1
|
Nijssen DJ, Joosten JJ, Osterkamp J, van den Elzen RM, de Bruin DM, Svendsen MBS, Dalsgaard MW, Gisbertz SS, Hompes R, Achiam MP, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Quantification of fluorescence angiography for visceral perfusion assessment: measuring agreement between two software algorithms. Surg Endosc 2024:10.1007/s00464-024-10794-y. [PMID: 38594365 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10794-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2023] [Accepted: 03/09/2024] [Indexed: 04/11/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) may reduce perfusion-related complications of gastrointestinal anastomosis. Software implementations for quantifying ICG-FA are emerging to overcome a subjective interpretation of the technology. Comparison between quantification algorithms is needed to judge its external validity. This study aimed to measure the agreement for visceral perfusion assessment between two independently developed quantification software implementations. METHODS This retrospective cohort analysis included standardized ICG-FA video recordings of patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction between August 2020 until February 2022. Recordings were analyzed by two quantification software implementations: AMS and CPH. The quantitative parameter used to measure visceral perfusion was the normalized maximum slope derived from fluorescence time curves. The agreement between AMS and CPH was evaluated in a Bland-Altman analysis. The relation between the intraoperative measurement of perfusion and the incidence of anastomotic leakage was determined for both software implementations. RESULTS Seventy pre-anastomosis ICG-FA recordings were included in the study. The Bland-Altman analysis indicated a mean relative difference of + 58.2% in the measurement of the normalized maximum slope when comparing the AMS software to CPH. The agreement between AMS and CPH deteriorated as the magnitude of the measured values increased, revealing a proportional (linear) bias (R2 = 0.512, p < 0.001). Neither the AMS nor the CPH measurements of the normalized maximum slope held a significant relationship with the occurrence of anastomotic leakage (median of 0.081 versus 0.074, p = 0.32 and 0.041 vs 0.042, p = 0.51, respectively). CONCLUSION This is the first study to demonstrate technical differences in software implementations that can lead to discrepancies in ICG-FA quantification in human clinical cases. The possible variation among software-based quantification methods should be considered when interpreting studies that report quantitative ICG-FA parameters and derived thresholds, as there may be a limited external validity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D J Nijssen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J J Joosten
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J Osterkamp
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - R M van den Elzen
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D M de Bruin
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M B S Svendsen
- Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Computer Science, SCIENCE, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - M W Dalsgaard
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R Hompes
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M P Achiam
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kroes JA, de Haan JMH, de Haan-Lauteslager MI, van Roon EN, Derksen SJ, Manusama ER, Zijlstra GJ, Gisbertz SS, Vrijsen BEL, Bethlehem C. Delayed cardiac arrest after hydrofluoric acid ingestion. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2024:1-3. [PMID: 38501538 DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2024.2328348] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2023] [Accepted: 03/04/2024] [Indexed: 03/20/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- J A Kroes
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| | - J M H de Haan
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| | | | - E N van Roon
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| | - S J Derksen
- Department of Intensive Care, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| | - E R Manusama
- Department of Surgery, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| | - G J Zijlstra
- Department of Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location VUMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - B E L Vrijsen
- Dutch Poisons Information Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
| | - C Bethlehem
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
- Department of Intensive Care, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
van Doesburg JR, Luttikhold J, Lindblad M, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Eshuis WJ, Derks S, Geijsen ED, Pouw RE, Gisbertz SS, Nilsson M, Daams F. Diagnostic workup for esophageal cancer patients can be improved with checklists and clearer protocols; a comparative study between two tertiary centers in Europe. Eur J Surg Oncol 2024; 50:107318. [PMID: 38145609 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.107318] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2023] [Revised: 11/26/2023] [Accepted: 12/07/2023] [Indexed: 12/27/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rapid and complete workup of newly diagnosed esophageal cancer is vital for a timely, individual and high-quality treatment strategy. The aim of this study was to uncover potential delay, inefficiencies and non-contributing investigations in the diagnostic process in two tertiary referral centers. METHODS This retrospective cohort study included all newly diagnosed esophageal cancer patients referred to or diagnosed in the Amsterdam UMC and Karolinska University Hospital between July 2020 and July 2021. Radiology, pathological assessment and multidisciplinary team meeting reports were reviewed. To assess time interval from diagnosis to treatment, dates of diagnosis, admittance to referral hospital, MDT meeting and start of treatment were collected. RESULTS In total, 252 esophageal cancer patients were included, 187 were treated with curative intent. Curatively treated patients had a mean age of 66 years, were predominantly male (74.9 %) with an adenocarcinoma (71.1 %). Curatively treated patients had a median time from diagnosis to referral of seven days (IQR:0-11) and of 35 days (IQR:28-45) between diagnosis and start of treatment. Main reasons for the significant (P < 0.001) differences in time between diagnosis and treatment between centers, Amsterdam UMC (39 days) vs Karolinska (27 days), were need for additional diagnostics (47.8 %) and differences in referral routine. Gastroscopy was repeated in 32.2 % of patients, mainly for further anatomical mapping. CONCLUSION Significant time differences between centers in the path from diagnosis to start treatment can be explained by differences in workup approach, referral routines and MDT meeting regulations. Repeat of gastroscopy can be prevented with clearer endoscopy guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J R van Doesburg
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - J Luttikhold
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, And Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - M Lindblad
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, And Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - W J Eshuis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - S Derks
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - E D Geijsen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - R E Pouw
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M Nilsson
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, And Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - F Daams
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Söderström H, Moons J, Nafteux P, Uzun E, Grimminger P, Luyer MDP, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, Nilsson M, Hayami M, Degisors S, Piessen G, Vanommeslaeghe H, Van Daele E, Cheong E, Gutschow CA, Vetter D, Schuring N, Gisbertz SS, Räsänen J. ASO Visual Abstract: Major Intraoperative Complications During Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30:8294-8295. [PMID: 37821789 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-14386-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/13/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- H Söderström
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
| | - J Moons
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases and Thoracic Surgery (BREATHE), Department of Chronic Diseases, Metabolism and Ageing, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - P Nafteux
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases and Thoracic Surgery (BREATHE), Department of Chronic Diseases, Metabolism and Ageing, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - E Uzun
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
| | - P Grimminger
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
| | - M D P Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | | - M Nilsson
- Department of Upper Abdominal Surgery, Center for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - M Hayami
- Department of Upper Abdominal Surgery, Center for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Gastroenterological Center, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan
| | - S Degisors
- Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, University Hospital C. Huriez Place de Verdun, Lille Cedex, France
| | - G Piessen
- Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, University Hospital C. Huriez Place de Verdun, Lille Cedex, France
| | - H Vanommeslaeghe
- Department of Gastro-intestinal Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - E Van Daele
- Department of Gastro-intestinal Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - E Cheong
- Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS FT, Norwich, UK
| | - Ch A Gutschow
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - D Vetter
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - N Schuring
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J Räsänen
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Söderström H, Moons J, Nafteux P, Uzun E, Grimminger P, Luyer MDP, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, Nilsson M, Hayami M, Degisors S, Piessen G, Vanommeslaeghe H, Van Daele E, Cheong E, Gutschow CA, Vetter D, Schuring N, Gisbertz SS, Räsänen J. Major Intraoperative Complications During Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30:8244-8250. [PMID: 37782412 PMCID: PMC10625950 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-14340-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2023] [Accepted: 08/25/2023] [Indexed: 10/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Studies have shown minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) to be a feasible surgical technique in treating esophageal carcinoma. Postoperative complications have been extensively reviewed, but literature focusing on intraoperative complications is limited. The main objective of this study was to report major intraoperative complications and 90-day mortality during MIE for cancer. METHODS Data were collected retrospectively from 10 European esophageal surgery centers. All intention-to-treat, minimally invasive laparoscopic/thoracoscopic esophagectomies with gastric conduit reconstruction for esophageal and GE junction cancers operated on between 2003 and 2019 were reviewed. Major intraoperative complications were defined as loss of conduit, erroneous transection of vascular structures, significant injury to other organs including bowel, heart, liver or lung, splenectomy, or other major complications including intubation injuries, arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, and myocardial infarction. RESULTS Amongst 2862 MIE cases we identified 98 patients with 101 intraoperative complications. Vascular injuries were the most prevalent, 41 during laparoscopy and 19 during thoracoscopy, with injuries to 18 different vessels. There were 24 splenic vascular or capsular injuries, 11 requiring splenectomies. Four losses of conduit due to gastroepiploic artery injury and six bowel injuries were reported. Eight tracheobronchial lesions needed repair, and 11 patients had significant lung parenchyma injuries. There were 2 on-table deaths. Ninety-day mortality was 9.2%. CONCLUSIONS This study offers an overview of the range of different intraoperative complications during minimally invasive esophagectomy. Mortality, especially from intrathoracic vascular injuries, appears significant.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H Söderström
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
| | - J Moons
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases and Thoracic Surgery (BREATHE), Department of Chronic Diseases, Metabolism and Ageing, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - P Nafteux
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases and Thoracic Surgery (BREATHE), Department of Chronic Diseases, Metabolism and Ageing, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - E Uzun
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
| | - P Grimminger
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
| | - M D P Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | | - M Nilsson
- Department of Upper Abdominal Surgery, Center for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - M Hayami
- Department of Upper Abdominal Surgery, Center for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Gastroenterological Center, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan
| | - S Degisors
- Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, University Hospital C. Huriez Place de Verdun, Lille Cedex, France
| | - G Piessen
- Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, University Hospital C. Huriez Place de Verdun, Lille Cedex, France
| | - H Vanommeslaeghe
- Department of Gastro-Intestinal Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - E Van Daele
- Department of Gastro-Intestinal Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - E Cheong
- Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS FT, Norwich, UK
| | - Ch A Gutschow
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - D Vetter
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - N Schuring
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J Räsänen
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Schuring N, Stam WT, Plat VD, Kalff MC, Hulshof MCCM, van Laarhoven HWM, Derks S, van der Peet DL, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Daams F, Gisbertz SS. Patterns of recurrent disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and esophageal cancer surgery with curative intent in a tertiary referral center. Eur J Surg Oncol 2023; 49:106947. [PMID: 37355392 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.05.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2022] [Revised: 11/29/2022] [Accepted: 05/31/2023] [Indexed: 06/26/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recurrence is frequently observed after esophageal cancer surgery, with dismal post-recurrence survival. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy is the gold standard for resectable esophageal tumors in the Netherlands. This study investigated the recurrence patterns and survival after multimodal therapy. METHODS This retrospective cohort study included patients with recurrent disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy for an esophageal adenocarcinoma in the Amsterdam UMC between 01 and 01-2010 and 31-12-2018. Post-recurrence treatment and survival of patients were investigated and grouped by recurrence site (loco-regional, distant, or combined loco-regional and distant). RESULTS In total, 278 of 618 patients (45.0%) developed recurrent disease after a median of 49 weeks. Thirty-one patients had loco-regional (11.2%), 145 distant (52.2%), and 101 combined loco-regional and distant recurrences (36.3%). Post-recurrence survival was superior for patients with loco-regional recurrences (33 weeks, 95%CI 7.3-58.7) compared to distant (12 weeks, 95%CI 6.9-17.1) or combined loco-regional and distant recurrent disease (18 weeks, 95%CI 9.3-26.7). Patients with loco-regional recurrences treated with curative intent had the longest survival (87 weeks, 95%CI 6.9-167.4). CONCLUSION Recurrent disease after potentially curative treatment for esophageal cancer was most frequently located distantly, with dismal prognosis. A subgroup of patients with loco-regional recurrence was treated with curative intent and had prolonged survival. These patients may benefit from intensive surveillance protocols, and more research is needed to identify these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N Schuring
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; AGEM Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - W T Stam
- Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Surgery, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; AGEM Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - V D Plat
- Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Surgery, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M C Kalff
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M C C M Hulshof
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Radiotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - H W M van Laarhoven
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - S Derks
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Oncode Institute, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - D L van der Peet
- Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Surgery, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; AGEM Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; AGEM Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - F Daams
- Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Surgery, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; AGEM Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; AGEM Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
van Doesburg JR, Voeten DM, Kalff MC, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Jol S, van den Bergh JE, Engelsman AF, Gisbertz SS, Daams F. Incidence and oncological implication of adrenal incidentalomas in esophageal cancer patients. Dis Esophagus 2023; 36:doad003. [PMID: 36722353 PMCID: PMC10473449 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doad003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2022] [Revised: 12/15/2022] [Accepted: 01/01/2023] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
Adrenal incidentalomas are regularly encountered during imaging for esophageal cancer patients, but their oncological significance remains unknown. This study aimed to describe the incidence and etiology of adrenal incidentalomas observed throughout the diagnostic workup. This retrospective cohort study included all esophageal cancer patients referred to or diagnosed in the Amsterdam UMC between January 2012 and December 2016. Radiology and multidisciplinary team meeting reports were reviewed for adrenal incidentalomas. In case of adrenal incidentaloma, the 18FDG-PET/CT was reassessed by a radiologist blinded for the original report. In case of a metachronous incidentaloma during follow-up, visibility on previous imaging was reassessed. Primary outcome was the incidence, etiology and oncological consequence of synchronous adrenal incidentalomas. This study included 1,164 esophageal cancer patients, with a median age of 66 years. Patients were predominantly male (76.1%) and the majority had an adenocarcinoma (69.0%). Adrenal incidentalomas were documented in 138 patients (11.9%) during the diagnostic workup. At primary esophageal cancer workup, 22 incidentalomas proved malignant. However, follow-up showed that four incidentalomas were inaccurately diagnosed as benign and three malignant incidentalomas were visible on staging imaging but initially missed. Stage migration occurred in 15 of 22 (68.2%), but this would have been higher if none were missed or inaccurately diagnosed. The oncological impact of adrenal incidentalomas in patients with esophageal cancer is significant as a considerable part of incidentalomas changed treatment intent from curative to palliative. As stage migration is likely, pathological examination of a synchronous adrenal incidentaloma should be weighted in mind.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J R van Doesburg
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D M Voeten
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M C Kalff
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S Jol
- Department of Radiology, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J E van den Bergh
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A F Engelsman
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - F Daams
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
