Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and individual patient data comparing minimally invasive with open oesophagectomy for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) for oesophageal cancer may reduce surgical complications compared with open oesophagectomy. MIO is, however, technically challenging and may impair optimal oncological resection. The aim of the present study was to assess if MIO for cancer is beneficial. METHODS: A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL was performed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIO with open oesophagectomy were included in a meta-analysis. Survival was analysed using individual patient data. Random-effects model was used for pooled estimates of perioperative effects. RESULTS: Among 3219 articles, six RCTs were identified including 822 patients. Three-year overall survival (56 (95 per cent c.i. 49 to 62) per cent for MIO versus 52 (95 per cent c.i. 44 to 60) per cent for open; P = 0.54) and disease-free survival (54 (95 per cent c.i. 47 to 61) per cent versus 50 (95 per cent c.i. 42 to 58) per cent; P = 0.38) were comparable. Overall complication rate was lower for MIO (odds ratio 0.33 (95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.53); P < 0.010) mainly due to fewer pulmonary complications (OR 0.44 (95 per cent c.i. 0.27 to 0.72); P < 0.010), including pneumonia (OR 0.41 (95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.77); P < 0.010). CONCLUSION: MIO for cancer is associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications compared with open resection. Overall and disease-free survival are comparable for the two techniques. LAY SUMMARY: Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.

Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.

[Gastric stump carcinoma: frequency, treatment, complications and prognosis]. / Magenstumpfkarzinom: Häufigkeit, Therapie, Komplikationen und Prognose.

BACKGROUND: Gastric stump carcinoma develops in the gastric remnant after partial gastrectomy. While the frequency of gastric cancer is declining, the incidence of gastric stump carcinoma has remained stable due to the long latency period. As the surgical treatment of gastric ulcers by partial gastrectomy has become much less important, more and more gastric stump carcinomas develop after oncological resection. AIM: This study compared the surgical therapy of gastric stump carcinoma with the therapy of primary gastric cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2001 to 2014 a total of 24 patients were surgically treated for gastric stump carcinoma in the University Hospital of Heidelberg. In the same time 428 patients underwent resection due to primary gastric cancer. Both groups were analyzed and compared with a focus on preoperative therapy, intraoperative differences, complications and overall survival. RESULTS: Patients with gastric stump carcinoma were older at disease onset (68 years vs. 62 years, p = 0.003). Compared with primary gastric cancer, patients with gastric stump carcinoma were more often suspected of having lymph node (cN+) involvement (51.4 % vs. 41.7 %, p < 0.001) but neoadjuvant therapy was applied less often (48.7 % vs. 14.3 %, p < 0.01). For resection of gastric stump carcinoma, extended resections were more often necessary (54.5 % vs. 28.2 %, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in mean overall survival between the two patient groups (64.4 months vs. 45.8 months, p = 0.34) CONCLUSION: Despite the differences described, the treatment of gastric stump carcinoma does not essentially differ from that of primary gastric cancer. Carcinomas of the gastric stump are more often locally advanced and in our opinion a neoadjuvant therapy should be applied analogue to gastric cancer even if evidence-based data on this point are limited.