Safety and Feasibility of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE) with Three-Field Lymphadenectomy and Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Patients with Resectable Esophageal Cancer and Cervical Lymph Node Metastasis.

BACKGROUND: In the West, patients with cervical lymph node metastasis of resectable esophageal cancer at diagnosis are generally precluded from curative treatment. This study prospectively explored the safety and feasibility of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) with three-field lymphadenectomy for these patients. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2021, patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer and cervical lymph node metastasis were recruited nationwide in the Netherlands. Patients without interval metastasis following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and good physical condition underwent RAMIE with bilateral three-field lymphadenectomy. Safety was predefined as ≤50% Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3b postoperative complications. RESULTS: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was administered to 29 patients (19 (66%) adenocarcinoma and 10 (34%) squamous cell carcinoma). After restaging, nine (31%) patients were excluded (interval metastasis, clinical deterioration, or withdrawn consent). RAMIE was performed in 20 patients (R0-rate 95%). A median of 42 [range 21-71] lymph nodes were resected of which 13 [range 2-35] were cervical. Only 1 (5%) patient had an unexpected contralateral cervical lymph node metastasis. Complications grade ≥3b occurred in 50%. Most frequent complications of any grade were recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (45%) and pneumonia (40%). Overall survival at 1 year was 85% and quality of life at 6 months was comparable to esophageal cancer patients treated with curative intent. CONCLUSIONS: RAMIE with three-field lymphadenectomy following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for patients with resectable esophageal cancer presenting with cervical lymph node metastasis is feasible in a Western population. Because contralateral cervical metastasis is rare, a unilateral neck dissection would suffice in the majority of cases. CLINICAL TRIAL: gov Identifier: NCT02426879. Dutch trial register Identifier: NTR 4552.

Preoperative image-guided identification of response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer (PRIDE): a multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Nearly one third of patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for locally advanced esophageal cancer have a pathologic complete response (pCR) of the primary tumor upon histopathological evaluation of the resection specimen. The primary aim of this study is to develop a model that predicts the probability of pCR to nCRT in esophageal cancer, based on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI), dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography (18F-FDG PET-CT). Accurate response prediction could lead to a patient-tailored approach with omission of surgery in the future in case of predicted pCR or additional neoadjuvant treatment in case of non-pCR. METHODS: The PRIDE study is a prospective, single arm, observational multicenter study designed to develop a multimodal prediction model for histopathological response to nCRT for esophageal cancer. A total of 200 patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer - of which at least 130 patients with adenocarcinoma and at least 61 patients with squamous cell carcinoma - scheduled to receive nCRT followed by esophagectomy will be included. The primary modalities to be incorporated in the prediction model are quantitative parameters derived from MRI and 18F-FDG PET-CT scans, which will be acquired at fixed intervals before, during and after nCRT. Secondary modalities include blood samples for analysis of the presence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) at 3 time-points (before, during and after nCRT), and an endoscopy with (random) bite-on-bite biopsies of the primary tumor site and other suspected lesions in the esophagus as well as an endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) with fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes after finishing nCRT. The main study endpoint is the performance of the model for pCR prediction. Secondary endpoints include progression-free and overall survival. DISCUSSION: If the multimodal PRIDE concept provides high predictive performance for pCR, the results of this study will play an important role in accurate identification of esophageal cancer patients with a pCR to nCRT. These patients might benefit from a patient-tailored approach with omission of surgery in the future. Vice versa, patients with non-pCR might benefit from additional neoadjuvant treatment, or ineffective therapy could be stopped. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The article reports on a health care intervention on human participants and was prospectively registered on March 22, 2018 under ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03474341 .

