C-reactive protein identifies patients at low risk of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy.

PURPOSE: Fast-track protocols are increasingly used after digestive surgery. After esophagectomy, the gravity and the fear of anastomotic leak may be an obstacle to generalization of such protocols. C-reactive protein (CRP) might be a reliable tool to identify patients at low risk of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy, so that they can be safely included in a fast-track program. The aim of our retrospective bicentric study is to evaluate the interest of C-reactive protein measurement for the early diagnosis of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. METHODS: Patients having undergone Ivor-Lewis procedure between January 2009 and September 2017 were included in this bicentric retrospective study. CRP values were recorded between postoperative day 3 (POD 3) and postoperative day 5 (POD 5). All postoperative complications were recorded, and the primary endpoint was anastomotic leak. RESULTS: We included 585 patients. Among them, 241 (41.2%) developed infectious complications and 69 patients (11.8%) developed anastomotic leak. CRP had the best predictive value on POD 5 (AUC = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.67-0.81). On POD 5, a cut-off value of 130 mg/L yielded a sensitivity of 87%, a specificity of 51%, and a negative predictive value of 96% for the detection of anastomotic leak. CONCLUSIONS: CRP may help in identifying patients at very low risk of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. Patients with CRP values < 130 mg/L on POD 5 can safely undertake an enhanced recovery protocol.

Are Thoracotomy and/or Intrathoracic Anastomosis Still Predictors of Postoperative Mortality After Esophageal Cancer Surgery?: A Nationwide Study.

BACKGROUND: Intrathoracic (vs cervical) anastomosis and a thoracotomy (vs absence) have previously been associated with increasing postoperative mortality (POM). Recent improvements in surgical practices and perioperative management may have changed these dogmas. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of performing intrathoracic anastomosis and/or thoracotomy on POM after esophageal cancer surgery in recent years. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent esophageal cancer surgery with reconstruction between 2010 and 2012 in France were included (n = 3286). Patients with a thoracoscopic approach were excluded (n = 4). We compared 30-day POM between patients having received intrathoracic (vs cervical) anastomosis and between those having received a thoracotomy or not. Multivariate analyses and propensity score matching were used to adjust for confounding factors. RESULTS: Patients had either cervical (n = 548) or intrathoracic (n = 2738) anastomosis. Thirty-day POM was higher after cervical anastomosis (8.8% vs 4.9%, P < 0.001). Having received a thoracotomy (n = 3061) was associated with a decreased risk of 30-day POM (5.3% vs 9.3%, P = 0.011). After adjustment for confounding factors, cervical anastomosis was associated with 30-day POM [odds ratio (OR) 1.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-2.77); P = 0.032], whereas performing a thoracotomy was not associated with 30-day POM (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.51-1.84; P = 0.926). CONCLUSIONS: Nowadays, intrathoracic anastomosis provides a lower 30-day POM rate compared to cervical anastomosis, and performing a thoracotomy is not associated with POM. Systematic anastomosis neck placement or thoracotomy avoidance is not a relevant argument anymore to decrease POM.

Is Centralization Needed for Esophageal and Gastric Cancer Patients With Low Operative Risk?: A Nationwide Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of center volume on postoperative mortality (POM) according to patient condition. BACKGROUND: Centralization has been shown to improve POM in esophageal and, to a lesser extent, gastric cancer surgery; however, the benefit of centralization for patients with low operative risk is questionable. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent esophageal or gastric cancer surgery between 2010 and 2012 in France were included (N = 11,196). The 30-day POM was compared in terms of the center volume (low: <20 cases per year, intermediate: 20-39, high: 40-59, and very high: ≥60) and stratified according to the Charlson score (0, 1-2, ≥3). The consistency across the esophageal (n = 3286) and gastric (n = 7910) subgroups, and variations between 30-day and 90-day POM were analyzed. RESULTS: Low-volume centers treated 64.2% of patients. A linear decrease in 30-day and 90-day POM was observed with increasing center volume, with rates of 5.7% and 10.2%, 4.3% and 7.9%, 3.3% and 6.7%, and 1.7% and 3.6% in low, intermediate, high, and very high-volume centers, respectively (P < 0.001). Comparing low and very high-volume centers, 30-day POM was 4.0% versus 1.1% for Charlson 0 (P = 0.001), 7.5% versus 3.4% for Charlson 1 to 2 (P < 0.001), and 14.7% versus 3.7% for Charlson ≥3 (P = 0.003) patients. A similar linear decrease was observed in the esophageal and gastric cancer subgroups. Between the low and very high-volume centers, an almost 70% reduction in the relative risk of POM was systematically observed, independent of Charlson score or tumor location. CONCLUSIONS: To improve POM, esophageal and gastric cancer surgery should be centralized, irrespective of the patient's comorbidity or tumor location.

Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: Impact of a Large Hiatal Hernia on Outcomes After Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate complete tumor resection rate (primary objective), 30-day postoperative outcomes, and survival (secondary objectives) in patients with a hiatal hernia (HH) ≥5 cm (HH group) compared with those who did not have a HH or presented with a HH <5 cm (control group). BACKGROUND: HH is a risk factor for esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma (EGJA). Its impact on the outcomes after EGJA surgery is unknown. METHODS: Among 367 patients who underwent surgery for EGJA, a HH was searched for on computerized tomography scan and barium swallow, with comparison between the HH (n = 42) and control (n = 325) groups. RESULTS: In the HH group, EGJAs exhibited higher rates of incomplete resection (50.0% vs 4.0%; P < 0.001), of pN3 stages (28.5% vs 10.1%; P = 0.002), and lower median survival (20.9 vs 41.0 mos; P = 0.001). After adjustment, a HH ≥5 cm was a predictor of incomplete resection (odds ratio 21.0, 95% confidence interval 9.4-46.8, P < 0.001) and a poor prognostic factor (hazard ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.1-2.5, P = 0.025). In the HH group, 30-day mortality was significantly higher in patients who received neoadjuvant radiotherapy (20.0% vs 0%; P = 0.040), which was related to greater cardiac and pulmonary toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, we showed that a HH ≥5 cm is associated with a poor prognosis in patients who had surgery for EGJA, linked to greater incomplete resection and lymph node involvement. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was associated with a significant toxicity in patients with a HH ≥5 cm.

Impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on postoperative outcomes after esophageal cancer resection: results of a European multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) on anastomotic leakage (AL) and other postoperative outcomes after esophageal cancer (EC) resection. BACKGROUND: Conflicting data have emerged from randomized studies regarding the impact of NCRT on AL. METHODS: Among 2944 consecutive patients operated on for EC between 2000 and 2010 in 30 European centers, patients treated by NCRT after surgery (n=593) were compared with those treated by primary surgery (n=1487). Multivariable analyses and propensity score matching were used to compensate for the differences in some baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Patients in the NCRT group were younger, with a higher prevalence of male sex, malnutrition, advanced tumor stage, squamous cell carcinoma, and surgery after 2005 when compared with the primary surgery group. Postoperative AL rates were 8.8% versus 10.6% (P=0.220), and 90-day postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were 9.3% versus 7.2% (P=0.110) and 33.4% versus 32.1% (P=0.564), respectively. Pulmonary complication rates did not differ between groups (24.6% vs 22.5%; P=0.291), whereas chylothorax (2.5% vs 1.2%; P=0.020), cardiovascular complications (8.6% vs 0.1%; P=0.037), and thromboembolic events (8.6% vs 6.0%; P=0.037) were higher in the NCRT group. After propensity score matching, AL rates were 8.8% versus 11.3% (P=0.228), with more chylothorax (2.5% vs 0.7%; P=0.030) and trend toward more cardiovascular and thromboembolic events in the NCRT group (P=0.069). Predictors of AL were high American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, supracarinal tumoral location, and cervical anastomosis, but not NCRT. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not have an impact on the AL rate after EC resection (NCT 01927016).