Is Robotic Surgery the Future for Resectable Esophageal Cancer?: A Systematic Literature Review of Oncological and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Radical esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer is a major surgical intervention, associated with considerable postoperative morbidity. The introduction of robotic surgical platforms in esophagectomy may enhance advantages of minimally invasive surgery enabled by laparoscopy and thoracoscopy, including reduced postoperative pain and pulmonary complications. This systematic review aims to assess the clinical and oncological benefits of robot-assisted esophagectomy. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane databases was performed for studies published up to 1 August 2023. This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocols and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022370983). Clinical and oncological outcomes data were extracted following full-text review of eligible studies. RESULTS: A total of 113 studies (n = 14,701 patients, n = 2455 female) were included. The majority of the studies were retrospective in nature (n = 89, 79%), and cohort studies were the most common type of study design (n = 88, 79%). The median number of patients per study was 54. Sixty-three studies reported using a robotic surgical platform for both the abdominal and thoracic phases of the procedure. The weighted mean incidence of postoperative pneumonia was 11%, anastomotic leak 10%, total length of hospitalisation 15.2 days, and a resection margin clear of the tumour was achieved in 95% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: There are numerous reported advantages of robot-assisted surgery for resectable esophageal cancer. A correlation between procedural volume and improvements in outcomes with robotic esophagectomy has also been identified. Multicentre comparative clinical studies are essential to identify the true objective benefit on outcomes compared with conventional surgical approaches before robotic surgery is accepted as standard of practice.

Changing from face-to-face to virtual meetings due to the COVID-19 pandemic: protocol for a mixed-methods study exploring the impact on cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings.

INTRODUCTION: In the UK, the National Cancer Plan (2000) requires every cancer patient's care to be reviewed by a multidisciplinary team (MDT). Since the introduction of these guidelines, MDTs have faced escalating demands with increasing numbers and complexity of cases. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented MDTs with the challenge of running MDT meetings virtually rather than face-to-face.This study aims to explore how the change from face-to-face to virtual MDT meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted the effectiveness of decision-making in cancer MDT meetings and to make recommendations to improve future cancer MDT working based on the findings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed-methods study with three parallel phases:Semistructured remote qualitative interviews with ≤40 cancer MDT members.A national cross-sectional online survey of cancer MDT members in England, using a validated questionnaire with both multiple-choice and free-text questions.Live observations of ≥6 virtual/hybrid cancer MDT meetings at four NHS Trusts.Participants will be recruited from Cancer Alliances in England. Data collection tools have been developed in consultation with stakeholders, based on a conceptual framework devised from decision-making models and MDT guidelines. Quantitative data will be summarised descriptively, and χ2 tests run to explore associations. Qualitative data will be analysed using applied thematic analysis. Using a convergent design, mixed-methods data will be triangulated guided by the conceptual framework.The study has been approved by NHS Research Ethics Committee (London-Hampstead) (22/HRA/0177). The results will be shared through peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences. A report summarising key findings will be used to develop a resource pack for MDTs to translate learnings from this study into improved effectiveness of virtual MDT meetings.The study has been registered on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/D2NHW).

Cost-Utility Analysis of Major System Change in Specialist Cancer Surgery in London, England, Using Linked Patient-Level Electronic Health Records and Difference-in-Differences Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that centralising surgical treatment for some cancers can improve patient outcomes, but there is limited evidence of the impact on costs or health-related quality of life. OBJECTIVES: We report the results of a cost-utility analysis of the RESPECT-21 study using difference-in-differences, which investigated the reconfiguration of specialist surgery services for four cancers in an area of London, compared to the Rest of England (ROE). METHODS: Electronic health records data were obtained from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service for patients diagnosed with one of the four cancers of interest between 2012 and 2017. The analysis for each tumour type used a short-term decision tree followed by a 10-year Markov model with 6-monthly cycles. Costs were calculated by applying National Health Service (NHS) Reference Costs to patient-level hospital resource use and supplemented with published data. Cancer-specific preference-based health-related quality-of-life values were obtained from the literature to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Total costs and QALYs were calculated before and after the reconfiguration, in the London Cancer (LC) area and in ROE, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to illustrate the uncertainty in the results. RESULTS: At a threshold of £30,000/QALY gained, LC reconfiguration of prostate cancer surgery services had a 79% probability of having been cost-effective compared to non-reconfigured services using difference-in-differences. The oesophago-gastric, bladder and renal reconfigurations had probabilities of 62%, 49% and 12%, respectively, of being cost-effective at the same threshold. Costs and QALYs per surgical patient increased over time for all cancers across both regions to varying degrees. Bladder cancer surgery had the smallest patient numbers and changes in costs, and QALYs were not significant. The largest improvement in outcomes was in renal cancer surgery in ROE, making the relative renal improvements in LC appear modest, and the probability of the LC reconfiguration having been cost-effective low. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer reconfigurations had the highest probability of being cost-effective. It is not clear, however, whether the prostate results can be considered in isolation, given the reconfigurations occurred simultaneously with other system changes, and healthcare delivery in the NHS is highly networked and collaborative. Routine collection of quality-of-life measures such as the EQ-5D-5L would have improved the analysis.

