Docetaxel-Based Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by En Bloc Resection for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A 15-Year Retrospective Analysis from a Regional Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Network.

BACKROUND: Real-world, long-term survival outcomes of neoadjuvant, docetaxel-based therapy for esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma are lacking. This study describes the long-term survival outcomes of patients with esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel-based chemotherapy and en bloc transthoracic esophagectomy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of a prospectively maintained database from a regional upper gastrointestinal cancer network in Quebec, Canada, was performed. From January 2007 to December 2021, all patients with locally advanced (cT3 and/or N1) esophageal/Siewert I/II adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant DCFx3 (Docetaxel/Cisplatin/5FU) or FLOTx4 (5FU/Leucovorin/Oxaliplatin/Docetaxel) and transthoracic en bloc esophagectomy were identified. Postoperative, pathological, and survival outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 236 of 420 patients met the inclusion criteria. Tumor location was esophageal/Siewert I/Siewert II (118/33/85), most were cT3-4 (93.6%) and cN+ (61.0%). DCF and FLOT were used in 127 of 236 (53.8%) and 109 of 236 (46.2%). All neoadjuvant cycles were completed in 87.3% with no difference between the regimens. Operative procedures included Ivor Lewis (81.8%), left thoraco-abdominal esophagectomy (10.6%) and McKeown (7.6%) with an R0 resection in 95.3% and pathological complete response in 9.7% (DCF 12.6%/FLOT 6.4%, p = 0.111). The median lymph node yield was 32 (range 4-79), and 60.6% were ypN+. Median follow-up was longer for the DCF group (74.8 months 95% confidence interval [CI] 4-173 vs. 37.8 months 95% CI 2-119, p <0.001. Overall survival was similar between the groups (FLOT 97.3 months, 78.6-115.8 vs. DCF 92.9, 9.2-106.5, p = 0.420). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant DCF and FLOT followed by transthoracic en bloc resection are both highly effective regimens for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma with equivalent survival outcomes despite high disease load.

Esophagectomy versus observation following endoscopic submucosal dissection of pT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Management following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of pT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) remains controversial. This study compared pathological and survival outcomes of patients after endoscopic resection (ER) of pT1b EAC followed by either en bloc esophagectomy or observation. METHODS: From 1/12 to 12/22, all patients with pT1b EAC treated with ER were identified from a prospectively maintained departmental database. ESD was curative (all of: Submucosal invasion < 500 µm; G1/2, LVI/PNI-; deep margin-) or non-curative (one or more of Submucosal invasion ≥ 500 µm; G3; LVI/PNI+; deep margin+). Patients were allocated to observation (OBS) or esophagectomy (SURG) based on patient factors/preference and pathological variables. RESULTS: 56/171 ERs met the inclusion criteria. ER was curative in 8/56 (14%) and non-curative in 48/56 (86%). OBS was undertaken after 8/27 (30%) curative and 19/27 (70%) non-curative resections. All 29 SURG patients had non-curative ERs and were younger, had lower Charlson comorbidity scores and had more deep margin + lesions than OBS patients. Post-esophagectomy, 15/29 (52%) had no residual disease within the surgical specimen while pT+N-/pT-N+/pT+N+ occurred in 5/3/6 (17%/10%/21%) patients. Of those with residual disease in the surgical specimen, 12/14 (86%) had deep margin + ERs; however, only ESD instead of EMR was independently associated with a lower risk of residual disease (OR 0.431, 95% CI - 0.016 to 1.234, p = 0.045). OBS and SURG patients had equivalent overall survival outcomes and recurrence was low in both groups even following non-curative ER. Follow-up was 28 months (0-102) and 30 months (0-97), respectively. CONCLUSION: In select patients, including some of those with a non-curative ESD resection of pT1B EAC, surveillance alone may be appropriate. Alternatives beyond traditional pathological features is needed to direct patient care more accurately.

Enhanced recovery after surgery after radical gastrectomy: Improved compliance over time is associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay.