van der Aa DC, Gisbertz SS, Anderegg MCJ, Lagarde SM, Klaassen R, Meijer SL, van Dieren S, Hulshof M, Bergman J, Bennink RJ, van Laarhoven HWM, van Berge Henegouwen MI. 18F-FDG-PET/CT to Detect Pathological Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Treatment in Patients with Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction: Accuracy and Long-Term Implications. J Gastrointest Cancer 2023:10.1007/s12029-023-00951-2. [PMID: 37393217 DOI: 10.1007/s12029-023-00951-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/09/2023] [Indexed: 07/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The curative strategy for patients with esophageal cancer without distant metastases consists of esophagectomy with preceding chemo(radio)therapy (CRT). In 10-40% of patients treated with CRT, no viable tumor is detectable in the resection specimen (pathological complete response (pCR)). This study aims to define the clinical outcomes of patients with a pCR and to assess the accuracy of post-CRT FDG-PET/CT in the detection of a pCR. METHODS Four hundred sixty-three patients with cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction who underwent esophageal resection after CRT between 1994 and 2013 were included. Patients were categorized as pathological complete responders or noncomplete responders. Standardized uptake value (SUV) ratios of 135 post-CRT FDG-PET/CTs were calculated and compared with the pathological findings in the corresponding resection specimens. RESULTS Of the 463 included patients, 85 (18.4%) patients had a pCR. During follow-up, 25 (29.4%) of these 85 patients developed recurrent disease. Both 5-year disease-free survival (5y-DFS) and 5-year overall survival (5y-OS) were significantly higher in complete responders compared to noncomplete responders (5y-DFS 69.6% vs. 44.2%; P = 0.001 and 5y-OS 66.5% vs. 43.7%; P = 0.001). Not pCR, but only pN0 was identified as an independent predictor of (disease-free) survival. CONCLUSION Patients with a pCR have a higher probability of survival compared to noncomplete responders. One third of patients with a pCR do develop recurrent disease, and pCR can therefore not be equated with cure. FDG-PET/CT was inaccurate to predict pCR and therefore cannot be used as a sole diagnostic tool to predict pCR after CRT for esophageal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D C van der Aa
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - M C J Anderegg
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - S M Lagarde
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - R Klaassen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - S L Meijer
- Department of Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - S van Dieren
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - McCm Hulshof
- Department of Radiotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Jjghm Bergman
- Department of Gastroenterology, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - R J Bennink
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - H W M van Laarhoven
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
- Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Schuring N, Geelen SJG, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Steenhuizen SCM, van der Schaaf M, van der Leeden M, Gisbertz SS. Early mobilization after esophageal cancer surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Dis Esophagus 2023; 36:6874518. [PMID: 36478222 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doac085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2022] [Revised: 10/19/2022] [Accepted: 11/02/2022] [Indexed: 05/30/2023]
Abstract
A key component of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathway for esophagectomy is early mobilization. Evidence on a specific protocol of early and structured mobilization is scarce, which explains variation in clinical practice. This study aims to describe and evaluate the early mobilization practice after esophagectomy for cancer in a tertiary referral center in the Netherlands. This retrospective cohort study included data from a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent an esophagectomy between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2020. Early mobilization entailed increase in activity with the first target of ambulating 100 meters. Primary outcomes were the number of postoperative days (PODs) until achieving this target and reasons for not achieving this target. Secondary outcomes were the relationship between preoperative factors (e.g. sex, BMI) and achieving the target on POD1, and the relationship between achieving the target on POD1 and postoperative outcomes (i.e. length of stay, readmissions). In total, 384 patients were included. The median POD of achieving the target was 2 (IQR 1-3), with 173 (45.1%) patients achieving this on POD1. Main reason for not achieving this target was due to hemodynamic instability (22.7%). Male sex was associated with achieving the target on POD1 (OR = 1.997, 95%CI 1.172-3.403, P = 0.011); achieving this target was not associated with postoperative outcomes. Ambulation up to 100 m on POD1 is achievable in patients after esophagectomy, with higher odds for men to achieve this target. ERAS pathways for post esophagectomy care are encouraged to incorporate 100 m ambulation on POD1 in their guideline as the first postoperative target.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N Schuring
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S J G Geelen
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Ageing & Vitality, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S C M Steenhuizen
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M van der Schaaf
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Ageing & Vitality, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M van der Leeden
- Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Ageing & Vitality, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Faculty of Health, Centre of Expertise Urban Vitality, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Joosten JJ, Slooter MD, van den Elzen RM, Bloemen PR, Gisbertz SS, Eshuis WJ, Daams F, de Bruin DM, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Perfusion assessment by fluorescence time curves in esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction: a prospective clinical study. Surg Endosc 2023:10.1007/s00464-023-10107-9. [PMID: 37208482 PMCID: PMC10338581 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10107-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2023] [Accepted: 04/30/2023] [Indexed: 05/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intraoperative perfusion assessment with indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) may reduce postoperative anastomotic leakage rates after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction. This study evaluated quantitative parameters derived from fluorescence time curves to determine a threshold for adequate perfusion and predict postoperative anastomotic complications. METHODS This prospective cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent FA-guided esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction between August 2020 and February 2022. After intravenous bolus injection of 0.05-mg/kg ICG, fluorescence intensity was registered over time by PINPOINT camera (Stryker, USA). Fluorescent angiograms were quantitatively analyzed at a region of interest of 1 cm diameter at the anastomotic site on the conduit using tailor-made software. Extracted fluorescence parameters were both inflow (T0, Tmax, Fmax, slope, Time-to-peak) as outflow parameters (T90% and T80%). Anastomotic complications including anastomotic leakage (AL) and strictures were documented. Fluorescence parameters in patients with AL were compared to those without AL. RESULTS One hundred and three patients (81 male, 65.7 ± 9.9 years) were included, the majority of whom (88%) underwent an Ivor Lewis procedure. AL occurred in 19% of patients (n = 20/103). Both time to peak as Tmax were significantly longer for the AL group in comparison to the non-AL group (39 s vs. 26 s, p = 0.04 and 65 vs. 51 s, p = 0.03, respectively). Slope was 1.0 (IQR 0.3-2.5) and 1.7 (IQR 1.0-3.0) for the AL and non-AL group (p = 0.11). Outflow was longer in the AL group, although not significantly, T90% 30 versus 15 s, respectively, p = 0.20). Univariate analysis indicated that Tmax might be predictive for AL, although not reaching significance (p = 0.10, area under the curve 0.71) and a cut-off value of 97 s was derived, with a specificity of 92%. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated quantitative parameters and identified a fluorescent threshold which could be used for intraoperative decision-making and to identify high-risk patients for anastomotic leakage during esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction. A significant predictive value remains to be determined in future studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J J Joosten
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M D Slooter
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R M van den Elzen
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - P R Bloemen
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - W J Eshuis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - F Daams
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D M de Bruin
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Luijten JCHBM, Verstegen MHP, van Workum F, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS, Wijnhoven BPL, Verhoeven RHA, Rosman C. Survival after Ivor Lewis versus McKeown esophagectomy for cancer: propensity score matched analysis. Dis Esophagus 2023:6972913. [PMID: 36617230 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doac100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2022] [Revised: 11/08/2022] [Accepted: 11/28/2022] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
It is unknown whether Ivor Lewis (IL) or McKeown (McK) esophagectomy is preferred in patients with potentially curable esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. Patients with mid- and distal esophageal and GEJ cancer without distant metastases who underwent IL or McK esophagectomy in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2017, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were propensity score matched for sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologist classification, comorbidity, tumor type, tumor location, clinical stage, neoadjuvant treatment and year of diagnosis. The primary outcome was a 3-year relative survival (RS). Secondary outcome parameters were number of lymph nodes examined, number of positive lymph nodes, radical resection rate, tumor regression grade, post-operative complications and mortality. A total of 1627 patients who underwent IL (n = 1094) or McK (n = 533) esophagectomy were included. Patient and tumor characteristics were balanced after propensity score matching, leaving 658 patients to be compared. The 3-year RS was 54% after IL and 50% after McK esophagectomy, P = 0.140. The median number of lymph nodes examined, median number of positive lymph nodes, radical resection rate and tumor regression grade were comparable between both groups. Recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (2 vs. 5%, P = 0.006) occurred less frequently after IL esophagectomy. No differences were observed in post-operative anastomotic leakage rate, pulmonary complication rate and mortality rates. There was no statistically significant difference in the 3-year RS between IL and McK esophagectomy. Based on these results, both IL and McK esophagectomy can be performed in patients with mid to distal esophageal and GEJ cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J C H B M Luijten
- Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht 3501, The Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen 6525, The Netherlands
| | - M H P Verstegen
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen 6525, The Netherlands.,Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK
| | - F van Workum
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen 6525, The Netherlands.,Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK
| | | | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC-Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1081, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC-Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1081, The Netherlands
| | - B P L Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam 3015, The Netherlands
| | - R H A Verhoeven
- Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht 3501, The Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen 6525, The Netherlands
| | - C Rosman
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen 6525, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Schuring N, Jezerskyte E, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Sprangers MAG, Lagergren P, Johar A, Markar SR, Gisbertz SS. Influence of postoperative complications following esophagectomy for cancer on quality of life: A European multicenter study. Eur J Surg Oncol 2023; 49:97-105. [PMID: 35987796 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.07.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2022] [Revised: 07/04/2022] [Accepted: 07/24/2022] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Postoperative complications following major surgery have been shown to be associated with reduced health-related quality of life (HRQL), and severe complications may have profound negative effects. This study aimed to examine whether long-term HRQL differs with the occurrence and severity of complications in a European multicenter prospective dataset of patients following esophagectomy for cancer. METHODS Disease-free patients following esophagectomy for cancer between 2010 and 2016 from the LASER study were included. Patients completed the LASER, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OG25 questionnaires >1 year following treatment. Long-term HRQL was compared between patients with and without postoperative complications, subgroup analysis was performed for severity of complications (no, minor [Clavien-Dindo I-II], severe [Clavien-Dindo ≥ III]), using univariable and multivariable regression. RESULTS 645 patients were included: 283 patients with no, 207 with minor and 155 with severe complications. Significantly more dyspnea (QLQ-C30) was reported by patients with compared to patients without complications (differenceinmeans6.3). In subgroup analysis, patients with severe complications reported more dyspnea (difference in means 8.3) than patients with no complications. None of the differences were clinically relevant (difference in means ≥ 10 points). LASER-based low mood (OR2.3) was statistically different for minor versus severe complications. CONCLUSION Comparable HRQL was found in patients with and without postoperative complications following esophagectomy for cancer, after a mean follow-up of 4.4 years. Furthermore, patients with different levels of severity of complications had comparable HRQL. The level of HRQL in esophageal cancer patients are more likely explained by the impact of the complex procedure of the esophagectomy itself.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N Schuring
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - E Jezerskyte
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M A G Sprangers
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - P Lagergren
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, United Kingdom
| | - A Johar
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - S R Markar
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Nuffield Department of Surgery, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
de Graaff MR, Hogenbirk RNM, Janssen YF, Elfrink AKE, Liem RSL, Nienhuijs SW, de Vries JPPM, Elshof JW, Verdaasdonk E, Melenhorst J, van Westreenen HL, Besselink MGH, Ruurda JP, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Klaase JM, den Dulk M, van Heijl M, Hegeman JH, Braun J, Voeten DM, Würdemann FS, Warps ALK, Alberga AJ, Suurmeijer JA, Akpinar EO, Wolfhagen N, van den Boom AL, Bolster-van Eenennaam MJ, van Duijvendijk P, Heineman DJ, Wouters MWJM, Kruijff S, Koningswoud-Terhoeve CL, Belt E, van der Hoeven JAB, Marres GMH, Tozzi F, von Meyenfeldt EM, Coebergh RRJ, van den Braak, Huisman S, Rijken AM, Balm R, Daams F, Dickhoff C, Eshuis WJ, Gisbertz SS, Zandbergen HR, Hartemink KJ, Keessen SA, Kok NFM, Kuhlmann KFD, van Sandick JW, Veenhof AA, Wals A, van Diepen MS, Schoonderwoerd L, Stevens CT, Susa D, Bendermacher BLW, Olofsen N, van Himbeeck M, de Hingh IHJT, Janssen HJB, Luyer MDP, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, Ramaekers M, Stacie R, Talsma AK, Tissink MW, Dolmans D, Berendsen R, Heisterkamp J, Jansen WA, de Kort-van Oudheusden M, Matthijsen RM, Grünhagen DJ, Lagarde SM, Maat APWM, van der Sluis PC, Waalboer RB, Brehm V, van Brussel JP, Morak M, Ponfoort ED, Sybrandy JEM, Klemm PL, Lastdrager W, Palamba HW, van Aalten SM, Tseng LNL, van der Bogt KEA, de Jong WJ, Oosterhuis JWA, Tummers Q, van der Wilden GM, Ooms S, Pasveer EH, Veger HTC, Molegraafb MJ, Nieuwenhuijs VB, Patijn GA, van der Veldt MEV, Boersma D, van Haelst STW, van Koeverden ID, Rots ML, Bonsing BA, Michiels N, Bijlstra OD, Braun J, Broekhuis D, Brummelaar HW, Hartgrink HH, Metselaar A, Mieog JSD, Schipper IB, de Steur WO, Fioole B, Terlouw EC, Biesmans C, Bosmans JWAM, Bouwense SAW, Clermonts SHEM, Coolsen MME, Mees BME, Schurink GWH, Duijff JW, van Gent T, de Nes LCF, Toonen D, Beverwijk MJ, van den Hoed E, Keizers B, Kelder W, Keller BPJA, Pultrum BB, van Rosum E, Wijma AG, van den Broek F, Leclercq WKG, Loos MJA, Sijmons JML, Vaes RHD, Vancoillie PJ, Consten ECJ, Jongen JMJ, Verheijen PM, van Weel V, Arts CHP, Jonker J, Murrmann-Boonstra G, Pierie JPEN, Swart J, van Duyn EB, Geelkerken RH, de Groot R, Moekotte NL, Stam A, Voshaar A, van Acker GJD, Bulder RMA, Swank DJ, Pereboom ITA, Hoffmann WH, Orsini M, Blok JJ, Lardenoije JHP, Reijne MMPJ, van Schaik P, Smeets L, van Sterkenburg SMM, Harlaar NJ, Mekke S, Verhaakt T, Cancrinus E, van Lammeren GW, Molenaar IQ, van Santvoort HC, Vos AWF, Schouten- van der Velden AP, Woensdregt K, Mooy-Vermaat SP, Scharn DM, Marsman HA, Rassam F, Halfwerk FR, Andela AJ, Buis CI, van Dam GM, ten Duis K, van Etten B, Lases L, Meerdink M, de Meijer VE, Pranger B, Ruiter S, Rurenga M, Wiersma A, Wijsmuller AR, Albers KI, van den Boezem PB, Klarenbeek B, van der Kolk BM, van Laarhoven CJHM, Matthée E, Peters N, Rosman C, Schroen AMA, Stommel MWJ, Verhagen AFTM, van der Vijver R, Warlé MC, de Wilt JHW, van den Berg JW, Bloemert T, de Borst GJ, van Hattum EH, Hazenberg CEVB, van Herwaarden JA, van Hillegerberg R, Kroese TE, Petri BJ, Toorop RJ, Aarts F, Janssen RJL, Janssen-Maessen SHP, Kool M, Verberght H, Moes DE, Smit JW, Wiersema AM, Vierhout BP, de Vos B, den Boer FC, Dekker NAM, Botman JMJ, van Det MJ, Folbert EC, de Jong E, Koenen JC, Kouwenhoven EA, Masselink I, Navis LH, Belgers HJ, Sosef MN, Stoot JHMB. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical care in the Netherlands. Br J Surg 2022; 109:1282-1292. [PMID: 36811624 PMCID: PMC10364688 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znac301] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2022] [Revised: 05/14/2022] [Accepted: 07/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands. METHODS A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018-2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates. RESULTS Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018-2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle R de Graaff
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.,Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Gelre Ziekenhuizen, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands
| | - Rianne N M Hogenbirk
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Yester F Janssen
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Arthur K E Elfrink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ronald S L Liem
- Department of Surgery, Dutch Obesity Clinic, Gouda, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Groene Hart Hospital, Gouda, the Netherlands
| | - Simon W Nienhuijs
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | | | - Jan-Willem Elshof
- Department of Surgery, VieCuri Medical Centre, Venlo, the Netherlands
| | - Emiel Verdaasdonk
- Department of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands
| | - Jarno Melenhorst
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Marc G H Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jelle P Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Joost M Klaase
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Marcel den Dulk
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Mark van Heijl
- Department of Surgery, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Johannes H Hegeman
- Department of Surgery, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente Almelo-Hengelo, Almelo, Hengelo, the Netherlands
| | - Jerry Braun
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Daan M Voeten
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Franka S Würdemann
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Anne-Loes K Warps
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Anna J Alberga
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Vascular Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - J Annelie Suurmeijer
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Erman O Akpinar
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Nienke Wolfhagen
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | - David J Heineman
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Michel W J M Wouters
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Schelto Kruijff
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Joosten JJ, Gisbertz SS, Heineman DJ, Daams F, Eshuis WJ, van Berge Henegouwen MI. The role of fluorescence angiography in colonic interposition after esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 2022; 36:6779887. [PMID: 36309805 PMCID: PMC10150173 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doac076] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2022] [Revised: 09/08/2022] [Accepted: 09/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Colonic interposition is an alternative for gastric conduit reconstruction after esophagectomy. Anastomotic leakage (AL) occurs in 15-25% of patients and may be attributed to reduced blood supply after vascular ligation. Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) can visualize tissue perfusion. We aimed to give an overview of the first experiences of ICG-FA and AL rate in colonic interposition. This study included all consecutive patients who underwent a colonic interposition between January 2015 and December 2021 at a tertiary referral center. Surgery was performed for the following indications: inability to use the stomach because of previous surgery or extensive tumour involvement, cancer recurrence in the gastric conduit, or because of complications after initial esophagectomy. Since 2018 ICG-FA was performed before anastomotic reconstruction by administration of ICG injection (0.1 mg/kg/bolus), using the Spy-phi (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI). Twenty-eight patients (9 female, mean age 62.8), underwent colonic interposition of whom 15 (54%) underwent ICG-FA-guided surgery. Within the ICG-FA group, three (20%) AL occurred, whereas in the non-ICG-FA group, three AL and one graft necrosis (31%) occurred (P=0.67). There was a change of management due to the FA assessment in three patients in the FA group (20%) which led to the choice of a different bowel segment for the anastomosis. Mean operative times in the ICG-FA and non-ICG-FA groups were 372±99 and 399±113 minutes, respectively (P=0.85). ICG-FA is a safe, easy and feasible technique to assess perfusion of colonic interpositions. ICG-FA is of added value leading to a change in management in a considerable percentage of patients. Its role in prevention of AL remains to be elucidated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J J Joosten
