Body Mass Index and Perioperative Complications After Esophagectomy for Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Given the increasing rate of obesity, the effects of excessive body weight on surgical outcomes constitute a relevant quality of care concern. Our aim was to determine the relationship between preoperative body mass index (BMI) on perioperative complications after esophagectomy for cancer. METHODS: From our comprehensive esophageal cancer database consisting of 510 patients, we identified 166 obese (BMI ≥30), 176 overweight (BMI 25-29), and 148 normal-weight (BMI 20-24) patients. Malnourished patients (BMI of <20) were excluded. Incidence of preoperative risk factors and perioperative complications in each group were analyzed. RESULTS: The patient group consists of 420 men and 70 women with a mean age at time of surgery were 64 years (range 28-86 years). The categories of patients (obese, overweight, and normal-weight) were similar in terms of demographics and comorbidities, with the exception of a younger age (62.5 years vs 66.2 years vs 65.3 years, P = 0.002), and a higher incidence of diabetes (23.5% vs 11.4% vs 10.1%, P = 0.001) and hiatal hernia (28.3% vs 14.8% vs 20.3%, P = 0.01) for obese patients. More patients with BMI >24 were found with adenocarcinoma, compared with the normal-weight group (90.8% vs 90.9% vs 82.5%, P = 0.03). Despite similar preoperative stage, obese patients were less likely to receive neoadjuvant treatment (47.6% vs 54.5% vs 66.2%, P = 0.004). The type of surgery performed, overall blood loss, extent of lymphadenectomy, rate of resections with negative margins, and postoperative complications were not influenced by BMI on univariate and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, BMI did not affect number of harvested lymph-nodes, rates of negative margins, and morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy for cancer. In our experience, esophagectomy could be performed safely and efficiently in mildly obese patients.

An elevated body mass index does not reduce survival after esophagectomy for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Incidences of esophageal cancer and obesity are both rising in the United States. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of elevated body mass index on outcomes after esophagectomy for cancer. METHODS: Overall and disease-free survivals in obese (BMI ≥ 30), overweight (BMI 25-29), and normal-weight (BMI 20-24) patients undergoing esophagectomy constituted the study end points. Survivals were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences were analyzed by log rank method. RESULTS: The study included 166 obese, 176 overweight, and 148 normal-weight patients. These three groups were similar in terms of demographics and comorbidities, with the exception of younger age (62.5 vs. 66.2 vs. 65.3 years, P = 0.002), and higher incidence of diabetes (23.5 vs. 11.4 vs. 10.1%, P = 0.001) and hiatal hernia (28.3 vs. 14.8 vs. 20.3%, P = 0.01) in obese patients. Rates of adenocarcinoma histology were higher in obese patients (90.8 vs. 90.9 vs. 82.5%, P = 0.03). Despite similar preoperative stage, obese patients were less likely to receive neoadjuvant treatment (47.6 vs. 54.5 vs. 66.2%, P = 0.004). Response to neoadjuvant treatment, type of surgery performed, extent of lymphadenectomy, rate of R0 resections, perioperative complications, and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy were not influenced by BMI. At a median follow-up of 25 months, 5-year overall and disease-free survivals were longer in obese patients (respectively, 48, 41, 34%, P = 0.01 and 48, 44, 34%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, an elevated BMI did not reduce overall and disease-free survivals after esophagectomy for cancer.