Detection of distant interval metastases after neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer with 18F-FDG PET(/CT): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Restaging after neoadjuvant therapy aims to reduce the number of patients undergoing esophagectomy in case of distant (interval) metastases. The aim of this study is to systematically review and meta-analyze the diagnostic performance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET) and 18F-FDG PET/CT for the detection of distant interval metastases after neoadjuvant therapy in patients with esophageal cancer. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched. The analysis included diagnostic studies reporting on the detection of distant interval metastases with 18F-FDG PET(/CT) in patients with esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant therapy and both baseline staging and restaging after neoadjuvant therapy with 18F-FDG PET(/CT) imaging. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients in whom distant interval metastases were detected by 18F-FDG PET(/CT) as confirmed by pathology or clinical follow-up (i.e. true positives). The secondary outcome measure was the proportion of patients in whom 18F-FDG PET(/CT) restaging was false positive for distant interval metastases (i.e. false positives). Risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Random-effect models were used to estimate pooled outcomes and examine potential sources of heterogeneity. Fourteen studies were included comprising a total of 1,110 patients who received baseline staging with 18F-FDG PET(/CT) imaging of whom 1,001 (90%) underwent restaging with 18F-FDG PET(/CT) imaging. Studies were generally of moderate quality. The pooled proportion of patients in whom true distant interval metastases were detected by 18F-FDG PET(/CT) restaging was 8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5-13%). The pooled proportion of patients in whom false positive distant findings were detected by 18F-FDG PET(/CT) restaging was 5% (95% CI: 3-9%). In conclusion,18F-FDG PET(/CT) restaging after neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer detects true distant interval metastases in 8% of patients. Therefore, 18F-FDG PET(/CT) restaging can considerably impact on treatment decision-making. However, false positive distant findings occur in 5% of patients at restaging with 18F-FDG PET(/CT), underlining the need for pathological confirmation of suspected lesions.

Defining pneumonia after esophagectomy for cancer: validation of the Uniform Pneumonia Score in a high volume center in North America.

Surgery is a central component of multimodality therapy for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Pneumonia is a common sequela of esophagectomy, leading to an increase in intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, readmission rates, and postoperative mortality. Developing strategies to reduce pneumonia after esophagectomy is hampered by the absence of a standardized methodology for defining pneumonia. This study aims to validate the Uniform Pneumonia Score (UPS) in a high volume center in the USA. The UPS was developed to define pneumonia after esophagectomy for cancer and is based on the assessment of temperature (°C), leukocyte count (×109/L), and pulmonary radiography. The UPS has been validated utilizing a prospective, Institutional Review Board approved database of esophageal cancer patients treated in a high volume esophagectomy center in the USA between 2010 and 2015. One hundred ninety-three consecutive patients were included and 21 (10.9%) were treated for pneumonia. The UPS was able to predict treatment for suspected pneumonia with a good sensitivity (85.7%, confidence interval (CI): 63.7%-96.7%), specificity (97.1%, CI: 93.4%-99.1%), positive predictive value (78.3%, CI: 59.9%-89.7%), and negative predictive value (98.2%, CI: 95.1%-99.4%). The diagnostic accuracy was 95.9%, CI: 92.0%-98.2%. The UPS demonstrated to be a reliable scoring system to define pneumonia after esophagectomy for cancer. Global application of this model will standardize the definition of pneumonia after esophagectomy. This will improve outcome reporting and comparisons of complications between individual institutions, clinical trials, and national audits.

A structured training program for minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer- a Delphi consensus study in Europe.

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.

