Determinants of Long-term Survival Decades After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Long-term survival in esophagectomy patients with esophageal cancer is low due to tumor-related characteristics, with few reports of modifiable variables influencing outcome. We identified determinants of overall survival, time to recurrence, and disease-free survival in this patient cohort. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent esophagectomy for primary esophageal cancer from January 5, 2000, through December 30, 2010, at our institution were identified. Univariate Cox models and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify associations between modifiable and unmodifiable patient and clinical variables and outcome of survival for the total cohort and a subgroup with locally advanced disease. RESULTS: We identified 870 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy. The median follow-up time was 15 years, and the 15-year overall survival rate was 25.2%, survival free of recurrence was 57.96%, and disease-free survival was 24.21%. Decreased overall survival was associated with the following unmodifiable variables: older age, male sex, active smoking status, history of coronary artery disease, advanced clinical stage, and tumor location. Decreased overall survival was associated with the following modifiable variables: use of neoadjuvant therapy, advanced pathologic stage, resection margin positivity, surgical reintervention, and blood transfusion requirement. The overall survival probability 6 years after esophagectomy was 0.920 (95% CI, 0.895-0.947), and time-to-recurrence probability was 0.988 (95% CI, 0.976-1.000), with a total of 17 recurrences and 201 deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Once patients survive 5 years, recurrence is rare. Long-term survival can be achieved in high-volume centers adhering to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines using multidisciplinary care teams that is double what has been previously reported in the literature from national databases.

Endosonography-Guided Biopsy as a First Test in the Diagnosis of Lymphoma.

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Endobronchial Ultrasound-guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) and Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the diagnosis of lymphoma. A retrospective analysis of patients with suspected mediastinal lymphoproliferative disorders who underwent EBUS-TBNA, EUS-FNA or combined procedures from 2009 to 2019 was conducted using a prospectively maintained interventional thoracic endoscopy database. Demographic data, imaging, needle size, surgical biopsy, complications rate and pathology reports were reviewed. Over a 10-year period, a total of 444 patients were investigated with endosonography as the first diagnostic procedure for mediastinal adenopathy suspicious for lymphoma. Lymphoma was diagnosed in 77 patients (17.3%). In total, 68 patients (88.3%) were diagnosed using endosonographic mediastinal tissue sampling. Four patients had both lymphoproliferative disorders and lung cancer. Nine patients (11.7%) required a surgical biopsy to confirm the lymphoma diagnosis (6 non-diagnostic; 3 inadequate samples from endosonographic biopsies). In patients with adequate biopsies via endosonography, the sensitivity for the diagnosis of lymphoma, was 91.9% (n = 68/74). The histopathologic subtype of lymphoma was determined by endosonographic biopsies in 61 patients (89.7%) with an increased sensitivity (92.6%) for low grade Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). No acute complication related to endosonography was observed. Endosonographic biopsy (EBUS and/or EUS) of mediastinal adenopathy in patients with suspected lymphoma is a highly sensitive and safe diagnostic test. Endosonography should be the first test in the diagnosis of suspicious mediastinal lymphoma and should be followed by surgical biopsy in cases of insufficient sampling or indefinite diagnosis.

The modern approach to esophageal palliative and emergency surgery.

Thoracic surgeons currently have multiple options and strategies to guide treatment in esophageal palliative and emergency conditions. To guide the selection of an individualized palliative approach, physicians, including thoracic surgeons, must take into consideration many factors including prognosis, performance status and comorbidities of patients. For dysphagia more specifically, esophageal stent placement is the most widely used intervention for rapidly relieving dysphagia in inoperable esophageal cancer patients. The combination of esophageal stent placement with other therapies has an impact on palliative care. Innovations including radioactive stents, drug-eluding stents and biodegradable stents will require further evaluation and validation studies. Currently, patients with inoperable esophageal cancer have access to oncological and biological therapies that are improving their prognosis. A shift toward restaging and potential curative intent is occurring in current clinical practice. In acute intrathoracic esophageal perforation cases, high index of suspicion, multidisciplinary team expertise, antibiotics and hybrid treatment strategies, have significantly improved outcomes of patients in recent years. Hybrid treatment strategies denote the combination of minimally invasive interventions for source control and endoluminal procedures to seal the esophageal perforation. Endoluminal procedures as treatment of acute intrathoracic esophageal perforation include stent placement, over-the-scope clip and endoluminal vacuum therapy. Future perspective in the management of esophageal perforation seems to be the combination of endoluminal therapies tailored to the specific clinical scenario. Thoracic surgeons benefit from mastering endoluminal therapies and advanced endoscopic techniques. An understanding of these rapidly evolving therapies, i.e., outcomes, limitations and innovations, is required to optimally manage esophageal palliative and emergency conditions.