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.

The AUGIS Survival Predictor: Prediction of Long-Term and Conditional Survival After Esophagectomy Using Random Survival Forests.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a predictive model for overall survival after esophagectomy using pre/postoperative clinical data and machine learning. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: For patients with esophageal cancer, accurately predicting long-term survival after esophagectomy is challenging. This study investigated survival prediction after esophagectomy using a RandomSurvival Forest (RSF) model derived from routine data from a large, well-curated, national dataset. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma between 2012 and 2018 in England and Wales who underwent an esophagectomy were included. Prediction models for overall survival were developed using the RSF method and Cox regression from 41 patient and disease characteristics. Calibration and discrimination (time-dependent area under the curve) were validated internally using bootstrap resampling. RESULTS: The study analyzed 6399 patients, with 2625 deaths during follow-up. Median follow-up was 41 months. Overall survival was 47.1% at 5 years. The final RSF model included 14 variables and had excellent discrimination with a 5-year time-dependent area under the receiver operator curve of 83.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 82.6%-84.9%], compared to 82.3% (95% CI 81.1%-83.3%) for the Cox model. The most important variables were lymph node involvement, pT stage, circumferential resection margin involvement (tumor at < 1 mm from cut edge) and age. There was a wide range of survival estimates even within TNM staging groups, with quintiles of prediction within Stage 3b ranging from 12.2% to 44.7% survival at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: An RSF model for long-term survival after esophagectomy exhibited excellent discrimination and well-calibrated predictions. At a patient level, it provides more accuracy than TNM staging alone and could help in the delivery of tailored treatment and follow-up.

Multicenter, Prospective Cohort Study of Oesophageal Injuries and Related Clinical Outcomes (MUSOIC study).

OBJECTIVE: To identify prognostic factors associated with 90-day mortality in patients with oesophageal perforation (OP), and characterize the specific timeline from presentation to intervention, and its relation to mortality. BACKGROUND: OP is a rare gastro-intestinal surgical emergency with a high mortality rate. However, there is no updated evidence on its outcomes in the context of centralized esophago-gastric services; updated consensus guidelines; and novel non-surgical treatment strategies. METHODS: A multi-center, prospective cohort study involving eight high-volume esophago-gastric centers (January 2016 to December 2020) was undertaken. The primary outcome measure was 90-day mortality. Secondary measures included length of hospital and ICU stay, and complications requiring re-intervention or re-admission. Mortality model training was performed using random forest, support-vector machines, and logistic regression with and without elastic net regularisation. Chronological analysis was performed by examining each patient's journey timepoint with reference to symptom onset. RESULTS: The mortality rate for 369 patients included was 18.9%. Patients treated conservatively, endoscopically, surgically, or combined approaches had mortality rates of 24.1%, 23.7%, 8.7%, and 18.2%, respectively. The predictive variables for mortality were Charlson comorbidity index, haemoglobin count, leucocyte count, creatinine levels, cause of perforation, presence of cancer, hospital transfer, CT findings, whether a contrast swallow was performed, and intervention type. Stepwise interval model showed that time to diagnosis was the most significant contributor to mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Non-surgical strategies have better outcomes and may be preferred in selected cohorts to manage perforations. Outcomes can be significantly improved through better risk-stratification based on afore-mentioned modifiable risk factors.

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.

Diagnosis and treatment for gastro-oesophageal cancer in England and Wales: analysis of the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit (NOGCA) database 2012-2020.

