Analysis of the short-term outcomes after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic using data from a nationwide Japanese database.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had adversely impacted cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. We investigated the change in medical resource, such as the intensive care unit use, and short-term outcomes after esophagectomy during the pandemic. METHODS: Data of patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer registered in the National Clinical Database (NCD) in Japan from January 2018 to December 2021 were analyzed. The time series change in the number of surgical cases; usage of intensive care unit; incidence of morbidity and mortality; standardized mortality and morbidity ratio (SMR) for 30-days mortality; surgical mortality; and morbidities for pneumonia, sepsis, unplanned intubation, and anastomotic leakage were evaluated. RESULTS: The annual number of patients undergoing esophagectomy remained similar from 2018 to 2021. The negative impact of the pandemic on medical resources was strongly identified in the patients from an epidemic area where there is a higher cumulative number of infections per population as compared to all prefectures. The proportions of patients admitted to the intensive care unit were 91.4%, 93.0%, 91.6%, and 90.5% in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively. Moreover, 93.3%, 94.0%, 92.0%, and 90.9% patients who underwent surgery in an epidemic area were admitted to the intensive care unit in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively. However, the morbidity and mortality rates during the pandemic did not worsen according to the SMR values. CONCLUSIONS: Esophagectomy was performed during the pandemic despite limited medical resources by a systematic endeavor of the entire surgical department in Japan, without increasing the incidence rate of worse outcome.

Influence of facility volume on long-term survival of patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the influence of facility volume on long-term survival in patients with esophageal cancer treated with esophagectomy. METHODS: Patients treated with esophagectomy for cT1 3N0 3M0 adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the mid-distal esophagus in the National Cancer Database between 2006 and 2013 were stratified by annual facility esophagectomy volume dichotomized as more/less than both 6 and 20. Patient characteristics associated with facility volume were evaluated using logistic regression, and the influence of facility volume on survival was evaluated with Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox proportional hazards methods, and propensity matched analysis. RESULTS: Of 11,739 patients who had esophagectomy at 1018 facilities where annual volume ranged from 1 to 47.6 cases, 4262 (36.3%) were treated at 44 facilities with annual esophagectomy volume > 6 and 1515 (12.9%) were treated at 7 facilities with annual volume > 20. Higher volume was associated with significantly better 5-year survival for both annual volume > 6 (47.6% vs 40.2%; P < .001) and annual volume > 20 (47.2% vs 42.3%; P < .001), which persisted in propensity matched analyses as well as Cox multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.89; P < .001 for facility volume > 6 and hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.95; P = .01 for facility volume > 20). In Cox multivariable analysis that considered facility volume as a continuous variable, higher volume continued to be associated with better survival (hazard ratio, 0.93 per 5 cases; 95% CI, 0.91-0.96; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal cancer patients treated with esophagectomy at higher volume facilities have significantly better long-term survival than patients treated at lower volume facilities.

Evaluating the Cost for Robotic vs "Non-Robotic" Transhiatal Esophagectomy.

INTRODUCTION: This study was undertaken to analyze and compare the cost of robotic transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) to "non-robotic" THE (ie, "open" and laparoscopic). METHODS: With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 82 patients who underwent THE. We analyzed clinical outcomes and perioperative charges and costs associated with THE. To compare profitability, the robotic approach was analyzed against "non-robotic" approaches of THE using F-test, Mann-Whitney U test/Student's t-test, and Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was reported as P ≤0.05. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: 67 patients underwent the robotic approach, and 15 patients underwent "non-robotic" approach; 4 were "open" and 11 were laparoscopic. 79 patients had adenocarcinoma. Operative duration for robotic THE was 327 (331 ± 82.8) vs 213 (225 ± 62.0) minutes (P = 0.0001) and estimated blood loss was 150 (184 ± 136.1) vs 300 (476 ± 708.7) mL (P = 0.0001). Length of stay was 7 (11 ± 11.8) vs 8 (12 ± 10.6) days (P = 0.76). 16 patients had post-operative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score of three or more. Hospital charges for robotic THE were $197,405 ($259,936 ± 203,630.8) vs "non-robotic" THE $159,588 ($201,565 ± $185,763.5) (P = 0.31). Cost of care for robotic THE was $34,822 ($48,844 ± $45,832.8) vs "non-robotic" THE was $23,939 ($39,386 ± $44,827.2) (P = 0.47). Payment received for robotic THE was $14,365 ($30,003 ± $40,874.7) vs "non-robotic" THE was $28,080 ($41,087 ± $44,509.1) (P = 0.41). 15% of robotic operations were profitable vs 13% of "non-robotic" operations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were predominantly older overweight men who had adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The robotic approach had increased operative time and minimal blood loss. More than a fourth of operations included concomitant procedures. Patients were discharged approximately one week after THE. Overall, the robotic approach has no apparent significant differences in charges, cost, or profitability.