BACKGROUND: Changing adherence over time to enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols following radical gastrectomy and the impact this has on length of stay (LoS) is not well described. This study aimed to explore the changes in adherence to core ERAS elements over time and the relationship between compliance and LoS. METHODS: A retrospective, single center cohort study was performed between 01/2016-12/2021. An ad hoc analysis revealed the point at which a significant difference in the number of patients being discharge on postoperative day (PoD) 3 was noted allowing allocation of patients to Group A (01/2016-12/2019) or B (01/2020-12/2021). Compliance with core ERAS elements was compared and the relationship between compliance and discharge by (PoD) 3 assessed. Variables significant on univariate analysis were assessed using binary multivariate regression. RESULTS: Of the 268 patients identified, 187 met the inclusion criteria (Group A 112 and Group B 75). More patients in Group B mobilized on PoD 1 (60.0 vs. 31.3%, p = <0.001), tolerated postgastrectomy diet by PoD 3 (84.6 vs. 62.5%, p = 0.049), and were discharged by PoD 3 (34.7 vs. 20.5%, p = 0.002). Protocol compliance of >75% was associated with discharge on PoD 3 (area under the curve, 0.726). Active mobilization on PoD 1 (OR 3.5, p = 0.009), compliance ≥75% (OR 3.3, p = 0.036), and preoperative nutritional consult (OR 0.2, p = 0.002) were independently associated with discharge on PoD 3. Discharge on PoD 3 did not increase readmission or representation to hospital. CONCLUSION: Early mobilization, protocol compliance >75%, and preoperative nutritional consult were associated with discharge on PoD 3 after radical gastrectomy.

Impact of bulky loco-regional lymphadenopathy in esophageal adenocarcinoma on survival: a retrospective single center analysis.

The relationship between 'bulky' locoregional lymphadenopathy and survival has not been investigated in the setting of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). This study aimed to explore whether bulky regional lymphadenopathy at diagnosis affected survival outcomes in patients with EAC treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and en bloc resection. A single-center retrospective review of a prospectively maintained upper GI cancer surgical database was performed between January 2012 and December 2019. Patients with locally advanced EAC (cT2-3, N+, M0) treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel-based chemotherapy and transthoracic en bloc esophagogastrectomy were identified. Computed tomography scans from before the initiation of treatment were reviewed, and patients were stratified according to whether bulky loco-regional lymph nodes were present. This was defined as lymphadenopathy >2 cm in any axis. Overall survival was compared, and a Cox multivariate regression model was calculated. Two hundred twenty-five of the eight hundred seventy patients identified met the inclusion criteria. Forty-eight (21%) had bulky lymphadenopathy, leaving 177 allocated to the control group. More patients with bulky lymphadenopathy had ypN3 disease (18/48, 38% vs. 39/177, 20%, P = 0.025). Among patients with bulky lymphadenopathy, overall survival was generally worse (32.6 vs. 59.1 months, P = 0.012). However, among the 9/48 (19%) patients with bulky lymphadenopathy who achieved ypN- status survival outcomes were similar to those with non-bulky lymphadenopathy who also achieved lymph node sterilization. Poor differentiation (HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.0-2.9, P = 0.034), ypN+ (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.6, P = 0.032), and bulky lymphadenopathy were independently associated with an increased risk of death (HR 1.7, 1.0-2.9, P = 0.048). Bulky regional lymphadenopathy is associated with a poor prognosis. Efforts to identify the ideal treatment regimen for these patients are urgently required.

Postoperative Outcomes and Quality of Life After Left Thoracoabdominal Esophagogastrectomy: Contrasting Esophagogastrostomy with Esophagojejunostomy.

