Individualized Positive End-expiratory Pressure Titration Strategies in Superobese Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery: Prospective and Nonrandomized Crossover Study.

BACKGROUND: Superobesity and laparoscopic surgery promote negative end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure that causes atelectasis formation and impaired respiratory mechanics. The authors hypothesized that end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure differs between fixed and individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategies and mediates their effects on respiratory mechanics, end-expiratory lung volume, gas exchange, and hemodynamic parameters in superobese patients. METHODS: In this prospective, nonrandomized crossover study including 40 superobese patients (body mass index 57.3 ± 6.4 kg/m2) undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery, PEEP was set according to (1) a fixed level of 8 cm H2O (PEEPEmpirical), (2) the highest respiratory system compliance (PEEPCompliance), or (3) an end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure targeting 0 cm H2O (PEEPTranspul) at different surgical positioning. The primary endpoint was end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure at different surgical positioning; secondary endpoints were respiratory mechanics, end-expiratory lung volume, gas exchange, and hemodynamic parameters. RESULTS: Individualized PEEPCompliance compared to fixed PEEPEmpirical resulted in higher PEEP (supine, 17.2 ± 2.4 vs. 8.0 ± 0.0 cm H2O; supine with pneumoperitoneum, 21.5 ± 2.5 vs. 8.0 ± 0.0 cm H2O; and beach chair with pneumoperitoneum; 15.8 ± 2.5 vs. 8.0 ± 0.0 cm H2O; P < 0.001 each) and less negative end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (supine, -2.9 ± 2.0 vs. -10.6 ± 2.6 cm H2O; supine with pneumoperitoneum, -2.9 ± 2.0 vs. -14.1 ± 3.7 cm H2O; and beach chair with pneumoperitoneum, -2.8 ± 2.2 vs. -9.2 ± 3.7 cm H2O; P < 0.001 each). Titrated PEEP, end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure, and lung volume were lower with PEEPCompliance compared to PEEPTranspul (P < 0.001 each). Respiratory system and transpulmonary driving pressure and mechanical power normalized to respiratory system compliance were reduced using PEEPCompliance compared to PEEPTranspul. CONCLUSIONS: In superobese patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, individualized PEEPCompliance may provide a feasible compromise regarding end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures compared to PEEPEmpirical and PEEPTranspul, because PEEPCompliance with slightly negative end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures improved respiratory mechanics, lung volumes, and oxygenation while preserving cardiac output.

Circular vs. linear stapling after minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy: a pooled analysis.

PURPOSE: Current data states that most likely there are differences in postoperative complications regarding linear and circular stapling in open esophagectomy. This, however, has not yet been summarized and overviewed for minimally invasive esophagectomy, which is being performed increasingly. METHODS: A pooled analysis was conducted, including 4 publications comparing linear and circular stapling techniques in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage, pulmonary complications, and mean hospital stay. RESULTS: Summarizing the 4 chosen publications, no difference in anastomotic insufficiency could be displayed (p = 0.34). Similar results were produced for postoperative pulmonary complications. Comparing circular stapling (CS) to linear stapling (LS) did not show a trend towards a favorable technique (p = 0.82). Some studies did not take learning curves into account. Postoperative anastomotic stricture was not specified to an extent that made a summary of the publications possible. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, data is not sufficient to provide a differentiated recommendation towards mechanical stapling techniques for individual patients undergoing MIE and RAMIE. Therefore, further RCTs are necessary for the identification of potential differences between LS and CS. At this point in research, we therefore suggest evading towards choosing a single anastomotic technique for each center. Momentarily, enduring the learning curve of the surgeon has the greatest evidence in reducing postoperative complication rates.

[Therapeutic Options for Regaining Weight after Bariatric Surgery]. / Therapieoptionen bei Weight-Regain nach Bariatrischer Operation.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to create an overview of diagnostic and therapeutic options for weight regain (WR) and insufficient weight loss (IWL) after bariatric surgery (BS). With increasing popularity of BS, WR is becoming more relevant. METHODS: We combined recent literature on WR and IWL with personal experience to suggest possible proceedings if WR or IWL is diagnosed. RESULTS: If an anatomical-pathological cause can be detected, surgical therapy is the most effective. If WR or IWL is idiopathic, a multimodal therapeutic concept is necessary for sufficient therapeutic success. Depending on the initial BS, a combination of lifestyle intervention, medication and surgical therapy seems most effective. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive diagnostic testing is necessary prior to any surgical intervention. In idiopathic WR after Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB), we suggest lengthening the biliopancreatic limb and shortening the common channel. After Sleeve-Gastrectomy (SG), we currently see RYGB as most effective in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and SADI-S as a feasible option if no GERD is present.

