Is minimally invasive esophagectomy indicated for cancer?

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: the first experience from Pakistan

Background. Two common procedures for esophageal resection are Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and transhiatal esophagectomy. Both procedures have high morbidity rates of 20–46%. Minimally invasive esophagectomy has been introduced to decrease morbidity. We report initial experience of MIE to determine the morbidity and mortality associated with this procedure during learning phase. Material and Methods. Patients undergoing MIE at our institute from January 2011 to May 2013 were reviewed. Record was kept for any morbidity and mortality. Descriptive statistics were presented as frequencies and continuous variables were presented as median. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan Meier curves. Results. We performed 51 minimally invasive esophagectomies. Perioperative morbidity was in 16 (31.37%) patients. There were 3 (5.88%) anastomotic leaks. We encountered 1 respiratory complication. Reexploration was required in 3 (5.88%) patients. Median operative time was 375 minutes. Median hospital stay was 10 days. The most frequent long-term morbidity was anastomotic narrowing observed in 5 (9.88%) patients. There were no perioperative mortalities. Our mean overall survival was 37.66 months (95% confidence interval 33.75 to 41.56 months). Mean disease-free survival was 24.43 months (95% CI 21.26 to 27.60 months). Conclusion. Minimally invasive esophagectomy, when performed in the learning phase, has acceptable morbidity and mortality.

Outcomes following laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Most published minimally invasive esophagectomy techniques involve a multiple field approach, including laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization. Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy (LTE) should potentially reduce the complications associated with thoracotomy. This study aims to compare outcomes of LTE with open transhiatal esophagectomy (OTE) and en-bloc esophagectomy (EBE).

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who had an LTE for cancer between July 2008 and July 2012 at our institution. Data was compared with an historic cohort of patients who underwent OTE and EBE at the same institution from July 2002 to July 2008.

RESULTS

There were 33 patients with LTE, compared with 60 patients with OTE and 139 with EBE. The presence of minor operative complications was similar (p = 0.36), but major complications were significantly less common in the LTE group (12, 23 and 33 %, respectively; p = 0.04). The median number of blood transfusions during hospitalization was significantly lower in the LTE group (0, 2.5 and 3, respectively; p = 0.005). Median tumor size was significantly smaller (1.5, 2.2, and 3 cm, respectively; p = 0.03), but the LTE group had a significantly higher percentage of patients with neoadjuvant treatment (39, 14 and 29 %, respectively; p = 0.008). Median lymph node yield for LTE was lower (24, 36 and 48, respectively; p < 0.0001), but the percentage of patients with positive nodes was similar (33, 33 and 39 %, respectively; p = 0.69). Mortality was equivalent among the groups (0, 2 and 4 %, respectively; p = 0.38). The median LOS for the LTE group was significantly lower (10, 13 and 15 days, respectively; p < 0.0001). Overall survival was not different between the three groups (p = 0.65), with median survival at 24 months of 70, 65 and 65 %, respectively.

CONCLUSION

LTE can be performed safely with less major complications and shorter hospital stay than open esophagectomy. The reduced lymph-node harvest did not impact overall survival.

Does minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) provide for comparable oncologic outcomes to open techniques? A systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open techniques with respect to oncologic outcomes through analysis of the extent of lymph node clearance, number of lymph nodes retrieved, oncologic stage, and 5-year mortality.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic review of the literature review was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases (1950-2011), and evaluated all comparative studies. Comparison between the open and MIE/hybrid MIE (HMIE) groups was possible with data being available for direct comparison.

RESULTS

After careful review, 17 case-control studies with 1,586 patients having an esophagectomy were included in this systematic review. The median (range) number of lymph nodes found in the MIE, open and HMIE groups were 16 (5.7-33.90), 10 (3-32.80) and 17 (17-17.15), of which there was significance between the MIE and open groups (p=0.03) but not significant between MIE versus HMIE (p=0.25). There was no statistical significance in pathologic stage between open, MIE and HMIE groups. Generally, there were good short-term (30 day) survival rates between all three groups. The open group had 5-year survival rates between 16% and 57% compared to the MIE group 12.5%-63% (p=0.33). Overall 5-year survival was found to be not significant between open group and MIE (p=0.93). MIE does not appear on statistical evidence to present any survival advantage.

CONCLUSION

The evidence of this study suggests that MIE is equivalent to standard open esophagectomy in achieving similar oncological outcomes. Further randomised controlled trials are required to provide for a higher level of evidence.

Discrete-choice preference comparison between patients and doctors for the surgical management of oesophagogastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Establishing preferences for surgery is paramount to preoperative patient counselling. This study aimed to prioritize and compare preferences of patients and doctors towards surgery for oesophagogastric cancer, to aid the counselling process.