Association Between Waiting Time from Diagnosis to Treatment and Survival in Patients with Curable Gastric Cancer: A Population-Based Study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, a maximum waiting time from diagnosis to treatment (WT) of 5 weeks is recommended for curative cancer treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the association between WT and overall survival (OS) in patients undergoing gastrectomy for cancer. METHODS: This nationwide study included data from patients diagnosed with curable gastric adenocarcinoma between 2005 and 2014 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were divided into two groups: patients who received neoadjuvant therapy followed by gastrectomy, or patients who underwent gastrectomy as primary surgery. WT was analyzed as a categorical (≤5 weeks [Reference], 5-8 weeks, >8 weeks) and as a discrete variable. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to assess the influence of WT on OS. RESULTS: Among 3778 patients, 1701 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by gastrectomy, and 2077 underwent primary gastrectomy. In the neoadjuvant group, median WT to neoadjuvant treatment was 4.6 weeks (interquartile range [IQR] 3.4-6.0), and median OS was 32 months. In the surgery group, median WT to surgery was 6.0 weeks (IQR 4.3-8.4), and median OS was 25 months. For both groups, WT did not influence OS (neoadjuvant: 5-8 weeks, hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, p = 0.068; >8 weeks, HR 0.85, p = 0.354; each additional week WT, HR 0.96, p = 0.078; surgery: 5-8 weeks, HR 0.91, p = 0.175; >8 weeks, HR 0.92, p = 0.314; each additional week WT, HR 0.99, p = 0.264). CONCLUSIONS: Longer WT until the start of curative treatment for gastric cancer is not associated with worse OS. These results could help to put WT into perspective as indicator of quality of care and reassure patients with gastric cancer.

The peri-esophageal connective tissue layers and related compartments: visualization by histology and magnetic resonance imaging.

An organized layer of connective tissue coursing from aorta to esophagus was recently discovered in the mediastinum. The relations with other peri-esophageal fascias have not been described and it is unclear whether this layer can be visualized by non-invasive imaging. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive description of the peri-esophageal fascias and determine whether the connective tissue layer between aorta and esophagus can be visualized by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). First, T2-weighted MRI scanning of the thoracic region of a human cadaver was performed, followed by histological examination of transverse sections of the peri-esophageal tissue between the thyroid gland and the diaphragm. Secondly, pretreatment motion-triggered MRI scans were prospectively obtained from 34 patients with esophageal cancer and independently assessed by two radiologists for the presence and location of the connective tissue layer coursing from aorta to esophagus. A layer of connective tissue coursing from the anterior aspect of the descending aorta to the left lateral aspect of the esophagus, with a thin extension coursing to the right pleural reflection, was visualized ex vivo in the cadaver on MR images, macroscopic tissue sections, and after histologic staining, as well as on in vivo MR images. The layer connecting esophagus and aorta was named 'aorto-esophageal ligament' and the layer connecting aorta to the right pleural reflection 'aorto-pleural ligament'. These connective tissue layers divides the posterior mediastinum in an anterior compartment containing the esophagus, (carinal) lymph nodes and vagus nerve, and a posterior compartment, containing the azygos vein, thoracic duct and occasionally lymph nodes. The anterior compartment was named 'peri-esophageal compartment' and the posterior compartment 'para-aortic compartment'. The connective tissue layers superior to the aortic arch and at the diaphragm corresponded with the currently available anatomic descriptions. This study confirms the existence of the previously described connective tissue layer coursing from aorta to esophagus, challenging the long-standing paradigm that no such structure exists. A comprehensive, detailed description of the peri-esophageal fascias is provided and, furthermore, it is shown that the connective tissue layer coursing from aorta to esophagus can be visualized in vivo by MRI.