Omitting surgery in esophageal cancer patients with complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery is a standard treatment modality for locally-advanced esophageal cancer. However, patients who achieve clinical complete response (cCR) after nCRT have been reported to have better prognosis. Further, the role of surgery in these patients is controversial. Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether surgery is still useful in patients with cCR after nCRT. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases for studies on surgical efficacy in complete responders after concurrent chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. The publication date was set to January 1, 2010-January 31, 2020. The hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio were used to compare the 2-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), incidence of locoregional failure, distant metastasis, and treatment mortality between the nCRT and nCRT plus surgery groups. RESULTS: Six articles involving 609 patients were included. There was a significant benefit of nCRT for OS (HR = 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.99, p = 0.04), but not for DFS (HR = 1.55, 95% CI 0.35-6.86, p = 0.56). The nCRT group tended to have lower mortality than the nCRT plus surgery group (risk ratio = 0.15, 95% CI 0.02-1.18, p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Omitting surgery provides better OS in complete responders after nCRT. Adding surgery could increase the morbidity and mortality and decrease the quality of life. Thus, nCRT alone could be a feasible approach for patients with cCR.

The value of complete blood count for the prognosis analysis of preoperative esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the predictive value of preoperative complete blood count for the survival of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 1587 patients with pathologically confirmed esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy in the Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Xinjiang Medical University from January 2010 to December 2019 were collected by retrospective study. A total of 359 patients were as the validation cohort from January 2015 to December 2016, and the remaining 1228 patients were as the training cohort. The relevant clinical data were collected by the medical record system, and the patients were followed up by the hospital medical record follow-up system. The follow-up outcome was patient death. The survival time of all patients was obtained. The Cox proportional hazards regression model and nomogram were established to predict the survival prognosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma by the index, their cut-off values obtained the training cohort by the ROC curve. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve was established to express the overall survival rate. The 3-year and 5-year calibration curves and C-index were used to determine the accuracy and discrimination of the prognostic model. The decision curve analysis was used to predict the potential of clinical application. Finally, the validation cohort was used to verify the results of the training cohort. RESULTS: The cut-off values of NLR, NMR, LMR, RDW and PDW in complete blood count of the training cohort were 3.29, 12.77, 2.95, 15.05 and 13.65%, respectively. All indicators were divided into high and low groups according to cut-off values. Univariate Cox regression analysis model showed that age (≥ 60), NLR (≥3.29), LMR (< 2.95), RDW (≥15.05%) and PDW (≥13.65%) were risk factors for the prognosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; multivariate Cox regression analysis model showed that age (≥ 60), NLR (≥3.29) and LMR (< 2.95) were independent risk factors for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Kaplan-Meier curve indicated that age <  60, NLR < 3.52 and LMR ≥ 2.95 groups had higher overall survival (p <  0.05). The 3-year calibration curve indicated that its predictive probability overestimate the actual probability. 5-year calibration curve indicated that its predictive probability was consistent with the actual probability. 5 c-index was 0.730 and 0.737, respectively, indicating that the prognostic model had high accuracy and discrimination. The decision curve analysis indicated good potential for clinical application. The validation cohort also proved the validity of the prognostic model. CONCLUSION: NLR and LMR results in complete blood count results can be used to predict the survival prognosis of patients with preoperative esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Individual patient data meta-analysis of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus upfront surgery for carcinoma of the oesophagus or the gastro-oesophageal junction.