METHODS

A discrete-choice questionnaire containing hypothetical scenarios was designed to test patient preferences for six treatment attributes: mortality, morbidity, quality of life (QoL), cure rate, hospital type and surgeon's reputation. The survey was mailed to all patients who underwent oesophagogastric cancer resection from 2008 to 2009 at two teaching hospital sites. All doctors at these sites with previous experience in counselling patients for cancer surgery were also identified and presented with the survey. Results were analysed using a random-effects probit regression model. Spearman correlation was used to compare participants' implicit choices from the discrete-choice scenarios (their true preferences) with their explicit choices from the direct ranking of preferences (their perceived preferences).

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients and 90 doctors completed the survey. Some 15 per cent of patients and 31 per cent of doctors based their choices solely on QoL. In order of importance, patients based their implicit responses on QoL (β = 1.19), cure rate (β = 0.82), morbidity (β = - 0.70), surgeon's reputation (β = 0.60), mortality (β = - 0.57) and hospital type (β = 0.26). Doctors similarly indicated QoL (β = 1.14) and hospital type (β = 0.31) as highest and lowest preferences respectively, but placed far greater emphasis on mortality (β = - 0.80) than morbidity (β = - 0.35). Implicit and explicit preferences correlated only for morbidity and surgeon's reputation in the patient cohort.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians may better meet patients' expectations and facilitate informed decision-making if QoL, cure rate and morbidity are emphasized foremost. A similar study employing preoperative patients is warranted for further clarification of preferences.

Endoscopic treatments for Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review of safety and effectiveness compared to esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Recently, several new endoscopic treatments have been used to treat patients with Barrett's esophagus with high grade dysplasia. This systematic review aimed to determine the safety and effectiveness of these treatments compared with esophagectomy.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was undertaken to identify studies of endoscopic treatments for Barrett's esophagus or early stage esophageal cancer. Information from the selected studies was extracted by two independent reviewers. Study quality was assessed and information was tabulated to identify trends or patterns. Results were pooled across studies for each outcome. Safety (occurrence of adverse events) and effectiveness (complete eradication of dysplasia) were compared across different treatments.

RESULTS

The 101 studies that met the selection criteria included 8 endoscopic techniques and esophagectomy; only 12 were comparative studies. The quality of evidence was generally low. Methods and outcomes were inconsistently reported. Protocols, outcomes measured, follow-up times and numbers of treatment sessions varied, making it difficult to calculate pooled estimates.The surgical mortality rate was 1.2%, compared to 0.04% in 2831 patients treated endoscopically (1 death). Adverse events were more severe and frequent with esophagectomy, and included anastomotic leaks (9.4%), wound infections (4.1%) and pulmonary complications (4.1%). Four patients (0.1%) treated endoscopically experienced bleeding requiring transfusions. The stricture rate with esophagectomy (5.3%) was lower than with porfimer sodium photodynamic therapy (18.5%), but higher than aminolevulinic acid (ALA) 60 mg/kg PDT (1.4%). Dysphagia and odynophagia varied in frequency across modalities, with the highest rates reported for multipolar electrocoagulation (MPEC). Photosensitivity, an adverse event that occurs only with photodynamic therapy, was experienced by 26.4% of patients who received porfimer sodium.Some radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or argon plasma coagulation (APC) studies (used in multiple sessions) reported rates of almost 100% for complete eradication of dysplasia. But the study methods and findings were not adequately described. The other studies of endoscopic treatments reported similarly high rates of complete eradication.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic treatments offer safe and effective alternatives to esophagectomy for patients with Barrett's esophagus and high grade dysplasia. Unfortunately, shortcomings in the published studies make it impossible to determine the comparative effectiveness of each of the endoscopic treatments.

The safety and effectiveness of endoscopic and non-endoscopic approaches to the management of early esophageal cancer: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, management of early cancer (stages 0-IIA) has comprised esophagectomy, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Recent efforts to improve outcomes and minimize side-effects have focussed on minimally invasive, endoscopic treatments that remove lesions while sparing healthy tissue. This review assesses their safety and efficacy/effectiveness relative to traditional, non-endoscopic treatments for early esophageal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of peer-reviewed studies was performed using Cochrane guidelines. Bibliographic databases searched to identify relevant English language studies published in the last 3 years included: PubMed (i.e., MEDLINE and additional sources), EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, the UK Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (NHS EED, DARE and HTA) databases, EconLit and Web of Science. Web sites of professional associations, relevant cancer organizations, clinical practice guidelines, and clinical trials were also searched. Two independent reviewers selected, critically appraised, and extracted information from studies.

