A New Functional Threshold for Minimally Invasive Lobectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of a lower predicted postoperative (ppo) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) or diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) (ppoFEV1/ppoDLCO) threshold to predict cardiopulmonary complications after minimally invasive surgery (MIS) lobectomy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although MIS is associated with better postoperative outcomes than open surgery, MIS uses risk-assessment algorithms developed for open surgery. Moreover, several different definitions of cardiopulmonary complications are used for assessment. METHODS: All patients who underwent MIS lobectomy for clinical stage I-II lung cancer from 2018 to 2022 at our institution were considered. The performance of a ppoFEV1/ppoDLCO threshold of <45% was compared against that of the current guideline threshold of <60%. Three different definitions of cardiopulmonary complications were compared: Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS), and Berry et al. RESULTS: In 946 patients, the ppoFEV1/ppoDLCO threshold of <45% was associated with a higher proportion correctly classified (79% [95% CI, 76%-81%] vs. 65% [95% CI, 62%-68%]; P<0.001). The complication with the biggest difference in incidence between ppoFEV1/ppoDLCO of 45%-60% and >60% was prolonged air leak (33 [13%] vs. 34 [6%]; P<0.001). The predicted probability curves for cardiopulmonary complications were higher for the STS definition than for the ESTS or Berry definitions across ppoFEV1 and ppoDLCO values. CONCLUSIONS: The ppoFEV1/ppoDLCO threshold of <45% more accurately classified patients for cardiopulmonary complications after MIS lobectomy, emphasizing the need for updated risk-assessment guidelines for MIS lobectomy to optimize additional cardiopulmonary function evaluation.

A real-world assessment of stage I lung cancer through electronic nose technology.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic nose (E-nose) technology has demonstrated excellent sensitivity and specificity in the setting of lung cancer screening. However, the performance of E-nose specifically for early-stage tumors remains unclear. Therefore, the aim of our study was to assess the diagnostic performance of E-nose technology in clinical stage I lung cancer. METHODS: This Phase-IIc trial (NCT04734145) included patients diagnosed with a single ≥50% solid stage I nodule. Exhalates were prospectively collected from January 2020 to August 2023. Blinded bioengineers analyzed the exhalates, using E-nose technology to determine the probability of malignancy. Patients were stratified into 3 risk groups (low-risk, <0.2; moderate-risk, ≥0.2 to 0.7; high-risk, ≥0.7). The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of E-nose versus histopathology (accuracy and F1 score). The secondary outcome was the clinical performance of the E-nose versus clinicoradiological prediction models. RESULTS: Based on the predefined cut-off (<0.20), E-nose agreed with histopathological results in 86% of cases, achieving an F1 score of 92.5%, based on 86 true positives, 2 false negatives, and 12 false positives (n=100). Compared with Swensen and Brock models, E-nose would refer fewer patients with malignant nodules to observation (Low-risk: 2 vs. 9 and 11; respectively; p=0.028 and p=0.011) and more patients with malignant nodules to treatment without biopsy (High-risk: 27 vs. 19 and 6; respectively; p=0.057 and p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of clinical stage I lung cancer, E-nose has good agreement with histopathology. Accordingly, E-nose technology can be used in addition to imaging or as part of a "multiomics" platform.

Treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with a history of bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: The relationship among obesity, bariatric surgery, and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is complex, given that some bariatric procedures are thought to be associated with increased incidence of reflux and Barrett's esophagus. Previous bariatric surgery may complicate the use of the stomach as a conduit for esophagectomy. In this study, we presented our experience with patients who developed EAC after bariatric surgery and described the challenges encountered and the techniques used. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of our institutional database to identify all patients at our institution who were treated for EAC after previously undergoing bariatric surgery. RESULTS: In total, 19 patients underwent resection with curative intent for EAC after bariatric surgery, including 10 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy. The median age at diagnosis of EAC was 63 years; patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy were younger (median age, 56 years). The median time from bariatric surgery to EAC was 7 years. Most patients had a body mass index (BMI) score of >30 kg/m2 at the time of diagnosis of EAC; approximately 40% had class III obesity (BMI score > 40 kg/m2). Six patients (32%) had known Barrett's esophagus before undergoing a reflux-increasing bariatric procedure. Sleeve gastrectomy patients underwent esophagectomy with gastric conduit, colonic interposition, or esophagojejunostomy. Only 1 patient had an anastomotic leak (after esophagojejunostomy). CONCLUSION: Endoscopy should be required both before (for treatment selection) and after all bariatric surgical procedures. Resection of EAC after bariatric surgery requires a highly individualized approach but is safe and feasible.