BACKGROUND: Following left thoracoabdominal (LTA) esophagogastrectomy, gastrointestinal continuity can be re-established via esophagogastrostomy or esophagojejunostomy. We explored how the method of reconstruction impacted postoperative outcomes and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: From January 2007 to January 2022, patients undergoing LTA were identified from a single center's prospectively maintained database. Following esophagogastrectomy or extended total gastrectomy, an esophagogastrostomy (GAS) or Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy (R-Y) was fashioned. Postoperative outcomes were compared according to the method of reconstruction. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophagus (FACT-E) questionnaire compared QoL. RESULTS: Of the 147 LTA patients identified, 135 (92%) were included-97 GAS (72%) and 38 R-Y patients (28%). R-Y patients had more ypT3/4 lesions (97% vs. 61%, p ≤ 0.001) and a similar incidence of ypN+/M+ disease. Anastomotic leaks were more common among GAS patients (17% vs. 3%, p = 0.023), however grade 3/4 complications (26.6% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.498), reoperation, intensive care admission, hospital representation and readmission were similar. FACT-E data were available for 68/97 (70%) GAS patients and 22/38 (58%) R-Y patients, with scores for 80/21/24/18/23/24 patients at baseline/preoperatively/1 month/3-6 months/1-3 years/3+ years postoperatively, respectively. Comparing between the groups, the scores were similar at each timepoint. FACT-E improved between baseline and preoperatively (79, 34-124 vs. 102, 81-123, p = 0.027). Only at 3+ years were postoperative scores equivalent to preoperative values. GAS patients had more reflux and esophagitis >6 months postoperatively (54% vs. 13%, p = 0.048; 62% vs. 0%, p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: While the type of reconstruction did not affect QoL, it did affect the postoperative course.

Validity of video-based general and procedure-specific self-assessment tools for surgical trainees in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Self-review of recorded surgical procedures offers new opportunities for trainees to extend technical learning outside the operating-room. Valid tools for self-assessment are required prior to evaluating the effectiveness of video-review in enhancing technical learning. Therefore, we aimed to contribute evidence regarding the validity of intraoperative performance assessment tools for video-based self-assessment by general surgery trainees when performing laparoscopic cholecystectomies. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Using a web-based platform, general surgery trainees in a university-based residency program submitted recorded laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures where they acted as the supervised primary surgeon. Attending surgeons measured operative performance at the time of surgery using general and procedure-specific assessment tools [Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) and Operative Performance Rating System (OPRS), respectively] and entrustability level (O-SCORE). Trainees self-evaluated their performance from video-review using the same instruments. The validity of GOALS and OPRS for trainee self-assessment was investigated by testing the hypotheses that self-assessment scores correlate with (H1) expert assessment scores, (H2) O-SCORE, and (H3) procedure time and that (H4) self-assessment based on these instruments differentiates junior [postgraduate year (PGY) 1-3] and senior trainees (PGY 4-5), as well as (H5)simple [Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ≤ 4] versus complex cases (VAS > 4). All hypotheses were based on previous literature, defined a priori, and were tested according to the COSMIN consensus on measurement properties. RESULTS: A total of 35 videos were submitted (45% female and 45% senior trainees) and self-assessed. Our data supported 2 out of 5 hypotheses (H1 and H4) for GOALS and 3 out of 5 hypotheses (H1, H4 and H5) for OPRS, for trainee self-assessment. CONCLUSIONS: OPRS, a procedure-specific assessment tool, was better able to differentiate between groups expected to have different levels of intraoperative performance, compared to GOALS, a general assessment tool. Given the interest in video-based learning, there is a need to further develop valid procedure-specific tools to support video-based self-assessment by trainees in a range of procedures.

Survival and perioperative outcomes of octo- and nonagenarians with resectable esophageal carcinoma.

The outcomes of different treatment modalities for patients aged 80 and above with locally advanced and resectable esophageal carcinoma are not well described. The aim of this study was to explore survival and perioperative outcomes among this specific group of patients. A retrospective, cohort analysis was performed on a prospectively maintained esophageal cancer database from the McGill regional upper gastroinestinal cancer network. Between 2010 and 2020, all patients ≥80 years with cT2-4a, Nany, M0 esophageal carcinoma were identified and stratified according to the treatment modality: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) or chemoradiotherapy (nCRT); definitive CRT (dCRT); upfront surgery; palliative CT/RT; or best supportive care (BSC). Of the 162 patients identified, 79 were included in this study. The median age was 83 years (80-97), most were cT3 (73%), cN- (56%), and had adenocarcinoma (62%). Treatment included: nCT/nCRT (16/79, 20%); surgery alone (19/79, 24%); dCRT (12/29, 15%); palliative RT/CT (27/79, 34%); and BSC (5/79, 6%). Neoadjuvant treatment was completed in 10/16 (63%). Of the 35/79 who underwent surgery, major complications occurred in 13/35 (37%) and 90-day mortality in 3/35 (9%). Overall survival (OS) for the cohort at 1- and 3-years was 58% and 19%. Among patients treated with nCT/nCRT, this was 94% and 46% respectively. Curative intent treatment (nCT/nCRT/upfront surgery/dCRT) had significantly increased 1- and 3- year OS compared with non-curative treatment (76%/31% vs. 34%/3.3%). Multimodal standard of care treatment is feasible and safe in select octo/nonagenarians, and may be associated with improved OS. Age alone should not bias against treatment with curative intent.

