Oncological outcomes of standard versus prolonged time to surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer in the multicentre, randomised, controlled NeoRes II trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal time to surgery (TTS) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for oesophageal cancer is unknown and has traditionally been 4-6 weeks in clinical practice. Observational studies have suggested better outcomes, especially in terms of histological response, after prolonged delay of up to 3 months after nCRT. The NeoRes II trial is the first randomised trial to compare standard to prolonged TTS after nCRT for oesophageal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with resectable, locally advanced oesophageal cancer were randomly assigned to standard delay of surgery of 4-6 weeks or prolonged delay of 10-12 weeks after nCRT. The primary endpoint was complete histological response of the primary tumour in patients with adenocarcinoma (AC). Secondary endpoints included histological tumour response, resection margins, overall and progression-free survival in all patients and stratified by histologic type.

RESULTS

Between February 2015 and March 2019, 249 patients from 10 participating centres in Sweden, Norway and Germany were randomised: 125 to standard and 124 to prolonged TTS. There was no significant difference in complete histological response between AC patients allocated to standard (21%) compared to prolonged (26%) TTS (P = 0.429). Tumour regression, resection margins and number of resected lymph nodes, total and metastatic, did not differ between the allocated interventions. The first quartile overall survival in patients allocated to standard TTS was 26.5 months compared to 14.2 months after prolonged TTS (P = 0.003) and the overall risk of death during follow-up was 35% higher after prolonged delay (hazard ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 0.94-1.95, P = 0.107).

CONCLUSION

Prolonged TTS did not improve histological complete response or other pathological endpoints, while there was a strong trend towards worse survival, suggesting caution in routinely delaying surgery for >6 weeks after nCRT.

Laparoscopic ischemic conditioning of the stomach prior to esophagectomy induces gastric neo-angiogenesis

BACKGROUND

The risk of an anastomotic leakage (AL) following Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy is increased in patients with calcifications of the aorta or a stenosis of the celiac trunc. Ischemic conditioning (ISCON) of the gastric conduit prior to esophagectomy is supposed to improve gastric vascularization at the anastomotic site. The prospective ISCON trial was conducted to proof the safety and feasibility of this strategy with partial gastric devascularization 14 days before esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients with a compromised vascular status. This work reports the results from a translational project of the ISCON trial aimed to investigate variables of neo-angiogenesis.

METHODS

Twenty esophageal cancer patients scheduled for esophagectomy were included in the ISCON trial. Serum samples (n = 11) were collected for measurement of biomarkers and biopsies (n = 12) of the gastric fundus were taken before and after ISCON of the gastric conduit. Serum samples were analyzed including 62 different cytokines. Vascularization of the gastric mucosa was assessed on paraffin-embedded sections stained against CD34 to detect the degree of microvascular density and vessel size.

RESULTS

Between November 2019 and January 2022 patients were included in the ISCON Trial. While serum samples showed no differences regarding cytokine levels before and after ISCON biopsies of the gastric mucosa demonstrated a significant increase in microvascular density after ISCON as compared to the corresponding gastric sample before the intervention.

CONCLUSION

The data prove that ISCON of the gastric conduit as esophageal substitute induces significant neo-angiogenesis in the gastric fundus which is considered as surrogate of an improved vascularization at the anastomotic site.

[Reconstruction and functional results after gastric resection]

Depending on the extent of gastric resection, namely total, proximal or distal gastrectomy, different methods of reconstruction are available. These reconstructive procedures have not changed with the implementation of minimally invasive or robotic techniques in general but the spectrum of possible anastomotic techniques has been substantially expanded. Functional, in particular nutritional disorders with subsequent impairment of the health-related quality of life, are often diagnosed after gastric resections. The partial preservation of a gastric reservoir has a positive impact on the extent of these disorders. After total gastrectomy, the placement of a jejunal pouch significantly reduces the incidence of postoperative dumping symptoms. Following proximal gastrectomy, double-tract reconstruction offers certain functional advantages as compared to the simple Roux‑Y reconstruction. In Germany, these reconstructive techniques are only used to a low extent and should be include in the repertoire of oncological gastric surgery with appropriate indications.

The ISCON-trial protocol: laparoscopic ischemic conditioning prior to esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer and arterial calcifications

Background

Anastomotic leakage is the most important surgical complication following esophagectomy. A major cause of leakage is ischemia of the gastric tube that is used for reconstruction of the gastrointestinal tract. Generalized cardiovascular disease, expressed by calcifications of the aorta and celiac axis stenosis on a pre-operative CT scan, is associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leakage. Laparoscopic ischemic conditioning (ISCON) aims to redistribute blood flow and increase perfusion at the anastomotic site by occluding the left gastric, left gastroepiploic and short gastric arteries prior to esophagectomy. This study aims to assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic ISCON in selected patients with esophageal cancer and concomitant arterial calcifications.

