Recurrence and Survival after Minimally Invasive and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer - A Post Hoc Analysis of the Ensure Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of operative approach (open [OE], hybrid [HMIE] and total minimally invasive esophagectomy [TMIE]) on operative and oncologic outcomes for patients treated with curative intent for esophageal and junctional cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The optimum oncologic surgical approach to esophageal and junctional cancer is unclear. METHODS: This secondary analysis of the European multicenter ENSURE study includes patients undergoing curative-intent esophagectomy for cancer between 2009-2015 across 20 high-volume centers. Primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and the incidence and location of disease recurrence. Secondary endpoints included among others R0 resection rate, lymph node yield and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 3,199 patients were included. Of these, 55% underwent OE, 17% HMIE and 29% TMIE. DFS was independently increased post TMIE (HR 0.86 [95% CI 0.76-0.98], P=0.022) compared with OE. Multivariable regression demonstrated no difference in absolute locoregional recurrence risk according to operative approach (HMIE vs. OE OR 0.79, P=0.257, TMIE vs. OE OR 0.84, P=0.243). The probability of systemic recurrence was independently increased post HMIE (OR 2.07, P=0.031), but not TMIE (OR 0.86, P=0.508). R0 resection rates (P=0.005) and nodal yield (P<0.001) were independently increased after TMIE, but not HMIE (P=0.424; P=0.512) compared with OE. OS was independently improved following both HMIE (HR 0.79, P=0.009) and TMIE (HR 0.82, P=0.003) as compared with OE. CONCLUSION: In this European multicenter study, TMIE was associated with improved surgical quality and DFS, while both TMIE and HMIE were associated with improved OS as compared with OE for esophageal cancer.

Evolution in Laparoscopic Gastrectomy From a Randomized Controlled Trial Through National Clinical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of the LOGICA RCT (randomized controlled trial) upon the practice and outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy within the Netherlands. BACKGROUND: Following RCTs the dissemination of complex interventions has been poorly studied. The LOGICA RCT included 10 Dutch centers and compared laparoscopic to open gastrectomy. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) on all gastrectomies performed in the Netherlands (2012-2021), and the LOGICA RCT from 2015 to 2018. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the effect of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy upon clinical outcomes before, during, and after the LOGICA RCT. RESULTS: Two hundred eleven patients from the LOGICA RCT (105 open vs 106 laparoscopic) and 4131 patients from the DUCA data set (1884 open vs 2247 laparoscopic) were included. In 2012, laparoscopic gastrectomy was performed in 6% of patients, increasing to 82% in 2021. No significant effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy on postoperative clinical outcomes was observed within the LOGICA RCT. Nationally within DUCA, a shift toward a beneficial effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy upon complications was observed, reaching a significant reduction in overall [adjusted odds ratio (aOR):0.62; 95% CI: 0.46-0.82], severe (aOR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46-0.90) and cardiac complications (aOR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.30-0.89) after the LOGICA trial. CONCLUSIONS: The wider benefits of the LOGICA trial included the safe dissemination of laparoscopic gastrectomy across the Netherlands. The robust surgical quality assurance program in the design of the LOGICA RCT was crucial to facilitate the national dissemination of the technique following the trial and reducing potential patient harm during surgeons learning curve.

The Prognostic Impact of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy on Survival after Esophagectomy following a Delayed Interval after Chemoradiotherapy; A Secondary Analysis of the DICE Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prognostic differences between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) in patients with surgery after a prolonged interval (>12 wk) following chemoradiotherapy (CRT). BACKGROUND: Previously, we established that a prolonged interval after CRT prior to esophagectomy was associated with poorer long-term survival. METHODS: This was an international multi-center cohort study involving seventeen tertiary centers, including patients who received CRT followed by surgery between 2010-2020. Patients undergoing MIE were defined as thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approach. RESULTS: 428 patients (145 MIE and 283 OE) had surgery between 12 weeks and two years after CRT. Significant differences were observed in ASA grade, radiation dose, clinical T stage, and histological subtype. There were no significant differences between the groups in age, sex, BMI, pathological T or N stage, resection margin status, tumor location, surgical technique, or 90-day mortality. Survival analysis showed MIE was associated with improved survival in univariate (P=0.014), multivariate analysis after adjustment for smoking, T and N stage, and histology (HR=1.69; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.5) and propensity matched analysis (P=0.02). Further subgroup analyses by radiation dose and interval after CRT showed survival advantage for MIE, in 40-50Gy dose groups (HR=1.9; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.0), and in patients having surgery within six months of CRT (HR=1.6; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.2). CONCLUSION: MIE was associated with an improved overall survival compared to OE in patients with a prolonged interval from CRT to surgery. The mechanism for this observed improvement in survival remains unknown, with potential hypotheses including a reduction in complications and improved functional recovery after MIE.