Research protocol for the Paraesophageal hernia symptom tool, a prospective multi-center cohort study to identify the need and threshold for surgery and assess the symptom response to surgery.

Large hiatus hernias with a significant paraesophageal component (types II-IV) have a range of insidious symptoms. Management of symptomatic hernias includes conservative treatment or surgery. Currently, there is no paraesophageal hernia disease-specific symptom questionnaire. As a result, many clinicians rely on the health-related quality of life questionnaires designed for gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GORD) to assess patients with hiatal hernias pre- and postoperatively. In view of this, a paraesophageal hernia symptom tool (POST) was designed. This POST questionnaire now requires validation and assessment of clinical utility. Twenty-one international sites will recruit patients with paraesophageal hernias to complete a series of questionnaires over a five-year period. There will be two cohorts of patients-patients with paraesophageal hernias undergoing surgery and patients managed conservatively. Patients are required to complete a validated GORD-HRQL, POST questionnaire, and satisfaction questionnaire preoperatively. Surgical cohorts will also complete questionnaires postoperatively at 4-6 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and then annually for a total of 5 years. Conservatively managed patients will repeat questionnaires at 1 year. The first set of results will be released after 1 year with complete data published after a 5-year follow-up. The main results of the study will be patient's acceptance of the POST tool, clinical utility of the tool, assessment of the threshold for surgery, and patient symptom response to surgery. The study will validate the POST questionnaire and identify the relevance of the questionnaire in routine management of paraesophageal hernias.

Remoteness from urban centre does not affect gastric cancer outcomes with established care pathway to specialist centre.

BACKGROUND: Patients living in rural communities experience difficulty accessing specialized medical care. Rural patients with cancer present with more advanced disease, have reduced access to treatment and have poorer overall survival than urban patients. This study's aim was to evaluate outcomes of patients with gastric cancer living in rural and remote areas versus urban and suburban communities in the context of an established care corridor to a tertiary care centre. METHODS: All patients treated for gastric cancer at the McGill University Health Centre during 2010-2018 were included. Travel, lodging and cancer care coordination were provided for patients from remote and rural areas and coordinated centrally by dedicated nurse navigators servicing these regions. Statistics Canada's remoteness index was used to categorize patients into a rural and remote group and an urban and suburban group. RESULTS: A total of 274 patients were included. Compared with patients from urban and suburban areas, patients from rural and remote areas were younger and their clinical tumour stage was higher at presentation. The number of curative resections and palliative surgeries and rate of nonresection were comparable (p = 0.96). Overall, disease-free and progression-free survival were comparable between the groups, and having locally advanced cancer correlated with poorer survival (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although patients with gastric cancer from rural and remote areas had more advanced disease at presentation, their treatment patterns and survival were comparable to those of patients from urbanized areas in the context of a publicly funded care corridor to a multidisciplinary specialist cancer centre. Equitable access to health care is necessary to diminish any preexisting disparities among patients with gastric cancer.