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - D J Heineman
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - F Daams
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - W J Eshuis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Schuring N, Markar SR, Hagens ERC, Jezerskyte E, Sprangers MAG, Lagergren P, Johar A, Gisbertz SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Health-related quality of life following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus perioperative chemotherapy and esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a European multicenter study. Dis Esophagus 2022; 36:6761045. [PMID: 36241253 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doac069] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2022] [Revised: 09/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Curative treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer consists of (neo)adjuvant treatment followed by esophagectomy. Both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and perioperative chemotherapy improve the 5-year overall survival rate compared with surgery alone. However, it is unknown whether these treatment strategies are associated with differences in long-term health-related quality of life (HRQL). The aim of this study is to compare long-term HRQL in patients after esophagectomy treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy. Disease-free cancer patients having undergone esophagectomy and (neo)adjuvant treatment in one of the participating lasting symptoms after esophageal resection (LASER) study centers between 2010 and 2016, were identified from the LASER study dataset. Included patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ-OG25, and LASER questionnaires at least 1 year after the completion of treatment. Long-term HRQL was compared between patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy, using univariable and multivariable regression and presented as differences in mean score. Among the 565 included patients, 349 (61.8%) received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and 216 (38.2%) perioperative chemotherapy. Patients treated with perioperative chemotherapy reported more symptomatology for diarrhea (difference in means 5.93), reflux (difference in means 7.40), and odynophagia (difference in means 4.66). The differences did not exceed the 10 points to be of clinical relevance. No significant differences for the LASER key symptoms were observed. The observed differences in long-term HRQL are in favor of patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared with patients treated with perioperative chemotherapy; however, the differences were small. Patients need to be informed about long-term HRQL when considering allocation of (neo)adjuvant treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N Schuring
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S R Markar
- Nuffield Department of Surgery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,Department of Molecular Medicine & Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - E R C Hagens
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E Jezerskyte
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M A G Sprangers
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - P Lagergren
- Department of Molecular Medicine & Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - A Johar
- Department of Molecular Medicine & Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Ubels S, Verstegen M, Klarenbeek B, Bouwense S, van Berge Henegouwen M, Daams F, van Det MJ, Griffiths EA, Haveman JW, Heisterkamp J, Koshy R, Nieuwenhuijzen G, Polat F, Siersema PD, Singh P, Wijnhoven B, Hannink G, van Workum F, Rosman C, Matthée E, Slootmans CAM, Ultee G, Schouten J, Gisbertz SS, Eshuis WJ, Kalff MC, Feenstra ML, van der Peet DL, Stam WT, van Etten B, Poelmann F, Vuurberg N, van den Berg JW, Martijnse IS, Matthijsen RM, Luyer M, Curvers W, Nieuwenhuijzen T, Taselaar AE, Kouwenhoven EA, Lubbers M, Sosef M, Lecot F, Geraedts TCM, van Esser S, Dekker JWT, van den Wildenberg F, Kelder W, Lubbers M, Baas PC, de Haas JWA, Hartgrink HH, Bahadoer RR, van Sandick JW, Hartemink KJ, Veenhof X, Stockmann H, Gorgec B, Weeder P, Wiezer MJ, Genders CMS, Belt E, Blomberg B, van Duijvendijk P, Claassen L, Reetz D, Steenvoorde P, Mastboom W, Klein Ganseij HJ, van Dalsen AD, Joldersma A, Zwakman M, Groenendijk RPR, Montazeri M, Mercer S, Knight B, van Boxel G, McGregor RJ, Skipworth RJE, Frattini C, Bradley A, Nilsson M, Hayami M, Huang B, Bundred J, Evans R, Grimminger PP, van der Sluis PC, Eren U, Saunders J, Theophilidou E, Khanzada Z, Elliott JA, Ponten J, King S, Reynolds JV, Sgromo B, Akbari K, Shalaby S, Gutschow CA, Schmidt H, Vetter D, Moorthy K, Ibrahim MAH, Christodoulidis G, Räsänen JV, Kauppi J, Söderström H, Manatakis DK, Korkolis DP, Balalis D, Rompu A, Alkhaffaf B, Alasmar M, Arebi M, Piessen G, Nuytens F, Degisors S, Ahmed A, Boddy A, Gandhi S, Fashina O, Van Daele E, Pattyn P, Robb WB, Arumugasamy M, Al Azzawi M, Whooley J, Colak E, Aybar E, Sari AC, Uyanik MS, Ciftci AB, Sayyed R, Ayub B, Murtaza G, Saeed A, Ramesh P, Charalabopoulos A, Liakakos T, Schizas D, Baili E, Kapelouzou A, Valmasoni M, Pierobon ES, Capovilla G, Merigliano S, Silviu C, Rodica B, Florin A, Cristian Gelu R, Petre H, Guevara Castro R, Salcedo AF, Negoi I, Negoita VM, Ciubotaru C, Stoica B, Hostiuc S, Colucci N, Mönig SP, Wassmer CH, Meyer J, Takeda FR, Aissar Sallum RA, Ribeiro U, Cecconello I, Toledo E, Trugeda MS, Fernández MJ, Gil C, Castanedo S, Isik A, Kurnaz E, Videira JF, Peyroteo M, Canotilho R, Weindelmayer J, Giacopuzzi S, De Pasqual CA, Bruna M, Mingol F, Vaque J, Pérez C, Phillips AW, Chmelo J, Brown J, Han LE, Gossage JA, Davies AR, Baker CR, Kelly M, Saad M, Bernardi D, Bonavina L, Asti E, Riva C, Scaramuzzo R, Elhadi M, Abdelkarem Ahmed H, Elhadi A, Elnagar FA, Msherghi AAA, Wills V, Campbell C, Perez Cerdeira M, Whiting S, Merrett N, Das A, Apostolou C, Lorenzo A, Sousa F, Adelino Barbosa J, Devezas V, Barbosa E, Fernandes C, Smith G, Li EY, Bhimani N, Chan P, Kotecha K, Hii MW, Ward SM, Johnson M, Read M, Chong L, Hollands MJ, Allaway M, Richardson A, Johnston E, Chen AZL, Kanhere H, Prasad S, McQuillan P, Surman T, Trochsler MI, Schofield WA, Ahmed SK, Reid JL, Harris MC, Gananadha S, Farrant J, Rodrigues N, Fergusson J, Hindmarsh A, Afzal Z, Safranek P, Sujendran V, Rooney S, Loureiro C, Leturio Fernández S, Díez del Val I, Jaunoo S, Kennedy L, Hussain A, Theodorou D, Triantafyllou T, Theodoropoulos C, Palyvou T, Elhadi M, Abdullah Ben Taher F, Ekheel M, Msherghi AAA. Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak in patients after oesophagectomy: the SEAL score. Br J Surg 2022. [DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znac226] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common but severe complication after oesophagectomy. It is unknown how to determine the severity of AL objectively at diagnosis. Determining leak severity may guide treatment decisions and improve future research. This study aimed to identify leak-related prognostic factors for mortality, and to develop a Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak (SEAL) score.
Methods
This international, retrospective cohort study in 71 centres worldwide included patients with AL after oesophagectomy between 2011 and 2019. The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality. Leak-related prognostic factors were identified after adjusting for confounders and were included in multivariable logistic regression to develop the SEAL score. Four classes of leak severity (mild, moderate, severe, and critical) were defined based on the risk of 90-day mortality, and the score was validated internally.
Results
Some 1509 patients with AL were included and the 90-day mortality rate was 11.7 per cent. Twelve leak-related prognostic factors were included in the SEAL score. The score showed good calibration and discrimination (c-index 0.77, 95 per cent c.i. 0.73 to 0.81). Higher classes of leak severity graded by the SEAL score were associated with a significant increase in duration of ICU stay, healing time, Comprehensive Complication Index score, and Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group classification.
Conclusion
The SEAL score grades leak severity into four classes by combining 12 leak-related predictors and can be used to the assess severity of AL after oesophagectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sander Ubels
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , the Netherlands
| | - Moniek Verstegen
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , the Netherlands
| | - Bastiaan Klarenbeek
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , the Netherlands
| | - Stefan Bouwense
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre+ , Maastricht , the Netherlands
| | - Mark van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , the Netherlands
| | - Freek Daams
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , the Netherlands
| | - Marc J van Det
- Department of Surgery, ZGT hospital group , Almelo , the Netherlands
| | - Ewen A Griffiths
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham , Birmingham , UK
- Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham , Birmingham , UK
| | - Jan W Haveman
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen , Groningen , the Netherlands
| | - Joos Heisterkamp
- Department of Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital , Tilburg , the Netherlands
| | - Renol Koshy
- Department of Surgery, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospital NHS Trust , Newcastle upon Tyne , UK
- Department of Surgery, University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust , Coventry , UK
| | | | - Fatih Polat
- Department of Surgery, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital , Nijmegen , the Netherlands
| | - Peter D Siersema
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , The Netherlands
| | - Pritam Singh
- Department of Surgery, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust , Nottingham , UK
- Department of Surgery, Regional Oesophago-Gastric Unit, Royal Surrey County Hospital , Guildford , UK
| | - Bas Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre , Rotterdam , the Netherlands
| | - Gerjon Hannink
- Department of Operating Rooms, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , The Netherlands
| | - Frans van Workum
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , the Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital , Nijmegen , the Netherlands
| | - Camiel Rosman
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
van Kleef JJ, Dijksterhuis WPM, van den Boorn HG, Prins M, Verhoeven RHA, Gisbertz SS, Slingerland M, Mohammad NH, Creemers GJ, Neelis KJ, Heisterkamp J, Rosman C, Ruurda JP, Kouwenhoven EA, van de Poll-Franse LV, van Oijen MGH, Sprangers MAG, van Laarhoven HWM. Prognostic value of patient-reported quality of life for survival in oesophagogastric cancer: analysis from the population-based POCOP study. Gastric Cancer 2021; 24:1203-1212. [PMID: 34251543 PMCID: PMC8502147 DOI: 10.1007/s10120-021-01209-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2021] [Accepted: 06/29/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accumulating evidence of trials demonstrates that patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at diagnosis is prognostic for overall survival (OS) in oesophagogastric cancer. However, real-world data are lacking. Moreover, differences in disease stages and tumour-specific symptoms are usually not taken into consideration. The aim of this population-based study was to assess the prognostic value of HRQoL, including tumour-specific scales, on OS in patients with potentially curable and advanced oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS Data were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the patient reported outcome registry (POCOP). Patients included in POCOP between 2016 and 2018 were stratified for potentially curable (cT1-4aNallM0) or advanced (cT4b or cM1) disease. HRQoL was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the tumour-specific OG25 module. Cox proportional hazards models assessed the impact of HRQoL, sociodemographic and clinical factors (including treatment) on OS. RESULTS In total, 924 patients were included. Median OS was 38.9 months in potentially curable patients (n = 795) and 10.6 months in patients with advanced disease (n = 129). Global Health Status was independently associated with OS in potentially curable patients (HR 0.89, 99%CI 0.82-0.97), together with several other HRQoL items: appetite loss, dysphagia, eating restrictions, odynophagia, and body image. In advanced disease, the Summary Score was the strongest independent prognostic factor (HR 0.75, 99%CI 0.59-0.94), followed by fatigue, pain, insomnia and role functioning. CONCLUSION In a real-world setting, HRQoL was prognostic for OS in patients with potentially curable and advanced oesophagogastric cancer. Several HRQoL domains, including the Summary Score and several OG25 items, could be used to develop or update prognostic models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J J van Kleef
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Office D3-312, PO Box 22660, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - W P M Dijksterhuis
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Office D3-312, PO Box 22660, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - H G van den Boorn
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Office D3-312, PO Box 22660, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Prins
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Office D3-312, PO Box 22660, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R H A Verhoeven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Office D3-312, PO Box 22660, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Slingerland
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - N Haj Mohammad
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - G-J Creemers
- Department of Medical Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - K J Neelis
- Department of Radiotherapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - J Heisterkamp
- Department of Surgery, Elizabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands
- Comprehensive Cancer Network EMBRAZE, Breda, The Netherlands
| | - C Rosman
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - J P Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - E A Kouwenhoven
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo, The Netherlands
| | - L V van de Poll-Franse
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Center of Research on Psychological and Somatic Disorders (CoRPS), Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - M G H van Oijen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Office D3-312, PO Box 22660, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M A G Sprangers
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H W M van Laarhoven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Office D3-312, PO Box 22660, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Schuring N, Matsuda S, Hagens ERC, Sano J, Mayanagi S, Kawakubo H, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Kitagawa Y, Gisbertz SS. A proposal for uniformity in classification of lymph node stations in esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus 2021; 34:doab009. [PMID: 33884407 PMCID: PMC8503476 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doab009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2020] [Revised: 01/08/2021] [Accepted: 01/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
The 11th edition of the "Japanese Classification of Esophageal Cancer" by the Japan Esophageal Society (JES) and the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) "Cancer Staging Manual" are two separate classification systems both widely used for the clinical and pathological staging of esophageal cancer. Furthermore, the lymph node stations from these classification systems are combined for research purposes in the multinational TIGER study, which investigates the distribution pattern of lymph node metastases. The existing classification systems greatly differ with regard to number, location and anatomical boundaries of locoregional lymph node stations. The differences in these classifications cause significant heterogeneity in studies on lymph node metastases in esophageal cancer. This makes data interpretation difficult and comparison of studies challenging. In this article, we propose a match for these two commonly used classification systems and additionally for the TIGER study classification, in order to be able to compare results of studies and exchange knowledge and to make steps towards one global uniform classification system for all patients with esophageal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N Schuring
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S Matsuda
- Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - E R C Hagens
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J Sano
- Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - S Mayanagi
- Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - H Kawakubo
- Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Y Kitagawa
- Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Alkhaffaf B, Metryka A, Blazeby JM, Glenny AM, Adeyeye A, Costa PM, Diez del Val I, Gisbertz SS, Guner A, Law S, Lee HJ, Li Z, Nakada K, Reim D, Vorwald P, Baiocchi GL, Allum W, Chaudry MA, Griffiths EA, Williamson PR, Bruce IA. Core outcome set for surgical trials in gastric cancer (GASTROS study): international patient and healthcare professional consensus. Br J Surg 2021; 108:znab192. [PMID: 34165555 PMCID: PMC10364901 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znab192] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2021] [Accepted: 05/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgery is the primary treatment that can offer potential cure for gastric cancer, but is associated with significant risks. Identifying optimal surgical approaches should be based on comparing outcomes from well designed trials. Currently, trials report different outcomes, making synthesis of evidence difficult. To address this, the aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS)-a standardized group of outcomes important to key international stakeholders-that should be reported by future trials in this field. METHODS Stage 1 of the study involved identifying potentially important outcomes from previous trials and a series of patient interviews. Stage 2 involved patients and healthcare professionals prioritizing outcomes using a multilanguage international Delphi survey that informed an international consensus meeting at which the COS was finalized. RESULTS Some 498 outcomes were identified from previously reported trials and patient interviews, and rationalized into 56 items presented in the Delphi survey. A total of 952 patients, surgeons, and nurses enrolled in round 1 of the survey, and 662 (70 per cent) completed round 2. Following the consensus meeting, eight outcomes were included in the COS: disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, and 'serious' adverse events. CONCLUSION A COS for surgical trials in gastric cancer has been developed with international patients and healthcare professionals. This is a minimum set of outcomes that is recommended to be used in all future trials in this field to improve trial design and synthesis of evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Alkhaffaf
- Department of Oesophago-Gastric Surgery, Salford Royal Hospital, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - A Metryka
- Paediatric Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - J M Blazeby
- Centre for Surgical Research and Bristol and Weston National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - A -M Glenny
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - A Adeyeye
- University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital, Ilorin, Nigeria
| | - P M Costa
- Cirurgia Geral, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
| | | | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Centre, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - A Guner
- Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey
| | - S Law
- Department of Surgery, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - H -J Lee
- Department of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, South Korea
| | - Z Li
- Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China
| | - K Nakada
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - D Reim
- Department of Surgery, TUM School of Medicine, Munich, Germany
| | - P Vorwald
- Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Diaz, Madrid, Spain
| | - G L Baiocchi
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
| | - W Allum
- Department of Academic Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - M A Chaudry
- Department of Academic Surgery, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - E A Griffiths
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - P R Williamson