Methods

In this prospective single-arm safety and feasibility trial based upon the IDEAL recommendations for surgical innovation, a total of 20 patients will be included recruited in 2 European high-volume centers for esophageal cancer surgery. Patients with resectable esophageal carcinoma (cT1-4a, N0–3, M0) with “major calcifications” of the thoracic aorta accordingly to the Uniform Calcification Score (UCS) or a stenosis of the celiac axis accordingly to the modified North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) score on preoperative CT scan, who are planned to undergo esophagectomy are eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome variables are complications grade 2 and higher (Clavien-Dindo classification) occurring during or after laparoscopic ISCON and before esophagectomy. Secondary outcomes include intra- and postoperative complications of esophagectomy and the induction of angiogenesis by biomarkers of microcirculation and redistribution of blood flow by measurement of indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence angiography.

Discussion

We hypothesize that in selected patients with impaired vascularization of the gastric tube, laparoscopic ISCON is feasible and can be safely performed 12–18 days prior to esophagectomy. Depending on the results, a randomized controlled trial will be needed to investigate whether ISCON leads to a lower percentage and less severe course of anastomotic leakage in selected patients.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03896399. Registered 4 January 2019.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09231-x.

Fit-for-Discharge Criteria after Esophagectomy: An International Expert Delphi Consensus

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.

[Esophagotracheal and esophagobronchial fistulas]

Esophagobronchial and esophagotracheal fistulas are rare but complex diseases with a heterogeneous spectrum of underlying etiologies. Common causes are locally advanced tumors of the esophagus and larynx, traumatic perforation from the esophageal or tracheal side as well as postoperative fistulas. The management of esophagotracheal and esophagobronchial fistulas always involves different health care providers and in most cases patients require a multidisciplinary treatment on the intensive care unit. The therapeutic concept primarily depends on the underlying cause, localization and size of the fistula but decision making is also influenced by the severity of the course of sepsis and the extent of the respiratory dysfunction. Endoscopic management with esophageal and/or tracheobronchial stenting is the most common treatment. Surgical reconstructive procedures are predominantly reserved for patients with a treatment refractory fistula or a septic multiple organ failure. The prognosis is particularly influenced by the underlying disease.

[Perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery program for Ivor Lewis esophagectomy : First experiences of a high-volume center]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Transthoracic esophagectomy is generally accepted as the standard of surgical care for patients with esophageal cancer. Despite improvements in the perioperative management this surgical procedure is associated with a clinically relevant morbidity. Fast-track protocols (synonym: enhanced recovery after surgery, ERAS) are conceived to perioperatively maintain the physiological homoeostasis and thereby to accelerate postoperative rehabilitation and reduce morbidity. In this prospective observational study the initial experiences of a high-volume center with the implementation of an ERAS protocol after transthoracic esophagectomy were analyzed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 26 patients with esophageal cancer and a low index of comorbidities prior to hybrid Ivor Lewis esophagectomy were included in this study. According to an ERAS protocol all patients underwent a standardized perioperative treatment pathway aiming to discharge the patients from the inpatient treatment on postoperative day 10. The primary outcome parameter was the rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo IIIb/IV), which was compared to a cohort of 52 non-ERAS patients.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The ERAS programs with the various core elements can be implemented in patients scheduled for transthoracic esophagectomy, although the organizational and personnel expenditure of this fast-track protocol is high. The length of hospital stay appears to be reduced without compromising patient safety. The limiting variable of the ERAS protocol remains the early and adequate enteral feeding load of the gastric conduit before discharge on postoperative day 10.

[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the esophagus]

BACKGROUND

Thoracoabdominal esophagectomy still plays a major role in the oncological treatment for esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive procedures were developed to reduce the high rate of postoperative morbidity and mortality without negatively affecting the oncological outcome.

OBJECTIVE

What evidence supports minimally invasive oncological surgery of the esophagus? Do patients benefit from minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to an open approach? Is the reduction of surgical access trauma specifically advantageous?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Review, evaluation and critical analysis of the international literature.

RESULTS

A reduction in postoperative morbidity by decreasing surgical trauma was confirmed by three prospective randomized clinical trials, while showing at least similar oncological outcomes. Diverse retrospective analyses and meta-analyses also came to the same result.

