Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Direct Puncture Technique: When, Why and How?

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placed in the pull through (PT) technique is a common procedure to restore enteral feeding in patients with swallowing disorders. Limitations of this technique are patients with obstruction of the pharynx or esophagus or with an esophageal stent. We report our experience with the direct puncture (DP) PEG device. METHODS: We included 154 patients (55 women). One hundred forty patients had cancer. After passing the endoscope into the stomach, 4 gastropexies were performed with a gastropexy device and the PEG was placed with the introducer method. After 1 month, the sutures were removed and a constant gastrocutaneous fistula had been created and the new catheter could be placed safely. RESULTS: The DP PEG was successfully placed in all patients. Overall complication rate was 11% (minor: 6%, major: 5%). The most common event was tube dislocation (40 cases). In 5 cases of dislocation, this resulted in a major complication with injuring the gastric wall and the necessity for surgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The DP PEG system is safe, and can be used in cases in which a standard PT PEG is not feasible. To avoid dislocation, strict adherence to a post-interventional protocol is highly recommended.

Response evaluation by endoscopy, rebiopsy, and endoscopic ultrasound does not accurately predict histopathologic regression after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess the sensitivity (sens), specificity (spec), positive predictive value (ppv), negative predictive value (npv), and accuracy (acc) for clinical response evaluation by endoscopy, rebiopsy, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to determine histomorphologic regression UICC T-category downstaging after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer. BACKGROUND: Histomorphologic regression is meanwhile established as objective parameter for response and prognosis after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within a prospective observation trial, 80 patients with localized esophageal cancers (cT2-4,Nx,M0) received standardized neoadjuvant chemoradiation (cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, 36 Gy) and were resected by transthoracic en bloc esophagectomy and two-field lymphadenectomy. Tumor regression was based on the percentage of vital residual tumor cells and classified in 4 categories as reported previously. Evaluation by endoscopy and EUS was performed based on WHO/UICC criteria before starting chemoradiation and before resection and rebiopsies were taken at the time of re-endoscopy. RESULTS: Histomorphologic response was of significant (log rank) prognostic importance (P < 0.001), whereas clinical response evaluation by endoscopy (P = 0.1), rebiopsy (P = 0.34), and EUS (P = 0.35) was not. The results of the 3 diagnostic modalities to assess histomorphologic regression by endoscopy and rebiopsy UICC ypT-category downstaging for EUS are summarized: Endoscopy: sens 60%, spec 34%, ppv 49%, npv 44%, acc 47%. Rebiopsy: sens 36%, spec 100%, ppv 100%, npv 24%, acc 47%. EUS: sens 7%, spec 79%, ppv 18%, npv 57%, acc 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Histomorphologic regression is an objective response parameter of significant prognostic importance. The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy, rebiopsy, and EUS is inadequate for objective response evaluation after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and can be omitted for this purpose in the clinical practice.

Histomorphologic tumor regression and lymph node metastases determine prognosis following neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy for esophageal cancer: implications for response classification.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantitatively and objectively evaluate histomorphologic tumor regression and establish a relevant prognostic regression classification system for esophageal cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-five consecutive patients with localized esophageal cancers (cT2-4, Nx, M0) received standardized neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, 36 Gy). Seventy-four (87%) patients were resected by transthoracic en bloc esophagectomy and 2-field lymphadenectomy. The entire tumor beds of the resected specimens were evaluated histomorphologically, and regression was categorized into grades I to IV based on the percentage of vital residual tumor cells (VRTCs). A major response was achieved when specimens contained either less than 10% VRTCs (grade III) or a pathologic complete remission (grade IV). RESULTS: Complete resections (R0) were performed in 66 of 74 (89%) patients with 3-year survival rates of 54% +/- 7.05% for R0-resected cases and 0% for patients with incomplete resections or tumor progression during neoadjuvant therapy (P < 0.01). Minor histopathologic response was present in 44 (59.5%) and major histopathologic response in 30 (40.5%) tumors. Significantly different 3-year survival rates (38.8% +/- 8.1% for minor versus 70.7 +/- 10.1% for major response) were observed. Univariate survival analysis identified histomorphologic tumor regression (P < 0.004) and lymph node category (P < 0.01) as significant prognostic factors. Pathologic T category (P < 0.08), histologic type (P = 0.15), or grading (P = 0.33) had no significant impact on survival. Cox regression analysis identified dichotomized regression grades (minor and major histomorphologic regression, P < 0.028) and lymph node status (ypN0 and ypN1, P < 0.036) as significant independent prognostic parameters. A 2-parameter regression classification system that includes histomorphologic regression (major versus minor) and nodal status (ypN0 versus ypN1) was established (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Histomorphologic tumor regression and lymph node status (ypN) were significant prognostic parameters for patients with complete resections (R0) following neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy for esophageal cancer. A regression classification based on 2 parameters could lead to improved objective evaluation of the effectiveness of treatment protocols, accuracy of staging and restaging modalities, and molecular response prediction.