- Medical Research Council North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - I A Bruce
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Division of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Müller PC, Kapp JR, Vetter D, Bonavina L, Brown W, Castro S, Cheong E, Darling GE, Egberts J, Ferri L, Gisbertz SS, Gockel I, Grimminger PP, Hofstetter WL, Hölscher AH, Low DE, Luyer M, Markar SR, Mönig SP, Moorthy K, Morse CR, Müller-Stich BP, Nafteux P, Nieponice A, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, Nilsson M, Palanivelu C, Pattyn P, Pera M, Räsänen J, Ribeiro U, Rosman C, Schröder W, Sgromo B, van Berge Henegouwen MI, van Hillegersberg R, van Veer H, van Workum F, Watson DI, Wijnhoven BPL, Gutschow CA. Fit-for-Discharge Criteria after Esophagectomy: An International Expert Delphi Consensus. Dis Esophagus 2021; 34:5909885. [PMID: 32960264 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doaa101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2020] [Revised: 07/03/2020] [Accepted: 08/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
There are no internationally recognized criteria available to determine preparedness for hospital discharge after esophagectomy. This study aims to achieve international consensus using Delphi methodology. The expert panel consisted of 40 esophageal surgeons spanning 16 countries and 4 continents. During a 3-round, web-based Delphi process, experts voted for discharge criteria using 5-point Likert scales. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Consensus was reached if agreement was ≥75% in round 3. Consensus was achieved for the following basic criteria: nutritional requirements are met by oral intake of at least liquids with optional supplementary nutrition via jejunal feeding tube. The patient should have passed flatus and does not require oxygen during mobilization or at rest. Central venous catheters should be removed. Adequate analgesia at rest and during mobilization is achieved using both oral opioid and non-opioid analgesics. All vital signs should be normal unless abnormal preoperatively. Inflammatory parameters should be trending down and close to normal (leucocyte count ≤12G/l and C-reactive protein ≤80 mg/dl). This multinational Delphi survey represents the first expert-led process for consensus criteria to determine 'fit-for-discharge' status after esophagectomy. Results of this Delphi survey may be applied to clinical outcomes research as an objective measure of short-term recovery. Furthermore, standardized endpoints identified through this process may be used in clinical practice to guide decisions regarding patient discharge and may help to reduce the risk of premature discharge or prolonged admission.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P C Müller
- Department of Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - J R Kapp
- Department of Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - D Vetter
- Department of Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - L Bonavina
- IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Division of General and Foregut Surgery, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - W Brown
- Oesophago-Gastric and Bariatric Unit, Department of General Surgery, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - S Castro
- Department of Surgery, Vall d'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| | - E Cheong
- Department of General Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
| | - G E Darling
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Toronto General Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - J Egberts
- Department of General, Visceral-, Thoracic-, Transplantation-, and Pediatric Surgery, Kurt-Semm Center for Laparoscopic and Robotic Assisted Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - L Ferri
- Departments of Surgery and Oncology, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - I Gockel
- Department of Visceral, Thoracic, Transplant and Vascular surgery, University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - P P Grimminger
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
| | - W L Hofstetter
- Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - A H Hölscher
- Center for Oesophageal and Gastric Surgery, AGAPLESION Markus Krankenhaus, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - D E Low
- Department of General, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, USA
| | - M Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - S R Markar
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College, London, UK
| | - S P Mönig
- Division of Visceral Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Geneva, Hospitals and School of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - K Moorthy
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College, London, UK
| | - C R Morse
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA
| | - B P Müller-Stich
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - P Nafteux
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - A Nieponice
- Esophageal Institute, Hospital Universitario Fundacion Favaloro, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | | | - M Nilsson
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - C Palanivelu
- Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, GEM Hospital & Research Centre, Coimbatore, India
| | - P Pattyn
- Department of Surgery, University Center Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
| | - M Pera
- Department of Surgery, Section of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Hospital Universitario del Mar, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - J Räsänen
- Department of General Thoracic and Esophageal Surgery, Heart and Lung Centre, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - U Ribeiro
- Department of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - C Rosman
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - W Schröder
- Department of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, University of Cologne, Germany
| | - B Sgromo
- Department of Upper GI Surgery, Oxford University Hospitals, UK
| | | | - R van Hillegersberg
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - H van Veer
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - F van Workum
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - D I Watson
- Flinders University Department of Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, Australia
| | - B P L Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - C A Gutschow
- Department of Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Jezerskyte E, van Berge Henegouwen MI, van Laarhoven HWM, van Kleef JJ, Eshuis WJ, Heisterkamp J, Hartgrink HH, Rosman C, van Hillegersberg R, Hulshof MCCM, Sprangers MAG, Gisbertz SS. Postoperative Complications and Long-Term Quality of Life After Multimodality Treatment for Esophageal Cancer: An Analysis of the Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Esophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP). Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 28:7259-7276. [PMID: 34036429 PMCID: PMC8519926 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10144-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2020] [Accepted: 04/29/2021] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Esophagectomy has major effects on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). Postoperative complications might contribute to a decreased HR-QOL. This population-based study aimed to investigate the difference in HR-QoL between patients with and without complications after esophagectomy for cancer. METHODS A prospective comparative cohort study was performed with data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) and Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Esophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP). All patients with esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer after esophagectomy in the period 2015-2018 were enrolled. The study investigated HR-QoL at baseline, then 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months postoperatively, comparing patients with and without complications as well as with and without anastomotic leakage. RESULTS The 486 enrolled patients comprised 270 patients with complications and 216 patients without complications. Significantly more patients with complications had comorbidities (69.6% vs 57.3%; p = 0.001). No significant difference in HR-QoL was found over time between the patients with and without complications. In both groups, a significant decline in short-term HR-QoL was found in various HR-QoL domains, which were restored to the baseline level during the 12-month follow-up period. No significant difference was found in HR-QoL between the patients with and without anastomotic leakage. The patients with grades 2 and 3 anastomotic leakage reported significantly more "choking when swallowing" at 6 months (ß = 14.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 24.833 to - 4.202; p = 0.049), 9 months (ß = 22.4, 95% CI, - 34.259 to - 10.591; p = 0.007), and 24 months (ß = 24.6; 95% CI, - 39.494 to - 9.727; p = 0.007) than the patients with grade 1 or no anastomotic leakage. CONCLUSION In general, postoperative complications were not associated with decreased short- or long-term HR-QoL for patients after esophagectomy for esophageal or GEJ cancer. The temporary decrease in HR-QoL likely is related to the nature of esophagectomy and reconstruction itself.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Jezerskyte
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H W M van Laarhoven
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J J van Kleef
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - W J Eshuis
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J Heisterkamp
- Department of Surgery, Embraze Comprehensive Cancer Network, Elisabeth- Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - H H Hartgrink
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - C Rosman
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - R van Hillegersberg
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M C C M Hulshof
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Radiotherapy, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M A G Sprangers
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Medical Psychology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Markar SR, Sounderajah V, Johar A, Zaninotto G, Castoro C, Lagergren P, Elliott JA, Gisbertz SS, Mariette C, Alfieri R, Huddy J, Pinto E, Scarpa M, Klevebro F, Sunde B, Murphy CF, Greene C, Ravi N, Piessen G, Brenkman H, Ruurda J, van Hillegersberg R, Lagarde SM, Wijnhoven BP, Pera M, Roigg J, Castro S, Matthijsen R, Findlay J, Antonowicz S, Maynard N, McCormack O, Ariyarathenam A, Sanders G, Cheong E, Jaunoo S, Allum W, van Lanschot J, Nilsson M, Reynolds JV, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Hanna GB. Patient-reported outcomes after oesophagectomy in the multicentre LASER study. Br J Surg 2021; 108:1090-1096. [PMID: 33975337 PMCID: PMC10364861 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znab124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2020] [Accepted: 03/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Data on the long-term symptom burden in patients surviving oesophageal cancer surgery are scarce. The aim of this study was to identify the most prevalent symptoms and their interactions with health-related quality of life. METHODS This was a cross-sectional cohort study of patients who underwent oesophageal cancer surgery in 20 European centres between 2010 and 2016. Patients had to be disease-free for at least 1 year. They were asked to complete a 28-symptom questionnaire at a single time point, at least 1 year after surgery. Principal component analysis was used to assess for clustering and association of symptoms. Risk factors associated with the development of severe symptoms were identified by multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS Of 1081 invited patients, 876 (81.0 per cent) responded. Symptoms in the preceding 6 months associated with previous surgery were experienced by 586 patients (66.9 per cent). The most common severe symptoms included reduced energy or activity tolerance (30.7 per cent), feeling of early fullness after eating (30.0 per cent), tiredness (28.7 per cent), and heartburn/acid or bile regurgitation (19.6 per cent). Clustering analysis showed that symptoms clustered into six domains: lethargy, musculoskeletal pain, dumping, lower gastrointestinal symptoms, regurgitation/reflux, and swallowing/conduit problems; the latter two were the most closely associated. Surgical approach, neoadjuvant therapy, patient age, and sex were factors associated with severe symptoms. CONCLUSION A long-term symptom burden is common after oesophageal cancer surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S R Markar
- Department Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.,Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - V Sounderajah
- Department Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - A Johar
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - G Zaninotto
- Department Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - C Castoro
- Unit of Surgical Oncology of the Oesophagus and Digestive Tract, Veneto Institute of Oncology, Padua, Italy
| | - P Lagergren
- Department Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.,Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - J A Elliott
- Department of Surgery, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St James's Hospital and Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - C Mariette
- Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, University of Lille, Claude Huriez University Hospital, F-59000 Lille, France
| | - R Alfieri
- Unit of Surgical Oncology of the Oesophagus and Digestive Tract, Veneto Institute of Oncology, Padua, Italy
| | - J Huddy
- Department Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - E Pinto
- Unit of Surgical Oncology of the Oesophagus and Digestive Tract, Veneto Institute of Oncology, Padua, Italy
| | - M Scarpa
- Unit of Surgical Oncology of the Oesophagus and Digestive Tract, Veneto Institute of Oncology, Padua, Italy
| | - F Klevebro
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - B Sunde
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - C F Murphy
- Department of Surgery, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St James's Hospital and Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - C Greene
- Department of Surgery, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St James's Hospital and Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - N Ravi
- Department of Surgery, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St James's Hospital and Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - G Piessen
- Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, University of Lille, Claude Huriez University Hospital, F-59000 Lille, France
| | - H Brenkman
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - J Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - R van Hillegersberg
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - S M Lagarde
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - B P Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M Pera
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
| | - J Roigg
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
| | - S Castro
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
| | - R Matthijsen
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, ETZ Tildburg, Tildburg, the Netherlands
| | - J Findlay
- Oesophago-gastric Centre, Churchill Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - S Antonowicz
- Oesophago-gastric Centre, Churchill Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - N Maynard
- Oesophago-gastric Centre, Churchill Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - O McCormack
- Department of Oesophago-Gastric Surgery, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK
| | - A Ariyarathenam
- Department of Oesophago-Gastric Surgery, Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK
| | - G Sanders
- Department of Oesophago-Gastric Surgery, Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK
| | - E Cheong
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich Hospitals NHS Trust, Norwich, UK
| | - S Jaunoo
- Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, UK
| | - W Allum
- Department of Oesophago-Gastric Surgery, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK
| | - J van Lanschot
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M Nilsson
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - J V Reynolds
- Department of Surgery, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St James's Hospital and Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - G B Hanna
- Department Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Slooter MD, Mansvelders MSE, Bloemen PR, Gisbertz SS, Bemelman WA, Tanis PJ, Hompes R, van Berge Henegouwen MI, de Bruin DM. Defining indocyanine green fluorescence to assess anastomotic perfusion during gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review. BJS Open 2021; 5:6249560. [PMID: 33893811 PMCID: PMC8271268 DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraa074] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2020] [Accepted: 04/09/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The aim of this systematic review was to identify all methods to quantify intraoperative fluorescence angiography (FA) of the gastrointestinal anastomosis, and to find potential thresholds to predict patient outcomes, including anastomotic leakage and necrosis. Methods This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. A PubMed and Embase literature search was performed. Articles were included when FA with indocyanine green was performed to assess gastrointestinal perfusion in human or animals, and the fluorescence signal was analysed using quantitative parameters. A parameter was defined as quantitative when a diagnostic numeral threshold for patient outcomes could potentially be produced. Results Some 1317 articles were identified, of which 23 were included. Fourteen studies were done in patients and nine in animals. Eight studies applied FA during upper and 15 during lower gastrointestinal surgery. The quantitative parameters were divided into four categories: time to fluorescence (20 studies); contrast‐to‐background ratio (3); pixel intensity (2); and numeric classification score (2). The first category was subdivided into manually assessed time (7 studies) and software‐derived fluorescence–time curves (13). Cut‐off values were derived for manually assessed time (speed in gastric conduit wall) and derivatives of the fluorescence–time curves (Fmax, T1/2, TR and slope) to predict patient outcomes. Conclusion Time to fluorescence seems the most promising category for quantitation of FA. Future research might focus on fluorescence–time curves, as many different parameters can be derived and the fluorescence intensity can be bypassed. However, consensus on study set‐up, calibration of fluorescence imaging systems, and validation of software programs is mandatory to allow future data comparison.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M D Slooter
- Departments of Surgery, Amsterdam the Netherlands
| | | | - P R Bloemen
- Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Departments of Surgery, Amsterdam the Netherlands
| | - W A Bemelman
- Departments of Surgery, Amsterdam the Netherlands
| | - P J Tanis
- Departments of Surgery, Amsterdam the Netherlands
| | - R Hompes
- Departments of Surgery, Amsterdam the Netherlands
| | | | - D M de Bruin
- Departments of Surgery, Amsterdam the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Fabbi M, Hagens ERC, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS. Anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: definitions, diagnostics, and treatment. Dis Esophagus 2021; 34:doaa039. [PMID: 32476017 PMCID: PMC7801633 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doaa039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/17/2020] [Revised: 04/15/2020] [Accepted: 04/17/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Anastomotic leakage is one of the most severe complications after esophagectomy and is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Several projects ranging from small retrospective studies to large collaborations have aimed to identify potential pre- and perioperative risk factors and to improve the diagnostic processes and management. Despite the increase in available literature, many aspects of anastomotic leakage are still debated, without the existence of widely accepted guidelines. The purpose of this review is to provide a cutting edge overview of the recent literature regarding the definition and classification of anastomotic leakage, risk factors, novel diagnostic modalities, and emerging therapeutic options for treatment and prevention of anastomotic leakage following esophagectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Fabbi
- Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda, Maggiore Policlinico Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - E R C Hagens