Postoperative pain management after esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Effective pain management after esophagectomy is essential for patient comfort, early recovery, low surgical morbidity, and short hospitalization. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the best pain management modality focusing on the balance between benefits and risks. Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched to identify all studies investigating different pain management modalities after esophagectomy in relation to primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores at 24 and 48 hours, technical failure, and opioid consumption), and secondary outcomes (pulmonary complications, nausea and vomiting, hypotension, urinary retention, and length of hospital stay). Ten studies investigating systemic, epidural, intrathecal, intrapleural and paravertebral analgesia involving 891 patients following esophagectomy were included. No significant differences were found in postoperative pain scores between systemic and epidural analgesia at 24 (mean difference (MD) 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47-2.24) and 48 hours (MD 0.15; 95%CI -0.60-0.91), nor described for systemic and other regional analgesia. Also, no significant differences in pulmonary complication rates were identified between systemic and epidural analgesia (relative risk (RR) 1.69; 95%CI 0.86-3.29), or between systemic and paravertebral analgesia (RR 1.49; 95%CI 0.31-7.12). Technical failure ranged from 17% to 22% for epidural analgesia. Sample sizes were too small to draw inferences on opioid consumption, the risk of nausea and vomiting, hypotension, urinary retention, and length of hospital stay when comparing the different pain management modalities including systemic, epidural, intrathecal, intrapleural, and paravertebral analgesia. This systematic review and meta-analysis shows no differences in postoperative pain scores or pulmonary complications after esophagectomy between systemic and epidural analgesia, and between systemic and paravertebral analgesia. Further randomized controlled trails are warranted to determine the optimal pain management modality after esophagectomy.

Intraoperative and postoperative risk factors for anastomotic leakage and pneumonia after esophagectomy for cancer.

Morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy are often related to anastomotic leakage or pneumonia. This study aimed to assess the relationship of intraoperative and postoperative vital parameters with anastomotic leakage and pneumonia after esophagectomy. Consecutive patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis for esophageal cancer from January 2012 to December 2013 were analyzed. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to determine potential associations of hemodynamic and respiratory parameters with anastomotic leakage or pneumonia. From a total of 82 included patients, 19 (23%) developed anastomotic leakage and 31 (38%) experienced pneumonia. The single independent factor associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leakage in multivariable analysis included a lower minimum intraoperative pH (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.94). An increased risk of pneumonia was associated with a lower mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the first 12 hours after surgery (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86-0.99) and a higher maximum intraoperative pH (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.27). Interestingly, no differences were noted for the MAP and inotrope requirement between patients with and without anastomotic leakage. A lower minimum intraoperative pH (below 7.25) is associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy, whereas a lower postoperative average MAP (below 83 mmHg) and a higher intraoperative pH (above 7.34) increase the risk of postoperative pneumonia. These parameters indicate the importance of setting strict perioperative goals to be protected intensively.

Waiting Time from Diagnosis to Treatment has no Impact on Survival in Patients with Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Waiting time from diagnosis to treatment has emerged as an important quality indicator in cancer care. This study was designed to determine the impact of waiting time on long-term outcome of patients with esophageal cancer who are treated with neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery or primary surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer at the University Medical Center Utrecht between 2003 and 2014 were included. Patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery and treated with primary surgery were separately analyzed. The influence of waiting time on survival was analyzed using Cox proportional hazard analyses. Kaplan-Meier curves for short (<8 weeks) and long (≥8 weeks) waiting times were constructed. RESULTS: A total of 351 patients were included; 214 received neoadjuvant treatment, and 137 underwent primary surgery. In the neoadjuvant group, the waiting time had no impact on disease-free survival (DFS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.96, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.04; p = 0.312] or overall survival (OS) (HR 0.96, 95 % CI 0.88-1.05; p = 0.372). Accordingly, no differences were found between neoadjuvantly treated patients with waiting times of <8 and ≥8 weeks in terms of DFS (p = 0.506) and OS (p = 0.693). In the primary surgery group, the waiting time had no impact on DFS (HR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.95-1.12; p = 0.443) or OS (HR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.99-1.13; p = 0.108). Waiting times of <8 weeks versus ≥8 weeks did not result in differences regarding DFS (p = 0.884) or OS (p = 0.374). CONCLUSIONS: In esophageal cancer patients treated with curative intent by either neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery or primary surgery, waiting time from diagnosis to treatment has no impact on long-term outcome.

Prognosis and Treatment After Diagnosis of Recurrent Esophageal Carcinoma Following Esophagectomy with Curative Intent.

