Trends in Distal Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer Care: The Dutch Nationwide Ivory Study

Docetaxel-Based Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by En Bloc Resection for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A 15-Year Retrospective Analysis from a Regional Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Network

BACKROUND

Real-world, long-term survival outcomes of neoadjuvant, docetaxel-based therapy for esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma are lacking. This study describes the long-term survival outcomes of patients with esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel-based chemotherapy and en bloc transthoracic esophagectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis of a prospectively maintained database from a regional upper gastrointestinal cancer network in Quebec, Canada, was performed. From January 2007 to December 2021, all patients with locally advanced (cT3 and/or N1) esophageal/Siewert I/II adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant DCFx3 (Docetaxel/Cisplatin/5FU) or FLOTx4 (5FU/Leucovorin/Oxaliplatin/Docetaxel) and transthoracic en bloc esophagectomy were identified. Postoperative, pathological, and survival outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 236 of 420 patients met the inclusion criteria. Tumor location was esophageal/Siewert I/Siewert II (118/33/85), most were cT3-4 (93.6%) and cN+ (61.0%). DCF and FLOT were used in 127 of 236 (53.8%) and 109 of 236 (46.2%). All neoadjuvant cycles were completed in 87.3% with no difference between the regimens. Operative procedures included Ivor Lewis (81.8%), left thoraco-abdominal esophagectomy (10.6%) and McKeown (7.6%) with an R0 resection in 95.3% and pathological complete response in 9.7% (DCF 12.6%/FLOT 6.4%, p = 0.111). The median lymph node yield was 32 (range 4-79), and 60.6% were ypN+. Median follow-up was longer for the DCF group (74.8 months 95% confidence interval [CI] 4-173 vs. 37.8 months 95% CI 2-119, p <0.001. Overall survival was similar between the groups (FLOT 97.3 months, 78.6-115.8 vs. DCF 92.9, 9.2-106.5, p = 0.420).

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant DCF and FLOT followed by transthoracic en bloc resection are both highly effective regimens for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma with equivalent survival outcomes despite high disease load.

The impact of hospital experience in bariatric surgery on short-term outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: a nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a technically challenging procedure with a substantial learning curve. Composite volume of upper gastrointestinal (upper GI) procedures for cancer has been previously linked to postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to investigate an association between hospital experience in bariatric surgery and short-term outcomes in MIE.

METHOD

Data on esophagectomy patients between 2016 and 2020 were collected from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit, a mandatory nationwide registry. Hospitals were categorized as bariatric or non-bariatric. Multivariable logistic regression investigated short-term postoperative outcomes, adjusting for case mix.

RESULTS

Of 3371 patients undergoing esophagectomy in sixteen hospitals, 2450 (72.7%) underwent MIE. Bariatric hospitals (N = 6) accounted for 1057 (43.1%) MIE. Annual volume of bariatric procedures was median 523 and esophagectomies 42. In non-bariatric hospitals, volume of esophagectomies was median 52 (P = 0.145). Overall postoperative complication rate was lower in bariatric hospitals (59.2% vs. 65.9%, P < 0.001). Bariatric hospitals were associated with a reduced risk of overall complications (aOR 0.76 [95% CI 0.62-0.92]), length of hospital (aOR 0.79 [95% CI 0.65-0.95]), and ICU stay (aOR 0.81 [95% CI 0.67-0.98]) after MIE. Surgical radicality (R0) did not differ. Lymph node yield (≥ 15) was lower in bariatric hospitals (90.0% vs. 94.7%, P < 0.001). Over the years, several short-term outcomes improved in bariatric hospitals compared to non-bariatric hospitals.

CONCLUSION

In this nationwide analysis, there was an association between bariatric hospitals and improved short-term outcomes after MIE. Characteristics of bariatric hospitals that could explain this phenomenon and whether this translates to other upper GI procedures may be warranted to identify.

Why pay more for robot in esophageal cancer surgery?

Esophagectomy is the gold standard for the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer. Traditionally, it is performed through a laparotomy and a thoracotomy, and is associated with high rates of postoperative complications and mortality. The advent of robotic surgery has represented a technological evolution in the field of esophageal cancer treatment. Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been progressively widely adopted following the first reports on the safety and feasibility of this procedure in 2004. The robotic approach has better short-term postoperative outcomes than open esophagectomy, without jeopardizing oncologic radicality. The results of the comparison between RAMIE and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy are less conclusive. This article will focus on the role of RAMIE in the current clinical scenario with particular attention to its possible benefits and perspectives.

The Implementation of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Treatment of Esophageal Cancer: A Step Toward Better Outcomes?

Esophagectomy is considered the cornerstone of the radical treatment of esophageal cancer. In the past decades, minimally invasive techniques including robot-assisted approaches have become popular. The aim of minimally invasive surgery is to reduce the surgical trauma, resulting in faster recovery, reduction in complications, and better quality of life after surgery. Secondly, a more precise dissection may lead to better oncological outcomes. As such, minimally invasive esophagectomy is now seen by many as the standard surgical approach. However, evidence supporting this viewpoint is limited. This narrative review summarizes recent prospectively designed studies on minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Predictive value of preoperative handgrip strength on postoperative outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the predictive value of preoperative handgrip strength on postoperative outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal tumors.

METHODS

Databases including Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL Complete were searched for articles published from the establishment of database until August 7, 2021. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and evaluated the quality.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included, involving five prospective and three retrospective cohort studies with 2291 participants. The prevalence of preoperative low handgrip strength ranged from 11.8 to 62.7%. Preoperative low handgrip strength was associated with an increased risk of total complications (OR = 2.23, 95%CI = 1.43-3.50), pneumonia (OR = 5.16, 95%CI = 3.17-8.38), ileus (OR = 2.48, 95%CI = 1.09-5.65), and short-term mortality (OR = 7.28, 95%CI = 1.90-27.92).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that preoperative HGS had important value to predict certain adverse postoperative outcomes among patients with GI tumors. Low handgrip strength criteria, definition of total complications, and country are the potential sources of heterogeneity, and more research are required to test and update these results.