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Jezerskyte E, Saadeh LM, Hagens ERC, Sprangers MAG, Noteboom L, van Laarhoven HWM, Eshuis WJ, Hulshof MCCM, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS. Long-Term Quality of Life Following Transthoracic and Transhiatal Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2021; 25:1657-1666. [PMID: 32909195 PMCID: PMC8275507 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-020-04783-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2020] [Accepted: 08/24/2020] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The impact of transthoracic (TTE) and transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) on long-term health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in patients with distal esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer has been studied with variable results. This study investigates long-term HR-QoL in patients having undergone TTE or THE. METHODS Disease-free patients after TTE or THE for distal esophageal or GEJ cancer with a follow-up > 2 years were included. Patients who visited the outpatient clinic of a tertiary referral center between 2014 and 2018 were asked to complete EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-OG25 questionnaires. Uni- and multivariable linear regression analysis of HR-QoL was performed in all patients and in subgroups of minimally invasive esophagectomy and neoadjuvant therapy. RESULTS A total of 132 patients after TTE and 56 after THE were included. When compared with the general population, all patients reported worse HR-QoL in 'role functioning' and 'social functioning' and in a range of disease- and/or treatment-specific symptoms. The only significant difference between TTE and THE was a better HR-QoL score for "hair loss" following TTE (ß = 29.4,95%CI = -49.108 - -9.671, p = 0.016). Subgroup analysis of minimally invasively operated patients showed better scores in "physical functioning" following TTE (ß = 13.8,95%CI = 2.755-24.933, p = 0.030). No significant differences in HR-QoL were found between TTE and THE after neoadjuvant therapy. CONCLUSION Long-term HR-QoL is largely comparable in disease-free patients following TTE or THE for distal esophageal or GEJ cancer. If there were differences between the surgical groups, they were in favor of TTE. These findings may aid in preoperative counseling of patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E. Jezerskyte
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - L. M. Saadeh
- General Surgery Unit, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - E. R. C. Hagens
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M. A. G. Sprangers
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Department of Medical Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - L. Noteboom
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H. W. M. van Laarhoven
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - W. J. Eshuis
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M. C. C. M. Hulshof
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Department of Radiotherapy, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M. I. van Berge Henegouwen
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S. S. Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Jezerskyte E, Saadeh LM, Hagens ERC, Sprangers MAG, Noteboom L, van Laarhoven HWM, Eshuis WJ, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS. Long-Term Quality of Life After Total Gastrectomy Versus Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy. World J Surg 2020; 44:838-848. [PMID: 31732762 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-019-05281-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is scarce evidence on whether a total gastrectomy or an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is preferred for gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers regarding effects on morbidity, pathology, survival and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in long-term HR-QoL in patients undergoing total gastrectomy versus Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in a tertiary referral center. METHODS Patients with a follow-up of >1 year after a total gastrectomy or an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for GEJ/cardia carcinoma completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OG25 questionnaires. 'Problems with eating,' 'reflux,' and 'nausea and vomiting' were the primary HR-QoL endpoints. The secondary endpoints were the remaining HR-QoL domains, postoperative complications and pathology results. RESULTS Thirty patients after gastrectomy and 71 after esophagectomy were included. Mean age was 63 years. Median follow-up was 2 years (range 12-84 months). Patients after gastrectomy reported less 'choking when swallowing' and 'coughing' (β = - 5.952, 95% CI - 9.437 to - 2.466; β = - 13.084, 95% CI - 18.525 to - 7.643). More lymph nodes were resected in esophagectomy group (p = 0.008). No difference was found in number of positive lymph nodes, R0 resection or postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS After a follow-up of >1 year 'choking when swallowing' and 'coughing' were less common after a total gastrectomy. No differences were found in postoperative complications or radicality of surgery. Based on this study, no general preference can be given to either of the procedures for GEJ cancer. These results support shared decision making when a choice between the two treatment options is possible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Jezerskyte
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - L M Saadeh
- General Surgery Unit, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - E R C Hagens
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M A G Sprangers
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - L Noteboom
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H W M van Laarhoven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - W J Eshuis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Slooter MD, de Bruin DM, Eshuis WJ, Veelo DP, van Dieren S, Gisbertz SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Quantitative fluorescence-guided perfusion assessment of the gastric conduit to predict anastomotic complications after esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 2020; 34:5917378. [PMID: 33016305 PMCID: PMC8141822 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doaa100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fluorescence angiography (FA) assesses anastomotic perfusion during esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction, but its interpretation is subjective. This study evaluated time to fluorescent enhancement in the gastric conduit, with the aim to determine a threshold to predict postoperative anastomotic complications. METHODS In a prospective cohort study, all consecutive patients undergoing esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction from July 2018 to October 2019 were included. FA was performed before anastomotic reconstruction following injection of indocyanine green (ICG). During FA, the following time points were recorded: ICG injection, first fluorescent enhancement in the lung, at the base of the gastric conduit, at the planned anastomotic site, and at ICG watershed or in the tip of the gastric conduit. Anastomotic complications including anastomotic leakage and clinically relevant strictures were documented. RESULTS Eighty-four patients were included, the majority (67 out of 84, 80%) of which underwent an Ivor Lewis procedure. After a median follow-up of 297 days, anastomotic leakage was observed in 12 out of 84 (14.3%) and anastomotic stricture in 12 out of 82 (14.6%). Time between ICG injection and enhancement in the tip was predictive for anastomotic leakage (P = 0.174, area under the curve = 0.731), and a cut-off value of 98 seconds was derived (specificity: 98%). All times to enhancement at the planned anastomotic site and ICG watershed were significantly predictive for the occurrence of a stricture, however area under the curves were <0.7. CONCLUSIONS The identified fluorescent threshold can be used for intraoperative decision making or to identify potentially high-risk patients for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M D Slooter
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - D M de Bruin
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - W J Eshuis
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - D P Veelo
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - S van Dieren
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Address correspondence to: Professor Dr M.I. van Berge Henegouwen, MD, PhD, surgeon, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (UMC), location Academic Medical Centre (AMC), Postbox 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Jezerskyte E, Saadeh LM, Hagens ERC, Sprangers MAG, Noteboom L, van Laarhoven HWM, Eshuis WJ, Hulshof MCCM, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS. Long-term health-related quality of life after McKeown and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma. Dis Esophagus 2020; 33:5842244. [PMID: 32444879 PMCID: PMC7672202 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doaa022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2019] [Revised: 02/19/2020] [Accepted: 03/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Both cervical (McKeown) and intrathoracic (Ivor Lewis) anastomosis of transthoracic esophagectomy are surgical procedures that can be performed for distal esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) after McKeown and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in a tertiary referral center. METHODS Disease-free patients >1 year following a McKeown or an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with a two-field lymphadenectomy for a distal or GEJ carcinoma visiting the outpatient clinic between 2014 and 2018 were asked to complete the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OG25 questionnaires. HR-QoL was investigated in both groups. RESULTS A total of 89 patients were included after McKeown and 115 after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Median follow-up was 2.4 years (IQR 1.7-3.6). Patients after McKeown esophagectomy reported more problems with 'eating with others' compared to patients after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (mean scores: 49.9 vs. 38.8). This difference was both clinically relevant and significant after correction for multiple testing (β = 11.1, 95% CI 3.105-19.127, P = 0.042). Patients in both groups reported a poorer HR-QoL (≥10 points) than the general population with respect to nausea and vomiting, dyspnea, appetite loss, financial difficulties, problems with eating, reflux, eating with others, choked when swallowing, trouble with coughing, and weight loss. CONCLUSION Long-term HR-QoL of disease-free patients following a McKeown or Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for a distal or GEJ carcinoma is largely comparable. Irrespective of the surgical technique, patients' HR-QoL following esophagectomy is compromised. When given the choice, patients should be informed that after a McKeown esophagectomy more problems while eating with others can occur.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Jezerskyte
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - L M Saadeh
- General Surgery Unit, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - E R C Hagens
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M A G Sprangers
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - L Noteboom
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H W M van Laarhoven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - W J Eshuis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M C C M Hulshof
- Department of Radiotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,Address correspondence to: Dr S.S. Gisbertz, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, PO Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Kingma BF, Eshuis WJ, de Groot EM, Feenstra ML, Ruurda JP, Gisbertz SS, Ten Hoope W, Marsman M, Hermanides J, Hollmann MW, Kalkman CJ, Luyer MDP, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, Scholten HJ, Buise M, van Det MJ, Kouwenhoven EA, van der Meer F, Frederix GWJ, Cheong E, Al Naimi K, van Berge Henegouwen MI, van Hillegersberg R. Paravertebral catheter versus EPidural analgesia in Minimally invasive Esophageal resectioN: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (PEPMEN trial). BMC Cancer 2020; 20:142. [PMID: 32087686 PMCID: PMC7036230 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-6585-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2020] [Accepted: 01/29/2020] [Indexed: 01/14/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Thoracic epidural analgesia is the standard postoperative pain management strategy in esophageal cancer surgery. However, paravertebral block analgesia may achieve comparable pain control while inducing less side effects, which may be beneficial for postoperative recovery. This study primarily aims to compare the postoperative quality of recovery between paravertebral catheter versus thoracic epidural analgesia in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy. METHODS This study represents a randomized controlled superiority trial. A total of 192 patients will be randomized in 4 Dutch high-volume centers for esophageal cancer surgery. Patients are eligible for inclusion if they are at least 18 years old, able to provide written informed consent and complete questionnaires in Dutch, scheduled to undergo minimally invasive esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy and an intrathoracic anastomosis, and have no contra-indications to either epidural or paravertebral analgesia. The primary outcome is the quality of postoperative recovery, as measured by the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) questionnaire on the morning of postoperative day 3. Secondary outcomes include the QoR-40 questionnaire score Area Under the Curve on postoperative days 1-3, the integrated pain and systemic opioid score and patient satisfaction and pain experience according to the International Pain Outcomes (IPO) questionnaire, and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, the groups will be compared regarding the need for additional rescue medication on postoperative days 0-3, technical failure of the pain treatment, duration of anesthesia, duration of surgery, total postoperative fluid administration day 0-3, postoperative vasopressor and inotrope use, length of urinary catheter use, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, chronic pain at six months after surgery, and other adverse effects. DISCUSSION In this study, it is hypothesized that paravertebral analgesia achieves comparable pain control while causing less side-effects such as hypotension when compared to epidural analgesia, leading to shorter postoperative length of stay on a monitored ward and superior quality of recovery. If this hypothesis is confirmed, the results of this study can be used to update the relevant guidelines on postoperative pain management for patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION Netherlands Trial Registry, NL8037. Registered 19 September 2019.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B F Kingma
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, POBOX 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - W J Eshuis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E M de Groot
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, POBOX 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M L Feenstra
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J P Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, POBOX 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - W Ten Hoope
- Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Marsman
- Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - J Hermanides
- Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M W Hollmann
- Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - C J Kalkman
- Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - M D P Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | | - H J Scholten
- Department of Anesthesiology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - M Buise
- Department of Anesthesiology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - M J van Det
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo, The Netherlands
| | - E A Kouwenhoven
- Department of Surgery, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo, The Netherlands
| | - F van der Meer
- Department of Anesthesiology, Hospital Group Twente Almelo, Almelo, The Netherlands
| | - G W J Frederix
- Department of Public Health, Healthcare Innovation & Evaluation and Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - E Cheong
- Department of Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
| | - K Al Naimi
- Department of Anesthesiology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
| | | | - R van Hillegersberg
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, POBOX 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Hagens ERC, Feenstra ML, Eshuis WJ, Hulshof MCCM, van Laarhoven HWM, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS. Conditional survival after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg 2020; 107:1053-1061. [PMID: 32017047 PMCID: PMC7317937 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11476] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2019] [Revised: 11/13/2019] [Accepted: 11/22/2019] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Background Conditional survival accounts for the time already survived after surgery and may be of additional informative value. The aim was to assess conditional survival in patients with oesophageal cancer and to create a nomogram predicting the conditional probability of survival after oesophagectomy. Methods This retrospective study included consecutive patients with oesophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by oesophagectomy between January 2004 and 2019. Conditional survival was defined as the probability of surviving y years after already surviving for x years. The formula used for conditional survival (CS) was: CS(x|y) = S(x + y)/S(x), where S(x) represents overall survival at x years. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate predictors of overall survival. A nomogram was constructed to predict 5‐year survival directly after surgery and given survival for 1, 2, 3 and 4 years after surgery. Results Some 660 patients were included. Median overall survival was 44·4 (95 per cent c.i. 37·0 to 51·8) months. The probability of achieving 5‐year overall survival after resection increased from 45 per cent directly after surgery to 54, 65, 79 and 88 per cent given 1, 2, 3 and 4 years already survived respectively. Cardiac co‐morbidity, cN category, ypT category, ypN category, chyle leakage and pulmonary complications were independent predictors of survival. The nomogram predicted 5‐year survival using these predictors and number of years already survived. Conclusion The probability of achieving 5‐year overall survival after oesophagectomy for cancer increases with each additional year survived. The proposed nomogram predicts survival in patients after oesophagectomy, taking the years already survived into account.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E R C Hagens
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M L Feenstra
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - W J Eshuis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M C C M Hulshof
- Department of Radiotherapy, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - H W M van Laarhoven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Konradsson M, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Bruns C, Chaudry MA, Cheong E, Cuesta MA, Darling GE, Gisbertz SS, Griffin SM, Gutschow CA, van Hillegersberg R, Hofstetter W, Hölscher AH, Kitagawa Y, van Lanschot JJB, Lindblad M, Ferri LE, Low DE, Luyer MDP, Ndegwa N, Mercer S, Moorthy K, Morse CR, Nafteux P, Nieuwehuijzen GAP, Pattyn P, Rosman C, Ruurda JP, Räsänen J, Schneider PM, Schröder W, Sgromo B, Van Veer H, Wijnhoven BPL, Nilsson M. Diagnostic criteria and symptom grading for delayed gastric conduit emptying after esophagectomy for cancer: international expert consensus based on a modified Delphi process. Dis Esophagus 2019; 33:5585602. [PMID: 31608938 PMCID: PMC7150655 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doz074] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2019] [Revised: 06/25/2019] [Accepted: 07/14/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) after esophagectomy for cancer is associated with adverse outcomes and troubling symptoms. Widely accepted diagnostic criteria and a symptom grading tool for DGCE are missing. This hampers the interpretation and comparison of studies. A modified Delphi process, using repeated web-based questionnaires, combined with live interim group discussions was conducted by 33 experts within the field, from Europe, North America, and Asia. DGCE was divided into early DGCE if present within 14 days of surgery and late if present later than 14 days after surgery. The final criteria for early DGCE, accepted by 25 of 27 (93%) experts, were as follows: >500 mL diurnal nasogastric tube output measured on the morning of postoperative day 5 or later or >100% increased gastric tube width on frontal chest x-ray projection together with the presence of an air-fluid level. The final criteria for late DGCE accepted by 89% of the experts were as follows: the patient should have 'quite a bit' or 'very much' of at least two of the following symptoms; early satiety/fullness, vomiting, nausea, regurgitation or inability to meet caloric need by oral intake and delayed contrast passage on upper gastrointestinal water-soluble contrast radiogram or on timed barium swallow. A symptom grading tool for late DGCE was constructed grading each symptom as: 'not at all', 'a little', 'quite a bit', or 'very much', generating 0, 1, 2, or 3 points, respectively. For the five symptoms retained in the diagnostic criteria for late DGCE, the minimum score would be 0, and the maximum score would be 15. The final symptom grading tool for late DGCE was accepted by 27 of 31 (87%) experts. For the first time, diagnostic criteria for early and late DGCE and a symptom grading tool for late DGCE are available, based on an international expert consensus process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Konradsson
- Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden,Department of Gastroenterology, Landspitali National University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,Address correspondence to: Magnus Konradsson, MD, Department of Clinical Science, Investigation and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, 14186 Stockholm, Sweden.