BACKGROUND: Strategies for the treatment of recurrence after initial curative esophagectomy are increasingly being recognized. The aim of this study was to identify prognostic factors that affect survival in patients with recurrence and to evaluate treatment strategies. METHODS: A prospective database (2003-2013) was used to collect consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma treated with initial curative esophagectomy. Locations, symptoms, and treatment of recurrence were registered. Post-recurrence survival was defined as the time between the first recurrence and death or last follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 335 selected patients, 171 (51 %) developed recurrence. Multivariable analysis identified distant recurrence as opposed to locoregional recurrence [hazard ratio (HR) 2.15, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.27-3.65; p = 0.005], more than three recurrent locations (HR 2.42, 95 % CI 1.34-4.34; p = 0.003), and treatment (HR 0.29, 95 % CI 0.20-0.44; p < 0.001) as independent prognostic factors associated with post-recurrence survival. Primary tumor characteristics, including neoadjuvant therapy, histological type, pTN stage, and radicality, did not independently influence post-recurrence survival. Treatment was initiated in 62 patients (37 %) and included chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and/or surgery. Median post-recurrence survival of all patients was 3.0 months (range 0-112). In total, six patients (4 %) were still disease-free following treatment, indicating cure. CONCLUSIONS: In patients treated for esophageal cancer at curative intent, distant recurrence and more than three recurrent locations were independent prognostic factors associated with worse post-recurrence survival, irrespective of primary tumor characteristics. Although survival after recurrence was poor, treatment can prolong survival and can even lead to cure in selected patients.

Imaging of oesophageal cancer with FDG-PET/CT and MRI.

Integrated 2-[(18)F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG) PET/CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with functional features of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) are advancing imaging technologies that have current and future potential to overcome important limitations of conventional staging methods in the management of patients with oesophageal cancer. PET/CT has emerged as an important part of the standard work-up of patients with oesophageal cancer. Besides its important ability to detect unsuspected metastatic disease, PET/CT may be useful in the assessment of treatment response, radiation treatment planning, and detection of recurrent disease. In addition, high-resolution T2-weighted MRI and DWI have potential complementary roles. Recent improvements in MRI protocols and techniques have resulted in better imaging quality with the potential to bring improvement in staging, radiation treatment planning, and the assessment of treatment response. Optimal use and understanding of PET/CT and MRI in oesophageal cancer will contribute to the impact of these advancing technologies in tailoring treatment to the individual patient and achieving best possible outcomes. In this article, we graphically outline the current and potential future roles of PET/CT and MRI in the multidisciplinary management of oesophageal cancer.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy of central lung tumours using a 1.5 T MR-linac: First clinical experiences.

Background: MRI-guidance may aid better discrimination between Organs at Risk (OARs) and target volumes in proximity of the mediastinum. We report the first clinical experiences with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) of (ultra)central lung tumours on a 1.5 T MR-linac. Materials and Methods: Patients with an (ultra)central lung tumour were selected for MR-linac based SBRT treatment. A T2-weighted 3D sequence MRI acquired during free breathing was used for daily plan adaption. Prior to each fraction, contours of Internal Target Volume (ITV) and OARs were deformably propagated and amended by a radiation oncologist. Inter-fractional changes in volumes and coverage of target volumes as well as doses in OARs were evaluated in offline and online treatment plans. Results: Ten patients were treated and completed 60 Gy in 8 or 12 fractions. In total 104 fractions were delivered. The median time in the treatment room was 41 min with a median beam-on time of 8.9 min. No grade ≥3 acute toxicity was observed. In two patients, the ITV significantly decreased during treatment (58 % and 37 %, respectively) due to tumour shrinkage. In the other patients, 81 % of online ITVs were within ±15 % of the volume of fraction 1. Comparison with the pre-treatment plan showed that ITV coverage of the online plan was similar in 52 % and improved in 34 % of cases. Adaptation to meet OAR constraints, led to decreased ITV coverage in 14 %. Conclusions: We describe the workflow for MR-guided Radiotherapy and the feasibility of using 1.5 T MR-linac for SBRT of (ultra) central lung tumours.

