Outcome research on esophagectomy analyzed using nationwide databases in Japan: evidences generated from real-world data.

Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is a highly invasive gastrointestinal surgical procedure. The National Clinical Database (NCD) of Japan, initiated in 2011, has compiled real-world data on esophagectomy, one of nine major gastroenterological surgeries. This review examines outcomes after esophagectomy analyzed using the Japanese big databases. Certification systems by the Japanese Society of Gastroenterological Surgery (JSGS) and the Japan Esophageal Society (JES) have shown that institutional certification has a greater impact on short-term surgical outcomes than surgeon certification. Minimally invasive esophagectomy has emerged as a viable alternative to open esophagectomy, although careful patient selection is crucial, especially for elderly patients with advanced tumors. The NCD has significantly contributed to the assessment and enhancement of surgical quality and short-term outcomes, while studies based on Comprehensive Registry of Esophageal Cancer in Japan (CRECJ) have provided data on patient characteristics, treatments, and long-term outcomes. The JES has conducted various questionnaire-based retrospective clinical reviews in collaboration with authorized institutions certified by JES. The Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database provides administrative claims data including itemized prices for surgical, pharmaceutical, laboratory, and other inpatient services. Analyzing these nationwide databases can offer precise insights into surgical quality for esophageal cancer, potentially leading to improved treatment outcomes.

Changes in the recent three decades and survey on the current status of surgical treatment for esophageal cancer in China.

BACKGROUND: To review the changes and survey on status quo of the surgical treatment for esophageal cancer in China. The differences in diagnosis and treatment for esophageal cancer among hospitals in different regions across China were also investigated. METHODS: We sent questionnaires to 46 hospitals across China, investigating the volume of esophageal cancer surgeries, surgical procedures, and perioperative management under the guidance of esophageal surgery chiefs. RESULTS: A total of 46 questionnaires were sent out and collected. The survey results showed that in the past 5 years, the volume of surgeries for esophageal cancer remained stable by 23.9% of those hospitals, increased by 30.4%, and decreased by 45.7%. Of those patients treated by surgery, 19.1% were in the early stages, and 80.9% were in locally advanced stages. In terms of surgical procedures, 73.4% of the patients were treated by minimally invasive surgery and 85.7% of esophageal substitutes were a gastric conduit, 93.1% of the substitutes were pulled to the neck through the esophageal bed. For the lymph node dissection, 78.5% of the patients had a complete two-field lymph node dissection including the para-recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph nodes. Of the patients with neoadjuvant therapy, 53.5% received chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy (47.0%), and 43.5% had chemoradiation. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, in China, minimally invasive surgery-oriented multimodality treatment, including complete two-field lymph node dissection, has become the standard approach for esophageal cancer management. Over the past decade, this standardized approach has significantly improved prognosis compared to previous decades.

Dynamic volume-outcome association for esophagectomies: Do current volume thresholds still apply?

BACKGROUND: It is unknown if the current minimum case volume recommendation of 20 cases per year per hospital is applicable to contemporary practice. METHODS: Patients undergoing esophageal resection between 2005 and 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database. High, medium, and low-volume hospital strata were defined by quartiles. Adjusted odds ratios and adjusted 30-day mortality between low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals were calculated using logistic regression analyses and trended over time. RESULTS: Only 1.1% of hospitals had ≥20 annual cases. The unadjusted 30-day mortality for esophagectomy was 3.8% overall. Unadjusted and adjusted 30-day mortality trended down for all three strata between 2005 and 2015, with disproportionate decreases for low-volume and medium-volume versus high-volume hospitals. By 2015, adjusted 30-day mortality was similar in medium- and high-volume hospitals (odds ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 0.96-1.91). For hospitals with 20 or more annual cases the adjusted 30-day mortality was 2.7% overall. To achieve this same 30-day mortality the minimum volume threshold had lowered to 7 annual cases by 2015. CONCLUSION: Only 1.1% of hospitals meet current volume recommendations for esophagectomy. Differential improvements in postoperative mortality at low- and medium- versus high-volume hospitals have led to 7 cases in 2015 achieving the same adjusted 30-day mortality as 20 cases in the overall cohort. Lowering volume thresholds for esophagectomy in contemporary practice would potentially increase the proportion of hospitals able to meet volume standards and increase access to quality care without sacrificing quality.