BACKGROUND: The National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit (NOGCA) captures patient data from diagnosis to end of primary treatment for all patients with oesophagogastric (OG) cancer in England and Wales. This study assessed changes in patient characteristics, treatments received, and outcomes for OG cancer surgery for the period 2012-2020, and examined which factors may have led to changes in clinical outcomes over this time. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with OG cancer between April 2012 and March 2020 were included. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient demographics, disease site, type, and stage, patterns of care, and outcomes over time. The treatment variables of unit case volume, surgical approach, and neoadjuvant therapy were included. Regression models were used to examine associations between surgical outcomes (duration of stay and mortality), and patient and treatment variables. RESULTS: In total, 83 393 patients diagnosed with OG cancer during the study period were included. Patient demographics and cancer stage at diagnosis showed little change over time. Altogether, 17 650 patients underwent surgery as part of radical treatment. These patients had increasingly more advanced cancers, and a greater likelihood of pre-existing comorbidity in more recent years. Significant decreases in mortality rates and duration of stay were noted, along with improvements in oncological outcomes (nodal yields and margin positivity rates). Following adjustment for patient and treatment variables, increasing audit year and trust volume were associated, respectively, with improved postoperative outcomes: lower 30-day mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.93 (95 per cent c.i. 0.88 to 0.98) and OR 0.99 (95 per cent c.i. 0.99-0.99)) and lower 90-day mortality (OR 0.94 (95 per cent c.i. 0.91 to 0.98) and OR 0.99 (95 per cent c.i. 0.99-0.99)), and a reduction in duration of postoperative stay (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.98 (95 per cent c.i. 0.97 to 0.98) and IRR 0.99 (95 per cent c.i. 0.99 to 0.99)). CONCLUSION: Outcomes of OG cancer surgery have improved over time, despite little evidence of improvements in early diagnosis. The underlying drivers for improvements in outcome are multifactorial.

Evaluation of tumor regression by neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens for esophageal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinomas (EACs) are treated with multimodal therapy, namely surgery, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) depending on patient and tumor level factors. Yet, there is little consensus on choice of the optimum systemic therapy. To compare the pathological complete response (pCR) after FLOT, non-FLOT-based chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy regimes in patients with EACs. A systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Review and Scopus databases. Studies were included if they had investigated the use of chemo(radio)therapy regimens in the neoadjuvant setting for EAC and reported the pCR rates. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed to compare the pooled pCR rates between FLOT, non-FLOT and CRT cohorts. We included 22 studies that described tumor regression post-NAC. Altogether, 1,056 patients had undergone FLOT or DCF regimes, while 1,610 patients had received ECF or ECX. The pCR rates ranged from 3.3% to 54% for FLOT regimes, while pCR ranged between 0% and 31% for ECF/ECX protocols. Pooled random-effects meta-meta-analysis of proportions showed a statistically significant higher incidence of pCR in FLOT-based chemotherapy at 0.148 (95%CI: 0.080, 0.259) compared with non-FLOT-based chemotherapy at 0.074 (95%CI: 0.042, 0.129). However, pCR rates were significantly highest at 0.250 (95%CI: 0.202, 0.306) for CRT. The use of enhanced FLOT-based regimens have improved the pCR rates for chemotherapeutic regimes but still falls short of pathological outcomes from CRT. Further work can characterize clinical responses to neoadjuvant therapy and determine whether an organ-preservation strategy is feasible.

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.

Lasting Symptoms After Esophageal Resection (LASER): European Multicenter Cross-sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the most prevalent symptoms and those with greatest impact upon health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among esophageal cancer survivors. BACKGROUND: Long-term symptom burden after esophagectomy, and associations with HRQOL, are poorly understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2010 and 2016, patients from 20 European Centers who underwent esophageal cancer surgery, and were disease-free at least 1 year postoperatively were asked to complete LASER, EORTC-QLQ-C30, and QLQ-OG25 questionnaires. Specific symptom questionnaire items that were associated with poor HRQOL as identified by EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25 were identified by multivariable regression analysis and combined to form a tool. RESULTS: A total of 876 of 1081 invited patients responded to the questionnaire, giving a response rate of 81%. Of these, 66.9% stated in the last 6 months they had symptoms associated with their esophagectomy. Ongoing weight loss was reported by 10.4% of patients, and only 13.8% returned to work with the same activities.Three LASER symptoms were correlated with poor HRQOL on multivariable analysis; pain on scars on chest (odds ratio (OR) 1.27; 95% CI 0.97-1.65), low mood (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.15-1.77) and reduced energy or activity tolerance (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.18-1.59). The areas under the curves for the development and validation datasets were 0.81 ±â€Š0.02 and 0.82 ±â€Š0.09 respectively. CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of patients experience significant symptoms more than 1 year after surgery. The 3 key symptoms associated with poor HRQOL identified in this study should be further validated, and could be used in clinical practice to identify patients who require increased support.