Surgery for Gastric Remnant Cancer Results in Similar Overall Survival Rates Compared with Primary Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate clinical features, prognostic factors, and overall survival (OS) in surgical patients with gastric remnant cancer (GRC). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with gastrectomy for pT1-4 gastric cancer between October 1972 and February 2014 at our institution was performed. Clinical characteristics were compared between patients with GRC and those with primary gastric cancer (PGC). Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine the prognostic factors for OS in patients with GRC. A propensity score-matched cohort was used to investigate OS between the GRC and PGC groups. RESULTS: Of a baseline cohort of 1440 patients, 95 patients with GRC were identified. Patients with GRC underwent more multivisceral resections (p < 0.001) than patients with PGC despite lower tumor stages (p = 0.018); however, R0 resection rates were not significantly different (p = 0.211). The postoperative overall (p = 0.032) and major surgical (p = 0.021) complication rates and the 30-day (p = 0.003) and in-hospital (p = 0.008) mortality rates were higher in patients with GRC. In multivariable analysis, the only prognostic factors for worse OS in GRC were higher tumor stage (p < 0.001) and the occurrence of postoperative complications (p < 0.001). OS between propensity score-matched GRC and PGC groups was not significantly different (p = 0.772). CONCLUSIONS: GRC required more invasive surgery than PGC; however, the feasibility of R0 resection was similar. The prognostic factors of GRC were similar to those of PGC, and OS was not significantly different between both groups. Patients with GRC benefit from extensive surgery when performed with low morbidity and mortality.

Prognostic significance of microsatellite-instability in gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Perioperative systemic treatment is standard of care for Caucasian patients with locally advanced, resectable gastric adenocarcinoma. The prognostic relevance of the microsatellite instability (MSI) status in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by resection is unclear. We analyzed the association of the MSI status with histological regression and clinical outcome in patients undergoing neoadjuvant systemic treatment. Tumor tissue from patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by resection for gastric or gastroesophageal-junction adenocarcinoma was analyzed for MSI status using a mononucleotide marker panel encompassing the markers BAT25, BAT26, and CAT25. Histological regression, relapse-free survival and overall survival were calculated and correlated with MSI status. We identified the MSI-H phenotype in 9 (8.9%) out of 101 analyzed tumors. Though a poor histological response was observed in eight out of nine MSI-H patients, overall survival was significantly better for patients with MSI-H compared to MSS tumors (median overall survival not reached vs. 38.6 months, log-rank test p = 0.014). Among MSI-H patients, an unexpected long-term survival after relapse was observed. Our data indicate that the MSI-H phenotype is a favorable prognostic marker in gastric cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment. The benefit of perioperative cytotoxic treatment in patients with MSI-H gastric cancer, however, remains questionable. Future trials should stratify patients according to their MSI status, and novel treatment modalities focusing on MSI-H tumors should be considered.

Thoracoabdominal versus transhiatal surgical approaches for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the oncological and perioperative outcomes of transhiatally extended gastrectomy (TEG) and thoracoabdominal esophagectomy (TAE) for therapy of adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) with focus on AEG type II, as the optimal approach for these tumors is still unclear. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) were searched until July 24, 2018. Studies comparing TAE and TEG for surgical treatment of AEG type tumors have been included. Patient's baseline and perioperative data have been extracted and meta-analyses have been conducted for the outcomes: number of dissected lymph nodes, R0-resection rate, anastomotic leak rate, postoperative morbidity, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Of 6709 articles identified, 8 studies have been included for further analysis. One thousand thirty-four patients underwent TAE, and 1177 patients TEG. No differences were found between the approaches in regard to number of dissected lymph nodes (MD - 0.96; 95% CI - 3.07 to 1.15; p = 0.37), R0-resection rates (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.63; p = 0.90), anastomotic leak rates (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.86; p = 0.63), and 30-day mortality (OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.90 to 2.61; p = 0.11). However, a higher rate of postoperative morbidity was found after TAE (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.12 to 2.14; p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The optimal approach to surgical therapy of AEG II still remains unclear. This study identified a significantly higher rate of postoperative morbidity after TAE at comparable surgical outcomes. Due to major limitations concerning the quality of included studies, current data strongly mandates a properly designed randomized controlled trial to identify the optimal surgical approach for AEG type II tumors.