Textbook outcome after esophagectomy: A retrospective study from a high-volume center.

BACKGROUND: Textbook outcome is a composite quality measurement in esophageal cancer surgery. This study aimed to estimate the rate of textbook outcome esophagectomies at a high-volume center and investigate associations between textbook outcome and overall and recurrence-free survival. METHODS: A retrospective single-center study was conducted at Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark, analyzing esophagectomies performed from November 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021. Patients with primary carcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction who underwent elective and curative esophagectomy were included. The rate of textbook outcome esophagectomies was calculated, and the impact of textbook outcome on overall and recurrence-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression. RESULTS: A total of 433 patients were included in the study. Textbook outcome was achieved in 195 patients (45%). Achieving textbook outcome was independently associated with improved overall survival (HR 0.67; P = .011) and with a median overall survival of 57 months and 32 months for patients with or without textbook outcome, respectively. A trend for improved recurrence-free survival was observed for patients with textbook outcome (HR 0.74; P = .064). CONCLUSION: The present study found a consensus-based textbook outcome rate of 45%. Textbook outcome was found to be directly associated with improved overall survival. These results emphasize the association between improved short-term outcomes and long-term survival.

When Is Intensive Care Unit Admission Needed After an Esophagectomy?

INTRODUCTION: Due to the high morbidity associated with esophagectomies, patients are often directly admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for postoperative monitoring. However, critical complications can arise after this initial ICU stay. We hypothesized that the timing of ICU stay was not optimal for the care of patients after esophagectomy and aimed to determine when patients are at risk for developing critical complications. METHODS: We searched the National Safety and Quality Improvement Program for patients who underwent an esophagectomy between 2016 and 2021. The outcome of interest was the interval between surgery and first critical complication. A critical complication was defined as one likely to require intensive care, including respiratory failure, septic shock, etc. Multivariate regression was performed to identify the risks of complications. RESULTS: This study included 6813 patients from more than 70 institutions. Within the first 30 d postesophagectomy, 21.59% of patients experienced at least one critical complication. Half of first critical complications occurred after postoperative day 5, and 85.05% of them occurred after postoperative day 2. Risk factors for critical complications included age greater than 60 y, preoperative comorbidities, and open surgical approach. Malignancies were associated with a significantly lower incidence of critical complications. CONCLUSIONS: Critical complications occurred beyond the immediate postesophagectomy period. Therefore, low-risk patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomies can be safely monitored outside the ICU, allowing for better patient care and resource utilization.

Western European Variation in the Organization of Esophageal Cancer Surgical Care.

Reasons for structural and outcome differences in esophageal cancer surgery in Western Europe remain unclear. This questionnaire study aimed to identify differences in the organization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. A cross-sectional international questionnaire study was conducted among upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons from Western Europe. One surgeon per country was selected based on scientific output and active membership in the European Society for Diseases of the Esophagus or (inter)national upper GI committee. The questionnaire consisted of 51 structured questions on the structural organization of esophageal cancer surgery, surgical training, and clinical audit processes. Between October 2021 and October 2022, 16 surgeons from 16 European countries participated in this study. In 5 countries (31%), a volume threshold was present ranging from 10 to 26 annual esophagectomies, in 7 (44%) care was centralized in designated centers, and in 4 (25%) no centralizing regulations were present. The number of centers performing esophageal cancer surgery per country differed from 4 to 400, representing 0.5-4.9 centers per million inhabitants. In 4 countries (25%), esophageal cancer surgery was part of general surgical training and 8 (50%) reported the availability of upper GI surgery fellowships. A national audit for upper GI surgery was present in 8 (50%) countries. If available, all countries use the audit to monitor the quality of care. Substantial differences exist in the organization and centralization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. The exchange of experience in the organizational aspects of care could further improve the results of esophageal cancer surgical care in Europe.

Adjuvant treatment patterns for pT3N0M0 esophageal cancer undergoing surgery.

To assess adjuvant treatment patterns on survival in patients with pT3N0M0 esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Stage pT3N0M0 esophageal cancer patients were assessed between 2000 and 2020 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results databases. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare overall survival (OS) among various treatment patterns. We identified 445 patients: 252 (56.6%) received surgery alone, 85 (19.1%) received surgery+chemoradiotherapy, 80 (18.0%) underwent surgery+chemotherapy, and 28 (6.3%) received surgery+ radiotherapy. For squamous cell carcinoma, surgery+chemoradiotherapy ([hazard ratio] HR = 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65-1.66; P = 0.873), surgery+chemotherapy (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.42-1.22; P = 0.221), and surgery+radiotherapy (HR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.74-2.39; P = 0.341) had similar OS compared to surgery alone. For adenocarcinoma, surgery+chemoradiotherapy (HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.36-0.74; P < 0.001) and surgery+chemotherapy (HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.42-0.87; P = 0.006) had better OS compared to surgery alone. However, surgery+radiotherapy had a comparable OS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.44-1.49; P = 0.495).Adjuvant treatments did not improve survival in stage pT3N0M0 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients. In contrast, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy were recommended for esophageal adenocarcinoma patients.

Analysis of the short-term outcomes after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic using data from a nationwide Japanese database.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had adversely impacted cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. We investigated the change in medical resource, such as the intensive care unit use, and short-term outcomes after esophagectomy during the pandemic. METHODS: Data of patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer registered in the National Clinical Database (NCD) in Japan from January 2018 to December 2021 were analyzed. The time series change in the number of surgical cases; usage of intensive care unit; incidence of morbidity and mortality; standardized mortality and morbidity ratio (SMR) for 30-days mortality; surgical mortality; and morbidities for pneumonia, sepsis, unplanned intubation, and anastomotic leakage were evaluated. RESULTS: The annual number of patients undergoing esophagectomy remained similar from 2018 to 2021. The negative impact of the pandemic on medical resources was strongly identified in the patients from an epidemic area where there is a higher cumulative number of infections per population as compared to all prefectures. The proportions of patients admitted to the intensive care unit were 91.4%, 93.0%, 91.6%, and 90.5% in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively. Moreover, 93.3%, 94.0%, 92.0%, and 90.9% patients who underwent surgery in an epidemic area were admitted to the intensive care unit in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively. However, the morbidity and mortality rates during the pandemic did not worsen according to the SMR values. CONCLUSIONS: Esophagectomy was performed during the pandemic despite limited medical resources by a systematic endeavor of the entire surgical department in Japan, without increasing the incidence rate of worse outcome.

Evaluating the Cost for Robotic vs "Non-Robotic" Transhiatal Esophagectomy.

INTRODUCTION: This study was undertaken to analyze and compare the cost of robotic transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) to "non-robotic" THE (ie, "open" and laparoscopic). METHODS: With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 82 patients who underwent THE. We analyzed clinical outcomes and perioperative charges and costs associated with THE. To compare profitability, the robotic approach was analyzed against "non-robotic" approaches of THE using F-test, Mann-Whitney U test/Student's t-test, and Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was reported as P ≤0.05. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: 67 patients underwent the robotic approach, and 15 patients underwent "non-robotic" approach; 4 were "open" and 11 were laparoscopic. 79 patients had adenocarcinoma. Operative duration for robotic THE was 327 (331 ± 82.8) vs 213 (225 ± 62.0) minutes (P = 0.0001) and estimated blood loss was 150 (184 ± 136.1) vs 300 (476 ± 708.7) mL (P = 0.0001). Length of stay was 7 (11 ± 11.8) vs 8 (12 ± 10.6) days (P = 0.76). 16 patients had post-operative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score of three or more. Hospital charges for robotic THE were $197,405 ($259,936 ± 203,630.8) vs "non-robotic" THE $159,588 ($201,565 ± $185,763.5) (P = 0.31). Cost of care for robotic THE was $34,822 ($48,844 ± $45,832.8) vs "non-robotic" THE was $23,939 ($39,386 ± $44,827.2) (P = 0.47). Payment received for robotic THE was $14,365 ($30,003 ± $40,874.7) vs "non-robotic" THE was $28,080 ($41,087 ± $44,509.1) (P = 0.41). 15% of robotic operations were profitable vs 13% of "non-robotic" operations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were predominantly older overweight men who had adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The robotic approach had increased operative time and minimal blood loss. More than a fourth of operations included concomitant procedures. Patients were discharged approximately one week after THE. Overall, the robotic approach has no apparent significant differences in charges, cost, or profitability.

Influence of facility volume on long-term survival of patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the influence of facility volume on long-term survival in patients with esophageal cancer treated with esophagectomy. METHODS: Patients treated with esophagectomy for cT1 3N0 3M0 adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the mid-distal esophagus in the National Cancer Database between 2006 and 2013 were stratified by annual facility esophagectomy volume dichotomized as more/less than both 6 and 20. Patient characteristics associated with facility volume were evaluated using logistic regression, and the influence of facility volume on survival was evaluated with Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional hazards methods, and propensity matched analysis. RESULTS: Of 11,739 patients who had esophagectomy at 1018 facilities where annual volume ranged from 1 to 47.6 cases, 4262 (36.3%) were treated at 44 facilities with annual esophagectomy volume > 6 and 1515 (12.9%) were treated at 7 facilities with annual volume > 20. Higher volume was associated with significantly better 5-year survival for both annual volume > 6 (47.6% vs 40.2%; P < .001) and annual volume > 20 (47.2% vs 42.3%; P < .001), which persisted in propensity matched analyses as well as Cox multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.89; P < .001 for facility volume > 6 and hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.95; P = .01 for facility volume > 20). In Cox multivariable analysis that considered facility volume as a continuous variable, higher volume continued to be associated with better survival (hazard ratio, 0.93 per 5 cases; 95% CI, 0.91-0.96; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal cancer patients treated with esophagectomy at higher volume facilities have significantly better long-term survival than patients treated at lower volume facilities.

Omitting surgery in esophageal cancer patients with complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery is a standard treatment modality for locally-advanced esophageal cancer. However, patients who achieve clinical complete response (cCR) after nCRT have been reported to have better prognosis. Further, the role of surgery in these patients is controversial. Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether surgery is still useful in patients with cCR after nCRT. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases for studies on surgical efficacy in complete responders after concurrent chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. The publication date was set to January 1, 2010-January 31, 2020. The hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio were used to compare the 2-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), incidence of locoregional failure, distant metastasis, and treatment mortality between the nCRT and nCRT plus surgery groups. RESULTS: Six articles involving 609 patients were included. There was a significant benefit of nCRT for OS (HR = 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.99, p = 0.04), but not for DFS (HR = 1.55, 95% CI 0.35-6.86, p = 0.56). The nCRT group tended to have lower mortality than the nCRT plus surgery group (risk ratio = 0.15, 95% CI 0.02-1.18, p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Omitting surgery provides better OS in complete responders after nCRT. Adding surgery could increase the morbidity and mortality and decrease the quality of life. Thus, nCRT alone could be a feasible approach for patients with cCR.

The value of complete blood count for the prognosis analysis of preoperative esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the predictive value of preoperative complete blood count for the survival of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 1587 patients with pathologically confirmed esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy in the Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Xinjiang Medical University from January 2010 to December 2019 were collected by retrospective study. A total of 359 patients were as the validation cohort from January 2015 to December 2016, and the remaining 1228 patients were as the training cohort. The relevant clinical data were collected by the medical record system, and the patients were followed up by the hospital medical record follow-up system. The follow-up outcome was patient death. The survival time of all patients was obtained. The Cox proportional hazards regression model and nomogram were established to predict the survival prognosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma by the index, their cut-off values obtained the training cohort by the ROC curve. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve was established to express the overall survival rate. The 3-year and 5-year calibration curves and C-index were used to determine the accuracy and discrimination of the prognostic model. The decision curve analysis was used to predict the potential of clinical application. Finally, the validation cohort was used to verify the results of the training cohort. RESULTS: The cut-off values of NLR, NMR, LMR, RDW and PDW in complete blood count of the training cohort were 3.29, 12.77, 2.95, 15.05 and 13.65%, respectively. All indicators were divided into high and low groups according to cut-off values. Univariate Cox regression analysis model showed that age (≥ 60), NLR (≥3.29), LMR (< 2.95), RDW (≥15.05%) and PDW (≥13.65%) were risk factors for the prognosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; multivariate Cox regression analysis model showed that age (≥ 60), NLR (≥3.29) and LMR (< 2.95) were independent risk factors for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Kaplan-Meier curve indicated that age <  60, NLR < 3.52 and LMR ≥ 2.95 groups had higher overall survival (p <  0.05). The 3-year calibration curve indicated that its predictive probability overestimate the actual probability. 5-year calibration curve indicated that its predictive probability was consistent with the actual probability. 5 c-index was 0.730 and 0.737, respectively, indicating that the prognostic model had high accuracy and discrimination. The decision curve analysis indicated good potential for clinical application. The validation cohort also proved the validity of the prognostic model. CONCLUSION: NLR and LMR results in complete blood count results can be used to predict the survival prognosis of patients with preoperative esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Individual patient data meta-analysis of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus upfront surgery for carcinoma of the oesophagus or the gastro-oesophageal junction.