ASO Author Reflections: Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Oesophago-Gastric Malignancies-Present Work and Future Directions.

Our paper highlights the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in oesophageal and gastric malignancies with acceptable levels of accuracy for both diagnostic and surveillance purposes. Here, we comment on the past, present and future work necessary for incorporating AI into the clinical framework and practice.

Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence-Centred Systems in the Diagnosis and Postoperative Surveillance of Upper Gastrointestinal Malignancies Using Computed Tomography Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy.

BACKGROUND: Upper gastrointestinal cancers are aggressive malignancies with poor prognosis, even following multimodality therapy. As such, they require timely and accurate diagnostic and surveillance strategies; however, such radiological workflows necessitate considerable expertise and resource to maintain. In order to lessen the workload upon already stretched health systems, there has been increasing focus on the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI)-centred diagnostic systems. This systematic review summarizes the clinical applicability and diagnostic performance of AI-centred systems in the diagnosis and surveillance of esophagogastric cancers. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Review, and Scopus databases. Articles on the use of AI and radiomics for the diagnosis and surveillance of patients with esophageal cancer were evaluated, and quality assessment of studies was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of sequencing methodologies. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies that described the use of AI were included in the qualitative synthesis and six studies involving 1352 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Of these six studies, four studies assessed the utility of AI in gastric cancer diagnosis, one study assessed its utility for diagnosing esophageal cancer, and one study assessed its utility for surveillance. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 73.4% (64.6-80.7) and 89.7% (82.7-94.1), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AI systems have shown promise in diagnosing and monitoring esophageal and gastric cancer, particularly when combined with existing diagnostic methods. Further work is needed to further develop systems of greater accuracy and greater consideration of the clinical workflows that they aim to integrate within.

Impact of postoperative chemotherapy on survival for oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma after preoperative chemotherapy and surgery.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative chemotherapy is widely used in the treatment of oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (OGAC) with a substantial survival benefit over surgery alone. However, the postoperative part of these regimens is given in less than half of patients, reflecting uncertainty among clinicians about its benefit and poor postoperative patient fitness. This study estimated the effect of postoperative chemotherapy after surgery for OGAC using a large population-based data set. METHODS: Patients with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus, gastro-oesophageal junction or stomach diagnosed between 2012 and 2018, who underwent preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery, were identified from a national-level audit in England and Wales. Postoperative therapy was defined as the receipt of systemic chemotherapy within 90 days of surgery. The effectiveness of postoperative chemotherapy compared with observation was estimated using inverse propensity treatment weighting. RESULTS: Postoperative chemotherapy was given to 1593 of 4139 patients (38.5 per cent) included in the study. Almost all patients received platinum-based triplet regimens (4004 patients, 96.7 per cent), with FLOT used in 3.3 per cent. Patients who received postoperative chemotherapy were younger, with a lower ASA grade, and were less likely to have surgical complications, with similar tumour characteristics. After weighting, the median survival time after postoperative chemotherapy was 62.7 months compared with 50.4 months without chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.84, 95 per cent c.i. 0.77 to 0.94; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study has shown that postoperative chemotherapy improves overall survival in patients with OGAC treated with preoperative chemotherapy and surgery.

Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS)/Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) consensus statement on intraoperative and postoperative interventions to reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary complications are the most common morbidity after oesophagectomy, contributing to mortality and prolonged postoperative recovery, and have a negative impact on health-related quality of life. A variety of single or bundled interventions in the perioperative setting have been developed to reduce the incidence of pulmonary complications. Significant variation in practice exists across the UK. The aim of this modified Delphi consensus was to deliver clear evidence-based consensus recommendations regarding intraoperative and postoperative care that may reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy. METHODS: With input from a multidisciplinary group of 23 experts in the perioperative management of patients undergoing surgery for oesophageal cancer, a modified Delphi method was employed. Following an initial systematic review of relevant literature, a range of anaesthetic, surgical, and postoperative care interventions were identified. These were then discussed during a two-part virtual conference. Recommendation statements were drafted, refined, and agreed by all attendees. The level of evidence supporting each statement was considered. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 12 statements on topics including operative approach, pyloric drainage strategies, intraoperative fluid and ventilation strategies, perioperative analgesia, postoperative feeding plans, and physiotherapy interventions. Seven additional questions concerning the perioperative management of patients undergoing oesophagectomy were highlighted to guide future research. CONCLUSION: Clear consensus recommendations regarding intraoperative and postoperative interventions that may reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy are presented.

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.

Implementation of the Esophagectomy Complication Consensus Group definitions: the benefits of speaking the same language.

In 2015 the Esophagectomy Complication Consensus Group (ECCG) reported consensus definitions for complications after esophagectomy. This aimed to reduce variation in complication reporting, attributed to heterogeneous definitions. This systematic review aimed to describe the implementation of this definition set, including the effect on complication frequency and variation. A systematic literature review was performed, identifying all observational and randomized studies reporting complication frequencies after esophagectomy since the ECCG publication. Recruitment periods before and subsequent to the index ECCG publication date were included. Coefficients of variance were calculated to assess outcome heterogeneity. Of 144 studies which met inclusion criteria, 70 (48.6%) used ECCG definitions. The median number of separately reported complication types was five per study; only one study reported all ECCG complications. The coefficients of variance of the reported frequencies of eight of the 10 most common complications were reduced in studies which used the ECCG definitions compared with those that did not (P = 0.036). Among ECCG studies, the frequencies of postoperative pneumothorax, reintubation, and pulmonary emboli were significantly reduced in 2020-2021, compared with 2015-2019 (P = 0.006, 0.034, and 0.037 respectively). The ECCG definition set has reduced variation in esophagectomy morbidity reporting. This adds greater confidence to the observed gradual improvement in outcomes with time, and its ongoing use and wider dissemination should be encouraged. However, only a handful of outcomes are widely reported, and only rarely is it used in its entirety.

Evaluation of post-operative surveillance strategies for esophageal and gastric cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus or guidelines internationally to inform clinicians of how patients should be monitored for recurrence after esophagogastric resections. AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the latest evidence investigating the usefulness of surveillance protocols in patients who underwent esophagectomy or gastrectomy. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Review and Scopus databases. Articles were evaluated for the use of surveillance strategies including history-taking, physical examination, imaging modalities and endoscopy for monitoring patients post-gastrectomy or esophagectomy. Studies that compared surveillance strategies and reported detection of recurrence and post-recurrence survival were also included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen studies that described a surveillance protocol for post-operative patients were included in the review. Seven studies were used in the meta-analysis. Random-effects analysis demonstrated a statistically significant higher post-recurrence survival (standardized mean difference [SMD] 14.15, 95% CI 1.40-27.26, p = 0.03) with imaging-based planned surveillance post-esophagectomy. However, the detection of recurrence (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.78-3.97, p = 0.17) for esophageal cancers as well as detection of recurrence (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.11-5.12, p = 0.76) and post-recurrence survival (SMD 6.42, 95% CI -2.16-18.42, p = 0.14) for gastric cancers were not significantly different with planned surveillance. CONCLUSION: There is no consensus on whether surveillance carries prognostic survival benefit or how surveillance should be carried out. Surveillance may carry prognostic benefit for patients who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer. Randomized controlled trials are required to evaluate the survival benefits of intensive surveillance strategies, determine the ideal surveillance protocol and tailor it to the appropriate population.