Impact of 18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3-4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations). RESULTS: 18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870-1253 in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.

Prognostic value of Mandard score and nodal status for recurrence patterns and survival after multimodal treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the association of pathological tumour response (tumour regression grade, TRG) and a novel scoring system, combining both TRG and nodal status (TRG-ypN score; TRG1-ypN0, TRG>1-ypN0, TRG1-ypN+ and TRG>1-ypN+), with recurrence patterns and survival after multimodal treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This Dutch nationwide cohort study included patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by oesophagectomy for distal oesophageal or gastro-oesophageal junctional adenocarcinoma between 2007 and 2016. The primary endpoint was the association of Mandard score and TRG-ypN score with recurrence patterns (rate, location, and time to recurrence). The secondary endpoint was overall survival. RESULTS: Among 2746 inclusions, recurrence rates increased with higher Mandard scores (TRG1 30.6%, TRG2 44.9%, TRG3 52.9%, TRG4 61.4%, TRG5 58.2%; P < 0.001). Among patients with recurrent disease, the distribution (locoregional versus distant) was the same for the different TRG groups. Patients with TRG1 developed more brain recurrences (17.7 versus 9.8%; P = 0.001) and had a longer mean overall survival (44 versus 35 months; P < 0.001) than those with TRG>1. The TRG>1-ypN+ group had the highest recurrence rate (64.9%) and worst overall survival (mean 27 months). Compared with the TRG>1-ypN0 group, patients with TRG1-ypN+ had a higher risk of recurrence (51.9 versus 39.6%; P < 0.001) and worse mean overall survival (33 versus 41 months; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Improved tumour response to neoadjuvant therapy was associated with lower recurrence rates and higher overall survival rates. Among patients with recurrent disease, TRG1 was associated with a higher incidence of brain recurrence than TRG>1. Residual nodal disease influenced prognosis more negatively than residual disease at the primary tumour site.

Outcomes after gastrectomy according to the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA).

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) published a standardized set of complications aiming toward uniform reporting of post-gastrectomy complications. This study aimed to report outcomes after gastrectomy in the Netherlands according to GCCG definitions and compare them to previously reported national results and the European database reported by the GCCG. METHODS: This nationwide, population-based cohort study included all patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer registered in the DUCA in 2020-2021. Postoperative morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality were analyzed according to the GCCG definitions. For all patients, baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared with the GCCG cohort consisting of 27 European expert centers (GASTRODATA; 2017-2018). RESULTS: In 2020-2021, 782 patients underwent gastrectomy in the Netherlands. Variation was seen in baseline characteristics between the Dutch and the GCCG cohort (N = 1349), most notably in minimally invasive surgery (80.6% vs 19.6%, p < 0.001). In the Netherlands, 223 (28.5%) patients developed a total of 407 complications, the most frequent being non-surgical infections (28.5%) and anastomotic leakage (13.4%). The overall complication and 30-day mortality rates were similar between the Dutch and GCCG cohort (28.5% vs 29.8%, p = 0.563; 3.7% vs 3.6%, p = 0.953). Higher surgical and endoscopic/radiologic reintervention rates were observed in the Netherlands compared to the GCCG cohort (10.7% vs 7.8%, p = 0.025; 10.9% vs 2.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Reporting outcomes according to the standardized GCCG definitions allows for international benchmarking. Postoperative outcomes were comparable between Dutch and GCCG cohorts, but both exceed the international benchmark for expert gastrectomy care, highlighting targets for national and international quality improvement.