RESULTS

The review included 75 studies spanning 3124 patients and 10 forms of treatment. Most studies were of short term duration and non-comparative. Adverse events reported across studies of endoscopic techniques were similar and less significant compared to those in the studies of non-endoscopic techniques. Complete response rates were slightly lower for photodynamic therapy (PDT) relative to the other endoscopic techniques, possibly due to differences in patient populations across studies. No studies compared overall or cause-specific survival in patients who received endoscopic treatments vs. those who received non-endoscopic treatments.

DISCUSSION

Based on findings from this review, there is no single "best practice" approach to the treatment of early esophageal cancer.

Zero leaks with minimally invasive esophagectomy: a team-based approach

A team-based approach to minimally invasive esophagectomy can be used that will meet or exceed reported benchmarks.

Introduction:

Minimally invasive surgery has been applied in several ways to esophagectomy. Newer techniques have improved patient outcomes while maintaining oncological principles; however, mortality still exists. Most series have reported mortality rates ranging from 2% to 25%. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of minimally invasive esophagectomies (MIE) in a non-university tertiary care center.

Methods:

MIE in the form of a combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic technique was performed cooperatively by 2 surgeons. Records of patients who underwent MIE between September 2005 and August 2008 were retrospectively reviewed.

Results:

Thirty-four patients underwent MIE over a 3-year period. There was a male predominance. Mean age at presentation was 62.6 years. Comorbidities were documented in 79% of the patients. Most patients (68%) presented with dysphagia. Two patients had end-stage achalasia, 1 had corrosive esophageal stricture, and 31 had esophageal malignancies. No mortalities were reported. No anastomotic leaks were observed. Eighteen (58%) patients with malignancy received preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Six (33%) patients had a pathological response (CR) on final histopathology. The mean operating time was 294 minutes. The mean blood loss was 302 mL.

Conclusions:

Minimally invasive esophagectomy can be performed with results that meet and exceed reported benchmarks. A team-based approach greatly impacts the outcome of the surgery. This surgical technique must be standardized to achieve this outcome.

Management of oesophageal cancer

Oesophageal cancer is a disease of dismal prognosis. There are variations of epidemiology among different ethnic groups and geographic regions. India is a country with high incidence. This can be attributed to the interplay between environmental, dietary factors and life-style of the population of the country. Optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with oesophageal cancer demands individual consideration.Majority of oesophageal cancer patients present at an advanced stage of disease. Screening programmes or strategies aiming at early diagnosis can improve the prognosis; unfortunately this is not cost-effective except in very high incidence areas. Accurate staging can help select the most appropriate treatments, such as excluding those patients with metastatic disease who are unlikely to benefit from surgery, and treating very early lesions with endoscopic means. When surgery is indicated, treating patient in a high-volume centre can improve the outcome and minimise complications. Although surgical resection remains the main treatment modality, long-term prognosis after surgical resection alone has been suboptimal except in those with early disease. Multidisciplinary approaches including chemotherapy and radiotherapy with or without surgery are increasingly employed for patients with advanced disease. Collaboration among surgeons, clinical oncologists, radiologists and physicians is of utmost importance to achieve the best results. Treatment for patients should be individualised to enhance outcome.

Treatment of Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma is increasing in the USA, now accounting for at least 4% of US cancer-related deaths. Barrett's esophagus is the main risk factor for the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma. The annual incidence of development of adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus is approximately 0.5% per year, representing at least a 30-40-fold increase in risk from the general population. High-grade dysplasia is known to be the most important risk factor for progression to adenocarcinoma. Traditionally, esophagectomy has been the standard treatment for Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia. This practice is supported by studies revealing unexpected adenocarcinoma in 29-50% of esophageal resection specimens for high-grade dysplasia. In addition, esophagectomy employed prior to tumor invasion of the muscularis mucosa results in 5-year survival rates in excess of 80%. Although esophagectomy can result in improved survival rates for early-stage cancer, it is accompanied by significant morbidity and mortality. Recently, more accurate methods of surveillance and advances in endoscopic therapies have allowed scientists and clinicians to develop treatment strategies with lower morbidity for high-grade dysplasia. Early data suggests that carefully selected patients with high-grade dysplasia can be managed safely with endoscopic therapy, with outcomes comparable to surgery, but with less morbidity. This is an especially attractive approach for patients that either cannot tolerate or decline surgical esophagectomy. For patients that are surgical candidates, high-volume centers have demonstrated improved morbidity and mortality rates for esophagectomy. The addition of laparoscopic esophagectomy adds a less invasive surgical resection to the treatment armanentarium. Esophagectomy will remain the gold-standard treatment of Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia until clinical research validates the role of endoscopic therapies. Current treatment strategies for Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia will be reviewed.