Evaluation of postoperative surveillance strategies for esophago-gastric cancers in the UK and Ireland.

Esophago-gastric malignancies are associated with a high recurrence rate; yet there is a lack of evidence to inform guidelines for the standardization and structure of postoperative surveillance after curatively intended treatment. This study aimed to capture the variation in postoperative surveillance strategies across the UK and Ireland, and enquire the opinions and beliefs around surveillance from practicing clinicians. A web-based survey consisting of 40 questions was sent to surgeons or allied health professionals performing or involved in surgical care for esophago-gastric cancers at high-volume centers in the UK. Respondents from each center completed the survey on what best represented their center. The first section of the survey evaluated the timing and components of follow-ups, and their variation between centers. The second section evaluated respondents perspective on how surveillance can be structured. Thirty-five respondents from 27 centers consisting 28 consultants, 6 senior trainees and 1 specialist nurse had completed the questionnaire; 45.7% of responders arranged clinical follow-up at 2-4 weeks. Twenty responders had a specific postoperative surveillance protocol for their patients. Of these, 31.4% had a standardized protocol for all patients, while 25.7% tailored it to patient needs. Patient preference, comorbidities and chance of recurrence were considered as major factors for necessitating more intense surveillance than currently practiced. There is a significant variation in how patients are monitored after surgery between centers in the UK. Randomized controlled trials are necessary to link surveillance strategies to both survival outcomes and quality of life of patients and to evaluate the prognostic value of different postoperative surveillance strategies.

Identifying a core symptom set triggering radiological and endoscopic investigations for suspected recurrent esophago-gastric cancer: a modified Delphi consensus process.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of evidence-based guidelines regarding surveillance for recurrence after esophageal and gastric (OG) cancer surgical resection, and which symptoms should prompt endoscopic or radiological investigations for recurrence. The aim of this study was to develop a core symptom set using a modified Delphi consensus process that should guide clinicians to carry out investigations to look for suspected recurrent OG cancer in previously asymptomatic patients. METHODS: A web-based survey of 42 questions was sent to surgeons performing OG cancer resections at high volume centers. The first section evaluated the structure of follow-up and the second, determinants of follow-up. Two rounds of a modified Delphi consensus process and a further consensus workshop were used to determine symptoms warranting further investigations. Symptoms with a 75% consensus agreement as suggestive of recurrent cancer were included in the core symptom set. RESULTS: 27 surgeons completed the questionnaires. A total of 70.3% of centers reported standardized surveillance protocols, whereas 3.7% of surgeons did not undertake any surveillance in asymptomatic patients after OG cancer resection. In asymptomatic patients, 40.1% and 25.9% of centers performed routine imaging and endoscopy, respectively. The core set that reached consensus, consisted of eight symptoms that warranted further investigations included; dysphagia to solid food, dysphagia to liquids, vomiting, abdominal pain, chest pain, regurgitation of foods, unexpected weight loss and progressive hoarseness of voice. CONCLUSION: There is global variation in monitoring patients after OG cancer resection. Eight symptoms were identified by the consensus process as important in prompting radiological or endoscopic investigation for suspected recurrent malignancy. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to link surveillance strategies to survival outcomes and evaluate prognostic value.

Consensus recommendations for the standardized histopathological evaluation and reporting after radical oesophago-gastrectomy (HERO consensus).