International consensus on the management of metastatic gastric cancer: step by step in the foggy landscape : Bertinoro Workshop, November 2022.

BACKGROUND: Many gastric cancer patients in Western countries are diagnosed as metastatic with a median overall survival of less than twelve months using standard chemotherapy. Innovative treatments, like targeted therapy or immunotherapy, have recently proved to ameliorate prognosis, but a general agreement on managing oligometastatic disease has yet to be achieved. An international multi-disciplinary workshop was held in Bertinoro, Italy, in November 2022 to verify whether achieving a consensus on at least some topics was possible. METHODS: A two-round Delphi process was carried out, where participants were asked to answer 32 multiple-choice questions about CT, laparoscopic staging and biomarkers, systemic treatment for different localization, role and indication of palliative care. Consensus was established with at least a 67% agreement. RESULTS: The assembly agreed to define oligometastases as a "dynamic" disease which either regresses or remains stable in response to systemic treatment. In addition, the definition of oligometastases was restricted to the following sites: para-aortic nodal stations, liver, lung, and peritoneum, excluding bones. In detail, the following conditions should be considered as oligometastases: involvement of para-aortic stations, in particular 16a2 or 16b1; up to three technically resectable liver metastases; three unilateral or two bilateral lung metastases; peritoneal carcinomatosis with PCI ≤ 6. No consensus was achieved on how to classify positive cytology, which was considered as oligometastatic by 55% of participants only if converted to negative after chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: As assessed at the time of diagnosis, surgical treatment of oligometastases should aim at R0 curativity on the entire disease volume, including both the primary tumor and its metastases. Conversion surgery was defined as surgery on the residual volume of disease, which was initially not resectable for technical and/or oncological reasons but nevertheless responded to first-line treatment.

An international Delphi consensus for surgical quality assessment of lymphadenectomy and anastomosis in minimally invasive total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG) is a mainstay for curative treatment of patients with gastric cancer. To define and standardize optimal surgical techniques and further improve clinical outcomes through the enhanced MITG surgical quality, there must be consensus on the key technical steps of lymphadenectomy and anastomosis creation, which is currently lacking. This study aimed to determine an expert consensus from an international panel regarding the technical aspects of the performance of MITG for oncological indications using the Delphi method. METHODS: A 100-point scoping survey was created based on the deconstruction of MITG into its key technical steps through local and international expert opinion and literature evidence. An international expert panel comprising upper gastrointestinal and general surgeons participated in multiple rounds of a Delphi consensus. The panelists voted on the issues concerning importance, difficulty, or agreement using an online questionnaire. A priori consensus standard was set at > 80% for agreement to a statement. Internal consistency and reliability were evaluated using Cronbach's α. RESULTS: Thirty expert upper gastrointestinal and general surgeons participated in three online Delphi rounds, generating a final consensus of 41 statements regarding MITG for gastric cancer. The consensus was gained from 22, 12, and 7 questions from Delphi rounds 1, 2, and 3, which were rephrased into the 41 statetments respectively. For lymphadenectomy and aspects of anastomosis creation, Cronbach's α for round 1 was 0.896 and 0.886, and for round 2 was 0.848 and 0.779, regarding difficulty or importance. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi consensus defined 41 steps as crucial for performing a high-quality MITG for oncological indications based on the standards of an international panel. The results of this consensus provide a platform for creating and validating surgical quality assessment tools designed to improve clinical outcomes and standardize surgical quality in MITG.

History and evidence for state of the art of lymphadenectomy in esophageal cancer surgery.

The current curative multimodal treatment of advanced esophageal cancers consists of neoadjuvant or perioperative chemo(radio)therapy followed by a radical surgical resection of the primary tumor and a 2- or 3-field lymphadenectomy. One of the most important predictors of long-term survival of esophageal cancer patients is lymph node involvement. The distribution pattern of lymph node metastases in esophageal cancer is unpredictable and depends on the primary tumor location, histology, T-stage and application of neoadjuvant or perioperative treatment. The optimal extent of the lymphadenectomy remains controversial; there is no global consensus on this topic yet. Some surgeons advocate an aggressive and extended lymph node dissection to remove occult metastatic disease, to optimize oncological outcomes. Others promote a more restricted lymphadenectomy, since the benefit of an extended lymphadenectomy, especially after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, has not been clearly demonstrated, and morbidity may be reduced. In this review, we describe the development of lymphadenectomy, followed by a summary of current evidence for lymphadenectomy in esophageal cancer treatment.