Gross tumour delineation on computed tomography and positron emission tomography-computed tomography in oesophageal cancer: A nationwide study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Accurate delineation of the primary tumour is vital to the success of radiotherapy and even more important for successful boost strategies, aiming for improved local control in oesophageal cancer patients. Therefore, the aim was to assess delineation variability of the gross tumour volume (GTV) between CT and combined PET-CT in oesophageal cancer patients in a multi-institutional study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty observers from 14 institutes delineated the primary tumour of 6 cases on CT and PET-CT fusion. The delineated volumes, generalized conformity index (CIgen) and standard deviation (SD) in position of the most cranial/caudal slice over the observers were evaluated. For the central delineated region, perpendicular distance between median surface GTV and each individual GTV was evaluated as in-slice SD. RESULTS: After addition of PET, mean GTVs were significantly smaller in 3 cases and larger in 1 case. No difference in CIgen was observed (average 0.67 on CT, 0.69 on PET-CT). On CT cranial-caudal delineation variation ranged between 0.2 and 1.5 cm SD versus 0.2 and 1.3 cm SD on PET-CT. After addition of PET, the cranial and caudal variation was significantly reduced in 1 and 2 cases, respectively. The in-slice SD was on average 0.16 cm in both phases. CONCLUSION: In some cases considerable GTV delineation variability was observed at the cranial-caudal border. PET significantly influenced the delineated volume in four out of six cases, however its impact on observer variation was limited.

Impact of diagnosis-to-treatment waiting time on survival in esophageal cancer patients - A population-based study in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether the waiting time from diagnosis to treatment with curative intent for esophageal cancer impacts oncologic outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients treated by esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma in 2005-2013 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients who underwent multimodality treatment and patients treated with surgery only were analyzed separately. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of diagnosis-to-treatment waiting time on pT-status, pN-status, and R0 resection rates. Cox regression was applied to estimate the influence of waiting time on overall survival. Analyses were performed with the original scale and in three categorized groups of waiting time (≤5 weeks, 5-8 weeks, and >8 weeks) based on guidelines and previous studies. RESULTS: Of 3839 patients, 2589 underwent multimodality treatment and 1250 were treated with surgery only. In both groups, pT-status, pN-status, and R0 resection rates were not significantly influenced by waiting time (p-values >0.05). Also, waiting time was not significantly associated with overall survival in the multimodality treatment group (5-8 weeks vs. ≤5 weeks, hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, p = 0.171; and >8 weeks vs. ≤5 weeks, HR 1.21, p = 0.167), nor in the surgery only group (5-8 weeks vs. ≤5 weeks, HR 0.92, p = 0.432; and >8 weeks vs. ≤5 weeks, HR 1.00, p = 0.973). CONCLUSION: This large population-based cohort study demonstrates that longer waiting time from diagnosis to treatment in patients treated for esophageal cancer with curative intent does not negatively impact pT-status, pN-status, R0 resection rates, and overall survival.

The effect of perioperative chemotherapy for patients with an adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction: A propensity score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal neoadjuvant approach for patients with adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) remains unclear. Aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of perioperative chemotherapy in these patients. METHOD: Consecutive patients with GEJ adenocarcinoma, treated with surgery alone or chemotherapy plus surgery, were included from a prospective database (2003-2013). Propensity score matching was used to build comparable groups. Response to chemotherapy was assessed according to standardized regression grading. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 196 patients were included. Chemotherapy was administered in 124 patients (63%). There was no difference between the chemotherapy plus surgery and surgery-alone group regarding overall and disease-free survival (p = 0.351 and p = 0.529). Pathological good response (i.e. tumor regression grading [TRG] 1-3) was achieved in 32 patients (34%), whereas 81 (66%) had poor response (TRG 4). Good responders had lower ypT-stage (p < 0.001), lower ypN-stage (p < 0.001) and more R0-resections (100% vs. 78%, p = 0.016) compared to surgery-alone patients, which improved the 5-year survival from 35% to 67% (p = 0.002). They also developed less recurrences (35% vs. 57%, p = 0.048). In poor responders, histopathology did not differ compared to surgery-alone and more recurrences were found (73% vs. 57%, p = 0.037). Overall survival in poor responders was 21% compared to 35% in surgery-alone patients (p = 0.551). CONCLUSION: Perioperative chemotherapy for GEJ adenocarcinoma leads to increased survival in good responders (34%) as compared to surgery alone. Poor responders had no survival benefit and developed more recurrences, which underlines the importance of the search for predictive biological or radiological markers to predict or assess chemotherapy sensitivity.