Metastatic bone disease: Early referral for multidisciplinary care.

It is estimated that more than half of all cancers develop bony metastases, exacting a substantial cost in terms of patient quality of life and healthcare expenses. Prompt diagnosis and management have been shown to reduce morbidity and costs. When a patient with a history of cancer presents with musculoskeletal pain, heightened awareness of the risk of bone metastasis should prompt immediate referral to an orthopedic specialist. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to identify an appropriate treatment plan for the patient based on the prognosis, fracture status, and extent of skeletal disease.

Loss associated with subtractive health service change: The case of specialist cancer centralization in England.

OBJECTIVE: Major system change can be stressful for staff involved and can result in 'subtractive change' - that is, when a part of the work environment is removed or ceases to exist. Little is known about the response to loss of activity resulting from such changes. Our aim was to understand perceptions of loss in response to centralization of cancer services in England, where 12 sites offering specialist surgery were reduced to four, and to understand the impact of leadership and management on enabling or hampering coping strategies associated with that loss. METHODS: We analysed 115 interviews with clinical, nursing and managerial staff from oesophago-gastric, prostate/bladder and renal cancer services in London and West Essex. In addition, we used 134 hours of observational data and analysis from over 100 documents to contextualize and to interpret the interview data. We performed a thematic analysis drawing on stress-coping theory and organizational change. RESULTS: Staff perceived that, during centralization, sites were devalued as the sites lost surgical activity, skills and experienced teams. Staff members believed that there were long-term implications for this loss, such as in retaining high-calibre staff, attracting trainees and maintaining autonomy. Emotional repercussions for staff included perceived loss of status and motivation. To mitigate these losses, leaders in the centralization process put in place some instrumental measures, such as joint contracting, surgical skill development opportunities and trainee rotation. However, these measures were undermined by patchy implementation and negative impacts on some individuals (e.g. increased workload or travel time). Relatively little emotional support was perceived to be offered. Leaders sometimes characterized adverse emotional reactions to the centralization as resistance, to be overcome through persuasion and appeals to the success of the new system. CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale reorganizations are likely to provoke a high degree of emotion and perceptions of loss. Resources to foster coping and resilience should be made available to all organizations within the system as they go through major change.

Inter-organisational collaboration enabling care delivery in a specialist cancer surgery provider network: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the processes, challenges and strategies used to govern and maintain inter-organisational collaboration between professionals in a provider network in London, United Kingdom, which implemented major system change focused on the centralisation of specialist cancer surgery. METHODS: We used a qualitative design involving interviews with stakeholders (n = 117), non-participant observations (n = 163) and documentary analysis (n = 100). We drew on an existing model of collaboration in healthcare organisations and expanded this framework by applying it to the analysis of collaboration in the context of major system change. RESULTS: Network provider organisations established shared goals, maintained central figures who could create and sustain collaboration, and promoted distributed forms of leadership. Still, organisations continued to encounter barriers or challenges in relation to developing opportunities for mutual acquaintanceship across all professional groups; the active sharing of knowledge, expertise and good practice across the network; the fostering of trust; and creation of information exchange infrastructures fit for collaborative purposes. CONCLUSION: Collaborative relationships changed over time, becoming stronger post-implementation in some areas, but continued to be negotiated where resistance to the centralisation remained. Future research should explore the sustainability of these relationships and further unpack how hierarchies and power relationships shape inter-organisational collaboration.