Western European Variation in the Organization of Esophageal Cancer Surgical Care.

Reasons for structural and outcome differences in esophageal cancer surgery in Western Europe remain unclear. This questionnaire study aimed to identify differences in the organization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. A cross-sectional international questionnaire study was conducted among upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons from Western Europe. One surgeon per country was selected based on scientific output and active membership in the European Society for Diseases of the Esophagus or (inter)national upper GI committee. The questionnaire consisted of 51 structured questions on the structural organization of esophageal cancer surgery, surgical training, and clinical audit processes. Between October 2021 and October 2022, 16 surgeons from 16 European countries participated in this study. In 5 countries (31%), a volume threshold was present ranging from 10 to 26 annual esophagectomies, in 7 (44%) care was centralized in designated centers, and in 4 (25%) no centralizing regulations were present. The number of centers performing esophageal cancer surgery per country differed from 4 to 400, representing 0.5-4.9 centers per million inhabitants. In 4 countries (25%), esophageal cancer surgery was part of general surgical training and 8 (50%) reported the availability of upper GI surgery fellowships. A national audit for upper GI surgery was present in 8 (50%) countries. If available, all countries use the audit to monitor the quality of care. Substantial differences exist in the organization and centralization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. The exchange of experience in the organizational aspects of care could further improve the results of esophageal cancer surgical care in Europe.

Learning Curve of Laparoscopic Gastrectomy: A Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the learning curve of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) after an implementation program. BACKGROUND: Although LG is increasingly being performed worldwide, little is known about the learning curve. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent elective LG for gastric adenocarcinoma with curative intent in each of the 5 highest-volume centers in the Netherlands were enrolled. Generalized additive models and a 2-piece model with a break point were used to determine the learning curve length. Analyses were corrected for casemix and were performed for LG and for the subgroups distal gastrectomy (LDG) and total gastrectomy (LTG). The learning curve effect was assessed for (1) anastomotic leakage; and (2) the occurrence of postoperative complications, conversions to open surgery, and short-term oncological parameters. RESULTS: In total 540 patients were included for analysis, 108 patients from each center; 268 patients underwent LDG and 272 underwent LTG. First, for LG, no learning effect regarding anastomotic leakage could be identified: the rate of anastomotic leakage initially increased, then reached a plateau after 36 cases at 10% anastomotic leakage. Second, the level of overall complications reached a plateau after 20 cases, at 38% overall complications, and at 5% conversions. For both LDG and LTG, each considered separately, fluctuations in secondary outcomes and anastomotic leakage followed fluctuations in casemix. CONCLUSION: On the basis of our study of the first 108 procedures of LG in 5 high-volume centers with well-trained surgeons, no learning curve effect could be identified regarding anastomotic leakage. A learning curve effect was found with respect to overall complications and conversion rate.

Delayed Surgical Intervention After Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal Cancer: (DICE) Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of delayed surgical intervention following chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on survival from esophageal cancer. BACKGROUND: CRT is a core component of multimodality treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer. The timing of surgery following CRT may influence the probability of performing an oncological resection and the associated operative morbidity. METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, cohort study, including patients from 17 centers who received CRT followed by surgery between 2010 and 2020. In the main analysis, patients were divided into 4 groups based upon the interval between CRT and surgery (0-50, 51-100, 101-200, and >200 days) to assess the impact upon 90-day mortality and 5-year overall survival. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression provided hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs adjusted for relevant patient, oncological, and pathologic confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 2867 patients who underwent esophagectomy after CRT were included. After adjustment for relevant confounders, prolonged interval following CRT was associated with an increased 90-day mortality compared with 0 to 50 days (reference): 51 to 100 days (HR=1.54, 95% CI: 1.04-2.29), 101 to 200 days (HR=2.14, 95% CI: 1.37-3.35), and >200 days (HR=3.06, 95% CI: 1.64-5.69). Similarly, a poorer 5-year overall survival was also observed with prolonged interval following CRT compared with 0 to 50 days (reference): 101 to 200 days (HR=1.41, 95% CI: 1.17-1.70), and >200 days (HR=1.64, 95% CI: 1.24-2.17). CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged interval following CRT before esophagectomy is associated with increased 90-day mortality and poorer long-term survival. Further investigation is needed to understand the mechanism that underpins these adverse outcomes observed with a prolonged interval to surgery.