INTRODUCTION: Which neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced thoracic oesophagus (TE) or gastro-oesophageal junction carcinoma is best remains an open question. Randomised controlled trials variously accrued patients with adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, making strong conclusions hard to obtain. The primary objective of this individual participant data meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible trials should have closed to accrual before 2016 and compared neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery (CS) to surgery alone. All relevant published and unpublished trials were identified via searches of electronic databases, conference proceedings and clinical trial registers. The main end-point was OS. Investigators were contacted to obtain the individual patient data, which was recorded, harmonised and checked. A random-effects Cox model, stratified by trial, was used for meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were preplanned. RESULTS: 16 trials were identified as eligible. Individual patient data were obtained from 12 trial and 2478 patients. CS was associated with an improved OS versus surgery, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.83 [0.72-0.96], p < 0.0001, translating to an absolute benefit of 5.7% at 5-years from 16.8% to 22.5%. Treatment effects did not vary substantially between adenocarcinoma (HR = 0.73 [0.62-0.87]) and squamous cell carcinoma (HR = 0.91 [0.76-1.08], interaction p = 0.26). A somewhat more pronounced effect was observed in gastro-oesophageal junction (HR = 0.68 [0.50-0.93]) versus TE (HR = 0.87 [0.75-1.00], interaction p = 0.07). CS was also associated with a greater disease-free survival (HR = 0.74 [0.64-0.85], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy conferred a better OS than surgery alone and should be considered in all anatomical location and histological subtypes.

Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-thoracoscopic technique. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence comparing conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) via laparoscopy and thoracoscopy with robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare surgical outcomes after CMIE and RAMIE with an intrathoracic anastomosis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify original articles analyzing outcomes after CMIE and RAMIE. Main surgical outcomes included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, anastomotic leak rates, pneumonia, overall morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day mortality. Oncologic outcomes included lymph node yield and R0 resections rates. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 6,249 patients were included for analysis; 5,275 (84%) underwent CMIE and 974 (16%) RAMIE. Robotic esophagectomy had longer operative time and less intraoperative blood loss. Anastomotic leakage rates were similar with both approaches. Patients undergoing RAMIE had significantly lower rates of postoperative pneumonia (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.61, P < .0001) and overall morbidity (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.79, P < .0001). Median LOS was similar in both procedures (RAMIE: 12.1 versus CMIE: 11.9 days, P = .64). Similar mortality rates were found after RAMIE and CMIE (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34-1.38, P = .29). Lymph node yield was similar in both procedures, but RAMIE was associated with higher rates of R0 resection (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.53-5.26, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing robotic esophagectomy have less intraoperative blood loss, lower rates of postoperative pneumonia, reduced overall morbidity, and higher rates of R0 resections, as compared with those undergoing a laparoscopic-thoracoscopic esophageal resection.

Overall Volume Trends in Esophageal Cancer Surgery Results From the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit.

OBJECTIVE: In the pursuit of quality improvement, this study aimed to investigate volume-outcome trends in oncologic esophagectomy in the Netherlands. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Concentration of Dutch esophageal cancer care was dictated by introducing an institutional minimum of 20 resections/yr. METHODS: This nationwide cohort study included all esophagectomy patients registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit in 2016-2019 from hospitals currently still performing esophagectomies. Annual esophagectomy hospital volume was assigned to each patient and categorized into quartiles. Multivariable logistic regression investigated short-term surgical outcomes. Restricted cubic splines investigated if volume-outcome relationships eventually plateaued. RESULTS: In 16 hospitals, 3135 esophagectomies were performed. First volume quartile hospitals performed 24-39 resections/yr; second, third, and fourth quartile hospitals performed 40-53, 54-69, and 70-101, respectively. Compared to quartile 1, in quartiles 2 to 4, overall/severe/technical complication, anastomotic leakage, and prolonged hospital/intensive care unit stay rates were significantly lower and textbook outcome and lymph node yield were higher. When raising the cut-off from the first to second quartile, higher-volume centers had less technical complications [Adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-0.96], less anastomotic leakage (aOR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66-0.97), more textbook outcome (aOR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.07-1.46), shorter intensive care unit stay (aOR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69-0.93), and higher lymph node yield (aOR: 3.56, 95% CI: 2.68-4.77). For most outcomes the volume-outcome trend plateaued at 50-60 annual resections, but lymph node yield and anastomotic leakage continued to improve. CONCLUSION: Although this study does not reflect on individual hospital quality, there appears to be a volume trend towards better outcomes in high-volume centers. Projects have been initiated to improve national quality of care by reducing hospital variation (irrespective of volume) in outcomes in The Netherlands.