Participation in Virtual Prehabilitation and Outcomes Following Thoracic Cancer Surgery.

This cohort study evaluates the association of a virtual synchronized prehabilitation program with perioperative outcomes among patients undergoing thoracic cancer surgery.

Immunotherapy for Resectable Locally Advanced Esophageal Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care for locally advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers includes neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy with surgical resection; however, disease-free survival in these patients remains poor. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for adjuvant treatment of locally advanced esophageal and GEJ cancers, but their benefit in the perioperative and neoadjuvant settings remains under investigation. METHODS: We used the PubMed online database to conduct a literature search to identify studies that investigated immunotherapy for locally advanced esophageal and GEJ carcinoma. A review of ClinicalTrials.gov yielded a list of ongoing trials. RESULTS: Adjuvant nivolumab for residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery is the only approved immunotherapy regimen for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Early-phase trials investigating the addition of neoadjuvant or perioperative ICIs to standard-of-care multimodality approaches have observed pathologic complete response rates as high as 60%. Response rates are highest for ICIs plus chemoradiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and dual checkpoint inhibition in mismatch repair-deficient adenocarcinomas. Safety profiles are acceptable, with a pooled adverse event rate of 27%. Surgical morbidity and mortality with immunotherapy are similar to historical controls with no immunotherapy, and R0 resection rates are high. When reported, disease-free survival among patients treated with perioperative immunotherapy is promising. CONCLUSIONS: Outside of clinical trials, immunotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma is limited to the adjuvant setting. Phase III trials investigating neoadjuvant and perioperative immunotherapy are now underway and will provide much-needed data on survival that may ultimately lead to practice-changing recommendations.

Clinical and molecular characteristics of early-onset vs average-onset esophagogastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: The rate of esophagogastric cancer is rising among individuals under 50 years of age. It remains unknown whether early-onset esophagogastric cancer represents a unique entity. This study investigated the clinical and molecular characteristics of early-onset and average-onset esophagogastric cancer . METHODS: We reviewed the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center gastric, esophageal, and gastroesophageal junction cancer database. Associations between baseline characteristics and tumor and germline molecular alterations were compared between those with early-onset and average-onset esophagogastric cancer using Fisher exact tests and the Benjamini-Hochberg method for multiple-hypothesis correction. RESULTS: We included 1123 patients with early-onset esophagogastric cancer (n = 219; median age = 43 years [range = 18-49 years]) and average-onset esophagogastric cancer (n = 904; median age = 67 years [range = 50-94 years]) treated between 2005 and 2018. The early-onset group had more women (39% vs 28%, P = .002). Patients with early-onset esophagogastric cancer were more likely to have a gastric primary site (64% vs 44%, P < .0001). The signet ring cell and/or diffuse type was 3 times more common in the early-onset esophagogastric cancer group (31% vs 9%, P < .0001). Early-onsite tumors were more frequently genomically stable (31% vs 18%, P = .0002) and unlikely to be microsatellite instability high (2% vs 7%, P = .003). After restricting to adenocarcinoma and signet ring cell and/or diffuse type carcinomas, we observed no difference in stage (P = .40) or overall survival from stage IV diagnosis (median = 22.7 vs 22.1 months, P = .78). CONCLUSIONS: Our study supported a preponderance of gastric primary disease sites, signet ring histology, and genomically stable molecular subtypes in early-onset esophagogastric cancer. Our findings highlight the need for further research to define the underlying pathogenesis and strategies for early detection and prevention.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction.

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction.