Textbook Oncological Outcome in European GASTRODATA.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the rate of textbook outcome (TO) and textbook oncological outcome (TOO) in the European population based on the GASTRODATA registry. BACKGROUND: TO is a composite parameter assessing surgical quality and strongly correlates with improved overall survival. Following the standard of treatment for locally advanced gastric cancer, TOO was proposed as a quality and optimal multimodal treatment parameter. METHODS: TO was achieved when all the following criteria were met: no intraoperative complications, radical resection according to the surgeon, pR0 resection, retrieval of at least 15 lymph nodes, no severe postoperative complications, no reintervention, no admission to the intensive care unit, no prolonged length of stay, no postoperative mortality and no hospital readmission. TOO was defined as TO with the addition of perioperative chemotherapy compliance. RESULTS: Of the 2558 patients, 1700 were included in the analysis. TO was achieved in 1164 (68.5%) patients. The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy [odds ratio (OR) = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.04-1.70] and D2 or D2+ lymphadenectomy (OR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.15-2.10) had a positive impact on TO achievement. Older age (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54-0.94), pT3/4 (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99), ASA 3/4 (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.54-0.86) and total gastrectomy (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.45-0.70), had a negative impact on TO achievement. TOO was achieved in 388 (22.8%) patients. Older age (OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.27-0.53), pT3 or pT4 (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.39-0.69), and ASA 3 or 4 (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.43-0.79) had a negative impact on TOO achievement. CONCLUSIONS: Despite successively improved surgical outcomes, stage-appropriate chemotherapy in adherence to the current guidelines for multimodal treatment of gastric cancer remains poor. Further implementation of oncologic quality metrics should include greater emphasis on perioperative chemotherapy and adequate lymphadenectomy.

Contrast-Enhanced Radiologic Evaluation of Gastric Conduit Emptying After Esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion is the standard of care in many hospitals after esophagectomy for gastric conduit decompression. An upper gastrointestinal contrast passage evaluation (UGI-CE) is a diagnostic test to evaluate passage through the gastric conduit. The authors hypothesized that introducing routine UGI-CE after esophagectomy results in earlier removal of the NGT and resumption of oral intake. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated two consecutive series of patients undergoing esophagectomy, one before (control group) and one after the introduction of a routine UGI-CE on postoperative day (POD) 3 or 4 (UGI-CE group). If contrast passage was found on the UGI-CE, the NGT was capped and removed. In the control group, the NGT was routinely capped and removed on day 5 after surgery. The primary outcome was the POD on which oral diet was initiated. The secondary outcomes were the day of NGT removal, NGT reinsertions, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Each cohort included 74 patients. In the UGI-CE group, the contrast test was performed on median POD 3.5 (IQR, 3-4). The median day of NGT removal, initiation of clear liquids, and full liquid and solid intake was 1 to 2 days earlier in the UGI-CE group than in the control group (i.e. POD 4, 4, 5, and 6 vs. POD 5, 5, 6.5, and 8; all p < 0.001). The study found no significant differences in NGT reinsertions, pneumonias, anastomotic leakages, or hospital stay. CONCLUSION: The routine use of a UGI-CE after esophagectomy led to earlier removal of the NGT and earlier resumption of oral intake.

Preoperative Risk Stratification in Esophageal Cancer Surgery: Comparing Risk Models with the Clinical Judgment of the Surgeon.