The multidisciplinary, theory-based co-design of a new digital health intervention supporting the care of oesophageal cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Oesophageal cancer patients have complex care needs. Cancer clinical nurse specialists play a key role in coordinating their care but often have heavy workloads. Digital health interventions can improve patient care but there are few examples for oesophageal cancer. This paper aims to describe the multidisciplinary co-design process of a digital health intervention to improve the experience of care and reduce unmet needs among patients with oesophageal cancer. METHODS: A theory-based, multi-disciplinary, co-design approach was used to inform the developmental process of the digital health intervention. Key user needs were elicited using mixed methodology from systematic reviews, focus groups and interviews and holistic need assessments. Overarching decisions were discussed among a core team of patients, carers, health care professionals including oncologists and cancer clinical nurse specialists, researchers and digital health providers. A series of workshops incorporating a summary of findings of key user needs resulted in the development of a minimum viable product. This was further refined after a pilot study based on feedback from end users. RESULTS: The final digital health intervention consists of a mobile app feature for patients and carers connected to a dashboard with supporting additional features for clinical nurse specialist. It contains a one-way messaging function for clinical nurse specialists to communicate with patients, functions for patients to record weight and holistic need assessment results which could be viewed by their clinical nurse specialists as well as a library of informative articles. CONCLUSIONS: The multidisciplinary co-design of a digital health intervention providing support for oesophageal cancer patients and health care professionals has been described. Future studies to establish its impact on patient outcomes are planned.

How to Cost the Implementation of Major System Change for Economic Evaluations: Case Study Using Reconfigurations of Specialist Cancer Surgery in Part of London, England.

BACKGROUND: Studies have been published regarding the impact of major system change (MSC) on care quality and outcomes, but few evaluate implementation costs or include them in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). This is despite large potential costs of MSC: change planning, purchasing or repurposing assets, and staff time. Implementation costs can influence implementation decisions. We describe our framework and principles for costing MSC implementation and illustrate them using a case study. METHODS: We outlined MSC implementation stages and identified components, using a framework conceived during our work on MSC in stroke services. We present a case study of MSC of specialist surgery services for prostate, bladder, renal and oesophagogastric cancers, focusing on North Central and North East London and West Essex. Health economists collaborated with qualitative researchers, clinicians and managers, identifying key reconfiguration stages and expenditures. Data sources (n = approximately 100) included meeting minutes, interviews, and business cases. National Health Service (NHS) finance and service managers and clinicians were consulted. Using bottom-up costing, items were identified, and unit costs based on salaries, asset costs and consultancy fees assigned. Itemised costs were adjusted and summed. RESULTS: Cost components included options appraisal, bidding process, external review; stakeholder engagement events; planning/monitoring boards/meetings; and making the change: new assets, facilities, posts. Other considerations included hospital tariff changes; costs to patients; patient population; and lifetime of changes. Using the framework facilitated data identification and collection. The total adjusted implementation cost was estimated at £7.2 million, broken down as replacing robots (£4.0 million), consultancy fees (£1.9 million), staff time costs (£1.1 million) and other costs (£0.2 million). CONCLUSIONS: These principles can be used by funders, service providers and commissioners planning MSC and researchers evaluating MSC. Health economists should be involved early, alongside qualitative and health-service colleagues, as retrospective capture risks information loss. These analyses are challenging; many cost factors are difficult to identify, access and measure, and assumptions regarding lifetime of the changes are important. Including implementation costs in CEA might make MSC appear less cost effective, influencing future decisions. Future work will incorporate this implementation cost into the full CEAs of the London Cancer MSC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Implementing major system change in specialist cancer surgery: The role of provider networks.

OBJECTIVE: Major system change (MSC) has multiple, sometimes conflicting, goals and involves implementing change across a number of organizations. This study sought to develop new understanding of how the role that networks can play in implementing MSC, using the case of centralization of specialist cancer surgery in London, UK. METHODS: The study was based on a framework drawn from literature on networks and MSC. We analysed 100 documents, conducted 134 h of observations during relevant meetings and 81 interviews with stakeholders involved in the centralization. We analysed the data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: MSC in specialist cancer services was a contested process, which required constancy in network leadership over several years, and its horizontal and vertical distribution across the network. A core central team composed of network leaders, managers and clinical/manager hybrid roles was tasked with implementing the changes. This team developed different forms of engagement with provider organizations and other stakeholders. Some actors across the network, including clinicians and patients, questioned the rationale for the changes, the clinical evidence used to support the case for change, and the ways in which the changes were implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides new understanding of MSC by discussing the strategies used by a provider network to facilitate complex changes in a health care context in the absence of a system-wide authority.