Perioperative change in neutrophil count predicts worse survival in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Aims: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between perioperative change in neutrophil count and survival of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Method: Neutrophil change (Nc) (where Nc = post-surgery neutrophil count - pre-surgery neutrophil count) was counted according to data within 1 week before surgery and 2 weeks after surgery. Patients were divided into two groups, Nc ≥2.60 and Nc <2.60, according to the median of Nc. Results: Multivariate analysis revealed that Nc ≥2.60 was an independent prognostic marker for overall survival. Subgroup analysis suggested that the overall survival of male patients, patients aged ≤60 years, patients without vessel invasion and patients without nerve infiltration was dramatically worse for those with Nc <2.60. Conclusion: Perioperative change in neutrophil count predicts worse survival in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after surgery.

Differences in treatment and survival between elderly patients with thoracic esophageal cancer in metropolitan areas and other areas.

To address the major issue of regional disparity in the treatment for elderly cancer patients in an aging society, we compared the treatment strategies used for elderly patients with thoracic esophageal cancer and their survival outcomes in metropolitan areas and other regions. Using the national database of hospital-based cancer registries in 2008-2011, patients aged 75 years or older who had been diagnosed with thoracic esophageal cancer were enrolled. We divided the patients into two groups: those treated in metropolitan areas (Tokyo, Kanagawa, Osaka, Aichi, Saitama, and Chiba prefectures) with populations of 6 million or more and those treated in other areas (the other 41 prefectures). Compared were patient backgrounds, treatment strategies, and survival curves at each cancer stage. In total, 1236 (24%) patients from metropolitan areas and 3830 (76%) patients from nonmetropolitan areas were enrolled. Patients in metropolitan areas were treated at more advanced stages. There was also a difference in treatment strategy. The 3-year survival rate among cStage I patients was better in metropolitan areas (71.6% vs. 63.7%), and this finding mainly reflected the survival difference between patients treated with radiotherapy alone. For cStage II-IV patients, there were no differences. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis including interaction terms between treatment areas, cStage, and the first-line treatments revealed that treatments in the metropolitan areas were significantly associated with better survival among patients treated with radiotherapy alone for cStage I cancer. Treatment strategies for elderly patients with thoracic esophageal cancer and its survival outcomes differed between metropolitan areas and other regions.

Racial disparities in provider recommendation for esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities currently exist for the utilization rate of esophagectomy for Black patients with operable esophageal carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 37 271 cases with the American Joint Committee on Cancer clinical stage I, II, and III esophageal carcinoma that were reported to the National Cancer Database were analyzed between 2004 and 2016. A multivariable-adjusted logistic regression model was used to evaluate differences in the odds ratio of esophagectomy not being recommended based on race. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to evaluate differences in overall survival. Propensity score methodology with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline differences in patient demographics. RESULTS: After IPTW adjustment, we identified 30 552 White patients and 3529 Black patients with clinical stage I-III esophageal carcinoma. Black patients had three times greater odds of not being recommended for esophagectomy (odds ratio: 3.03, 95% confidence interval: 2.67-3.43, p < 0.0001) compared to White patients. Black patients demonstrated significantly worse 3- and 5-year overall survival rates compared to White patients (log-rank p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Black patients with clinical stage I-III esophageal cancer were significantly less likely to be recommended for esophagectomy even after adjusting for baseline demographic covariates compared to White patients.

Metastasis pattern and prognosis in men with esophageal cancer patients: A SEER-based study.

ABSTRACT: Esophageal cancer (EC) is relatively common; at the time of diagnosis, 50% of cases present with distant metastases, and most patients are men. This study aimed to examine and compare the clinicopathological characteristics and metastatic patterns of male EC (MEC) and female EC (FEC). In addition, risk factors associated with MEC prognosis were evaluated.The present study population was extracted from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database. MEC characteristics and factors associated with prognosis were evaluated using descriptive analysis, the Kaplan-Meier method, and the Cox regression model.A total of 12,558 MEC cases were included; among them, 3454 cases had distant organ metastases. Overall, 27.5% of the entire cohort were patients with distant organ metastases. Compared with patients with non-metastatic MEC, patients with metastatic MEC were more likely to be aged ≤60 years, of Black and White race, have a primary lesion in the overlapping esophagus segments, and have a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of poorly differentiated and undifferentiated grade that was treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy rather than surgery; moreover, they were also more likely to be married and insured. In addition, patients with MEC were more likely to be aged ≤60 years, White race, and diagnosed with a primary lesion in the lower third of the esophagus and overlapping esophagus segments, and treated without chemotherapy, compared with those with FEC. Patients in the former group were also more likely than those in the latter group to be unmarried and have bone metastasis only and lung metastasis only. Liver, lung, and bone metastases separately, and simultaneous liver and lung metastases were associated with poor survival in MEC patients.Metastatic MEC is associated with clinicopathological characteristics and metastatic patterns different from those associated with non-metastatic MEC and metastatic FEC. Metastatic MEC and FEC patients may have similar prognoses. Distant organ metastasis may be associated with poor prognosis in patients with MEC and FEC.