Hospital costs of complications after esophagectomy for cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the economic burden of postoperative complications after esophagectomy for cancer, in order to optimally allocate resources for quality improvement initiatives in the future. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected clinical and financial outcomes after esophageal cancer surgery in a tertiary referral center in the Netherlands was performed. Data was extracted from consecutive patients registered in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit between 2011 and 2014 (n = 201). Costs were measured up to 90-days after hospital discharge and based on Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing. The additional costs were estimated using multiple linear regression models. RESULTS: The average total cost for one patient after esophagectomy was €37,581 (±31,372). The estimated costs of an esophagectomy without complications were €23,476 (±6496). Mean costs after minor (47%) and severe complications (29%) were €31,529 (±23,359) and €59,167 (±42,615) (p < 0.001), respectively. The 5% most expensive patients were responsible for 20.3% of the total hospital costs assessed in this study. Patient characteristics associated with additional costs in multivariable analysis included, age >70 (+€2,922, p = 0.036), female gender (+€4,357, p = 0.005), COPD (+€5,415, p = 0.002), and a history of thromboembolic events (+€6,213, p = 0.028). Complications associated with a significant increase in costs in multivariable analysis included anastomotic leakage (+€4,123, p = 0.008), cardiac complications (+€5,711, p = 0.003), chyle leakage (+€6,188, p < 0.001) and postoperative bleeding (+€31,567, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Complications and severity of complications after esophageal surgery are associated with a substantial increase in costs. Although not all postoperative complications can be prevented, implementation of preventive measures to reduce complications could result in a considerable cost reduction and quality improvement.

The diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT, CT and MRI in the treatment evaluation of ablation therapy for colorectal liver metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Uncertainty exists regarding the optimal imaging modality for timely detection of disease progression (DP) after ablation therapy for colorectal liver metastases. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET(/CT), CT and MRI for detection of DP following ablation therapy. METHODS: A systematic search was performed on May 18, 2016. The analysis included studies that reported on the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET(/CT), CT and/or MRI for post-ablative evaluation of patients with liver metastases. Primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of the imaging modalities for detection of DP. Methodological quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Pooled sensitivities and specificities were estimated using bivariate random-effects models. RESULTS: Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis, including seven comparative studies. Nine reported data on diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET(/CT), seven on CT imaging. Only two studies reported the diagnostic accuracy of MRI, hence not included in the meta-analysis. Quality assessment raised concerns about the risk of bias regarding the use of the reference standard, blinding of the index tests and the follow-up time. Pooled sensitivity was respectively 84.6% (75.0-90.6) and 53.4% (29.0-76.4) for 18F-FDG PET(/CT) and CT (P = 0.005). Pooled specificity was respectively 92.4% (86.5-95.9) and 95.7% (87.5-98.6) (P = 0.392). CONCLUSION: 18F-FDG PET/(CT) yields a higher sensitivity for detecting DP after ablation therapy compared with CT and has a comparably high specificity. These findings indicate that the use of 18F-FDG PET(/CT) in this setting particularly allows for minimization of the false-negative rate compared with CT without compromising the low false-positive rate.