INTRODUCTION: Which neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced thoracic oesophagus (TE) or gastro-oesophageal junction carcinoma is best remains an open question. Randomised controlled trials variously accrued patients with adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, making strong conclusions hard to obtain. The primary objective of this individual participant data meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible trials should have closed to accrual before 2016 and compared neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery (CS) to surgery alone. All relevant published and unpublished trials were identified via searches of electronic databases, conference proceedings and clinical trial registers. The main end-point was OS. Investigators were contacted to obtain the individual patient data, which was recorded, harmonised and checked. A random-effects Cox model, stratified by trial, was used for meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were preplanned. RESULTS: 16 trials were identified as eligible. Individual patient data were obtained from 12 trial and 2478 patients. CS was associated with an improved OS versus surgery, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.83 [0.72-0.96], p < 0.0001, translating to an absolute benefit of 5.7% at 5-years from 16.8% to 22.5%. Treatment effects did not vary substantially between adenocarcinoma (HR = 0.73 [0.62-0.87]) and squamous cell carcinoma (HR = 0.91 [0.76-1.08], interaction p = 0.26). A somewhat more pronounced effect was observed in gastro-oesophageal junction (HR = 0.68 [0.50-0.93]) versus TE (HR = 0.87 [0.75-1.00], interaction p = 0.07). CS was also associated with a greater disease-free survival (HR = 0.74 [0.64-0.85], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy conferred a better OS than surgery alone and should be considered in all anatomical location and histological subtypes.

Perioperative change in neutrophil count predicts worse survival in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Aims: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between perioperative change in neutrophil count and survival of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Method: Neutrophil change (Nc) (where Nc = post-surgery neutrophil count - pre-surgery neutrophil count) was counted according to data within 1 week before surgery and 2 weeks after surgery. Patients were divided into two groups, Nc ≥2.60 and Nc <2.60, according to the median of Nc. Results: Multivariate analysis revealed that Nc ≥2.60 was an independent prognostic marker for overall survival. Subgroup analysis suggested that the overall survival of male patients, patients aged ≤60 years, patients without vessel invasion and patients without nerve infiltration was dramatically worse for those with Nc <2.60. Conclusion: Perioperative change in neutrophil count predicts worse survival in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after surgery.

Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-thoracoscopic technique. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence comparing conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) via laparoscopy and thoracoscopy with robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare surgical outcomes after CMIE and RAMIE with an intrathoracic anastomosis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify original articles analyzing outcomes after CMIE and RAMIE. Main surgical outcomes included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, anastomotic leak rates, pneumonia, overall morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day mortality. Oncologic outcomes included lymph node yield and R0 resections rates. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 6,249 patients were included for analysis; 5,275 (84%) underwent CMIE and 974 (16%) RAMIE. Robotic esophagectomy had longer operative time and less intraoperative blood loss. Anastomotic leakage rates were similar with both approaches. Patients undergoing RAMIE had significantly lower rates of postoperative pneumonia (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.61, P < .0001) and overall morbidity (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.79, P < .0001). Median LOS was similar in both procedures (RAMIE: 12.1 versus CMIE: 11.9 days, P = .64). Similar mortality rates were found after RAMIE and CMIE (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34-1.38, P = .29). Lymph node yield was similar in both procedures, but RAMIE was associated with higher rates of R0 resection (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.53-5.26, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing robotic esophagectomy have less intraoperative blood loss, lower rates of postoperative pneumonia, reduced overall morbidity, and higher rates of R0 resections, as compared with those undergoing a laparoscopic-thoracoscopic esophageal resection.

Overall Volume Trends in Esophageal Cancer Surgery Results From the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit.

OBJECTIVE: In the pursuit of quality improvement, this study aimed to investigate volume-outcome trends in oncologic esophagectomy in the Netherlands. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Concentration of Dutch esophageal cancer care was dictated by introducing an institutional minimum of 20 resections/yr. METHODS: This nationwide cohort study included all esophagectomy patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit in 2016-2019 from hospitals currently still performing esophagectomies. Annual esophagectomy hospital volume was assigned to each patient and categorized into quartiles. Multivariable logistic regression investigated short-term surgical outcomes. Restricted cubic splines investigated if volume-outcome relationships eventually plateaued. RESULTS: In 16 hospitals, 3135 esophagectomies were performed. First volume quartile hospitals performed 24-39 resections/yr; second, third, and fourth quartile hospitals performed 40-53, 54-69, and 70-101, respectively. Compared to quartile 1, in quartiles 2 to 4, overall/severe/technical complication, anastomotic leakage, and prolonged hospital/intensive care unit stay rates were significantly lower and textbook outcome and lymph node yield were higher. When raising the cut-off from the first to second quartile, higher-volume centers had less technical complications [Adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-0.96], less anastomotic leakage (aOR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66-0.97), more textbook outcome (aOR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.07-1.46), shorter intensive care unit stay (aOR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69-0.93), and higher lymph node yield (aOR: 3.56, 95% CI: 2.68-4.77). For most outcomes the volume-outcome trend plateaued at 50-60 annual resections, but lymph node yield and anastomotic leakage continued to improve. CONCLUSION: Although this study does not reflect on individual hospital quality, there appears to be a volume trend towards better outcomes in high-volume centers. Projects have been initiated to improve national quality of care by reducing hospital variation (irrespective of volume) in outcomes in The Netherlands.

Differences in treatment and survival between elderly patients with thoracic esophageal cancer in metropolitan areas and other areas.

To address the major issue of regional disparity in the treatment for elderly cancer patients in an aging society, we compared the treatment strategies used for elderly patients with thoracic esophageal cancer and their survival outcomes in metropolitan areas and other regions. Using the national database of hospital-based cancer registries in 2008-2011, patients aged 75 years or older who had been diagnosed with thoracic esophageal cancer were enrolled. We divided the patients into two groups: those treated in metropolitan areas (Tokyo, Kanagawa, Osaka, Aichi, Saitama, and Chiba prefectures) with populations of 6 million or more and those treated in other areas (the other 41 prefectures). Compared were patient backgrounds, treatment strategies, and survival curves at each cancer stage. In total, 1236 (24%) patients from metropolitan areas and 3830 (76%) patients from nonmetropolitan areas were enrolled. Patients in metropolitan areas were treated at more advanced stages. There was also a difference in treatment strategy. The 3-year survival rate among cStage I patients was better in metropolitan areas (71.6% vs. 63.7%), and this finding mainly reflected the survival difference between patients treated with radiotherapy alone. For cStage II-IV patients, there were no differences. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis including interaction terms between treatment areas, cStage, and the first-line treatments revealed that treatments in the metropolitan areas were significantly associated with better survival among patients treated with radiotherapy alone for cStage I cancer. Treatment strategies for elderly patients with thoracic esophageal cancer and its survival outcomes differed between metropolitan areas and other regions.

Metastasis pattern and prognosis in men with esophageal cancer patients: A SEER-based study.