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

Lung resection after initial nonoperative treatment for non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to assess the outcomes of lung resection in patients with non-small cell lung cancer previously treated with nonoperative treatment and to identify prognostic factors associated with survival. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery (2010-2022) after initial nonoperative treatment at a single institution were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Exclusion criteria included metachronous cancer, planned neoadjuvant therapy, and surgery for diagnostic or palliative indications. Cox models were constructed for overall survival and event-free survival. Survival of patients with stage IV disease was compared with survival of a nonstudy cohort who did not undergo surgery. RESULTS: In total, 120 patients met the inclusion criteria. Initial clinical stage was early stage in 16%, locoregionally advanced in 25%, and metastatic in 59% of patients. The indication for surgery was recurrence in 18%, local persistent disease in 23%, oligoprogression in 22%, and local control of oligometastatic disease in 38% of patients. Grade 3 or greater complications occurred in 5% of patients; 90-day mortality was 3%. Three-year event-free survival and overall survival were 39% and 73%, respectively. Male sex and lymphovascular invasion were associated with shorter event-free survival and overall survival; younger age and prior radiation therapy were associated with shorter overall survival. Patients with stage IV disease who received salvage lung resection had better overall survival than similar patients who received subsequent systemic therapy and no surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In this selected, heterogeneous population, lung resection after initial nonoperative treatment for non-small cell lung cancer was safe. Surgery as local consolidative therapy was associated with encouraging outcomes and should be considered for these patients.

Biologic versus synthetic prosthesis for chest wall reconstruction: a matched analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes between biologic and synthetic reconstructions after chest wall resection in a matched cohort. METHODS: All patients who underwent reconstruction after full-thickness chest wall resection from 2000 to 2022 were reviewed and stratified by prosthesis type (biologic or synthetic). Biologic prostheses were of biologic origin or were fully absorbable and incorporable. Integer matching was performed to reduce confounding. The study end point was surgical site complications requiring reoperation. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify associated risk factors. RESULTS: In total, 438 patients underwent prosthetic chest wall reconstruction (unmatched: biologic, n = 49; synthetic, n = 389; matched: biologic, n = 46; synthetic, n = 46). After matching, the median (interquartile range) defect size was 83 cm2 (50-142) for the biologic group and 90 cm2 (48-146) for the synthetic group (P = 0.97). Myocutaneous flaps were used in 33% of biologic reconstructions (n = 15) and 33% of synthetic reconstructions (n = 15) in the matched cohort (P = 0.99). The incidence of surgical site complications requiring reoperation was not significantly different between biologic and synthetic reconstructions in the unmatched (3 [6%] vs 29 [7%]; P = 0.99) and matched (2 [4%] vs 4 [9%]; P = 0.68) cohorts. On the multivariable analysis, operative time [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-1.01; P = 0.006] and operative blood loss (aOR = 1.00, 95% CI, 1.00-1.00]; P = 0.012) were associated with higher rates of surgical site complications requiring reoperation; microvascular free flaps (aOR = 0.03, 95% CI, 0.00-0.42; P = 0.024) were associated with lower rates. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of surgical site complications requiring reoperation was not significantly different between biologic and synthetic prostheses in chest wall reconstructions.

Tumor differentiation impacts response to neoadjuvant therapy and survival in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: The current staging system for esophageal adenocarcinoma only considers tumor grade in early tumors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of tumor differentiation on response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and survival in patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This was a multi-institution retrospective review of all patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy from January 2010 to December 2017. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and survival was compared between patients with well- or moderately differentiated (G1/2) tumors versus poorly differentiated (G3) tumors. RESULTS: There were 550 patients, 485 men (88.2%) and 65 women. The median age was 61 years, and the tumor was G1/2 in 288 (52.4%) and G3 in 262 patients. Overall clinical stage before neoadjuvant therapy was similar between groups. Pathologic complete response (pCR) was found in 87 patients (15.8%). The frequency of pCR was similar between groups, but residual disease in the esophagus and lymph nodes was significantly more likely with G3 tumors. Median follow-up was 63 months and absolute survival, overall survival, and disease-free survival were all significantly worse in patients with G3 tumors. Further, even with pCR, patients with G3 tumors had significantly worse survival. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that response to neoadjuvant therapy was not affected by tumor differentiation. However, poor differentiation was associated with worse survival compared with patients with G1/2 tumors, even among those with pCR. These results suggest that poor differentiation should be considered as an added risk factor for clinical staging in patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Controversies in the surgical management of esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has risen dramatically over the last decade. Over this same period, our understanding and treatments have been revolutionized. Just over a decade ago, the majority of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer went directly to surgery and our overall survival was bleak. Our current strategy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is a multi-disciplinary approach. This approach consists of chemotherapy plus or minus radiation followed by surgical resection followed by adjuvant immunotherapy with the presence of any residual disease. Therefore, now more than ever, the goals of surgery are to minimize morbidity, provide aggressive local control and allow patients to receive to quickly recover so they can receive adjuvant systemic therapy. Surgery continues to play a crucial role in the multi-disciplinary approach to EAC. This review will highlight the on-going areas of controversy in surgical treatment. These controversies are around surgical selection, perioperative decision making and the role of surgery. Specifically, there are controversies in the type of surgical approach offered. This review will discuss the benefits of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy. The indications for gastrectomy versus esophagectomy in patients with gastroesophageal junction EAC. Further, at the time of operation, there is still debate and on-going trials addressing the addition of a pyloric intervention. Lastly, as we push the limits of systemic therapy, there are those who may not even need a surgical resection. This review will cover the most recent data on selective esophageal resection and the concerns regarding this approach.