BACKGROUND: Numerous prediction models estimating the risk of complications after esophagectomy exist but are rarely used in practice. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical judgment of surgeons using these prediction models. METHODS: Patients with resectable esophageal cancer who underwent an esophagectomy were included in this prospective study. Prediction models for postoperative complications after esophagectomy were selected by a systematic literature search. Clinical judgment was given by three surgeons, indicating their estimated risk for postoperative complications in percentage categories. The best performing prediction model was compared with the judgment of the surgeons, using the net reclassification improvement (NRI), category-free NRI (cfNRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) indexes. RESULTS: Overall, 159 patients were included between March 2019 and July 2021, of whom 88 patients (55%) developed a complication. The best performing prediction model showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.56. The three surgeons had an AUC of 0.53, 0.55, and 0.59, respectively, and all surgeons showed negative percentages of cfNRIevents and IDIevents, and positive percentages of cfNRInonevents and IDIevents. This indicates that in the group of patients with postoperative complications, the prediction model performed better, whereas in the group of patients without postoperative complications, the surgeons performed better. NRIoverall was 18% for one surgeon, while the remainder of the NRIoverall, cfNRIoverall and IDIoverall scores showed small differences between surgeons and the prediction models. CONCLUSION: Prediction models tend to overestimate the risk of any complication, whereas surgeons tend to underestimate this risk. Overall, surgeons' estimations differ between surgeons and vary between similar to slightly better than the prediction models.

Gastrointestinal Symptoms After Resection of Esophagogastric Cancer: A Longitudinal Study on Their Incidence and Impact on Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: This study assesses the incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms in the first year after resection of esophageal or gastric cancer and its association with health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, work productivity, and daily activities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with esophageal or gastric cancer between 2015 and 2021, who underwent a resection, and completed ≥ 2 questionnaires from the time intervals prior to resection and 0-3, 3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months after resection were included. Multivariable generalized linear mixed models were used to assess changes in gastrointestinal symptoms over time and the impact of the number of gastrointestinal symptoms on HRQoL, functioning, work productivity, and daily activities for patients who underwent an esophagectomy or gastrectomy separately. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 961 (78.8%) and 259 (21.2%) patients who underwent an esophagectomy and gastrectomy, respectively. For both groups, the majority of gastrointestinal symptoms changed significantly over time. Most clinically relevant differences were observed 0-3 after resection compared with prior to resection and included increased diarrhea, appetite loss, and eating restrictions, and specifically after esophagectomy dry mouth, trouble with coughing, and trouble talking. At 9-12 after resection one or more severe gastrointestinal symptoms were reported by 38.9% after esophagectomy and 33.7% after gastrectomy. A higher number of gastrointestinal symptoms was associated with poorer functioning, lower HRQoL, higher impairment in daily activities, and lower work productivity. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently observed and burdensome after esophagectomy or gastrectomy, highlighting the importance to address these sequelae for high quality survivorship.

Feasibility and Safety of Tailored Lymphadenectomy Using Sentinel Node-Navigated Surgery in Patients with High-Risk T1 Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Selective lymphadenectomy using sentinel node-navigated surgery (SNNS) might offer a less invasive alternative to esophagectomy in patients with high-risk T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new treatment strategy, consisting of radical endoscopic resection of the tumor followed by SNNS. METHODS: In this multicenter pilot study, ten patients with a radically resected high-risk pT1cN0 EAC underwent SNNS. A hybrid tracer of technetium-99m nanocolloid and indocyanine green was injected endoscopically around the resection scar the day before surgery, followed by preoperative imaging. During surgery, sentinel nodes (SNs) were identified using a thoracolaparoscopic gammaprobe and fluorescence-based detection, and subsequently resected. Endpoints were surgical morbidity and number of detected and resected (tumor-positive) SNs. RESULTS: Localization and dissection of SNs was feasible in all ten patients (median 3 SNs per patient, range 1-6). The concordance between preoperative imaging and intraoperative detection was high. In one patient (10%), dissection was considered incomplete after two SNs were not identified intraoperatively. Additional peritumoral SNs were resected in four patients (40%) after fluorescence-based detection. In two patients (20%), a (micro)metastasis was found in one of the resected SNs. One patient experienced neuropathic thoracic pain related to surgery, while none of the patients developed functional gastroesophageal disorders. CONCLUSIONS: SNNS appears to be a feasible and safe instrument to tailor lymphadenectomy in patients with high-risk T1 EAC. Future research with long-term follow-up is warranted to determine whether this esophageal preserving strategy is justified for high-risk T1 EAC.