Influence of the introduction of caseload requirements on indication for visceral cancer surgery in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: In 2013 Swiss health authorities implemented annual hospital caseload requirements (CR) for five areas of visceral surgery. We assess the impact of the implementation of CR on indication for surgery in esophageal, pancreatic and rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of national registry data of all inpatient admissions between January 1st, 2005 and December 31st, 2015. Primary end-point was the age-adjusted resection rate for esophageal, pancreatic and rectal cancer among patients with at least one cancer-specific hospitalization per year. We calculated age-adjusted rate ratios for period effects before and after implementation of CR and odds ratios (OR) based on a generalized estimation equation. A relative increase of 5% in age-adjusted relative risk was set a priori as relevant from a health policy perspective. RESULTS: Age-adjusted resection rates before and after the implementation of CR were 0.12 and 0.13 (Relative Risk [RR] 1.08; 95%-Confidence Interval [CI] 0.85-1.36) in esophageal cancer, 0.22 and 0.26 (RR 1.17; 95%-CI 0.85-1.58) in pancreatic cancer and 0.38 and 0.43 (RR 1.14; 95%-CI 0.99-1.30) in rectal cancer. In adjusted models OR for resection after the implementation of CR were 1.40 (95%-CI 1.24-1.58) in esophageal cancer, 1.05 (95%-CI 0.96-1.15) in pancreatic cancer and 0.92 (95%-CI 0.87-0.97) in rectal cancer. CONCLUSION: Implementation of CR was associated with an increase of resection rates above the a priori set margins in all resections groups. In adjusted models, odds for resection were significantly higher for esophageal cancer, while they remained unchanged for pancreatic and decreased for rectal cancer.

Surgical management of esophageal stenosis due to ingestion of corrosive substances.

BACKGROUND: Corrosive ingestion is a significant challenge for healthcare systems. Limited data are available regarding the best treatments, and there remains a lack of consensus about the optimal surgical approach and its outcomes. This study aims to review the current literature and show a single institution's experience regarding the surgical treatment of esophageal stenosis due to corrosive substance ingestion. METHODS: A retrospective review that accounted for demographics, psychiatric profiles, surgical procedures, and outcomes was performed. A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed. RESULTS: In total, 27 surgical procedures for esophageal stenosis due to corrosive substance ingestion were performed from 2010 to 2019. Depression and drug abuse were diagnosed in 30% and 22% of the included patients, respectively. Esophagectomies and esophageal bypasses were performed in 13 and 14 patients, respectively. No 30-day mortality was recorded. CONCLUSION: Surgical intervention either by esophagectomy or esophageal bypass results in durable relief from dysphagia. However, successful clinical outcomes depend on a high-quality multidisciplinary network of esophageal and thoracic surgeons, intensivists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and nutritional teams.

Outcomes of Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Resection at US News & World Report Top-Ranked vs Non-Ranked Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The US News & World Report (USNWR) annual ranking of the best hospitals for gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery offers direction to patients and healthcare providers, especially for recommendations on complex medical and surgical gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. The objective of this study was to examine the outcomes of complex GI cancer resections performed at USNWR top-ranked, compared to non-ranked, hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Vizient database, data for patients who underwent esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy for malignancy between January and December 2018 were reviewed. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed according to USNWR rank status. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, mortality index (observed-to-expected mortality ratio), rate of serious complication, and cost. Secondary analysis was performed for outcomes of patients who developed serious complications. RESULTS: There were 3,054 complex GI cancer resections performed at 42 top-ranked hospitals vs 3,608 resections performed at 198 non-ranked hospitals. The mean annual case volume was 73 cases at top-ranked hospitals compared to 18 cases at non-ranked hospitals. Compared with non-ranked hospitals, top-ranked hospitals had lower in-hospital mortality (0.96% vs 2.26%, respectively, p < 0.001) and lower mortality index (0.71 vs 1.53, respectively). There were no significant differences in length of stay, rate of serious complications, or direct cost between groups. In patients who developed serious morbidity, top-ranked hospitals had a lower mortality compared with non-ranked hospitals (8.2% vs 16.8%, respectively, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of complex GI cancer resection, USNWR top-ranked hospitals performed a 4-fold higher case volume and were associated with improved outcomes. Patients with complex GI-related malignancies may benefit from seeking surgical care at high-volume regional USNWR top-ranked hospitals.

15-Year Experience with Multimodality Therapy Including Esophagectomy for Elderly Patients with Locoregional Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Optimal curative therapy for locally advanced esophageal and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer might not be offered to elderly patients due to patient and treating physician perception of the high risk of therapy. To understand the risk of multimodality curative therapy, including surgical resection in the elderly population, we studied our experience with curative therapy in this patient population and compared the risks and outcomes with those in a younger population. STUDY DESIGN: Between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2019, four hundred and five consecutive patients with esophageal or EGJ cancer underwent primary treatment at our institution, including esophagectomy. Data collected included demographic information, tumor stage, preoperative Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, treatment variables, and short- and long-term outcomes. Patients who were 70 years or older were classified as the "older" group and patients younger than 70 years were "younger." RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-eight younger (mean age 59 years) and 94 older (mean age 74 years) patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgical resection for stage II and higher cancer. Preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologist and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores were significantly worse in the older group. Postoperative atrial fibrillation and urinary retention developed more often in the older group. Despite this, the rate of postoperative Clavien-Dindo complication severity scores of 3 or higher, perioperative mortality rates, and lengths of stay were similar. Long-term age-adjusted survival rate was 44.8% at 5 years for the group 70 years or older and 39% for the group younger than 70 years (NS). CONCLUSIONS: Patients 70 years and older with locally advanced esophageal or EGJ cancer should be evaluated for optimal curative therapy including neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgical resection. Although preoperative risk scoring and postoperative atrial arrythmias are higher in the older group, short- and long-term outcomes are not inferior in these patients.

Application of ERAS protocol in esophagectomy: a national survey among Italian centers performing esophageal surgery.

The application of enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines for esophageal surgery in different units remains unclear. This survey intended to investigate how such protocol is applied among Italian esophageal surgery units. A survey with 40 questions was mailed to Italian centers that performed at least 10 esophagectomies per year. It included questions about the type of hospital and unit and pre-, intra- and post-operative items. Difficulties encountered were investigated. Thirteen (65%) centers answered the survey, and all met the minimal safety requirements, e.g., the presence of intensive care units and 24-h on-call operative endoscopy and radiology facilities. Fifty percent of esophagectomies with a minimally invasive approach were performed in 84.6% of the centers. Regarding pre-operative items, the highest scores were for the application of nutritional support, dysphagia palliation and presence of a multidisciplinary tumor board, whereas the lowest score was for the use of immunonutrition. Regarding intra-operative items, hypothermia prevention and the use of goal-directed fluid therapy and volatile anesthesia were diffusely adopted, whereas the rate of using abdominal drains was high. Regarding post-operative items, nausea prevention, multimodal analgesia and early mobilization were applied frequently, whereas the use of nasogastric tubes and regular transfer to intensive care units was diffused. The primary barriers in enhanced recovery after surgery protocol application were resistance and a lack of paramedic personnel. This survey's results highlight the efforts undertaken by several centers to apply enhanced recovery after surgery philosophy and in this regard, demonstrate a good standing in Italy.

Do the 2018 Leapfrog Group Minimal Hospital and Surgeon Volume Thresholds for Esophagectomy Favor Specific Patient Demographics?