Relation between mismatch repair status, chemoresponse, survival and anatomic location in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: It has recently been reported that mismatch repair (MMR) status and microsatellite instability (MSI) status in gastroesophageal carcinomas predict surgical, chemotherapeutic and immunotherapeutic outcomes; however, there is extensive variability in the reported incidence and clinical implications of MMR/MSI status in gastroesophaegal adenocarcinomas. We characterized a Canadian surgical patient cohort with respect to MMR status, clinicopathologic correlates and anatomic tumour location. METHODS: We investigated MMR and BRAF V600E status of gastroesophaegal adenocarcinomas in patients who underwent gastrectomy or esophagectomy with extended (D2) lymphadenectomy at a single centre between 2011 and 2019. We correlated patterns of MMR expression in the overall cohort and in anatomic location-defined subgroups with treatment response and overall survival using multivariate analysis. RESULTS: In all, 226 cases of gastroesophaegal adenocarcinoma (63 esophageal, 98 gastroesophageal junctional and 65 gastric) were included. The MMR-deficient (dMMR) immunophenotype was found in 28 tumours (12.3%) (15 junctional [15.3%], 13 gastric [20.0%] and none of the esophageal). The majority (25 [89%]) of dMMR cases showed MLH1/PMS2 loss without concurrent BRAF V600E mutation. Two MSH2/ MSH6-deficient gastric tumours and 1 MSH6-deficient junctional tumour were detected. The pathologic response to preoperative chemotherapy was comparable in the dMMR and MMR-proficient (pMMR) cohorts. However, dMMR status was associated with significantly longer median overall survival than pMMR status (5.8 yr v. 2.4 yr, hazard ratio [HR] 1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-3.46), particularly in junctional tumours (4.6 yr v. 1.9 yr, HR 2.97, 95% CI 1.27-6.94). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that MMR status has at least prognostic value, which supports the need for biomarker testing in gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas, including junctional adenocarcinomas. This highlights the clinical significance of determining the MMR status in all adenocarcinomas of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Response to induction chemotherapy, however, was not influenced by MMR status.

CROSS Versus FLOT Regimens in Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity-Matched Comparison.

BACKGROUND: The FLOT protocol and the CROSS trimodality regimen represent current standards in the management of locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma. In the absence of published Randomised Controlled Trial data, this propensity-matched comparison evaluated tolerance, toxicity, impact on sarcopenia and pulmonary physiology, operative complications, and oncologic metrics. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-two patients, 111 in each arm, were included from 2 high-volume centers. Computed tomography-measured sarcopenia, and pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in first second/forced vital capacity/diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide) were compared pretherapy and posttherapy. Operative complications were defined as per the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) criteria, and severity per Clavien-Dindo. Tumor regression grade and R status were measured, and survival estimated per Kaplan-Meier. RESULTS: A total of 83% were male, cT3/cN+ was 92%/68% for FLOT, and 86%/60% for CROSS. The full prescribed regimen was tolerated in 40% of FLOT patients versus 92% for CROSS. Sarcopenia increased from 16% to 33% for FLOT, and 14% to 30% in CROSS ( P <0.01 between arms). Median decrease in diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide was -8.25% (-34 to 25) for FLOT, compared with -13.8%(-38 to 29), for CROSS ( P =0.01 between arms). Major pathologic response was 27% versus 44% for FLOT and CROSS, respectively ( P =0.03). In-hospital mortality, respectively, was 1% versus 2% ( P =0.9), and Clavien Dindo >III 22% versus 27% ( P =0.59), however, respiratory failure was increased by CROSS, at 13% versus 3% ( P <0.001). Three-year survival was similar at 63% (FLOT) and 60% (CROSS) ( P =0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Both CROSS and FLOT resulted in equivalent survival. Operative outcomes were similar, however, the CROSS regimen increased postoperative respiratory failure and atrial fibrillation. Less than half of patients received the prescribed FLOT regimen, although toxicity rates were acceptable. These data support clinical equipoise, caution, however, may be advised with CROSS in patients with greatest respiratory risk.

