Clinically decisive (dis)agreement in multidisciplinary team assessment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; a prospective, national, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Decisions regarding tumor staging, operability, resectability, and treatment strategy in patients with esophageal cancer are made at multidisciplinary team (MDT) conferences. We aimed to assess interobserver agreement from four national MDT conferences and whether this would have a clinical impact. METHODS: A total of 20 patients with esophageal cancer were included across all four upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer centers. Fully anonymized patient data were distributed among the MDT conferences which decided on TNM category, resectability, operability, curability, and treatment strategy blinded to each other's decisions. The interobserver agreement was expressed as both the raw observer agreement and with Krippendorff's α values. Finally, a case-by-case evaluation was performed to determine if disagreement would have had a clinical impact. RESULTS: A total of 80 MDT evaluations were available for analysis. A moderate to near-perfect observer agreement of 79.2%, 55.8%, and 82.5% for TNM category was observed, respectively. Substantial agreement for resectability and moderate agreement for curability were found. However, an only fair agreement was observed for the operability category. The treatment strategies had a slight agreement which corresponded to disagreement having a clinical impact in 12 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal cancer MDT conferences had an acceptable interobserver agreement on resectability and TM categories; however, the operability assessment had a high level of disagreement. Consequently, the agreement on treatment strategy was reduced with a potential clinical impact. In future MDT conferences, emphasis should be on prioritizing the relevant information being readily available (operability, T & M categories) to minimize the risk of disagreement in the assessments and treatment strategies, and thus, delayed or suboptimal treatment.

Impact of Body Mass Index on Complications and Survival after Surgery for Esophageal and Gastro-Esophageal-Junction Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The impact of body mass index on complications and survival in patients undergoing esophagectomy has been extensively studied with conflicting results. In this study, we assess the impact of body mass index on complications and survival following surgery for esophageal and gastro-esophageal-junction cancer in a Danish population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We identified 285 consecutive patients, who underwent curative-intended treatment for esophageal and gastro-esophageal-junction cancer in the period 2003-2010. We manually reviewed the electronic medical records of all patients included in the study. Body mass index was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared. We grouped patients according to their body mass index, using the World Health Organization definition, as underweight (body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (body mass index: 18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (body mass index: 25-29.9 kg/m2), and obese (body mass index ⩽ 30 kg/m2). RESULTS: Median age at surgery was 65 years (range: 27-84 years), of which 207 (72.6%) were males. Patients with the lowest body mass index and the obese patients seemed to have a higher frequency of minor complications. Anastomotic leakage occurred in less than 10% of the patients and was equally distributed across the groups as was the other major complications. There were no differences in the 1-, 2-, or 5-year survival rates between the four body mass index groups after adjustment for possible confounders. Five-year survival rates for the four body mass index groups were 31.8%, 28.7%, 27.9%, and 26.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Body mass index over 30 or under 18.5 does not seem to affect survival rates or the presence of serious postoperative complications following esophagectomy in patients with esophageal and gastro-esophageal-junction cancers not receiving neoadjuvant oncological treatment.