OBJECTIVE: We examine how esophagectomy volume thresholds reflect outcomes relative to patient characteristics. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Esophagectomy outcomes are associated with surgeon and hospital operative volumes, leading the Leapfrog Group to recommend minimum annual volume thresholds of 7 and 20 respectively. METHODS: Patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer were identified from the 2007-2013 New York and Florida Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's State Inpatient Databases. Logit models adjusted for patient characteristics evaluated in-hospital mortality, complications, and prolonged length of stay (PLOS). Median surgeon and hospital volumes were compared between young-healthy (age 18-57, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index [ECI] <2) and older-sick patients (age ≥71, ECI >4). RESULTS: Of 4330 esophagectomy patients, 3515 (81%) were male, median age was 64 (interquartile range 58-71), and mortality was 4.0%. Patients treated by both low-volume surgeons and hospitals had the greatest mortality risk (5.0%), except in the case of older-sick patients mortality was highest at high-volume hospitals with high-volume surgeons (12%). For mortality <1%, annual hospital and surgeon volumes needed were 23 and 8, respectively; mortality rose to 4.2% when volumes dropped to the Leapfrog thresholds of 20 and 7, respectively. Complication rose from 53% to 63% when hospital and surgeon volumes decreased from 28 and 10 to 19 and 7, respectively. PLOS rose from 19% to 27% when annual hospital and surgeon volumes decreased from 27 and 8 to 20 and 7, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Current Leapfrog Group esophagectomy volume guidelines may not predict optimal outcomes for all patients, especially at extremes of age and comorbidities.

Esophageal cancer surgery in Greece during the era of the financial crisis.

The aim of this study is to describe outcomes of esophageal cancer surgery in a quaternary upper gastrointestinal (GI) center in Athens during the era of the Greek financial crisis. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients that underwent esophagectomy for esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer at an upper GI unit of the University of Athens, during the period January 2004-June 2019. Time-to-event analyses were performed to explore trends in survival and recurrence. A total of 146 patients were identified. Nearly half of the patients (49.3%) underwent surgery during the last 4 years of the financial crisis (2015-2018). Mean age at the time of surgery was 62.3 ± 10.3 years, and patients did not present at older ages during the recession (P = 0.50). Most patients were stage III at the time of surgery both prior to the recession (35%) and during the financial crisis (39.8%, P = 0.17). Ivor-Lewis was the most commonly performed procedure (67.1%) across all eras (P = 0.06). Gastric conduit was the most common form of GI reconstruction (95.9%) following all types of surgery (P < 0.001). Pre-recession anastomoses were usually performed using a circular stapler (65%). Both during (88.1%) and following the recession (100%), the vast majority of anastomoses were hand-sewn. R0 resection was achieved in 142 (97.9%) patients. Anastomosis technique did not affect postoperative leak (P = 0.3) or morbidity rates (P = 0.1). Morbidity rates were not significantly different prior to (25%), during (46.9%), and after (62.5%) the financial crisis, P = 0.16. Utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (26.9%, P = 0.90) or radiation (8.4%, P = 0.44) as well as adjuvant chemotherapy (54.8%, P = 0.85) and irradiation (13.7%, P = 0.49) was the same across all eras. Disease-free survival (DFS) and all-cause mortality rates were 41.2 and 47.3%, respectively. Median DFS and observed survival (OS) were 11.3 and 22.7 months, respectively. The financial crisis did not influence relapse (P = 0.17) and survival rates (P = 0.91). The establishment of capital controls also had no impact on recurrence (P = 0.18) and survival (P = 0.94). Austerity measures during the Greek financial crisis did not influence long-term esophageal cancer outcomes. Therefore, achieving international standards in esophagectomy may be possible in resource-limited countries when centralizing care.

Using machine learning to predict early readmission following esophagectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To establish a machine learning (ML)-based prediction model for readmission within 30 days (early readmission or early readmission) of patients based on their profile at index hospitalization for esophagectomy. METHODS: Using the National Readmission Database, 383 patients requiring early readmission out of a total of 2037 esophagectomy patients alive at discharge in 2016 were identified. Early readmission risk factors were identified using standard statistics and after the application of ML methodology, the models were interpreted. RESULTS: Early readmission after esophagectomy connoted an increased severity score and risk of mortality. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and malnutrition as well as postoperative prolonged intubation, pneumonia, acute kidney failure, and length of stay were identified as factors most contributing to increased odds of early readmission. The reasons for early readmission were more likely to be cardiopulmonary complications, anastomotic leak, and sepsis/infection. Patients with upper esophageal neoplasms had significantly higher early readmission and patients who received pyloroplasty/pyloromyotomy had significantly lower early readmission. Two ML models to predict early readmission were generated: 1 with 71.7% sensitivity for clinical decision making and the other with 84.8% accuracy and 98.7% specificity for quality review. CONCLUSIONS: We identified risk factors for early readmission after esophagectomy and introduced ML-based techniques to predict early readmission in 2 different settings: clinical decision making and quality review. ML techniques can be utilized to provide targeted support and standardize quality measures.