An International Cohort Study of Prognosis Associated With Pathologically Complete Response Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Versus Chemoradiotherapy of Surgical Treated Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare overall (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in esophageal adenocarcinoma patients with a pathologically complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). BACKGROUND: In the absence of survival differences in several prior studies comparing nCT with nCRT, the higher rate of pCR after nCRT has been suggested as reason to prefer this modality over nCT. METHODS: An international cohort study included data from 8 high-volume centers. Inclusion criteria was patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma, between 2008 and 2018, who had a pCR after nCT or nCRT. Univariate analysis was used to compare demographic factors, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis used to compare 5-year OS and RFS between groups. RESULTS: In all, 465 patients with pCR following neoadjuvant treatment were included; 132 received nCT and 333 received nCRT. There was no statistically significant difference in 5-year OS between groups (78.8% (nCT) vs 65.5% (nCRT), P =0.099), with a similar result demonstrated in multivariate analysis (HR=1.19, 95% CI 0.77-1.84). 5-year RFS was significantly reduced in patients with a pCR following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (75.3% (nCRT) vs 87.1% (nCT), P =0.026). Multivariate analysis confirmed nCRT was associated with a poorer 5-year RFS (HR=1.70, 95% CI 1.22-2.99). nCRT associated with a significantly greater prevalence of 5-year distant recurrence (odds ratio=2.50, 95% CI 1.25-4.99). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this international cohort study show that the prognosis of pCR following different neoadjuvant regimes differs, bringing into question the validity of this measure as an oncological surrogate when comparing neoadjuvant treatment schemes for esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Changes in Perioperative Platelet Lymphocyte Ratio Predict Survival in Oesophago-Gastric Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR) is associated with survival in oesophageal cancer. We explored whether PLR changes during different stages of treatment correlate with survival outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective single-centre study was performed. Consecutive patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery for oesophageal adenocarcinoma were identified. Changes in PLR were calculated during two time periods: the first spanning the neoadjuvant period (T1); the second the perioperative period (T2). Differences in PLR were calculated for clinicopathological variables during both T1 and T2 and for variables with regards to their association with median overall survival (OS). Variables found to be significant on univariate analysis were included in a multivariate Cox regression model. Using ROC analysis, optimal cut-offs for PLR changes were identified and plotted on a Kaplan-Meir curve. RESULTS: Of the 370 patients identified, 110 (29.7%) were included in the analysis. During T1 a positive correlation was noted between higher positive lymph node ratio and PLR change. During T2, PLR change was positively higher in patients who suffered major postoperative complications. Median survival for the cohort as a whole was 42.3 months and 5-year OS was 57.3%. Survival at 5 years was associated with lower PLR changes during T2. On univaraite analysis, median OS was significantly less for patients with a tumour size > 3 cm, poor differentiation and change in PLR ≥ 43.4 during T2. The latter two variables remained significant on multivariate analysis. Using the same PLR threshold, the survival curve comparing changes in PLR during T2 remained statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Perioperative PLR changes are highly prognostic of survival outcomes in patients treated for oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Development of the ParaOesophageal hernia SympTom (POST) tool.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop a symptom severity instrument (ParaOesophageal hernia SympTom (POST) tool) specific to para-oesophageal hernia (POH). METHODS: The POST tool was developed in four stages. The first was establishment of a Steering Committee. In the second stage, items were generated through a systematic review and online scoping survey of international experts. In the third stage, a three-round modified Delphi consensus process was conducted with a group of international experts who were asked to rate the importance of candidate items. An a priori threshold for inclusion was set at 80 per cent. The modified Delphi process culminated in a consensus meeting to develop the first iteration of the tool. In the final stage, two international patient workshops were held to assess the content validity and acceptability of the POST tool. RESULTS: The systematic review and scoping survey generated 64 symptoms, refined to 20 for inclusion in the modified Delphi consensus process. Twenty-six global experts participated in the Delphi consensus process. Five symptoms reached consensus across two rounds: difficulty getting solid foods down, chest pain after meals, difficulty getting liquids down, shortness of breath only after meals, and an early feeling of fullness after eating. The subsequent patient workshops deemed these five symptoms to be relevant and suggested that reflux should be included; these were taken forward to create the final POST tool. CONCLUSION: The POST tool is the first instrument designed to capture POH-specific symptoms. It will allow clinicians to standardize reporting of symptoms of POH and evaluate the response to surgical intervention.