Neoadjuvant Therapy Improves Outcomes in Locally Advanced Signet-Ring-Cell Containing Esophagogastric Adenocarcinomas.

BACKGROUND: Only a few studies have analyzed multimodal treatment concepts in the subgroup of signet-ring-cell containing upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer. Recent retrospective, multicentric data favor primary resection without neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric signet-ring-cell containing carcinomas (SRCs). We compared the outcomes of primarily resected carcinomas with neoadjuvantly treated, locally advanced esophagogastric SRCs. METHODS: A total of 310 patients with esophagogastric SRC-staged cT3/4/Nany/Many from a prospective unicentric database were included in this study; 192 (61.9%) received neoadjuvant therapy (NEO group) and 118 (38.1%) were primarily resected (RES group). RESULTS: Overall, 128 (41.3%) patients presented with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) and 182 (58.7%) presented with gastric cancer. Neoadjuvant therapy was significantly associated with resection in curative intent (NEO: 91.1%; RES: 75.4%; P = 0.001), improved (y)pT category (P = 0.035), improved (y)pN category (P < 0.001), and R0 resections (curative intent cohort: 76.0% in NEO vs. 60.7% in RES; P = 0.010), among others, but not with postoperative complications. Overall survival was significantly improved by neoadjuvant treatment {median survival 28.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4-39.6) vs. RES: 14.9 months (10.6-17.5); P < 0.001}, as well as in subgroups (AEG and gastric tumors, R0-resected patients, and patients with and without relevant comorbidities). Independent prognostic factors were neoadjuvant therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; P = 0.023), pT4 category (HR 1.71; P = 0.041), pN2 category (HR 1.86; P = 0.013), pN3 category (HR 2.40; P < 0.001), pM1 category (HR 1.95; P = 0.003), age > 70 years (HR 1.79; P = 0.006), gastric localization (HR 0.69; P = 0.032), American Society of Anesthesiologists classification 3/4 (HR 1.71; P = 0.004), and incomplete resection R1/2 (HR 1.6; P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate a survival advantage for advanced-stage esophagogastric SRC patients by neoadjuvant treatment.

Postoperative follow-up programs improve survival in curatively resected gastric and junctional cancer patients: a propensity score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: To date there is no evidence that more intensive follow-up after surgery for esophagogastric adenocarcinoma translates into improved survival. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of standardized surveillance by a specialized center after resection on survival. METHODS: Data of 587 patients were analyzed who underwent curative surgery for esophagogastric adenocarcinoma in our institution. Based on their postoperative surveillance, patients were assigned to either standardized follow-up (SFU) by the National Center for Tumor Diseases (SFU group) or individual follow-up by other physicians (non-SFU group). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to compensate for heterogeneity between groups. Groups were compared regarding clinicopathological findings, recurrence, and impact on survival before and after PSM. RESULTS: Of 587 patients, 32.7% were in the SFU and 67.3% in the non-SFU group. Recurrence occurred in 39.4% of patients and 92.6% within the first 3 years; 73.6% were treated, and of those 17.1% underwent resection. In recurrent patients overall and post-recurrence survival (OS/PRS) was influenced by diagnostic tools (p < 0.05), treatment (p ≤ 0.001), and resection of recurrence (p ≤ 0.001). Standardized follow-up significantly improved OS (84.9 vs. 38.4 months, p = 0.040) in matched analysis and was an independent positive predictor of OS before and after PSM (p = 0.034/0.013, respectively). CONCLUSION: After PSM, standardized follow-up by a specialized center significantly improved OS. Cross-sectional imaging and treatment of recurrence were associated with better outcome. Regular follow-up by cross-sectional imaging especially during the first 3 years should be recommended by national guidelines, since early detection might help select patients for treatment of recurrence and even resection in few designated cases.

Surgical strategies in true adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG II): thoracoabdominal or abdominal approach?

BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical approach for adenocarcinoma directly at the esophagogastric junction (AEG II) is still under debate. This study aims to evaluate the differences between right thoracoabdominal esophagectomy (TAE) (Ivor-Lewis operation) and transhiatal extended gastrectomy (THG) for AEG II. METHODS: From a prospective database, 242 patients with AEG II (TAE, n = 56; THG, n = 186) were included and analyzed according to characteristics and perioperative morbidity and mortality and overall survival (chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, log-rank, Cox regression). RESULTS: Groups were comparable at baseline with exception of age. Patients older than 70 years were more frequently resected by THG (p = 0.003). No differences in perioperative morbidity (p = 0.197) and mortality (p = 0.711) were observed, including anastomotic leakages (p = 0.625) and pulmonary complications (p = 0.494). There was no significant difference in R0 resection (p = 0.719) and number of resected lymph nodes (p = 0.202). Overall median survival was 38.4 months. Survival after TAE was significantly longer than after THG (median OS not reached versus 33.6 months, p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis revealed pN-category (p < 0.001) and type of surgery (p = 0.017) as independent prognostic factors. The type of surgery was confirmed as prognostic factor in locally advanced AEG II (cT 3/4 or cN1), but not in cT1/2 and cN0 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our single-center experience suggests that patients with (locally advanced) AEG II tumors may benefit from TAE compared to THG. For further evaluation, a randomized trial would be necessary.

Influence of Different Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Regimens on Response, Prognosis, and Complication Rate in Patients with Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative chemotherapy improves survival in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer, but the optimal treatment regimen remains unclear. More intensive chemotherapy may improve outcome, but also increase toxicity and complications. METHODS: A total of 843 patients were included in this retrospective study and stratified in 4 groups: doublet therapy with cisplatin or oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil (groups A/B) or triplet therapy with additional epirubicin or taxane (groups C/D). The influence of the different neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens on response, prognosis, and complications was assessed. RESULTS: Clinical and pathological response were associated with longer overall survival (OS; p < 0.001). No significant differences regarding response or OS were found, but there was a trend toward better outcome in group D (taxane-containing triplet). In the subgroup of 669 patients with adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG), patients who had received taxane-containing regimens had a significantly longer OS (p = 0.037), but taxane use was not an independent factor in multivariate analysis. Triple therapy with taxanes did not result in a higher complication rate or postoperative mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although no superior neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen was identified for patients with esophagogastric adenocarcinoma, taxane-containing regimens should be further investigated in randomized trials, especially in patients with AEG tumors.

Association of angiogenic factors with prognosis in esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite multimodal therapy esophageal cancer often presents with poor prognosis. To improve outcome, tumor angiogenesis and anti-angiogenic therapeutic agents have recently gained importance. However, patient subgroups who benefit from anti-angiogenic therapy are not yet defined. In this retrospective exploratory study we investigated 9 angiogenic factors in patients' serum and tissue samples with regard to their association with clinicopathological parameters, prognosis and response in patients with locally advanced preoperatively treated esophageal cancer. METHODS: From 2007 to 2012 preoperative serum and corresponding tumor tissue (n = 54), only serum (n = 20) or only tumor tissue (n = 4) were collected from esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (n = 34) and adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) (n = 44) staged cT3/4NanyM0/x after preoperative chemo(radio)therapy. Angiogenic cytokine levels in both tissue and serum were measured by multiplex immunoassay. RESULTS: Median survival in all patients was 28.49 months. No significant difference was found in survival between SCC and AEG (p = 0.90). 26 patients were histopathological responders. Histopathological response was associated with prognosis (p = 0.05). Angiogenic factors were associated with the following clinicopathological factors: tumor tissue expression of Angiopoietin-2 and Follistatin was higher in SCC compared to AEG (p = 0.022 and p = 0.001). High HGF and Follistatin expression in the tumor tissue was associated with poor prognosis in all patients (p = 0.037 and p = 0.036). No association with prognosis was found in the patients' serum. Neither patients' serum nor tumor tissue showed an association between angiogenic factors and response to neoadjuvant therapy. CONCLUSION: Two angiogenic factors (HGF and Follistatin) in posttherapeutic tumor tissue are associated with prognosis in esophageal cancer patients. Biological differences of AEG and SCC with respect to angiogenesis were evident by the different expression of 2 angiogenic factors. Results are promising and should be pursued prospectively, optimally sequentially pre- and posttherapeutically.

Angiogenic and growth factors in gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Antiangiogenic treatment is at the horizon in the palliative treatment of gastric cancer (GC), but data on proangiogenic biomarkers are still limited. The aim of this study was to analyze five proteins with a function in tumor angiogenesis: vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2), follistatin, leptin, and platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule 1 (CD31) in peripheral blood and corresponding tumor tissue. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2008-2010, tumor tissue (n = 76) and corresponding preoperative serum (n = 69) of patients with localized GC were collected; 45 had perioperative chemotherapy. Protein serum or tumor lysate levels of these factors were measured by an angiogenesis multiplex immunoassay and correlated with response and survival. RESULTS: Serum Ang-2 had prognostic relevance in the whole study population (P = 0.027). In subgroup analysis, serum VEGF and Ang-2 had prognostic relevance in primarily resected patients (P = 0.028; P = 0.048) but no association was found in neoadjuvantly treated patients. Follistatin concentration in the tumor tissue was associated with prognosis in all patients (P = 0.019). Tumor VEGF concentrations were correlated with histopathologic response (P = 0.011), with patients showing >50% remaining tumor having higher VEGF concentrations. The tissue Ang-2/VEGF ratio was significantly correlated with both clinical and histopathologic response (P = 0.029, P = 0.009). Additionally, the level of leptin in the tissue was associated with clinical response: nonresponding patients had higher leptin levels than those of responding patients (P = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show the importance of angiogenetic factors in serum and tumor tissue in GC for prognosis and treatment response. Further trials in larger patient populations are warranted for a further evaluation of proangiogenetic factors as biomarkers in gastrointestinal cancer.

Surgery of gastric cancer and esophageal cancer: Does age matter?

INTRODUCTION: In the past, elderly patients with upper GI cancers were excluded from surgery or multimodal treatment only due to their advanced age. In an aging society this way of patient selection seems to be questionable. The aim of this retrospective exploratory study was to investigate how patients with upper GI cancer over the age of 70 years differ from younger patients in the postoperative course and which parameters influence overall survival in older patient populations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2002 to 2012 1,005 patients underwent resection of esophageal or gastric cancer at the University of Heidelberg. 272 patients were older than 70 years and analyzed in subgroups (70-74 years: n = 146; 75-79 years: n = 82; 80 years or older: n = 44). Patients older than 70 years were compared to patients under 70 years (n = 733) with focus on differences in patients characteristics and outcome. Statistical analyses were made retrospectively on a prospective database. RESULTS: Fewer older patients were treated neoadjuvantly (< 70 years: 41.5%; > 70 years: 24.7%, P < 0.001) and extended resection (abdominothoracic approach) was applied less frequently compared to patients under 70 years (< 70 years: 38.9%; > 70 years: 19.9%, P < 0.001). The pNM-category (HR 1.41/2.56) and R-status (HR 1.78) remain the most important predictive factor for survival (all < 0.001). Female patients had a longer survival than men over the age of 70 (84.9 vs. 23.5 months, P < 0.01). Patients over 80 years had a significant shortened overall survival (> 80 years: 16.7 vs. < 70 years: 37.4 months) compared to the other subgroups (P < 0.001) and a significant increased in-hospital mortality (> 80 years: 20.5% vs. < 70 years: 6.0%, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: An exclusion from surgical therapy due to advanced age in general seems not to be justified. However, the decision for a surgical resection in patients over 80 years should be made with caution. pNM-categories and R0-resection remain the most important predictive factors for overall survival in all subgroups. No survival benefit for neoadjuvant treatment in patients over 70 years was found, while women survived longer than men. However, the decision concerning a (radio) chemotherapy should be made individually in each patient.