Perioperative granulocyte colony-stimulating factor does not prevent severe infections in patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is associated with substantial postoperative morbidity as a result of infectious complications. In a prior phase II study, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was shown to improve leukocyte function and to reduce infection rates after esophagectomy. The aim of the current randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III trial was to investigate the clinical efficacy of perioperative G-CSF administration in reducing infection and mortality after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty five patients with resectable esophageal cancer were randomly assigned to perioperative G-CSF at standard doses (77 patients) or placebo (76 patients), administered from 2 days before until day 7 after esophagectomy. The G-CSF and placebo groups were comparable as regards age, gender, risk, cancer stage, frequency of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, and type of esophagectomy (transthoracic or transhiatal esophageal resection). RESULTS: Of 155 randomized patients, 153 were eligible for the intention-to-treat analysis. The rate of infection occurring within the first 10 days after esophagectomy was 43.4% (confidence interval 32.8-55.9%) in the placebo and 44.2% (confidence interval 32.1-55.3%) in the G-CSF group (P = 0.927). 30-day mortality amounted to 5.2% in the G-CSF group versus 5.3% in the placebo group (P = 0.985). Similar results were found in the per-protocol analysis. CONCLUSION: Perioperative administration of G-CSF failed to reduce postoperative morbidity, infection rate, or mortality in patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy.

High specificity of quantitative excision repair cross-complementing 1 messenger RNA expression for prediction of minor histopathological response to neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer.

PURPOSE: The excision repair cross-complementing 1 (ERCC1) gene is coding for a nucleotide excision repair protein involved in the repair of radiation- and chemotherapy-induced DNA damage. We examined the potential of quantitative ERCC1 mRNA expression to predict minor or major histopathological response to neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and 36 Gy of radiation) followed by transthoracic en bloc esophagectomy in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (cT(2-4), N(x), M(0)). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Tissue samples were collected by endoscopic biopsy before treatment. RNA was isolated from biopsies, and quantitative real-time reverse transcriptase PCR assays were performed to determine ERCC1 mRNA expression. Relative mRNA levels (tumor/normal ratios) were calculated as (ERCC1/beta-actin in tumor)/(ERCC1/beta-actin in paired normal tissue). ERCC1 expression levels were correlated with the objective histopathological response in resected specimens. Histomorphological regression was defined as major response when resected specimens contained <10% of residual vital tumor cells or in case a pathologically complete response was achieved. RESULTS: Twelve of 36 tumors showed a major histopathological response, and 24 of 36 showed a minor histopathological response. Relative expression levels of ERCC1 of >1.09 were not associated with a major histopathological response (sensitivity, 62.5%; specificity, 100%) and 15 of 24 patients with minor histopathological response to the delivered neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy could be unequivocally identified. This association of dichotomized relative ERCC1 mRNA expression and histopathological response was statistically significant (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Relative expression levels of ERCC1 mRNA determined by quantitative real-time reverse transcriptase-PCR appear highly specific to predict minor response to our neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy protocol in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer and could be applied to prevent expensive, noneffective, and potentially harmful therapies in a substantial number (42%) of patients.