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam
| | - C Bruns
- Department of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - M A Chaudry
- Department of Surgery, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK
| | - E Cheong
- Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
| | - M A Cuesta
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - G E Darling
- Department of Surgery, Division of Thoracic Surgery, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam
| | - S M Griffin
- Northern Oesophagogastric Unit, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - C A Gutschow
- Department of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | - W Hofstetter
- Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - A H Hölscher
- Centre for Esophageal and Gastric Surgery, AGAPLESION Markus Krankenhaus, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Y Kitagawa
- Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan
| | - J J B van Lanschot
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Lindblad
- Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden,Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - L E Ferri
- Department of Thoracic and Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - D E Low
- Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - M D P Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - N Ndegwa
- Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - S Mercer
- Queen Alexandra Hospital Portsmouth, United Kingdom
| | - K Moorthy
- The Center for Visceral, Thoracic and Specialized Tumor Surgery, Hirslanden Medical Center, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - C R Morse
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - P Nafteux
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium,Department of Chronic Diseases, Metabolism and Aging, KU Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - P Pattyn
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - C Rosman
- Department of surgery, Radboud university center Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - J P Ruurda
- Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - J Räsänen
- Department of General, Thoracic and Esophageal Surgery, Heart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital and Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland
| | - P M Schneider
- The Center for Visceral, Thoracic and Specialized Tumor Surgery, Hirslanden Medical Center, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - W Schröder
- Department of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - B Sgromo
- Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK
| | - H Van Veer
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium,Department of Chronic Diseases, Metabolism and Aging, KU Leuven, Belgium
| | - B P L Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Nilsson
- Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden,Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden,Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Klevebro F, Elliott JA, Slaman A, Vermeulen BD, Kamiya S, Rosman C, Gisbertz SS, Boshier PR, Reynolds JV, Rouvelas I, Hanna GB, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Markar SR. Cardiorespiratory Comorbidity and Postoperative Complications following Esophagectomy: a European Multicenter Cohort Study. Ann Surg Oncol 2019; 26:2864-2873. [PMID: 31183640 PMCID: PMC6682565 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-019-07478-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2018] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The impact of cardiorespiratory comorbidity on operative outcomes after esophagectomy remains controversial. This study investigated the effect of cardiorespiratory comorbidity on postoperative complications for patients treated for esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS A European multicenter cohort study from five high-volume esophageal cancer centers including patients treated between 2010 and 2017 was conducted. The effect of cardiorespiratory comorbidity and respiratory function upon postoperative outcomes was assessed. RESULTS In total 1590 patients from five centers were included; 274 (17.2%) had respiratory comorbidity, and 468 (29.4%) had cardiac comorbidity. Respiratory comorbidity was associated with increased risk of overall postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, pulmonary complications, pneumonia, increased Clavien-Dindo score, and critical care and hospital length of stay. After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, respiratory comorbidity was associated with increased risk of anastomotic leak [odds ratio (OR) 1.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-3.04], pneumonia (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.10-2.47), and any pulmonary complication (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.04-2.22), an effect which was not observed following neoadjuvant chemotherapy or surgery alone. Cardiac comorbidity was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular and pulmonary complications, respiratory failure, and Clavien-Dindo score ≥ IIIa. Among all patients, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio > 70% was associated with reduced risk of overall postoperative complications, cardiovascular complications, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary complications, and pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggest that cardiorespiratory comorbidity and impaired pulmonary function are associated with increased risk of postoperative complications after esophagectomy performed in high-volume European centers. Given the observed interaction with neoadjuvant approach, these data indicate a potentially modifiable index of perioperative risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F Klevebro
- Department of Upper Abdominal Surgery, Centre for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
| | - J A Elliott
- Department of Surgery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
- The National Esophageal and Gastric Center, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - A Slaman
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - B D Vermeulen
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - S Kamiya
- Department of Upper Abdominal Surgery, Centre for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - C Rosman
- Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - P R Boshier
- Department Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - J V Reynolds
- Department of Surgery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
- The National Esophageal and Gastric Center, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - I Rouvelas
- Department of Upper Abdominal Surgery, Centre for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - G B Hanna
- Department Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S R Markar
- Department Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
van Rijswijk AS, Hagens ERC, van der Peet DL, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS. Differences in Esophageal Cancer Surgery in Terms of Surgical Approach and Extent of Lymphadenectomy: Findings of an International Survey. Ann Surg Oncol 2019; 26:2063-2072. [PMID: 30903323 PMCID: PMC6545175 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-019-07316-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/10/2018] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Esophagectomy and lymphadenectomy are essential parts of the multimodal treatment of esophageal carcinoma with curative intent. Treatment regimens vary globally and are subject to debate. A global survey was designed to gain insight into current practice. METHODS Fifty-seven international expert upper gastrointestinal surgeons received a personal invitation to participate in the survey, which focused on demographics and experience; extent of lymphadenectomy in adeno and squamous cell carcinoma; use of classification systems; neoadjuvant therapy; surgical approach; and specimen handling. RESULTS The response rate was 88% (50/57 surgeons), with a mean age of 51.6 years and a median number of 15 years of experience in esophageal surgery. The variety in the extent of lymphadenectomy in proximal, middle and distal squamous cell carcinoma, and Siewert I, II and III adenocarcinoma, was considerable. The number of different combinations of lymph node (LN) stations that were resected in the same tumor was high, while the number of surgeons who removed the exact same combination of LN stations was low. Illustrative is Siewert I adenocarcinoma, in which 27 unique combinations of LN stations were resected, with a maximum of two surgeons performing the exact same dissection. Use of neoadjuvant therapy, surgical approach, and specimen handling also show great variety among participants. CONCLUSION There is no uniform, worldwide strategy for surgical treatment of esophageal cancer. The extent of lymphadenectomy shows great variation for both histologic types. An international observational study is needed to provide evidence on the distribution pattern of lymph node metastases in esophageal cancer and the necessary extent of lymphadenectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A S van Rijswijk
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E R C Hagens
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D L van der Peet
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
van der Werf LR, Eshuis WJ, Draaisma WA, van Etten B, Gisbertz SS, van der Harst E, Liem MSL, Lemmens VEPP, Wijnhoven BPL, Besselink MG, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Nationwide Outcome of Gastrectomy with En-Bloc Partial Pancreatectomy for Gastric Cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2019; 23:2327-2337. [PMID: 30820797 PMCID: PMC6877485 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-019-04133-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2018] [Accepted: 01/22/2019] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Radical gastrectomy is the cornerstone of the treatment of gastric cancer. For tumors invading the pancreas, en-bloc partial pancreatectomy may be needed for a radical resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of gastrectomies with partial pancreatectomy for gastric cancer. METHODS Patients who underwent gastrectomy with or without partial pancreatectomy for gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer between 2011 and 2015 were selected from the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA). Outcomes were resection margin (pR0) and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III postoperative complications and survival. The association between partial pancreatectomy and postoperative complications was analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. Overall survival of patients with partial pancreatectomy was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Of 1966 patients that underwent gastrectomy, 55 patients (2.8%) underwent en-bloc partial pancreatectomy. A pR0 resection was achieved in 45 of 55 patients (82% versus 85% in the group without additional resection, P = 0.82). Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications occurred in 21 of 55 patients (38% versus 17%, P < 0.001). Median overall survival [95% confidence interval] was 15 [6.8-23.2] months. For patients with and without perioperative systemic therapy, median survival was 20 [12.3-27.7] and 10 [5.7-14.3] months, and for patients with pR0 and pR1 resection, it was 20 [11.8-28.3] and 5 [2.4-7.6] months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Gastrectomy with partial pancreatectomy is not only associated with a pR0 resection rate of 82% but also with increased postoperative morbidity. It should only be performed if a pR0 resection is feasible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L. R. van der Werf
- grid.5645.2000000040459992XDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - W. J. Eshuis
- grid.7177.60000000084992262Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - W. A. Draaisma
- grid.414725.10000 0004 0368 8146Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, the Netherlands
| | - B. van Etten
- grid.4494.d0000 0000 9558 4598Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - S. S. Gisbertz
- grid.7177.60000000084992262Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - E. van der Harst
- grid.416213.30000 0004 0460 0556Department of Surgery, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M. S. L. Liem
- grid.415214.70000 0004 0399 8347Department of Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - V. E. P. P. Lemmens
- grid.5645.2000000040459992XDepartment of Pubic Health, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands ,Department of Research, Comprehensive Cancer Organisation the Netherlands, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - B. P. L. Wijnhoven
- grid.5645.2000000040459992XDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M. G. Besselink
- grid.7177.60000000084992262Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M. I. van Berge Henegouwen
- grid.7177.60000000084992262Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Belghazi K, Schölvinck DW, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS, Weusten BL, Meijer SL, Bergman JJ, Pouw RE. Results of a two-phased clinical study evaluating a new multiband mucosectomy device for early Barrett's neoplasia: a randomized pre-esophagectomy trial and a pilot therapeutic pilot study. Surg Endosc 2018; 33:2864-2872. [PMID: 30456511 PMCID: PMC6684496 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6582-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2018] [Accepted: 11/02/2018] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
Background Multiband mucosectomy (MBM) is the preferred technique for piecemeal resection of early neoplastic lesions in Barrett’s esophagus (BE). The currently most widely used device for MBM is the Duette device. Recently, the Captivator EMR device has come available which might have practical advantages over the Duette device. Methods Phase I was a randomized pre-esophagectomy trial with a non-inferiority design aiming to compare EMR specimens obtained with the Captivator and the Duette device. Primary outcome: max diameter of the EMR specimens, secondary outcomes: min diameter, max thickness of the EMR specimens and resected submucosal stroma. Phase II were clinical pilot cases aiming to evaluate the feasibility of EMR using the Captivator device. Primary outcome was the successful EMR rate and secondary outcomes included procedure time and adverse events. Results Phase I: 24 EMR specimens (12 pairs) were obtained from six patients. The median max diameter of EMR specimens obtained with the Captivator device was 16 mm [IQR 12–21] versus 18 mm [IQR 13–23] for the Duette device. Non-inferiority of the max diameter of the Captivator specimens could not be demonstrated (median difference 1 mm, 95% CI − 3.26 to + 5.26). However, when using paired analysis, no significant difference was found (p 0.573). In addition, no statistically significant differences were found in the min diameter, max thickness of EMR specimens, and max thickness of resected submucosal stroma. Phase II: 5 BE patients with early neoplastic lesions were included. Successful EMR was achieved in 100%. Median procedure time was 33 min (IQR 25–39). One patient developed transient dysphagia, without signs of stenosis on endoscopy. Conclusions EMR of early Barrett’s neoplasia using the Captivator device is comparable to Duette EMR when looking at size of resected specimens. In the first patients, EMR using the Captivator was feasible, resulting in successful resection without acute adverse events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K Belghazi
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D W Schölvinck
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | | | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - B L Weusten
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - S L Meijer
- Department of Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J J Bergman
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R E Pouw
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Jansen SM, de Bruin DM, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Bloemen PR, Strackee SD, Veelo DP, van Leeuwen TG, Gisbertz SS. Effect of ephedrine on gastric conduit perfusion measured by laser speckle contrast imaging after esophagectomy: a prospective in vivo cohort study. Dis Esophagus 2018; 31:4969976. [PMID: 29668909 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doy031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2017] [Accepted: 03/13/2018] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Compromised perfusion due to ligation of arteries and veins in esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction often (5-20%) results in necrosis and anastomotic leakage, which relate to high morbidity and mortality (3-4%). Ephedrine is used widely in anesthesia to treat intraoperative hypotension and may improve perfusion by the increase of cardiac output and mean arterial pressure (MAP). This study tests the effect of ephedrine on perfusion of the future anastomotic site of the gastric conduit, measured by laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI). This prospective, observational, in vivo pilot study includes 26 patients undergoing esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction from October 2015 to June 2016 in the Academic Medical Center (Amsterdam). Perfusion of the gastric conduit was measured with LSCI directly after reconstruction and after an increase of MAP by ephedrine 5 mg. Perfusion was quantified in flux (laser speckle perfusion units, LSPU) in four perfusion locations, from good perfusion (base of the gastric tube) toward decreased perfusion (fundus). Intrapatient differences before and after ephedrine in terms flux were statistically tested for significance with a paired t-test. LSCI was feasible to image gastric microcirculation in all patients. Flux (LSPU) was significantly higher in the base of the gastric tube (791 ± 442) compared to the fundus (328 ± 187) (P < 0.001). After administration of ephedrine, flux increased significantly in the fundus (P < 0.05) measured intrapatients. Three patients developed anastomotic leakage. In these patients, the difference between measured flux in the fundus compared to the base of the gastric tube was high. This study presents the effect of ephedrine on perfusion of the gastric tissue measured with LSCI in terms of flux (LSPU) after esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction. We show a small but significant difference between flux measured before and after administration of ephedrine in the future anastomotic tissue (313 ± 178 vs. 397 ± 290). We also show a significant decrease of flux toward the fundus.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S M Jansen
- Departments of Biomedical Engineering and Physics.,Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery.,Surgery
| | - D M de Bruin
- Departments of Biomedical Engineering and Physics
| | | | - P R Bloemen
- Departments of Biomedical Engineering and Physics
| | | | - D P Veelo
- Anesthesiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