Post-therapeutic response evaluation by a combination of endoscopy and CT scan in esophagogastric adenocarcinoma after chemotherapy: better than its reputation.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an accepted standard of care for locally advanced esophagogastric cancer. As only a subgroup benefits, a response-based tailored treatment would be of interest. The aim of our study was the evaluation of the prognostic and predictive value of clinical response in esophagogastric adenocarcinomas. METHODS: Clinical response based on a combination of endoscopy and computed tomography (CT) scan was evaluated retrospectively within a prospective database in center A and then transferred to center B. A total of 686/740 (A) and 184/210 (B) patients, staged cT3/4, cN0/1 underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and were then re-staged by endoscopy and CT before undergoing tumor resection. Of 184 patients, 118 (B) additionally had an interim response assessment 4-6 weeks after the start of chemotherapy. RESULTS: In A, 479 patients (70%) were defined as clinical nonresponders, 207 (30%) as responders. Median survival was 38 months (nonresponders: 27 months, responders: 108 months, log-rank, p < 0.001). Clinical and histopathological response correlated significantly (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, clinical response was an independent prognostic factor (HR for death 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-1.8, p = 0.032). In B, 140 patients (76%) were nonresponders and 44 (24%) responded. Median survival was 33 months, (nonresponders: 27 months, responders: not reached, p = 0.003). Interim clinical response evaluation (118 patients) also had prognostic impact (p = 0.008). Interim, preoperative clinical response and histopathological response correlated strongly (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Preoperative clinical response was an independent prognostic factor in center A, while in center B its prognostic value could only be confirmed in univariate analysis. The accordance with histopathological response was good in both centers, and interim clinical response evaluation showed comparable results to preoperative evaluation.

Outcome, complications, and mortality of an intrathoracic anastomosis in esophageal cancer in patients without a preoperative selection with a risk score.

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer remains a challenge with relatively high morbidity. We analyzed outcome, complications, and mortality after abdominothoracic esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis. No routine preoperative risk stratification was performed. METHODS: One hundred eighty-seven consecutive patients (105 AEG I, 21 AEG II, 58 SCC, and 3 other entities) underwent standardized right abdominothoracic esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis and two field lymphadenectomy between 2003 and 2009. Reconstruction was performed mostly with a gastric tube (n = 126) or a fundus rotation gastroplasty (n = 57). Seventy-four patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment (36 patients chemotherapy; 38 patients chemoradiotherapy). RESULTS: Postoperative morbidity was high (73.2 %). Ninety-two patients (49.2 %) suffered from surgical complications, 50 patients had major (26.7 %), and 42 minor (22.5 %) complications. Thirty-day mortality was 9/187 (4.8 %) while in-hospital mortality was doubled with 9.6 %. Six of 19 of the patients died without surgical complications. Preoperative treatment did not increase morbidity or mortality. Surgical complications with subsequent death were tracheobronchial fistula (2/3), ischemia of the gastric tube (3/6), anastomotic leakage (6/30), chylothorax (1/6), and intraoperative bleeding from the aorta (1/1). The median overall survival was 25.0 months. The occurrence of surgical or medical complications did not influence overall survival. In multivariate analysis, cT-category, pN-category, R-category, and re-intubation were independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominothoracic esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis without preoperative patient selection is associated with a high risk for complications and subsequent death but ranges still within the upper range of published data. Strict patient selection is accepted to reduce postoperative morbidity and mortality but excludes a subgroup of patients from potentially curative resection.

Is preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery the appropriate treatment for signet ring cell containing adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction and stomach?

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest primary resection as the preferable approach in patients with signet ring cell gastric cancer (SRC). The aim of our retrospective exploratory study was to evaluate the influence of SRC on prognosis and response in esophagogastric adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: A total of 723 locally advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinomas (cT3/4 N any) documented in a prospective database from two academic centers were classified according to the WHO definition for SRC (more than 50 % SRC) and analyzed for their association with response and prognosis after neoadjuvant treatment. RESULTS: A total of 235 tumors (32.5 %) contained SRC. Median survival of SRC was 26.3 compared with 46.6 months (p < 0.001) for non-SRC. SRC were significantly associated with female gender, gastric localization, advanced ypT and R1/2 categories, and lower risk of surgical complications and anastomotic leakage (each p < 0.001). Clinical (21.1 vs. 33.7 %, p = 0.001) and histopathological response (less than 10 % residual tumor: 16.3 vs. 28.9 %, p < 0.001) were significantly less frequent in SRC. Clinical response (p = 0.003) and complete histopathological response (pCR) (3.4 %) (p = 0.003) were associated with improved prognosis in SRC. Clinical response, surgical complications, ypTN categories, but not SRC were independent prognostic factors in forward Cox regression analysis in R0 resected patients. Risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis was increased (p < 0.001), while local (p = 0.015) and distant metastases (p = 0.02) were less frequent than in non-SRC. CONCLUSIONS: Prognosis of SRC is unfavorable. Although response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is rare in SRC, it is associated with improved outcome. Thus, chemotherapy might not generally be abandoned in SRC. A stratification based on SRC should be included in clinical trials.