CONCLUSION

A minimization of surgical access trauma during thoracoabdominal esophagectomy reduces postoperative morbidity compared to conventional open surgery. Recent evidence suggests that oncological outcomes are not altered depending on the surgical approach.

Two-stage hybrid Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy as surgical strategy to reduce postoperative morbidity for high-risk patients

BACKGROUND

Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (ILE) is the standard surgical care for esophageal cancer patients but postoperative morbidity impairs quality of life and reduces long-term oncological outcome. Two-stage ILE separating the abdominal and thoracic phase into two distinct surgical procedures has proven to enhance microcirculation of the gastric conduit and therefore most likely reduces complications. However, two-stage ILE has not been evaluated systematically in selected groups of patients scheduled for this procedure. This investigation aims to demonstrate the feasibility of two-stage ILE in high-risk patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective analysis of data obtained from a prospective database, a consecutive series of 275 hybrid ILE (hILE) were included. Patients were divided into two groups based on one- or two-stage hILE. Postoperative complications were assessed according to ECCG (Esophageal Complication Consensus Group) criteria and compared using the Clavien-Dindo score. Indication for two-stage esophagectomy was classified as pre- or intraoperative decision.

RESULTS

34 out of 275 patients (12.7%) underwent two-stage hILE. Patients of the two-stage group were significantly older. In 21 of 34 patients (61.8%) the decision for a two-stage procedure was made prior to esophagectomy, in 13 (38.2%) patients intraoperatively after completion of the laparoscopic gastric mobilization. The most frequent preoperative reason to select the two-stage procedure was a stenosis of the coeliac trunc and superior mesenteric artery (n = 10). The predominant cause for an intraoperative change of strategy was a laparoscopically diagnosed hepatic fibrosis/cirrhosis (n = 5).Overall morbidity and major' complications (CD > IIIa) were comparable for both groups (11.7% in both groups). The overall anastomotic leak rate was 12.4% and was non-significant lower for the two-stage procedure.

CONCLUSION

Two-stage hILE is a feasible concept to individualize the surgical treatment of patients with well-defined clinical risk factors for postoperative morbidity. It can also be applied after completion of the abdominal phase of IL esophagectomy without compromising the patient safety.

Diagnostic criteria and symptom grading for delayed gastric conduit emptying after esophagectomy for cancer: international expert consensus based on a modified Delphi process

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.

Simultaneous laryngopharyngeal pH monitoring (Restech) and conventional esophageal pH monitoring-correlation using a large patient cohort of more than 100 patients with suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease

24-hour esophageal pH-metry is not designed to detect laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). The new laryngopharyngeal pH-monitoring system (Restech) may detect LPR better. There is no established correlation between these two techniques as only small case series exist. The aim of this study is to examine the correlation between the two techniques with a large patient cohort. All patients received a complete diagnostic workup for gastroesophageal reflux including symptom evaluation, endoscopy, 24-hour pH-metry, high resolution manometry, and Restech. Consecutive patients with suspected gastroesophageal reflux and disease-related extra-esophageal symptoms were evaluated using 24-hour laryngopharyngeal and concomitant esophageal pH-monitoring. Subsequently, the relationship between the two techniques was evaluated subdividing the different reflux scenarios into four groups. A total of 101 patients from December 2013 to February 2017 were included. All patients presented extra-esophageal symptoms such as cough, hoarseness, asthma symptoms, and globus sensation. Classical reflux symptoms such as heartburn (71%), regurgitation (60%), retrosternal pain (54%), and dysphagia (32%) were also present. Esophageal 24-hour pH-metry was positive in 66 patients (65%) with a mean DeMeester Score of 66.7 [15-292]. Four different reflux scenarios were detected (group A-D): in 39% of patients with abnormal esophageal pH-metry, Restech evaluation was normal (group A, n = 26, mean DeMeester-score = 57.9 [15-255], mean Ryan score = 2.6 [2-8]). In 23% of patients with normal pH-metry (n = 8, group B), Restech evaluation was abnormal (mean DeMeester-score 10.5 [5-13], mean Ryan score 63.5 [27-84]). The remaining groups C and D showed corresponding results. Restech evaluation was positive in 48% of cases in this highly selective patient cohort. As demonstrated by four reflux scenarios, esophageal pH-metry and Restech do not necessarily need to correspond. Especially in patients with borderline abnormal 24-hour pH-metry, Restech may help to support the decision for or against laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery.