Minimally Invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer After Gastric Bypass

Thoracolaparoscopic radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer based on the mesoesophageal theory

To explore the feasibility of mesangium or membrane anatomy theory in thoracolaparoscopic radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, 98 patients with esophageal cancer were enrolled including 45 patients in the mesoesophageal esophagectomy group and 53 patients in the non-mesoesophageal esophagectomy group. Thoracolaparoscopic radical esophagecotmy was technically successful in all patients. Compared the non-mesoesophageal group, the mesoesophageal group had significantly (P < 0.05) shorter surgical duration (211.9 ± 42.0 min vs. 282.0 ± 44.5 min), less blood loss during the procedure (68.9 ± 45.9 ml vs. 167.0 ± 91.4 ml), more harvested lymph nodes (25.9 ± 6.3 vs. 21.8 ± 7.3), shorter hospital stay after surgery (10.5 ± 2.5 d vs. 12.5 ± 4.2 d), shorter fasting time or quicker postoperative feeding time (7.3 ± 1.2 d vs. 9.5 ± 3.9 d), and quicker removal of the thoracic drainage tube after surgery (7.7 ± 2.0 d vs. 9.2 ± 4.1 d). The overall incidence of postoperative complications was 46.7% (21/45) in the mesoesophageal group, which was significantly (P = 0.02) fewer than that (69.8% or 37/53) of the non-mesoesophageal group (P = 0.020). During follow-up 20.6 ± 4.3 or 20.8 ± 3.4 months after esophagectomy, liver metastasis occurred in 1 case and lung metastasis in 1 in the mesoesophageal group, whereas liver metastasis occurred in 2 cases, mediastinal metastasis in 2, and anastomotic recurrence in 1 in the non-mesoesophageal group. The mesoesophageal group had significantly better physical function (81.9 ± 7.3 vs. 78.3 ± 7.6), social function (65.1 ± 7.1 vs. 56.2 ± 18.2), global health status (65.3 ± 10.1 vs. 58.7 ± 12.4), and pain improvement (29.5 ± 9.5 vs. 35.6 ± 10.6). The overall survival rate was 82.2% (37/45) in the mesoesophageal group and 71.7% (38/53) in the non-mesoesophageal group (P = 0.26). The disease-free survival rate was 77.8% (35/45) for the mesoesophageal group and 62.3% (33/53) for the non-mesoesophageal group (P = 0.13). In conclusion:, the mesangium or membrane anatomy theory can be used safely and effectively to guide thoracolaparoscopic radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, with advantages of shorter surgical time, less bleeding, more lymph node harvest, fewer complications, and faster postoperative recovery.

Esophagectomy for Barrett's adenocarcinoma after multiple bariatric surgeries: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Bariatric surgery diminishes the incidence of many kinds of neoplasms, but gastro-esophageal cancers may occur after bariatric procedures. Most esophageal neoplasms arise on Barrett's esophagus, which may be worsened by bariatric surgery, especially restrictive procedures. Endoscopic resections may cure cancer in its early stages, but surgery may be required in more advanced cases.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 62-year-old patient with history of adjustable gastric banding, sleeve gastrectomy then Roux-en-Y gastric bypass presented with an early Barrett's adenocarcinoma. Endoscopic treatment was first applied but the patient required surgery due to positive margins on the resected specimen. As the early tumor was located in the esophagus' lower third, a limited resection with eso-jejunal anastomosis was planned. However, as the previous bariatric did not allow a proper reconstruction, a total esophagectomy with colonic interposition had to be performed.

DISCUSSION

Eso-gastric malignancies remain rare after weight loss procedures, but more cases will arise due to the increasing incidence of bariatric surgery. Esophageal resection and reconstruction becomes increasingly challenging along with the number of bariatric procedures performed on the same patient. Endoscopic screening is of paramount importance before any obesity surgery or to assess any new onset of symptoms after a bariatric procedure, as endoscopic resections may cure cancer in its early stages.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic screening and treatment remains of paramount importance, especially after multiple bariatric procedures as surgery and reconstruction gets increasingly challenging. Whenever surgery is required, a proper planning and individual approach is compulsory, as well as a back-up plan.

Esophageal Cancer After Bariatric Surgery: Increasing Prevalence and Treatment Strategies

Purpose

The number of bariatric procedures has increased exponentially over the last 20 years. On the background of ever-increasing incidence of esophageal malignancies, the altered anatomy after bariatric surgery poses challenges in treatment of these cancers. In this study, an epidemiological estimate is presented for the future magnitude of this problem and treatment options are described in a retrospective multicenter cohort.

Methods

The number of bariatric procedures, esophageal cancer incidence, and mortality rates of the general population were used for epidemiological estimates. A retrospective multicenter cohort was composed; patients were treated in three large oncological centers with a high upper gastrointestinal cancer caseload. Consecutive patients with preceding bariatric surgery who developed esophageal cancer between 2014 and 2019 were included.

Results

Approximately 3200 out of 6.4 million post bariatric surgery patients are estimated to have developed esophageal cancer between 1998 and 2018 worldwide. In a multicenter cohort, 15 patients with esophageal cancer or Barrett’s esophagus and preceding bariatric surgery were identified. The majority of patients had a history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (46.7%) and had an adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus (60%). Seven patients received curative surgical treatment, five of whom are still alive at last follow-up (median follow-up 2 years, no loss to follow-up).

Conclusion

Based on worldwide data, esophageal cancer development following bariatric surgery has increased over the past decades. Treatment of patients with esophageal cancer after bariatric surgery is challenging and requires a highly individualized approach in which optimal treatment and anatomical limitations are carefully balanced.

Graphical abstract