ABSTRACT: Esophageal cancer (EC) is relatively common; at the time of diagnosis, 50% of cases present with distant metastases, and most patients are men. This study aimed to examine and compare the clinicopathological characteristics and metastatic patterns of male EC (MEC) and female EC (FEC). In addition, risk factors associated with MEC prognosis were evaluated.The present study population was extracted from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database. MEC characteristics and factors associated with prognosis were evaluated using descriptive analysis, the Kaplan-Meier method, and the Cox regression model.A total of 12,558 MEC cases were included; among them, 3454 cases had distant organ metastases. Overall, 27.5% of the entire cohort were patients with distant organ metastases. Compared with patients with non-metastatic MEC, patients with metastatic MEC were more likely to be aged ≤60 years, of Black and White race, have a primary lesion in the overlapping esophagus segments, and have a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of poorly differentiated and undifferentiated grade that was treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy rather than surgery; moreover, they were also more likely to be married and insured. In addition, patients with MEC were more likely to be aged ≤60 years, White race, and diagnosed with a primary lesion in the lower third of the esophagus and overlapping esophagus segments, and treated without chemotherapy, compared with those with FEC. Patients in the former group were also more likely than those in the latter group to be unmarried and have bone metastasis only and lung metastasis only. Liver, lung, and bone metastases separately, and simultaneous liver and lung metastases were associated with poor survival in MEC patients.Metastatic MEC is associated with clinicopathological characteristics and metastatic patterns different from those associated with non-metastatic MEC and metastatic FEC. Metastatic MEC and FEC patients may have similar prognoses. Distant organ metastasis may be associated with poor prognosis in patients with MEC and FEC.

Racial disparities in provider recommendation for esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities currently exist for the utilization rate of esophagectomy for Black patients with operable esophageal carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 37 271 cases with the American Joint Committee on Cancer clinical stage I, II, and III esophageal carcinoma that were reported to the National Cancer Database were analyzed between 2004 and 2016. A multivariable-adjusted logistic regression model was used to evaluate differences in the odds ratio of esophagectomy not being recommended based on race. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to evaluate differences in overall survival. Propensity score methodology with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline differences in patient demographics. RESULTS: After IPTW adjustment, we identified 30 552 White patients and 3529 Black patients with clinical stage I-III esophageal carcinoma. Black patients had three times greater odds of not being recommended for esophagectomy (odds ratio: 3.03, 95% confidence interval: 2.67-3.43, p < 0.0001) compared to White patients. Black patients demonstrated significantly worse 3- and 5-year overall survival rates compared to White patients (log-rank p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Black patients with clinical stage I-III esophageal cancer were significantly less likely to be recommended for esophagectomy even after adjusting for baseline demographic covariates compared to White patients.

Influence of the introduction of caseload requirements on indication for visceral cancer surgery in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: In 2013 Swiss health authorities implemented annual hospital caseload requirements (CR) for five areas of visceral surgery. We assess the impact of the implementation of CR on indication for surgery in esophageal, pancreatic and rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of national registry data of all inpatient admissions between January 1st, 2005 and December 31st, 2015. Primary end-point was the age-adjusted resection rate for esophageal, pancreatic and rectal cancer among patients with at least one cancer-specific hospitalization per year. We calculated age-adjusted rate ratios for period effects before and after implementation of CR and odds ratios (OR) based on a generalized estimation equation. A relative increase of 5% in age-adjusted relative risk was set a priori as relevant from a health policy perspective. RESULTS: Age-adjusted resection rates before and after the implementation of CR were 0.12 and 0.13 (Relative Risk [RR] 1.08; 95%-Confidence Interval [CI] 0.85-1.36) in esophageal cancer, 0.22 and 0.26 (RR 1.17; 95%-CI 0.85-1.58) in pancreatic cancer and 0.38 and 0.43 (RR 1.14; 95%-CI 0.99-1.30) in rectal cancer. In adjusted models OR for resection after the implementation of CR were 1.40 (95%-CI 1.24-1.58) in esophageal cancer, 1.05 (95%-CI 0.96-1.15) in pancreatic cancer and 0.92 (95%-CI 0.87-0.97) in rectal cancer. CONCLUSION: Implementation of CR was associated with an increase of resection rates above the a priori set margins in all resections groups. In adjusted models, odds for resection were significantly higher for esophageal cancer, while they remained unchanged for pancreatic and decreased for rectal cancer.