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) versus standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric origin: protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION: There is uncertainty about whether cytoreductive surgery (CRS)+hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves survival and/or quality of life compared with standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases who can withstand major surgery. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative benefits and harms of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric cancers eligible to undergo CRS+HIPEC by a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective using a model-based cost-utility analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic review of literature by updating the searches from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane library, Science Citation Index as well as trial registers. Two members of our team will independently screen the search results and identify randomised controlled trials comparing CRS+HIPEC versus SoC for inclusion based on full texts for articles shortlisted during screening. We will assess the risk of bias in the trials and obtain data related to baseline prognostic characteristics, details of intervention and control, and outcome data related to overall survival, disease progression, health-related quality of life, treatment related complications and resource utilisation data. Using IPD, we will perform a two-step IPD, that is, calculate the adjusted effect estimate from each included study and then perform a random-effects model meta-analysis. We will perform various subgroup analyses, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses. We will also perform a model-based cost-utility analysis to assess whether CRS+HIPEC is cost-effective in the NHS setting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee (Ethics number: 16023/001). We aim to present the findings at appropriate international meetings and publish the review, irrespective of the findings, in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019130504.

Assessment of a Noninvasive Exhaled Breath Test for the Diagnosis of Oesophagogastric Cancer.

Importance: Early esophagogastric cancer (OGC) stage presents with nonspecific symptoms. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of a breath test for the diagnosis of OGC in a multicenter validation study. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patient recruitment for this diagnostic validation study was conducted at 3 London hospital sites, with breath samples returned to a central laboratory for selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry (SIFT-MS) analysis. Based on a 1:1 cancer:control ratio, and maintaining a sensitivity and specificity of 80%, the sample size required was 325 patients. All patients with cancer were on a curative treatment pathway, and patients were recruited consecutively. Among the 335 patients included; 172 were in the control group and 163 had OGC. Interventions: Breath samples were collected using secure 500-mL steel breath bags and analyzed by SIFT-MS. Quality assurance measures included sampling room air, training all researchers in breath sampling, regular instrument calibration, and unambiguous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) identification by gas chromatography mass spectrometry. Main Outcomes and Measures: The risk of cancer was identified based on a previously generated 5-VOCs model and compared with histopathology-proven diagnosis. Results: Patients in the OGC group were older (median [IQR] age 68 [60-75] vs 55 [41-69] years) and had a greater proportion of men (134 [82.2%]) vs women (81 [47.4%]) compared with the control group. Of the 163 patients with OGC, 123 (69%) had tumor stage T3/4, and 106 (65%) had nodal metastasis on clinical staging. The predictive probabilities generated by this 5-VOCs diagnostic model were used to generate a receiver operator characteristic curve, with good diagnostic accuracy, area under the curve of 0.85. This translated to a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 81% for the diagnosis of OGC. Conclusions and Relevance: This study shows the potential of breath analysis in noninvasive diagnosis of OGC in the clinical setting. The next step is to establish the diagnostic accuracy of the test among the intended population in primary care where the test will be applied.

Centralising specialist cancer surgery services in England: survey of factors that matter to patients and carers and health professionals.