A retrospective comparative exploratory study on two methylentetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) polymorphisms in esophagogastric cancer: the A1298C MTHFR polymorphism is an independent prognostic factor only in neoadjuvantly treated gastric cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Methylentetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) plays a major role in folate metabolism and consequently could be an important factor for the efficacy of a treatment with 5-fluorouracil. Our aim was to evaluate the prognostic and predictive value of two well characterized constitutional MTHFR gene polymorphisms for primarily resected and neoadjuvantly treated esophagogastric adenocarcinomas. METHODS: 569 patients from two centers were analyzed (gastric cancer: 218, carcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG II, III): 208 and esophagus (AEG I): 143). 369 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery, 200 patients were resected without preoperative treatment. The MTHFR C677T and A1298C polymorphisms were determined in DNA from peripheral blood lymphozytes. Associations with prognosis, response and clinicopathological factors were analyzed retrospectively within a prospective database (chi-square, log-rank, cox regression). RESULTS: Only the MTHFR A1298C polymorphisms had prognostic relevance in neoadjuvantly treated patients but it was not a predictor for response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The AC genotype of the MTHFR A1298C polymorphisms was significantly associated with worse outcome (p = 0.02, HR 1.47 (1.06-2.04). If neoadjuvantly treated patients were analyzed based on their tumor localization, the AC genotype of the MTHFR A1298C polymorphisms was a significant negative prognostic factor in patients with gastric cancer according to UICC 6th edition (gastric cancer including AEG type II, III: HR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-2.0, p = 0.001) and 7th edition (gastric cancer without AEG II, III: HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.5-5.7, p = 0.003), not for AEG I. For both definitions of gastric cancer the AC genotype was confirmed as an independent negative prognostic factor in cox regression analysis. In primarily resected patients neither the MTHFR A1298C nor the MTHFR C677T polymorphisms had prognostic impact. CONCLUSIONS: The MTHFR A1298C polymorphisms was an independent prognostic factor in patients with neoadjuvantly treated gastric adenocarcinomas (according to both UICC 6th or 7th definitions for gastric cancer) but not in AEG I nor in primarily resected patients, which confirms the impact of this enzyme on chemotherapy associated outcome.

Interim endoscopy results during neoadjuvant therapy for gastric cancer correlate with histopathological response and prognosis.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer leads to major histopathological response in less than 30 % of patients. Data on interim endoscopic response assessment do not exist. This exploratory prospective study evaluates early endoscopy after 50 % of the chemotherapy as predictor for later response and prognosis. METHODS: Forty-seven consecutive patients were included (45 resected; 33 R0 resections). All patients received baseline endoscopy and CT scans, after 50 % of their chemotherapy (EGD-1, CT-1) and after completion of chemotherapy (EGD-2, CT-2). Interim endoscopic response (EGD-1) was assessed after having received 50 % (6 weeks) of the planned 12 weeks of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Post-chemotherapy response was clinically assessed by a combination of CT scan (CT-2) and endoscopy (EGD-2). Histopathological response was determined by a standardized scoring system (Becker criteria). Endoscopic response was defined as a reduction of >75 % of the tumor mass. RESULTS: Twelve patients were responders at EGD-1 and 13 at EGD-2. Nine patients (19.1 %) were clinical responders and 7 patients (15.6 %) were histopathological responders after chemotherapy. Specificity, accuracy, and negative predictive value of the interim EGD-1 for subsequent histopathological response were 31/38 (82 %), 36/47 (76 %), and 31/33 (93 %); and for recurrence or death, 28/30 (93.3 %), 38/47 (80.9 %), and 28/35 (80.0 %). Response at EGD-1 was significantly associated with histopathological response (p = 0.010), survival (p < 0.001), and recurrence-free survival (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Interim endoscopy after 6 weeks predicts response and prognosis. Therefore, tailoring treatment according to interim endoscopic assessment could be feasible, but the findings of this study should be validated in a larger patient cohort.