Does prehabilitation before esophagectomy improve postoperative outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is associated with high morbidity. It remains unclear whether prehabilitation, a strategy aimed at optimizing patients' physical and mental functioning prior to surgery, improves postoperative outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of prehabilitation on post-operative outcomes after esophagectomy. Data sources included Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro, with information from 1 January 2000 to 5 August 2023. The analysis included randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared prehabilitation interventions to standard care prior to esophagectomy. A random effects model was used to generate a pooled estimate for pairwise meta-analysis, meta-analysis of proportions, and meta-analysis of means. A total of 1803 patients were included with 584 in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1219 in observational studies. In the randomized evidence, there were no significant differences between prehabilitation and control in the odds of postoperative pneumonia (15.0 vs. 18.9%, odds ratio (OR) 1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66;1.72]) or pulmonary complications (14 vs. 25.6%, OR 0.68 [95% CI: 0.32;1.45]). In the observational data, there was a reduction in both postoperative pneumonia (22.5 vs. 32.9%, OR 0.48 [95% CI: 0.28;0.83]) and pulmonary complications (26.1 vs. 52.3%, OR 0.35 [95% CI: 0.17;0.75]) with prehabilitation. Hospital and intensive care unit length of stay (days), operative mortality, and severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) did not differ between groups in both the randomized data and observational data. Prehabilitation demonstrated reductions in postoperative pneumonia and pulmonary complications in observational studies, but not RCTs. The overall certainty of these findings is limited by the low quality of the available evidence.

Use of planar kV vs. CBCT in evaluation of setup errors in oesophagus carcinoma radiotherapy.

AIM: The aim of this study is to evaluate differences in terms of the setup errors observed using kV planar image compared to CBCT for oesophageal cancer patients. BACKGROUND: Planar kV images are quick to acquire but only allow the observation of bony structures. CBCT allows the evaluation of soft tissues, which includes the oesophagus (and tumour) and OAR, giving a more accurate verification of the positioning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients were imaged with both techniques between January 2012 and March 2014 were included in the study (16 patients, 212 kV images and 116 CBCT images). Differences between the setup errors observed on the two images modalities were studied. A correlation study between TNM staging, tumour location and immobilization systems with setup errors was also done. Finally, the calculation of systematic and random errors allowed to determine the CTV-PTV margin. RESULTS: A significant discrepancy (p < 0.05) between the setup errors observed with kV and CBCT was observed in the lateral direction. No statistical correlation was found between setup errors and tumour location, immobilization system or TNM staging. The CTV-PTV margin was smaller with CBCT in the vertical (0.6 cm vs. 0.9 cm) and longitudinal (0.7 cm vs. 1 cm) directions and smaller with kV for the lateral directions (0.8 cm vs. 0.9 cm). CONCLUSIONS: The chosen modality influences the setup error observed which will influence the correction applied. Allowing a better observation of the volumes of interest, CBCT should be the modality of choice in this pathology. The CTV-PTV margins could be shrunk if CBCT is used.