Superior sulcus non-small cell lung cancers (Pancoast tumors): Current outcomes after multidisciplinary management.

OBJECTIVE: Despite neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, Pancoast tumors still present surgical and oncologic challenges. To optimize outcomes, we used a multidisciplinary care paradigm with medical and radiation oncology, and involvement of spine neurosurgery for most T3 and all T4 tumors. Spine neurosurgery permitted resection of transverse process for T3 and vertebral body resection for T4 tumors. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of single institution, prospective database of patients undergoing resection for cT3 4M0 Pancoast tumors. Patients were grouped as cT3 with combined resection with spine neurosurgery (T3 Neuro), cT3 without spine neurosurgery (T3 NoNeuro), and cT4. Overall survival, progression-free survival were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and compared between groups using log-rank test. Cumulative incidence of local-regional and distant recurrence were compared using Gray test. P value <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2021, 155 patients underwent surgery: median age was 58 years, and 81 were (52%) men. Most patients received neoadjuvant platinum-based neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n = 127 [82%]). Operations were 48 cT3 Neuro, 41 cT3 NoNeuro, 66 cT4. R0 resection was achieved in 49 (94%) cT3 NoNeuro, 35 (85%) cT3 Neuro, and 57 (86%) cT4 patients (P = .4). Complete or major pathologic response occurred in 71 (55%) patients. Lower local-regional cumulative incidence was seen in cT3 Neuro versus cT3 NoNeuro (P = .05) and after major pathologic response. Overall survival and progression-free survival were associated with complete response, pathologic stage, and nodal status but not cT category. CONCLUSIONS: This treatment paradigm was associated with a high frequency of R0 resection, complete response, and major pathologic response. cT3 and cT4 tumors had similar outcomes. Novel therapies are needed to improve complete response.

Prognostic value of circumferential radial margin involvement in esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Residual tumor at the proximal or distal margin after esophagectomy is associated with worse survival outcomes; however, the significance of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) remains controversial. In this study, we sought to evaluate the prognostic significance of the CRM in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients who underwent esophagectomy for pathologic T3 esophageal cancer from 2000 to 2019. Patients were divided into three groups: CRM- (residual tumor >1 mm from the CRM), CRM-close (residual tumor >0 to 1 mm from the CRM), and CRM+ (residual tumor at the surgical CRM). CRM was also categorized and analyzed per the Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) and College of American Pathologists (CAP) classifications. RESULTS: Of the 519 patients included, 351 (68%) had CRM-, 132 (25%) had CRM-close, and 36 (7%) had CRM+. CRM+ was associated with shorter disease-free survival [DFS; CRM+ vs. CRM-: hazard ratio (HR), 1.53 [95% CI, 1.03-2.28]; P =0.034] and overall survival (OS; CRM+ vs. CRM-: HR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.32-2.95]; P <0.001). Survival was not significantly different between CRM-close and CRM-. After adjustment for potential confounders, CAP+ was associated with poor oncologic outcomes (CAP+ vs. CAP-: DFS: HR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.00-2.17]; P =0.050; OS: HR, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.30-2.86]; P =0.001); RCP+ was not (RCP+ vs. RCP-: DFS: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.97-1.52]; P =0.10; OS: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.96-1.54]; P =0.11). CONCLUSION: CRM status has critical prognostic significance for patients undergoing esophagectomy: CRM+ was associated with worse outcomes, and outcomes between CRM-close and CRM- were similar.

Implementing a virtual mind-body prehabilitation program for patients undergoing thoracic surgery: A quality improvement project.