Considerations for designing and implementing a surgical peer coaching program: an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Surgical peer coaching has been associated with high rates of practice change but remains largely unutilized. The purpose of this study was to survey surgeons internationally to investigate attitudes regarding peer coaching and to identify any international differences to inform the design of future coaching programs. METHODS: Practicing surgeons in general surgery or related subspecialties were eligible to participate. Invitations to complete the survey were distributed through 13 surgical associations, social media, and personal e-mail invitations. Responses were obtained between June 1st and August 31st, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 521 surveys were collected. The majority of participants practiced in North America (263; 50%) with remaining respondents from Asia (81; 16%), Europe (34;7%), South America (21; 4%), Africa (17; 3%), and Oceania (6; 1%). Duration of practice was equally distributed across 4 intervals (0-5 years; 6-15 years; 16-25 years; > 25 years). Respondents most frequently identified as general surgeons (290; 67%) and 325 (75%) were male. Awareness of peer coaching was reported by 275 (53%) respondents, with 197 (44%) never seeking formal feedback from peers. The majority of respondents (372; 84%) would be willing to participate in a peer coaching program, with monthly interactions the most desirable frequency reported (193; 51%). Coaching in the operating room was preferred by most participants (360; 86%). Few respondents (67; 14%) would accept coaching from someone unknown to them. Participants identified key coaching program elements as: feedback kept private and confidential (267; 63%); opportunity to provide feedback to the coach (247; 59%); personalized goal setting (244; 58%); and the option to choose one's own coach (205; 49%). The most commonly cited potential barrier to participation was logistical constraints (334; 79%). CONCLUSION: This international survey of practicing surgeons demonstrated that peer feedback is rarely used in practice, but there is high interest and acceptance of the peer coaching model for continuous professional development. Findings regarding preferred program structure may be useful to inform the design of future peer coaching programs.

The association between video-based assessment of intraoperative technical performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve surgical safety and outcomes have traditionally placed little emphasis on intraoperative performance, partly due to difficulties in measurement. Video-based assessment (VBA) provides an opportunity for blinded and unbiased appraisal of surgeon performance. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review the existing literature on the association between intraoperative technical performance, measured using VBA, and patient outcomes. METHODS: Major databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database, and Web of Science) were systematically searched for studies assessing the association of intraoperative technical performance measured by tools supported by validity evidence with short-term (≤ 30 days) and/or long-term postoperative outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results were appraised descriptively as study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 11 observational studies were identified involving 8 different procedures in foregut/bariatric (n = 4), colorectal (n = 4), urologic (n = 2), and hepatobiliary surgery (n = 1). The number of surgeons assessed ranged from 1 to 34; patient sample size ranged from 47 to 10,242. High risk of bias was present in 5 of 8 studies assessing short-term outcomes and 2 of 6 studies assessing long-term outcomes. Short-term outcomes were reported in 8 studies (i.e., morbidity, mortality, and readmission), while 6 reported long-term outcomes (i.e., cancer outcomes, weight loss, and urinary continence). Better intraoperative performance was associated with fewer postoperative complications (6 of 7 studies), reoperations (3 of 4 studies), and readmissions (1 of 4 studies). Long-term outcomes were less commonly investigated, with mixed results. CONCLUSION: Current evidence supports an association between superior intraoperative technical performance measured using surgical videos and improved short-term postoperative outcomes. Intraoperative performance analysis using video-based assessment represents a promising approach to surgical quality-improvement.

Development of a formative feedback tool for transanal total mesorectal excision.

INTRODUCTION: Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a novel procedure in the treatment of rectal cancer. Current training models for TaTME suggest a period of proctored cases, but no structured feedback tool exists to guide operators during the learning phase. The objective of this study therefore was to develop a formative feedback tool for the critical steps of the transanal portion of TaTME. METHODS: A two-round Delphi study by TaTME experts was conducted to determine the items to be included in the formative feedback tool. Participants rated each step from a prepared list using a Likert scale from 1 (Not relevant) to 5 (Very relevant) with the option to suggest additional steps. Responses to the first round were presented in the second round, where participants rated the revised list of steps. Consensus was defined as > 80% of participants rating the step as 4 or 5 (out of 5). Items were combined when appropriate to avoid redundancy. Rating anchors describing performance (on a 5-point scale) were then developed for each step. The final tool was recirculated and participants rated the finished product on its feasibility and usefulness. RESULTS: Twenty-six TaTME experts were contacted for participation. Fifteen experts (58%) participated in the first round of the study, and eleven (42%) participated in the second round. The majority (14, 93%) had completed fellowship training in colorectal surgery. The first round of the Delphi study contained 34 items, and 32 items met inclusion criteria after the second round. Redundant items were combined into 15 items that comprised the final tool. Out of eight respondents to the feasibility survey, all believed the feedback tool enhances the feedback of learners and would use it for training purposes if available. CONCLUSION: This work describes the development of a novel consensus-based formative feedback tool specific to TaTME.

Endoscopic pyloromyotomy in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a novel approach.