van Putten M, Nelen SD, Lemmens VEPP, Stoot JHMB, Hartgrink HH, Gisbertz SS, Spillenaar Bilgen EJ, Heisterkamp J, Verhoeven RHA, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP. Overall survival before and after centralization of gastric cancer surgery in the Netherlands. Br J Surg 2018; 105:1807-1815. [PMID: 30132789 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10931] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2018] [Revised: 06/06/2018] [Accepted: 06/12/2018] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Centralization of surgery has been shown to improve outcomes for oesophageal and pancreatic cancer, and has been implemented for gastric cancer since 2012 in the Netherlands. This study evaluated the impact of centralizing gastric cancer surgery on outcomes for all patients with gastric cancer. METHODS Patients diagnosed with non-cardia gastric adenocarcinoma in the intervals 2009-2011 and 2013-2015 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Clinicopathological data, treatment characteristics and mortality were assessed for the periods before (2009-2011) and after (2013-2015) centralization. Cox regression analyses were used to assess differences in overall survival between these intervals. RESULTS A total of 7204 patients were included. Resection rates increased slightly from 37·6 per cent before to 39·6 per cent after centralization (P = 0·023). Before centralization, 50·1 per cent of surgically treated patients underwent gastrectomy in hospitals that performed fewer than ten procedures annually, compared with 9·2 per cent after centralization. Patients who had gastrectomy in the second interval were younger and more often underwent total gastrectomy (29·3 per cent before versus 41·2 per cent after centralization). Thirty-day postoperative mortality rates dropped from 6·5 to 4·1 per cent (P = 0·004), and 90-day mortality rates decreased from 10·6 to 7·2 per cent (P = 0·002). Two-year overall survival rates increased from 55·4 to 58·5 per cent among patients who had gastrectomy (P = 0·031) and from 27·1 to 29·6 per cent for all patients (P = 0·003). Improvements remained after adjustment for case mix; however, adjustment for hospital volume attenuated this association for surgically treated patients. CONCLUSION Centralization of gastric cancer surgery was associated with reduced postoperative mortality and improved survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M van Putten
- Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - S D Nelen
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - V E P P Lemmens
- Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Eindhoven, The Netherlands.,Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J H M B Stoot
- Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands
| | - H H Hartgrink
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - J Heisterkamp
- Department of Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - R H A Verhoeven
- Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
Jansen SM, de Bruin DM, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Strackee SD, Veelo DP, van Leeuwen TG, Gisbertz SS. Optical techniques for perfusion monitoring of the gastric tube after esophagectomy: a review of technologies and thresholds. Dis Esophagus 2018; 31:4986868. [PMID: 29701760 DOI: 10.1093/dote/dox161] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Anastomotic leakage is one of the most severe complications after esophageal resection with gastric tube reconstruction. Impaired perfusion of the gastric fundus is seen as the main contributing factor for this complication. Optical modalities show potential in recognizing compromised perfusion in real time, when ischemia is still reversible. This review provides an overview of optical techniques with the aim to evaluate the (1) quantitative measurement of change in perfusion in gastric tube reconstruction and (2) to test which parameters are the most predictive for anastomotic leakage.A Pubmed, MEDLINE, and Embase search was performed and articles on laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF), near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI), fluorescence imaging (FI), sidestream darkfield microscopy (SDF), and optical coherence tomography (OCT) regarding blood flow in gastric tube surgery were reviewed. Two independent reviewers critically appraised articles and extracted the data: Primary outcome was quantitative measure of perfusion change; secondary outcome was successful prediction of necrosis or anastomotic leakage by measured perfusion parameters.Thirty-three articles (including 973 patients and 73 animals) were selected for data extraction, quality assessment, and risk of bias (QUADAS-2). LDF, NIRS, LSCI, and FI were investigated in gastric tube surgery; all had a medium level of evidence. IDEAL stage ranges from 1 to 3. Most articles were found on LDF (n = 12), which is able to measure perfusion in arbitrary perfusion units with a significant lower amount in tissue with necrosis development and on FI (n = 12). With FI blood flow routes could be observed and flow was qualitative evaluated in rapid, slow, or low flow. NIRS uses mucosal oxygen saturation and hemoglobin concentration as perfusion parameters. With LSCI, a decrease of perfusion units is observed toward the gastric fundus intraoperatively. The perfusion units (LDF, LSCI), although arbitrary and not absolute values, and low flow or length of demarcation to the anastomosis (FI) both seem predictive values for necrosis intraoperatively. SDF and OCT are able to measure microvascular flow, intraoperative prediction of necrosis is not yet described.Optical techniques aim to improve perfusion monitoring by real-time, high-resolution, and high-contrast measurements and could therefore be valuable in intraoperative perfusion mapping. LDF and LSCI use perfusion units, and are therefore subjective in interpretation. FI visualizes influx directly, but needs a quantitative parameter for interpretation during surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S M Jansen
- Departments of Biomedical Engineering & Physics, Amsterdam zo, the Netherlands.,Departments of Plastic, Reconstructive & Hand Surgery, Amsterdam zo, the Netherlands
| | - D M de Bruin
- Departments of Biomedical Engineering & Physics, Amsterdam zo, the Netherlands
| | | | - S D Strackee
- Departments of Plastic, Reconstructive & Hand Surgery, Amsterdam zo, the Netherlands
| | - D P Veelo
- Departments of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam zo, the Netherlands
| | - T G van Leeuwen
- Departments of Biomedical Engineering & Physics, Amsterdam zo, the Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Departments of Surgery, Amsterdam zo, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Brenkman HJF, Gertsen EC, Vegt E, van Hillegersberg R, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS, Luyer MDP, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, van Lanschot JJB, Lagarde SM, de Steur WO, Hartgrink HH, Stoot JHMB, Hulsewe KWE, Spillenaar Bilgen EJ, van Det MJ, Kouwenhoven EA, van der Peet DL, Daams F, van Sandick JW, van Grieken NCT, Heisterkamp J, van Etten B, Haveman JW, Pierie JP, Jonker F, Thijssen AY, Belt EJT, van Duijvendijk P, Wassenaar E, van Laarhoven HWM, Wessels FJ, Haj Mohammad N, van Stel HF, Frederix GWJ, Siersema PD, Ruurda JP. Evaluation of PET and laparoscopy in STagIng advanced gastric cancer: a multicenter prospective study (PLASTIC-study). BMC Cancer 2018; 18:450. [PMID: 29678145 PMCID: PMC5910577 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4367-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2017] [Accepted: 04/12/2018] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Initial staging of gastric cancer consists of computed tomography (CT) and gastroscopy. In locally advanced (cT3–4) gastric cancer, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with CT (FDG-PET/CT or PET) and staging laparoscopy (SL) may have a role in staging, but evidence is scarce. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact and cost-effectiveness of PET and SL in addition to initial staging in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. Methods This prospective observational cohort study will include all patients with a surgically resectable, advanced gastric adenocarcinoma (cT3–4b, N0–3, M0), that are scheduled for treatment with curative intent after initial staging with gastroscopy and CT. The modalities to be investigated in this study is the addition of PET and SL. The primary outcome of this study is the proportion of patients in whom the PET or SL lead to a change in treatment strategy. Secondary outcome parameters are: diagnostic performance, morbidity and mortality, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of these additional diagnostic modalities. The study recently started in August 2017 with a duration of 36 months. At least 239 patients need to be included in this study to demonstrate that the diagnostic modalities are break-even. Based on the annual number of gastrectomies in the participating centers, it is estimated that approximately 543 patients are included in this study. Discussion In this study, it is hypothesized that performing PET and SL for locally advanced gastric adenocarcinomas results in a change of treatment strategy in 27% of patients and an annual cost-reduction in the Netherlands of €916.438 in this patient group by reducing futile treatment. The results of this study may be applicable to all countries with comparable treatment algorithms and health care systems. Trial registration NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on June 30, 2017.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H J F Brenkman
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - E C Gertsen
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - E Vegt
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R van Hillegersberg
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - S S Gisbertz
- Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M D P Luyer
- Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - S M Lagarde
- Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - W O de Steur
- Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - H H Hartgrink
- Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - J H M B Stoot
- Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands
| | - K W E Hulsewe
- Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | - F Daams
- VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J W van Sandick
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - J Heisterkamp
- Elisabeth Twee-Steden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - B van Etten
- University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - J W Haveman
- University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - J P Pierie
- Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| | - F Jonker
- Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| | - A Y Thijssen
- Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
| | - E J T Belt
- Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - E Wassenaar
- Gelre Ziekenhuis, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
| | - H W M van Laarhoven
- Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Propsective Observational Cohort study of Oesophageal-gastric cancer Patients (POCOP) of the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Group (DUCG), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - F J Wessels
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - N Haj Mohammad
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - H F van Stel
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - G W J Frederix
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - P D Siersema
- Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - J P Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Visser E, van Rossum PSN, van Veer H, Al-Naimi K, Chaudry MA, Cuesta MA, Gisbertz SS, Gutschow CA, Hölscher AH, Luyer MDP, Mariette C, Moorthy K, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, Nilsson M, Räsänen JV, Schneider PM, Schröder W, Cheong E, van Hillegersberg R. A structured training program for minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer- a Delphi consensus study in Europe. Dis Esophagus 2018; 31:4601761. [PMID: 29121243 DOI: 10.1093/dote/dox124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2017] [Accepted: 09/18/2017] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Evidence suggests that structured training programs for laparoscopic procedures can ensure a safe standard of skill acquisition prior to independent practice. Although minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIO) is technically demanding, no consensus on requirements for training for the MIO procedure exists. The aim of this study is to determine essential steps required for a structured training program in MIO using the Delphi consensus methodology. Eighteen MIO experts from 13 European hospitals were asked to participate in this study. The consensus process consisted of two structured meetings with the expert panel, and two Delphi questionnaire rounds. A list of items required for training MIO were constructed for three key domains of MIO, including (1) requisite criteria for units wishing to be trained and (2) to proctor MIO, and (3) a framework of a MIO training program. Items were rated by the experts on a scale 1-5, where 1 signified 'not important' and 5 represented 'very important.' Consensus for each domain was defined as achieving Cronbach alpha ≥0.70. Items were considered as fundamental when ≥75% of experts rated it important (4) or very important (5). Both Delphi rounds were completed by 16 (89%) of the 18 invited experts, with a median experience of 18 years with minimally invasive surgery. Consensus was achieved for all three key domains. Following two rounds of a 107-item questionnaire, 50 items were rated as essential for training MIO. A consensus among European MIO experts on essential items required for training MIO is presented. The identified items can serve as directive principles and core standards for creating a comprehensive training program for MIO.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - P S N van Rossum
- Departments of Surgery.,Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht
| | - H van Veer
- Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - M A Chaudry
- Department of Surgery, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
| | - M A Cuesta
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, VU University Medical Center
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam
| | - C A Gutschow
- Department of Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Zurich
| | - A H Hölscher
- Department of Surgery, Center for Esophageal and Gastric Surgery, and Frankfurt
| | - M D P Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catherina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - C Mariette
- Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, Claude Huriez University Hospital, Lille, France
| | - K Moorthy
- Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College, St Mary's Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - M Nilsson
- Department of Surgery, Karolinski University Hospital.,Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - J V Räsänen
- Department of General Thoracic and Esophageal Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - P M Schneider
- Department of Surgery, Hirslanden Medical Center, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - W Schröder
- Department of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - E Cheong
- General Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich
| | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Gooszen JAH, Goense L, Gisbertz SS, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis and predictors of anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Surg 2018; 105:552-560. [PMID: 29412450 PMCID: PMC5900725 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10728] [Citation(s) in RCA: 81] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2017] [Revised: 08/07/2017] [Accepted: 09/18/2017] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
Background Studies comparing the anastomotic leak rate in patients with an intrathoracic versus a cervical anastomosis after oesophagectomy are equivocal. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcome after oesophagectomy in patients with an intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis, and to identify predictors of anastomotic leakage in a nationwide audit. Methods Between January 2011 and December 2015, all consecutive patients who underwent oesophagectomy for cancer were identified from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit. For the comparison between an intrathoracic and cervical anastomosis, propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential confounders. Multivariable logistic regression modelling with backward stepwise selection was used to determine independent predictors of anastomotic leakage. Results Some 3348 patients were included. After propensity score matching, 654 patients were included in both the cervical and intrathoracic anastomosis groups. An intrathoracic anastomosis was associated with a lower leak rate than a cervical anastomosis (17·0 versus 21·9 per cent; P = 0·025). The percentage of patients with recurrent nerve paresis was also lower (0·6 versus 7·0 per cent; P < 0·001) and an intrathoracic anastomosis was associated with a shorter median hospital stay (12 versus 14 days; P = 0·001). Multivariable analysis revealed that ASA fitness grade III or higher, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiac arrhythmia, diabetes mellitus and proximal oesophageal tumours were independent predictors of anastomotic leakage. Conclusion An intrathoracic oesophagogastric anastomosis was associated with a lower anastomotic leak rate, lower rate of recurrent nerve paresis and a shorter hospital stay. Risk factors for anastomotic leak were co‐morbidities and proximal tumours. Lower leak rates after intrathoracic anastomosis
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J A H Gooszen
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - L Goense
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J P Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Künzli HT, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS, van Esser S, Meijer SL, Bennink RJ, Wiezer MJ, Seldenrijk CA, Bergman JJGHM, Weusten BLAM. Pilot-study on the feasibility of sentinel node navigation surgery in combination with thoracolaparoscopic lymphadenectomy without esophagectomy in early esophageal adenocarcinoma patients. Dis Esophagus 2017; 30:1-8. [PMID: 28881907 DOI: 10.1093/dote/dox097] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2017] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
High-risk submucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma's might be treated curatively by means of radical endoscopic resection, followed by thoracolaparoscopic lymphadenectomy without concomitant esophagectomy. A preclinical study has shown the feasibility and safety of this approach; however, no studies are performed in a clinical setting. In addition, sentinel node navigation surgery could be valuable in tailoring the extent of the lymphadenectomy. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of thoracolaparoscopic lymphadenectomy without esophagectomy (phase I) and sentinel node navigation surgery (phase II) in patients with early esophageal adenocarcinoma. Patients with T1N0M0 early esophageal adenocarcinoma scheduled for esophagectomy without neoadjuvant therapy were included. Phase I: Two-field, esophagus preserving, thoracolaparoscopic lymphadenectomy was performed, followed by esophagectomy in the same session. Primary outcome parameters were the number of lymph nodes resected, and number of retained lymph nodes in the esophagectomy specimen. Phase II: A radioactive tracer was injected endoscopically the day before surgery. Static imaging was performed 15 and 120 minutes after injection. The day of surgery, sentinel node navigation surgery followed by esophagectomy was performed. Primary outcome parameters were the percentage of patients with a detectable sentinel node, and the concordance between static imaging and probe-based detection of sentinel node. Phase I: Five patients were included, and a median of 30 (IQR: 25-46) lymph nodes was resected. A median of 6 (IQR: 2-9) retained lymph nodes was found in the esophagectomy specimen. No acute adverse events occurred, but near the end of lymphadenectomy esophageal discoloration was observed, possibly indicating ischemia. Phase II: In all five included patients sentinel nodes could be visualized and resected, at a median of 3 (IQR: 2-5) locations. There was a high concordance between imaging and probe-based detection of sentinel nodes. In conclusion, sentinel node navigation surgery followed by lymphadenectomy without concomitant esophagectomy seems feasible in patients with high-risk submucosal early esophageal adenocarcinoma. More evidence is however needed before applying this technique in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H T Künzli
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.,Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
| | | | | | | | | | - R J Bennink
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - C A Seldenrijk
- Department of Pathology, Pathology-DNA, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein
| | | | - B L A M Weusten