Background: Prehabilitation before thoracic surgery has been found to improve outcomes in patients with cancer; however, COVID-19 presented challenges to access on-site programs. We describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of a synchronous, virtual mind-body prehabilitation program developed in response to COVID-19. Methods: Eligible participants were patients seen at a thoracic oncology surgical department of an academic cancer center, aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of thoracic cancer and referred at least 1 week before surgery. The program offered 2 45-minute preoperative mind-body fitness classes each week delivered via Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, Inc). We collected data for referrals, enrollment, participation, and evaluated patient-reported satisfaction and experience. We conducted brief semistructured interviews about participants' experience. Results: Among 278 patients referred, 260 were approached, and of those 197 (76%) patients agreed to participate. Among participants, 140 (71%) attended at least 1 class, with an average of 11 attendees per class. The majority of participants reported being extremely satisfied (97.8%), extremely likely to recommend the classes to others (91.2%), and indicated that classes were very much helpful in preparing for surgery (90.8%). Patients also reported that the classes helped reduce anxiety/stress (94.2%), fatigue (88.5%), pain (80.7%), and shortness of breath (86.5%). Qualitative data further suggest that the program made participants feel stronger, more connected to their peers, and better prepared for surgery. Conclusions: This virtual mind-body prehabilitation program was well received with high satisfaction and benefits and is highly feasible to implement. This approach may help overcome some of the challenges to in-person participation.

A Prospective Clinical Trial to Evaluate Mesothelin as a Biomarker for the Clinical Management of Patients With Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of serum soluble mesothelin-related peptide (SMRP) and tumor mesothelin expression in the management of esophageal adenocarcinoma (ADC). BACKGROUND: Clinical management of esophageal ADC is limited by a lack of accurate evaluation of tumor burden, treatment response, and disease recurrence. Our retrospective data showed that tumor mesothelin and its serum correlate, SMRP, are overexpressed and associated with poor outcomes in patients with esophageal ADC. METHODS: Serum SMRP and tumoral mesothelin expression from 101 patients with locally advanced esophageal ADC were analyzed before induction chemoradiation (pretreatment) and at the time of resection (posttreatment), as a biomarker for treatment response, disease recurrence, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Pre and posttreatment serum SMRP was ≥1 nM in 49% and 53%, and pre and post-treatment tumor mesothelin expression was >25% in 35% and 46% of patients, respectively. Pretreatment serum SMRP was not significantly associated with tumor stage ( P = 0.9), treatment response (radiologic response, P = 0.4; pathologic response, P = 0.7), or recurrence ( P =0.229). Pretreatment tumor mesothelin expression was associated with OS (hazard ratio: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.14-3.79; P = 0.017) but had no statistically significant association with recurrence ( P = 0.9). Three-year OS of patients with pretreatment tumor mesothelin expression of ≤25% was 78% (95% CI: 68%-89%), compared with 49% (95% CI: 35%-70%) among those with >25%. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment tumor mesothelin expression is prognostic of OS for patients with locally advanced esophageal ADC, whereas serum SMRP is not a reliable biomarker for monitoring treatment response or recurrence.

The contribution of microvascular free flaps and pedicled flaps to successful chest wall surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Pedicled flaps (PFs) have historically served as the preferred option for reconstruction of large chest wall defects. More recently, the indications for microvascular-free flaps (MVFFs) have increased, particularly for defects in which PFs are inadequate or unavailable. We sought to compare oncologic and surgical outcomes between MVFFs and PFs in reconstructions of full-thickness chest wall defects. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent chest wall resection at our institution from 2000 to 2022. Patients were stratified by flap reconstruction. End points were defect size, rate of complete resection, rate of local recurrence, and postoperative outcomes. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with complications at 30 days. RESULTS: In total, 536 patients underwent chest wall resection, of whom 133 had flap reconstruction (MVFF, n = 28; PF, n = 105). The median (interquartile range) covered defect size was 172 cm2 (100-216 cm2) for patients receiving MVFF versus 109 cm2 (75-148 cm2) for patients receiving PF (P = .004). The rate of R0 resection was high in both groups (MVFF, 93% [n = 26]; PF, 86% [n = 90]; P = .5). The rate of local recurrence was 4% in MVFF patients (n = 1) versus 12% in PF patients (n = 13, P = .3). Postoperative complications were not statistically different between groups (odds ratio for PF, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-5.14]; P = .6). Operative time >400 minutes was associated with 30-day complications (odds ratio, 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-9.93; P = .033). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MVFFs had larger defects, a high rate of complete resection, and a low rate of local recurrence. MVFFs are a valid option for chest wall reconstructions.