BACKGROUND: Pyloric drainage procedures, namely pyloromyotomy or pyloroplasty, have long been considered an integral aspect of esophagectomy. However, the requirement of pyloric drainage in the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been brought into question. This is in part because of the technical challenges of performing the pyloric drainage laparoscopically, leading many surgical teams to explore other options or to abandon this procedure entirely. We have developed a novel, technically facile, endoscopic approach to pyloromyotomy, and sought to assess the efficacy of this new approach compared to the standard surgical pyloromyotomy. METHODS: Patients who underwent MIE for cancer from 01/2010 to 12/2019 were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional database and were divided into two groups according to the pyloric drainage procedure: endoscopic or surgical pyloric drainage. 30-day outcomes (complications, length of stay, readmissions) and pyloric drainage-related outcomes [conduit distension/width, nasogastric tube (NGT) duration and re-insertion, gastric stasis] were compared between groups. RESULTS: 94 patients were identified of these 52 patients underwent endoscopic PM and 42 patients underwent surgical PM. The groups were similar with respect to age, gender and comorbidities. There were more Ivor-Lewis esophagectomies in the endoscopic PM group than the surgical PM group [45 (86%), 15 (36%) p < 0.001]. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications and readmissions. Gastric stasis requiring NGT re-insertion was rare in the endoscopic PM group and did not differ significantly from the surgical PM group (1.9-4.7% p = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic pyloromyotomy using a novel approach is a safe, quick and reproducible technique with comparable results to a surgical PM in the setting of MIE.

Reciprocal peer coaching for practice improvement in surgery: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Peer coaching has been associated with much higher rates of practice changes and new skill implementation compared to common used modalities but bilateral peer coaching structures where seniority is not a requirement to coach have not been studied. The purpose of this study was to implement and evaluate a reciprocal peer coaching pilot program for practicing surgeons to inform future coaching program design. METHODS: A multicenter reciprocal peer surgical coaching program was designed according to the framework developed from previous studies by our group. The coach-coachee matching process was voluntary and autonomous. All participants received basic coaching skills training. Pairs were instructed to complete two coaching sessions, alternating between the coach or coachee role for each session. Data were collected through questionnaires and structured interviews. RESULTS: Twenty-two participants enrolled in the pilot study and completed the coach training (88% enrollment rate). During the first wave of COVID-19, 12 participants withdrew. Of the five pairs that completed the program, three pairs were composed of general surgeons, one of orthopedic surgeons, and one ophthalmologic surgeon. Three sessions were conducted live in the OR, five virtually, and one involved an in-person discussion. Overall satisfaction with the program was high and all participants expectations were met. Participants were significantly more likely to predict "routinely" asking for feedback from their partner after study completion (6, 66%) compared to pre-intervention (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: This pilot study supports the feasibility of a peer coaching model for surgeons in practice that emphasized reciprocity and participant autonomy. These key elements should be considered when designing future coaching programs.

Treatment of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: insights of an international case vignette survey and expert discussions.

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a severe complication after esophagectomy. Clinical presentation of AL is diverse and there is large practice variation regarding treatment of AL. This study aimed to explore different AL treatment strategies and their underlying rationale. This mixed-methods study consisted of an international survey among upper gastro-intestinal (GI) surgeons and focus groups with expert upper GI surgeons. The survey included 10 case vignettes and data sources were integrated after separate analysis. The survey was completed by 188 respondents (completion rate 69%) and 6 focus groups were conducted with 20 international experts. Prevention of mortality was the most important goal of primary treatment. Goals of secondary treatment were to promote tissue healing, return to oral feeding and safe hospital discharge. There was substantial variation in the preferred treatment principles (e.g. drainage or defect closure) and modalities (e.g. stent or endoVAC) within different presentations of AL. Patients with local symptoms were treated by supportive means only or by non-surgical drainage and/or defect closure. Drainage was routinely performed in patients with intrathoracic collections and often combined with defect closure. Patients with conduit necrosis were predominantly treated by resection and reconstruction of the anastomosis or by esophageal diversion. This mixed-methods study shows that overall treatment strategies for AL are determined by vitality of the conduit and presence of intrathoracic collections. There is large variation in preferred treatment principles and modalities. Future research may investigate optimal treatment for specific AL presentations and aim to develop consensus-based treatment guidelines for AL after esophagectomy.