance and governance in adoption of new surgical technologies may lead to an increased risk of patient harm. METHODS Surgeon stakeholders participated in a Delphi consensus process following a national open-invitation in-person meeting on the adoption of robotic upper GI surgery. Consensus agreement was deemed met if >80% agreement was achieved. RESULTS Following two rounds of Delphi voting, 25 statements were agreed on covering the training process, governance and good practice for surgeons' adoption in upper GI surgery. One statement failed to achieve consensus. CONCLUSIONS These recommendations are intended to support surgeons, patients and health systems in the adoption of robotics in upper GI surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - N Maynard
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
| | - S Body
- University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | - K Bowling
- Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | | | | | - S Hornby
- Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | - S R Markar
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
- University of Oxford, UK
| | | | | | - B Sgromo
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
| | | | - J A Gossage
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Moore JL, Green M, Santaolalla A, Deere H, Evans RPT, Elshafie M, Lavery A, McManus DT, McGuigan A, Douglas R, Horne J, Walker R, Mir H, Terlizzo M, Kamarajah SK, Van Hemelrijck M, Maisey N, Sita-Lumsden A, Ngan S, Kelly M, Baker CR, Kumar S, Lagergren J, Allum WH, Gossage JA, Griffiths EA, Grabsch HI, Turkington RC, Underwood TJ, Smyth EC, Fitzgerald RC, Cunningham D, Davies AR. Pathologic Lymph Node Regression After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Predicts Recurrence and Survival in Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Study in the United Kingdom. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41:4522-4534. [PMID: 37499209 DOI: 10.1200/jco.23.00139] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2023] [Revised: 05/03/2023] [Accepted: 05/24/2023] [Indexed: 07/29/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE There is limited evidence regarding the prognostic effects of pathologic lymph node (LN) regression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma, and a definition of LN response is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate how LN regression influences survival after surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS Multicenter cohort study of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgical resection at five high-volume centers in the United Kingdom. LNs retrieved at esophagectomy were examined for chemotherapy response and given a LN regression score (LNRS)-LNRS 1, complete response; 2, <10% residual tumor; 3, 10%-50% residual tumor; 4, >50% residual tumor; and 5, no response. Survival analysis was performed using Cox regression adjusting for confounders including primary tumor regression. The discriminatory ability of different LN response classifications to predict survival was evaluated using Akaike information criterion and Harrell C-index. RESULTS In total, 17,930 LNs from 763 patients were examined. LN response classified as complete LN response (LNRS 1 ≥1 LN, no residual tumor in any LN; n = 62, 8.1%), partial LN response (LNRS 1-3 ≥1 LN, residual tumor ≥1 LN; n = 155, 20.3%), poor/no LN response (LNRS 4-5; n = 303, 39.7%), or LN negative (no tumor/regression; n = 243, 31.8%) demonstrated superior discriminatory ability. Mortality was reduced in patients with complete LN response (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.56), partial LN response (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.93) or negative LNs (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.42) compared with those with poor/no LN response. Primary tumor regression and LN regression were discordant in 165 patients (21.9%). CONCLUSION Pathologic LN regression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was a strong prognostic factor and provides important information beyond pathologic TNM staging and primary tumor regression grading. LN regression should be included as standard in the pathologic reporting of esophagectomy specimens.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan L Moore
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal and General Surgery, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, United Kingdom
| | - Michael Green
- Department of Histopathology, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Aida Santaolalla
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, United Kingdom
| | - Harriet Deere
- Department of Histopathology, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Richard P T Evans
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Mona Elshafie
- Department of Pathology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Anita Lavery
- Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Damian T McManus
- Department of Pathology, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew McGuigan
- Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Rosalie Douglas
- Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Joanne Horne
- Department of Histopathology, University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Robert Walker
- School of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Hira Mir
- Department of Histopathology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Monica Terlizzo
- Department of Histopathology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sivesh K Kamarajah
- Department of Pathology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Mieke Van Hemelrijck
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, United Kingdom
| | - Nick Maisey
- Department of Medical Oncology, St Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ailsa Sita-Lumsden
- Department of Medical Oncology, St Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah Ngan
- Department of Medical Oncology, St Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Mark Kelly
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal and General Surgery, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, United Kingdom
| | - Cara R Baker
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal and General Surgery, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, United Kingdom
| | - Sacheen Kumar
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jesper Lagergren
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal and General Surgery, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, United Kingdom
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - William H Allum
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - James A Gossage