BACKGROUND: Variation in the approach, radicality, and quality of gastroesophageal surgery impacts patient outcomes. Pathological outcomes such as lymph node yield are routinely used as surrogate markers of surgical quality, but are subject to significant variations in histopathological evaluation and reporting. A multi-society consensus group was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations for the standardized assessment of gastroesophageal cancer specimens. METHODS: A consensus group comprised of surgeons, pathologists, and oncologists was convened on behalf of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery of Great Britain & Ireland. Literature was reviewed for 17 key questions. Draft recommendations were voted upon via an anonymous Delphi process. Consensus was considered achieved where >70% of participants were in agreement. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved on 18 statements for all 17 questions. Twelve strong recommendations regarding preparation and assessment of lymph nodes, margins, and reporting methods were made. Importantly, there was 100% agreement that the all specimens should be reported using the Royal College of Pathologists Guidelines as the minimum acceptable dataset. In addition, two weak recommendations regarding method and duration of specimen fixation were made. Four topics lacked sufficient evidence and no recommendation was made. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus recommendations provide explicit guidance for gastroesophageal cancer specimen preparation and assessment, to provide maximum benefit for patient care and standardize reporting to allow benchmarking and improvement of surgical quality.

Quality of life and symptom assessment in paraesophageal hernias: a systematic literature review of reporting standards.

BACKGROUND: Paraesophageal hernias (PEH) present with a range of symptoms affecting physical and mental health. This systematic review aims to assess the quality of reporting standards for patients with PEH, identify the most frequently used quality of life (QOL) and symptom severity assessment tools in PEH and to ascertain additional symptoms reported by these patients not captured by these tools. METHODS: A systematic literature review according to PRISMA protocols was carried out following a literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases for studies published between January 1960 and May 2020. Published abstracts from conference proceedings were included. Data on QOL tools used and reported symptoms were extracted. RESULTS: This review included 220 studies reporting on 28 353 patients. A total of 46 different QOL and symptom severity tools were used across all studies, and 89 different symptoms were reported. The most frequently utilized QOL tool was the Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease-Health related quality of life questionnaire symptom severity instrument (47.7%), 57.2% of studies utilized more than 2 QOL tools and 'dysphagia' was the most frequently reported symptom, in 55.0% of studies. Notably, respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms, although less common than GI symptoms, were reported and included 'dyspnea' reported in 35 studies (15.9%). CONCLUSIONS: There lacks a QOL assessment tool that captures the range of symptoms associated with PEH. Reporting standards for this cohort must be improved to compare patient outcomes before and after surgery. Further investigations must seek to develop a PEH specific tool, that encompasses the relative importance of symptoms when considering surgical intervention and assessing symptomatic improvement following surgery.

Benchmarking Complications Associated with Esophagectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Utilizing a standardized dataset with specific definitions to prospectively collect international data to provide a benchmark for complications and outcomes associated with esophagectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Outcome reporting in oncologic surgery has suffered from the lack of a standardized system for reporting operative results particularly complications. This is particularly the case for esophagectomy affecting the accuracy and relevance of international outcome assessments, clinical trial results, and quality improvement projects. METHODS: The Esophageal Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) involving 24 high-volume esophageal surgical centers in 14 countries developed a standardized platform for recording complications and quality measures associated with esophagectomy. Using a secure online database (ESODATA.org), ECCG centers prospectively recorded data on all resections according to the ECCG platform from these centers over a 2-year period. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and December 2016, 2704 resections were entered into the database. All demographic and follow-up data fields were 100% complete. The majority of operations were for cancer (95.6%) and typically located in the distal esophagus (56.2%). Some 1192 patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (46.1%) and 763 neoadjuvant chemotherapy (29.5%). Surgical approach involved open procedures in 52.1% and minimally invasive operations in 47.9%. Chest anastomoses were done most commonly (60.7%) and R0 resections were accomplished in 93.4% of patients. The overall incidence of complications was 59% with the most common individual complications being pneumonia (14.6%) and atrial dysrhythmia (14.5%). Anastomotic leak, conduit necrosis, chyle leaks, recurrent nerve injury occurred in 11.4%, 1.3%, 4.7%, and 4.2% of cases, respectively. Clavien-Dindo complications ≥ IIIb occurred in 17.2% of patients. Readmissions occurred in 11.2% of cases and 30- and 90-day mortality was 2.4% and 4.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Standardized methods provide contemporary international benchmarks for reporting outcomes after esophagectomy.