Correlations between neoadjuvant treatment, anemia, and perioperative complications in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The influence of preoperative hemoglobin levels on outcomes of patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer is not clearly defined. The goal of this article was to explore the association between combined modality therapy, preoperative anemia status, and perioperative blood transfusion and risk of postoperative complications among patients undergoing esophageal resection. METHODS: From a retrospective esophageal database, 413 patients were identified. Anemia was defined according to the World Health Organization classification of <13 g/dL or <12 g/dL for men or women, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance, Pearson's chi(2), or Fisher exact test as appropriate. The independent association of anemia, blood transfusion, and combined modality treatment on risk of postoperative complications were examined using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Information on combined modality treatment, preoperative hemoglobin levels, and blood transfusion was available for 413 patients, of whom 57% received combined modality treatment. Overall 197 (47.6%) patients were preoperatively found to be anemic, and those who had received combined modality treatment were more likely to be anemic (60.6% versus 30.7%, P < 0.001). Anemic patients required more blood transfusions than nonanemic patients (46.7% versus 29.6%, P < 0.001). Seventy-five percent of patients who required transfusion during the hospital stay had received combined modality treatment (P = 0.01). Combined modality treatment and anemia were not associated with increased risk of complications. Patients with any perioperative complication and surgical site infections were more likely to have received blood transfusion compared to patients without complications (OR = 1.73; 95% CI 1.04-2.87 and OR = 2.98; 95% CI 1.04-8.55; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we determined that administration of neoadjuvant treatment to esophageal cancer patients was not associated with an increased rate of perioperative complications. Preoperative anemia did not predict worsened short-term outcomes, but increased the chances of red blood cell transfusion, which were significantly associated with higher overall complications and increased risk of surgical site infections. These data confirm previous studies that allogenic red blood cell transfusions are independent risk factors for increased morbidity and mortality and should be minimized during surgery for esophageal cancer.

Accelerated enhanced Recovery following Minimally Invasive colorectal cancer surgery (RecoverMI): a study protocol for a novel randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Definitive treatment of localised colorectal cancer involves surgical resection of the primary tumour. Short-stay colectomies (eg, 23-hours) would have important implications for optimising the efficiency of inpatient care with reduced resource utilisation while improving the overall recovery experience with earlier return to normalcy. It could permit surgical treatment of colorectal cancer in a wider variety of settings, including hospital-based ambulatory surgery environments. While a few studies have shown that discharge within the first 24 hours after minimally invasive colectomy is possible, the safety, feasibility and patient acceptability of a protocol for short-stay colectomy for colorectal cancer have not previously been evaluated in a prospective randomised study. Moreover, given the potential for some patients to experience a delay in recovery of bowel function after colectomy, close outpatient monitoring may be necessary to ensure safe implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In order to address this gap, we propose a prospective randomised trial of accelerated enhanced Recovery following Minimally Invasive colorectal cancer surgery (RecoverMI) that leverages the combination of minimally invasive surgery with enhanced recovery protocols and early coordinated outpatient remote televideo conferencing technology (TeleRecovery) to improve postoperative patien-provider communication, enhance postoperative treatment navigation and optimise postdischarge care. We hypothesise that RecoverMI can be safely incorporated into multidisciplinary practice to improve patient outcomes and reduce the overall 30-day duration of hospitalisation while preserving the quality of the patient experience. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: RecoverMI has received institutional review board approval and funding from the American Society of Colorectal Surgeons (ASCRS; LPG103). Results from RecoverMI will be published in a peer-reviewed publication and be used to inform a multisite trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02613728; Pre-results.

Are patients with esophageal cancer who become PET negative after neoadjuvant chemoradiation free of cancer?

BACKGROUND: Esophageal cancer continues to increase in incidence. Many patients are presenting with stage II or greater disease and proceeding to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy before resection. Approximately 30% of patients will achieve a complete response and might not benefit from proceeding to resection. This study will examine the ability of PET to predict patients with a complete pathologic response. STUDY DESIGN: A query of our IRB-approved esophageal database revealed 81 patients who underwent a pre- and postchemoradiation PET scan and then proceeded to esophageal resection. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the ability of PET to predict a complete pathologic response. RESULTS: When comparing posttherapy PET with final pathology, it was determined that PET could not consistently differentiate a complete pathologic response from patients who still had persistent disease. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 61.8%, 43.8%, 70%, 35%, and 56%, respectively, for patients with a complete PET response after neoadjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: A complete PET response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation is not substantially predictive of a complete pathologic response. Patients should still be referred for resection unless distant metastases are identified.