Endoscopic vacuum therapy for anastomotic leakage after upper gastrointestinal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Recently, endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) was introduced as treatment for anastomotic leakage after upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery. The aim of this study was to describe the initial experience with EVT for anastomotic leakage after upper GI surgery in a tertiary referral center. METHODS: Patients treated with EVT for anastomotic leakage after upper GI surgery were included retrospectively (January 2018-June 2021) and prospectively (June 2021-October 2021). The primary end point was the EVT success rate. Secondary end points included mortality and adverse events. RESULTS: 38 patients were included (31 men; mean age 66 years): 27 had undergone an esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction and 11 a total gastrectomy with esophagojejunal anastomosis. EVT was successful in 28 patients (74 %, 95 %CI 57 %-87 %). In 10 patients, EVT failed: deceased owing to radiation pneumonitis (n = 1), EVT-associated complications (n = 2), and defect closure not achieved (n = 7). Mean duration of successful EVT was 33 days, with a median of six EVT-related endoscopies. Median hospital stay was 45 days. CONCLUSION: This initial experience with EVT for anastomotic leakage after upper GI surgery demonstrated a success rate of 74 %. EVT is a promising therapy that could prevent further major surgery. More experience with the technique and its indications will likely improve success rates in the future.

The effect of anastomotic leakage on the incidence of recurrence after tri-modality therapy for esophageal adenocarcinomas.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRTx) reduces the incidence of recurrence, while anastomotic leakage has shown increase the risk of recurrence. The primary objective of this retrospective study was to investigate the incidence and pattern of recurrence and secondary median recurrence-free interval and post-recurrence survival in patients with and without anastomotic leakage after multimodal therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Patients with recurrence after multimodal therapy between 2010 and 2018 were included. RESULTS: Six hundred and eighteen patients were included, 91 (14.7%) had leakage and 278 (45.0%) recurrence. Patients with leakage did not develop recurrence more often (48.4%) than those without (44.4%, [p = 0.484]). Recurrence-free interval for patients with (n = 44) and without leakage (n = 234) was 39 and 52 weeks, respectively (p = 0.049). Post-recurrence survival was 11 and 16 weeks, respectively (p = 0.702). Specified by recurrence site, post-recurrence survival for loco-regional recurrences was 27 versus 33 weeks (p = 0.387) for patients with and without leakage, for distant 9 versus 13 (p = 0.999), and for combined 11 versus 18 weeks (p = 0.492). CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: No higher incidence of recurrent disease was observed in patients with anastomotic leakage, however it is associated with a shorter recurrence-free interval. This could have implications for surveillance, as early detection of recurrent disease could influence therapeutic options.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in older patients with gastric cancer undergoing surgery: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In trials evaluating perioperative chemotherapy for gastric cancer, which serve as the basis for treatment guidelines, patients are selected. The generalizability of these trial findings to older patients is uncertain. METHODS: This population-based retrospective cohort study compared the survival outcomes of patients ≥ 75 years with gastric adenocarcinoma treated with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy between 2015 and 2019. Additionally, the percentage of patients < 75 years and ≥ 75 years who did not proceeded to surgery after receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy were examined. RESULTS: A total of 1995 patients, of whom 1249 aged < 75 years and 746 aged ≥ 75 years, were included. In the group of patients ≥ 75 years, 275 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 471 patients were directly scheduled for gastrectomy. Patients ≥ 75 years treated with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy differed significantly from one and another in characteristics. Overall survival of patients ≥ 75 years treated with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not significantly different (median 34.9 vs. 32.3 months; P = 0.506), also after adjusting for potential confounders (HR 0.87; P = 0.263). Of patients ≥ 75 years who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 43 (15.6%) did not proceed to surgery compared to 111 (8.9%) patients < 75 years (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients ≥ 75 years treated with or without chemotherapy were highly selected, and overall survival was not significantly different between both groups. Nonetheless, the proportion of patients who did not proceed to surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy was higher in patients ≥ 75 years compared to patients < 75 years. Therefore, neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be considered with more caution in patients ≥ 75 years, while identifying those who may benefit.