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.,Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Butter R, Lagarde SM, van Oijen MGH, Anderegg MCJ, Gisbertz SS, Meijer SL, Hulshof MCCM, Bergman JJGHM, van Berge Henegouwen MI, van Laarhoven HWM. Treatment strategies in recurrent esophageal or junctional cancer. Dis Esophagus 2017; 30:1-9. [PMID: 28859371 DOI: 10.1093/dote/dox082] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2016] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Little evidence is available about survival rates in patients with recurrent disease after potentially curative surgery for esophageal or junctional cancer. Only in limited occasions, potentially curative salvage strategies are available. The aim of this study is to analyze survival rates and patterns of dissemination, and to identify independent prognostic factors in a consecutive series of patients who develop recurrent esophageal or junctional cancer. Between 1994 and 2015, patients who developed disease recurrence after neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy followed by radical esophagectomy for esophageal or junctional cancer were retrospectively analyzed. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were performed to calculate and compare overall survival between patients with different patterns of dissemination and to compare between different treatment strategies. Furthermore, univariate and multivariate Cox-regression analyses were performed to identify independent prognostic factors for post recurrence survival. In this study, we included 219 patients. The median overall survival of all included patients was 3.2 months (range: 0.0-101.1 months). The median overall survival in patients with exclusively locoregional recurrence (n = 23, 10.8%) was 4.9 months (range: 0.1- 55.6) and 2.9 months (range: 0.0-101.1) in patients who had distant metastases (n = 189, 89.2%), P = 0.003. Patients who received treatment aimed at complete tumor eradication (n = 28, 13.7%) had a median overall survival of 13.6 months (range: 1.1-101.1) and palliative treated patients (n = 94, 46.1%) of 4.7 months (range: 0.3-25.6), P < 0.001. In a selected group of patients survival of more than 20 months was achieved. Univariate and multivariate Cox-regression analysis showed that a higher age at the diagnosis of recurrent disease (hazard ratio: 1.087, P ≤ 0.001), an irradical resection of the primary tumor (hazard ratio: 3.355, P = < 0.001), the number of positive lymph nodes after neoadjuvant therapy (hazard ratios: ypN2 = 1.724 (P = 0.024) and ypN3 = 2.082 (P = 0.028) and the presence of a single hematogenous distant metastases (hazard ratio: 2.281, P = 0.003) or more than one hematogenous distant metastasis (hazard ratio: 2.385, P = 0.005) were associated with a shorter postrecurrence survival. The prognosis of patients who develop recurrent esophageal or junctional cancer is poor. In a selected group of patients however relatively long survival can be achieved. This offers new perspectives to improve treatment strategies and survival rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Butter
- Department of Surgery.,Medical Oncology
| | - S M Lagarde
- Department of Surgery.,Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | - J J G H M Bergman
- Gastroenterology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Anderegg MCJ, van der Sluis PC, Ruurda JP, Gisbertz SS, Hulshof MCCM, van Vulpen M, Mohammed NH, van Laarhoven HWM, Wiezer MJ, Los M, van Berge Henegouwen MI, van Hillegersberg R. Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy Versus Perioperative Chemotherapy for Patients With Resectable Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2017; 24:2282-2290. [PMID: 28424936 PMCID: PMC5491642 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-017-5827-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2016] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study compares neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) with perioperative chemotherapy (pCT) for patients with resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma in terms of toxicity, postoperative complications, pathologic response, and survival. METHODS This study retrospectively analyzed and compared 313 patients with resectable esophageal or GEJ adenocarcinoma treated with either nCRT (carboplatin/paclitaxel 41.4 Gy, n = 176) or pCT (epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine, n = 137). RESULTS The baseline and tumor characteristics were similar in both groups. The ability to deliver all planned preoperative cycles was greater in the nCRT group (92.0 vs. 76.6%). Whereas nCRT was associated with a higher rate of grades 3 and 4 esophagitis, pCT was associated with a higher rate of grades 3 and 4 thromboembolic events, febrile neutropenia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, cardiac complications, and electrolyte imbalances. Two patients in the pCT group died during neoadjuvant treatment due to febrile neutropenia. More postoperative cardiac complications occurred in the nCRT group. All other postoperative complications and the in-hospital mortality rate (nCRT, 4.7%; pCT, 2.3%) were comparable. The pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 15.1% after nCRT and 6.9% after pCT. Radicality of surgery was comparable (R0: 93.0 vs. 91.6%). The median overall survival was 35 months after nCRT versus 36 months after pCT. CONCLUSION For patients with esophageal or GEJ adenocarcinoma, chemoradiotherapy with paclitaxel, carboplatin and concurrent radiotherapy, and perioperative chemotherapy with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabin lead to equal oncologic outcomes in terms of radical resection rates, lymphadenectomy, patterns of recurrent disease, and (disease-free) survival. However, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is associated with a considerably lower level of severe adverse events and should therefore be the preferred protocol until a well-powered randomized controlled trial provides different insights.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M C J Anderegg
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - P C van der Sluis
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - J P Ruurda
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M C C M Hulshof
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M van Vulpen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - N Haj Mohammed
- Department of Clinical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - H W M van Laarhoven
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M J Wiezer
- Department of Surgery, Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - M Los
- Department of Internal Medicine and Oncology, Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | | | - R van Hillegersberg
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Koëter M, Kathiravetpillai N, Gooszen JA, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS, van der Sangen MJC, Luyer MDP, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, Hulshof MCCM. Influence of the Extent and Dose of Radiation on Complications After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation and Subsequent Esophagectomy With Gastric Tube Reconstruction With a Cervical Anastomosis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 97:813-821. [PMID: 28244418 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.11.054] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2016] [Revised: 11/12/2016] [Accepted: 11/29/2016] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine, in a large series, the influence of the extent and dose of radiation to the fundus of the stomach and mediastinum on the development and severity of anastomotic complications in patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis. METHODS AND MATERIALS Between 2005 and 2012, 364 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (41.4 Gy combined with chemotherapy) followed by esophagectomy were included. The future anastomotic region in the fundus was determined, and the mean dose, V20-V40, and upper planning target volume border in relation to mediastinal length, expressed as the mediastinal ratio, were calculated. RESULTS Anastomotic leakage occurred in 22% and anastomotic stenosis in 41%. Logistic regression analysis revealed no influence of age, comorbidity, mean fundus dose, V20-V40, or the mediastinal ratio on the incidence of anastomotic leakage or anastomotic stenosis. In 28% of the patients severe complications (Clavien-Dindo score of ≥IIIB) occurred. The presence of multiple comorbidities (hazard ratio 2.4 [95% confidence interval 1.3-4.5], P=.006) and a mediastinal ratio of 0.5 to 1.0 (hazard ratio 1.9 [95% confidence interval 1.0-3.5], P=.036) were both independent predictors of severe complications. CONCLUSION With a mean radiation dose of 24.2 Gy to the future anastomotic region of the gastric fundus, the radiation dose was not associated with the incidence of anastomotic leakage or anastomotic stenosis. The incidence of severe complications was associated with a high superior mediastinal planning target volume border.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Koëter
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - N Kathiravetpillai
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - J A Gooszen
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M J C van der Sangen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - M D P Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - G A P Nieuwenhuijzen
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
| | - M C C M Hulshof
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Ingles M, Crowfoot G, Smelaya TV, Kuzovlev AN, Salnikova LE, Bhikoo R, Khwannimit B, Bhurayanontachai R, Vattanavanit V, Tourteau E, Filali A, van Grunderbeeck N, Nigeon O, Bazus H, Masse J, Mallat J, Thevenin D, Prokhorenko I, Kabanov D, Zubova S, Grachev S, Salcedo M, Witte S, Cuvier V, Derive M, Gibot S, Garaud JJ, Kumar V, Chhibber S, Santos JR, Sevillejal JEAD, Nevado JB, Linge HM, Ochani K, Lin K, Lee JY, Wang P, Tembhre M, Liu SF, Singhal PC, Miller EJ, HO J, Liu X, Kwong T, Zhang L, Chan H, Wong SH, Choi G, Gin T, Chan MTV, Wu WKK, Vliegen G, Kehoe K, Verkerk R, Fransen E, Peters E, Lambeir AM, Pickkers P, Jorens PG, De Meester I, Ribeiro AB, Souza APT, Giusti H, Franci CR, Saia RS, Anderko RR, Jackson VM, Palmer OMP, Angus DC, Kellum JA, Carcillo JA, Verboom DM, Koster-Brouwer ME, van de Groep K, Frencken JF, Scicluna B, Gisbertz SS, Henegouwen MIVB, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R, van der Poll T, Bonten MJM, Cremer OL, Verboom DM, Frencken JF, van der Poll T, Bonten MJM, Cremer OL, Klouwenberg PMCK, Beloborodova N, Osipov A, Pautova A, Bedova A, Mas-Oliva J, García-González V, Sukhina M, Zhukhovitskiy V, Sukhina MA, Obraztsov I, Zhukhovitskiy VG, Peronace C, Matera G, Galati L, Giancotti A, Barreca GS, Quirino A, Liberto MC, Focà A, Labiad Y, Venton G, Baier C, Colle J, Farnault L, Brunet C, Loriod B, Fernandez-Nunez N, Suchon P, Mattei JC, Rihet P, Nguyen C, Costello R, Tesfai A, Ahmetaj-Shala B, Gashaw H, Quinlan G, MacCallum N, Mumby S, Gray DN, Leiper J, Kirkby N, Mitchell JA, Costa LHA, Catalão CHR, Santos-Júnior NN, Souza AO, Alberici LC, Rocha MJA. Sepsis 2016 Paris. Crit Care 2016. [PMCID: PMC5260789 DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1518-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
|
47
|
Jacobs M, Henselmans I, Arts DL, Ten Koppel M, Gisbertz SS, Lagarde SM, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Sprangers MAG, de Haes HCJM, Smets EMA. Development and feasibility of a web-based question prompt sheet to support information provision of health-related quality of life topics after oesophageal cancer surgery. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2016; 27. [PMID: 27734559 DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12593] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/30/2016] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
We developed a web-based question prompt sheet (QPS) to support information provision of health-related quality of life (HRQL) topics after oesophageal cancer surgery. The QPS was evaluated and updated in three consecutive studies. In Study 1, eight patients were guided in using the QPS. Feasibility was assessed by cognitive walkthrough, questionnaire and interview. We obtained 430 notes (217 negative, 213 positive) of patients' actions and or remarks, and 91 suggestions. With minor support, most patients were able to use the QPS. In Study 2, forty patients independently used and appraised a modified version of the QPS by questionnaire. All patients deemed the QPS to be usable and useful. In Study 3, 21 patients and three surgeons used the QPS in clinical practice. Clinical feasibility was assessed by the number of QPS sent to the researcher/surgeon. Patients and surgeons were surveyed and the follow-up consultation was audio-recorded. Surgeons were additionally interviewed. Twenty/fourteen patients sent their QPS to the researcher/surgeon. Five QPSs were read by the consultation surgeon. Patients considered the QPS usable and useful. Surgeons considered the QPS of added value and helpful in informing patients, but currently not clinically feasible due to increased consultation time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Jacobs
- Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - I Henselmans
- Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D L Arts
- Department of Clinical Informatics, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Ten Koppel
- Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S M Lagarde
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M I van Berge Henegouwen
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M A G Sprangers
- Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H C J M de Haes
- Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - E M A Smets
- Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Lagarde SM, Navidi M, Gisbertz SS, van Laarhoven HWM, Sumpter K, Meijer SL, Disep B, Immanuel A, Griffin SM, van Berge Henegouwen MI. Prognostic impact of extracapsular lymph node involvement after neoadjuvant therapy and oesophagectomy. Br J Surg 2016; 103:1658-1664. [PMID: 27696382 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10226] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2015] [Revised: 12/29/2015] [Accepted: 05/09/2016] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The significance of extracapsular lymph node involvement (LNI) is unclear in patients with oesophageal cancer who have undergone neoadjuvant treatment followed by oesophagectomy. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and prognostic significance of extracapsular LNI in a large multicentre series of consecutive patients with oesophageal cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy and surgery. METHODS Data from a consecutive series of patients treated at two European centres were analysed. All patients with squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction, who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation followed by transthoracic oesophagectomy and two-field lymphadenectomy with curative intent, were included. RESULTS Between January 2000 and September 2013, 704 patients underwent oesophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy. A median of 28 (range 5-77) nodes per patient was recovered. Some 347 patients (49·3 per cent) had no LNI (ypN0). Of the remaining 357 patients (50·7 per cent) with LNI (ypN1-3), extracapsular LNI was found in 190 (53·2 per cent). Five-year overall survival rates were 62·7 per cent for patients with N0 disease, 44·9 per cent for patients without extracapsular spread and 14·0 per cent where extracapsular LNI was identified (P < 0·001). Multivariable analyses demonstrated the presence of extracapsular LNI as an independent prognostic factor. CONCLUSION The presence of extracapsular LNI after neoadjuvant therapy carries a poor prognosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S M Lagarde
- Departments of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Navidi
- Northern Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Unit, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Departments of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H W M van Laarhoven
- Departments of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - K Sumpter
- Departments of Oncology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - S L Meijer
- Departments of Pathology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - B Disep
- Departments of Pathology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - A Immanuel
- Northern Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Unit, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - S M Griffin
- Northern Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Unit, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Jongerius EJ, Boerma D, Seldenrijk KA, Meijer SL, Scheepers JJG, Smedts F, Lagarde SM, Balague Ponz O, van Berge Henegouwen MI, van Sandick JW, Gisbertz SS. Role of omentectomy as part of radical surgery for gastric cancer. Br J Surg 2016; 103:1497-503. [DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10149] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2015] [Revised: 01/08/2016] [Accepted: 02/09/2016] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
Abstract
Background
A complete omentectomy is recommended as part of radical (sub)total gastrectomy for gastric cancer, but there is little evidence to suggest any survival benefit. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of, and risk factors for, metastases in the greater omentum in patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
Methods
This was a multicentre prospective cohort study (OMEGA trial) of consecutive patients with gastric cancer undergoing (sub)total gastrectomy with complete en bloc omentectomy and modified D2 lymphadenectomy. After resection, the omentum was separated from the gastrectomy specimen distal to the gastroepiploic vessels and sent separately for pathological examination. The primary endpoint was the presence of metastases in the greater omentum.
Results
Of 100 included patients, five (5·0 per cent) had metastases in the greater omentum. Pathology results showed advanced tumours in all five (pT4b N1 M1, pT4b N2 M1, ypT4a N1 M1, ypT3 N2 M0, ypT3 N3 M0). The resection was microscopically non-radical at the proximal (3) or distal (2) resection margin in all of these patients. Metastases in the greater omentum correlated significantly with a microscopically non-radical resection, tumour expansion in the oesophagus or duodenum, linitis plastica or a proximal gastric tumour with diameter of at least 5 cm, stage III–IV disease and (y)pM1 category.
Conclusion
In resectable gastric cancer, the incidence of metastases in the greater omentum is low, and when present associated with advanced disease and non-radical features. Thus, omentectomy as part of a radical gastrectomy may be omitted. Registration number: NCT02050659 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E J Jongerius
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D Boerma
- Department of Surgery, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - K A Seldenrijk
- Department of Pathology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - S L Meijer
- Department of Pathology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J J G Scheepers
- Department of Surgery, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - F Smedts
- Department of Pathology, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - S M Lagarde
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - O Balague Ponz
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - J W van Sandick
- Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S S Gisbertz
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Spierings LEAMM, Lagarde SM, van Oijen MGH, Gisbertz SS, Wilmink JW, Hulshof MCCM, Meijer SL, Anderegg MC, van Berge Henegouwen MI, van Laarhoven HWM. Metformin Use During Treatment of Potentially Curable Esophageal Cancer Patients is not Associated with Better Outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 2015; 22 Suppl 3:S766-71. [DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4850-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2015] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
|