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal and General Surgery, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, United Kingdom
| | - Ewen A Griffiths
- Department of Pathology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Heike I Grabsch
- Department of Pathology, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
- Division of Pathology and Data Analytics, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Richard C Turkington
- Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Tim J Underwood
- School of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Elizabeth C Smyth
- Department of Oncology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Rebecca C Fitzgerald
- Early Cancer Institute, University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom
- Department of Gastroenterology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - David Cunningham
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew R Davies
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal and General Surgery, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Moutzoukis M, Argyriou K, Kapsoritakis A, Christodoulou D. Endoscopic luminal stenting: Current applications and future perspectives. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2023; 15:195-215. [PMID: 37138934 PMCID: PMC10150289 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v15.i4.195] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2022] [Revised: 01/30/2023] [Accepted: 04/04/2023] [Indexed: 04/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Endoscopic luminal stenting (ELS) represents a minimally invasive option for the management of malignant obstruction along the gastrointestinal tract. Previous studies have shown that ELS can provide rapid relief of symptoms related to esophageal, gastric, small intestinal, colorectal, biliary, and pancreatic neoplastic strictures without compromising cancer patients’ overall safety. As a result, in both palliative and neoadjuvant settings, ELS has largely surpassed radiotherapy and surgery as a first-line treatment modality. Following the abovementioned success, the indications for ELS have gradually expanded. To date, ELS is widely used in clinical practice by well-trained endoscopists in managing a wide variety of diseases and complications, such as relieving non-neoplastic obstructions, sealing iatrogenic and non-iatrogenic perforations, closing fistulae and treating post-sphincterotomy bleeding. The abovementioned development would not have been achieved without corresponding advances and innovations in stent technology. However, the technological landscape changes rapidly, making clinicians’ adaptation to new technologies a real challenge. In our mini-review article, by systematically reviewing the relevant literature, we discuss current developments in ELS with regard to stent design, accessories, techniques, and applications, expanding the research basis that was set by previous studies and highlighting areas that need to be further investigated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Miltiadis Moutzoukis
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Ioannina, Ioannina GR45333, Greece
| | - Konstantinos Argyriou
- Department of Gastroenterology, Medical School and University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa GR41334, Greece
| | - Andreas Kapsoritakis
- Department of Gastroenterology, Medical School and University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa GR41334, Greece
| | - Dimitrios Christodoulou
- Department of Gastroenterology, Medical School and University Hospital of Ioannina, Ioannina GR45500, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Evans RP, Kamarajah SK, Kunene V, Zardo D, Elshafie M, Griffiths EA. Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on nodal regression and survival in oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2021; 48:1001-1010. [PMID: 34974947 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.12.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2021] [Revised: 11/02/2021] [Accepted: 12/17/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The prognostic value of lymph node regression (LNR) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) for oesophageal and gastro-oeosphageal adenocarcinoma remains unclear. This study aimed to characterise the long-term survival outcomes of LNR in patients having resectional surgery after nCT. METHODS This study included patients undergoing oesophagectomy or extended total gastrectomy for oesophageal and junctional tumours (Siewert types 1,2,3) at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham from 2012 to 2018. Lymph nodes retrieved at surgery were examined for evidence of a response to chemotherapy. Patients were classified as lymph node-negative (either negative nodes with no evidence of previous tumour involvement or negative with evidence of complete regression) or positive with either partial or no response. RESULTS This study identified 183 patients who received nCT, of which 71% (130/183) had positive lymph nodes. Of these 130 patients, 44% (57/130) had a lymph node response and 56% (73/130) did not. The remaining 53 patients (29.0%) had negative lymph nodes with no evidence of tumour. Lymph node responders had a significant survival benefit compared to patients without lymph node response, but shorter than those with negative lymph nodes (median: 27 vs 18 vs NR months, p < 0·001). On multivariable analysis, lymph node responders had an improved overall (Hazard ratio (HR): 0.86, 95% CI: 0.80-0.92, p < 0.001) and recurrence-free (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.82-0.98, p = 0.030) survival. CONCLUSION Lymph node regression is an important prognostic factor, warranting closer evaluation over primary tumour response to help with planning further adjuvant therapy in these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard Pt Evans
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, UK; Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, UK
| | - Sivesh K Kamarajah
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, UK; Institute of Cancer and Genomic Science, University of Birmingham, UK
| | - Victoria Kunene
- Department of Oncology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | - Davide Zardo
- Department of Pathology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK; Department of Pathology, San Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy
| | - Mona Elshafie
- Department of Pathology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Ewen A Griffiths
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, UK; Institute of Cancer and Genomic Science, University of Birmingham, UK.
| |
Collapse
|