BACKGROUND: The centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services across London Cancer and Greater Manchester Cancer, England, may significantly change how patients experience care. These centres are changing specialist surgical pathways for several cancers including prostate, bladder, kidney, and oesophago-gastric cancers, increasing the specialisation of centres and providing surgery in fewer hospitals. While there are potential benefits related to centralising services, changes of this kind are often controversial. The aim of this study was to identify factors related to the centralisation of specialist surgical services that are important to patients, carers and health care professionals. METHODS: This was a questionnaire-based study involving a convenience sample of patient and public involvement (PPI) and cancer health care professional (HCP) sub-groups in London and Greater Manchester (n = 186). Participants were asked to identify which of a list of factors potentially influenced by the centralisation of specialist cancer surgery were important to them and to rank these in order of importance. We ranked and shortlisted the most important factors. RESULTS: We obtained 52 responses (28% response rate). The factors across both groups rated most important were: highly trained staff; likelihood and severity of complications; waiting time for cancer surgery; and access to staff members from various disciplines with specialised skills in cancer. These factors were also ranked as being important separately by the PPI and HCP sub-groups. There was considerable heterogeneity in the relative ordering of factors within sub-groups and overall. CONCLUSIONS: This study examines and ranks factors important to patients and carers, and health care professionals in order to inform the implementation of centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services. The most important factors were similar in the two stakeholder sub-groups. Planners should consider the impact of reorganising services on these factors, and disseminate this information to patients, the public and health care professionals when deciding whether or not and how to centralise specialist cancer surgical services.

Follow-up after surgery for gastric cancer: how to do it.

There is no consensus on follow-up after gastric surgery for cancer, nor evidence that it improves outcomes. We investigated the impact of intensity of follow-up, comparing the regimens adopted by two centres, in Italy and in the UK. Patients who underwent surgery for gastric and junctional type-3 adenocarcinoma, between September 2009 and April 2013, at the Surgical Clinic, University of Brescia (Italy), and at the Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University College London Hospital (UK), were identified. Patients' demographics, stage, recurrence rates, modality of detection and treatment were recorded. Overall survival and costs were compared between the two protocols. A total of 128 patients were included. Recurrence rates were similar (p = 0.349), with more than 70% diagnosed during regular follow-up appointments in both centres. At univariate and multivariate analysis, stage I and treatment of recurrence were associated with a better survival. Patients treated for recurrence at the Italian centre showed an almost significant better survival (p = 0.052). The intensive Italian surveillance protocol was associated with significant higher costs per year. Follow-up and early detection of recurrence did not affect survival in the analysed series, focused on periods in which chemotherapy was ineffective towards recurrence. However, intensive follow-up allowed a greater number of patients to receive a treatment for recurrence; this might prove useful in the next few years, when more effective chemotherapy combinations are expected to become available. The costs could be reduced by adopting a less intensive surveillance programme.

Surgical resection of hepatic metastases from gastric cancer: outcomes from national series in England.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this national study were to examine the short-term safety and long-term survival benefit associated with surgical resection of hepatic metastases from gastric cancer. METHODS: Patients from the Hospital Episode Statistics database were classified by disease and treatment approach. Gastric cancer: 1. Without liver metastases treated by gastrectomy (GG). 2. With liver metastases treated by gastrectomy and hepatectomy (GGH). 3. With liver metastases treated by gastrectomy without hepatectomy (GGNH). 4. With liver metastases treated with no surgery (GNS). Propensity score matching and multivariable analyses were used to compensate for differences in some baseline characteristics. RESULTS: During the study period, 87,482 were patients diagnosed with gastric cancer, of whom 13,841 underwent partial or total gastrectomy. Of those who underwent gastrectomy, 336 had a diagnosis of liver metastases and 78 of these had a hepatectomy. Propensity-matched analysis showed no significant differences in 30- or 90-day mortality between the GGH and GG groups. The GGH group had significantly improved 1-year mortality (35.9 % vs. 50.0 %, p = 0.049) and 5-year mortality (61.5 % vs. 75.7 %, p = 0.031) compared to the GGNH group, and compared to the GNS group, the GCH group had 1-year mortality (35.9 % vs. 84.6 %, p < 0.001) and 5-year mortality (61.5 % vs. 90.8 %, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that hepatectomy for synchronous gastric cancer hepatic metastases may carry survival benefits in selected patients. The data presented should not be a rationale to change current clinical practice but rather a stimulus to prospectively study the role of surgery in a selected group of patients who are currently treated with palliative chemotherapy.

Reorganising specialist cancer surgery for the twenty-first century: a mixed methods evaluation (RESPECT-21).

BACKGROUND: There are longstanding recommendations to centralise specialist healthcare services, citing the potential to reduce variations in care and improve patient outcomes. Current activity to centralise specialist cancer surgical services in two areas of England provides an opportunity to study the planning, implementation and outcomes of such changes. London Cancer and Manchester Cancer are centralising specialist surgical pathways for prostate, bladder, renal, and oesophago-gastric cancers, so that these services are provided in fewer hospitals. The centralisations in London were implemented between November 2015 and April 2016, while implementation in Manchester is anticipated in 2017. METHODS/DESIGN: This mixed methods evaluation will analyse stakeholder preferences for centralisations; it will use qualitative methods to analyse planning, implementation and sustainability of the centralisations ('how and why?'); and it will use a controlled before and after design to study the impact of centralisation on clinical processes, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness and patient experience ('what works and at what cost?'). The study will use a framework developed in previous research on major system change in acute stroke services. A discrete choice experiment will examine patient, public and professional preferences for centralisations of this kind. Qualitative methods will include documentary analysis, stakeholder interviews and non-participant observations of meetings. Quantitative methods will include analysis of local and national data on clinical processes, outcomes, costs and National Cancer Patient Experience Survey data. Finally, we will hold a workshop for those involved in centralisations of specialist services in other settings to discuss how these lessons might apply more widely. DISCUSSION: This multi-site study will address gaps in the evidence on stakeholder preferences for centralisations of specialist cancer surgery and the processes, impact and cost-effectiveness of changes of this kind. With increasing drives to centralise specialist services, lessons from this study will be of value to those who commission, organise and manage cancer services, as well as services for other conditions and in other settings. The study will face challenges in terms of recruitment, the retrospective analysis of some of the changes, the distinction between primary and secondary outcome measures, and obtaining information on the resources spent on the reconfiguration.

Minimally invasive and robotic esophagectomy: Evolution and evidence.

Esophageal cancer has a poor prognosis, with little improvement in outcomes in recent years. Surgery maintains its pivotal role in cure, but this involves two or three compartment dissection with associated high risks. Chiefly, pulmonary complications following surgery are most common, and can be life-threatening. As a consequence, minimally invasive and robotic esophagectomy have been performed with improving efficacy and equivalent oncological outcomes. This is a review of the pertinent literature regarding these techniques. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:731-735. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer is the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality in the world. Currently there are two surgical options for potentially curable patients (i.e. people with non-metastatic gastric cancer), laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. However, it is not clear whether one of these options is superior. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic gastrectomy or laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy for people with gastric cancer. In particular, we planned to investigate the effects by patient groups, such as cancer stage, anaesthetic risk, and body mass index (BMI), and by intervention methods, such as method of anastomosis, type of gastrectomy and laparoscopic or laparoscopically-assisted gastrectomy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) until September 2015. We also screened reference lists from included trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently selected references for further assessment by going through all titles and abstracts. Further selection was based on review of full text articles for selected references. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted study data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes, the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. We performed meta-analyses where it was meaningful. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 2794 participants were randomised in 13 trials included in this review. All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. One trial (which included 53 participants) did not contribute any data to this review. A total of 213 participants were excluded in the remaining trials after randomisation, leaving a total of 2528 randomised participants for analysis, with 1288 undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy and 1240 undergoing open gastrectomy. All the participants were suitable for major surgery.There was no difference in the proportion of participants who died within thirty days of treatment between laparoscopic gastrectomy (7/1188: adjusted proportion = 0.6% (based on meta-analysis)) and open gastrectomy (4/1447: 0.3%) (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.10; risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; participants = 2335; studies = 11; I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence). There were no events in either group for short-term recurrence (participants = 103; studies = 3), proportion requiring blood transfusion (participants = 66; studies = 2), and proportion with positive margins at histopathology (participants = 28; studies = 1). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, time to return to normal activity or time to return to work. The differences in long-term mortality (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25; participants = 195; studies = 3; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence), serious adverse events within three months (laparoscopic gastrectomy (7/216: adjusted proportion = 3.6%) versus open gastrectomy (13/216: 6%) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.34; participants = 432; studies = 8; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence), long-term recurrence (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; participants = 162; studies = 4; very low quality evidence), adverse events within three months (laparoscopic gastrectomy (204/268: adjusted proportion = 16.1%) versus open gastrectomy (253/1222: 20.7%) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.01; participants = 2490; studies = 11; I(2) = 38%; very low quality evidence), quantity of perioperative blood transfused (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.38; participants = 143; studies = 2; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -1.82 days, 95% CI -3.72 to 0.07; participants = 319; studies = 6; I(2) = 83%; very low quality evidence), and number of lymph nodes harvested (MD -0.63, 95% CI -1.51 to 0.25; participants = 472; studies = 9; I(2) = 40%; very low quality evidence) were imprecise. There was no alteration in the interpretation of the results in any of the subgroups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low quality evidence, there is no difference in short-term mortality between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. Based on very low quality evidence, there is no evidence for any differences in short-term or long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. However, the data are sparse, and the confidence intervals were wide, suggesting that significant benefits or harms of laparoscopic gastrectomy cannot be ruled out. Several trials are currently being conducted and interim results of these trials have been included in this review. These trials need to perform intention-to-treat analysis to ensure that the results are reliable and report the results according to the CONSORT Statement.

Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is the preferred treatment for resectable oesophageal cancers, and can be performed in different ways. Transhiatal oesophagectomy (oesophagectomy without thoracotomy, with a cervical anastomosis) is one way to resect oesophageal cancers. It can be performed laparoscopically or by open method. With other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay compared to open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy in terms of post-operative complications and oncological clearance compared with open transhiatal oesophagectomy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic versus open oesophagectomy for people with oesophageal cancer undergoing transhiatal oesophagectomy. SEARCH METHODS: We electronically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers until August 2015. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies comparing laparoscopic with open transhiatal oesophagectomy in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer, regardless of language, blinding, or publication status for the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently identified trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using both fixed-effect and random-effects models, with RevMan 5, based on intention-to-treat analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We found no randomised controlled trials on this topic. We included six non-randomised studies (five retrospective) that compared laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy (334 patients: laparoscopic = 154 patients; open = 180 patients); five studies (326 patients: laparoscopic = 151 patients; open = 175 patients) provided information for one or more outcomes. Most studies included a mixture of adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma and different stages of oesophageal cancer, without metastases. All the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias; the overall quality of evidence was very low for all the outcomes.The differences between laparoscopic and open transhiatal oesophagectomy were imprecise for short-term mortality (laparoscopic = 0/151 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 0.5%) versus open = 2/175 (1.1%); RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.05 to 4.09; participants = 326; studies = 5; I² = 0%); long-term mortality (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; participants = 193; studies = 2; I² = 0%); anastomotic stenosis (laparoscopic = 4/36 (11.1%) versus open = 3/37 (8.1%); RR 1.37; 95% CI 0.33 to 5.70; participants = 73; studies = 1); short-term recurrence (laparoscopic = 1/16 (6.3%) versus open = 0/4 (0%); RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.04 to 18.47; participants = 20; studies = 1); long-term recurrence (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; participants = 173; studies = 2); proportion of people who required blood transfusion (laparoscopic = 0/36 (0%) versus open = 6/37 (16.2%); RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.00 to 1.35; participants = 73; studies = 1); proportion of people with positive resection margins (laparoscopic = 15/102 (15.8%) versus open = 27/111 (24.3%); RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.12; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); and the number of lymph nodes harvested during surgery (median difference between the groups varied from 12 less to 3 more lymph nodes in the laparoscopic compared to the open group; participants = 326; studies = 5).The proportion of patients with serious adverse events was lower in the laparoscopic group (10/99, (10.3%) compared to the open group = 24/114 (21.1%); RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); as it was for adverse events in the laparoscopic group = 37/99 (39.9%) versus the open group = 71/114 (62.3%); RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); and the median lengths of hospital stay were significantly less in the laparoscopic group than the open group (three days less in all three studies that reported this outcome; number of participants = 266). There was lack of clarity as to whether the median difference in the quantity of blood transfused was statistically significant favouring laparoscopic oesophagectomy in the only study that reported this information. None of the studies reported post-operative dysphagia, health-related quality of life, time-to-return to normal activity (return to pre-operative mobility without caregiver support), or time-to-return to work. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are currently no randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open transhiatal oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy is associated with fewer overall complications and shorter hospital stays than open transhiatal oesophagectomy. However, this association is unlikely to be causal. There is currently no information to determine a causal association in the differences between the two surgical approaches. Randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy with other methods of oesophagectomy are required to determine the optimal method of oesophagectomy.