Implementation of Staging Guidelines in Early Esophageal Cancer: A Study of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the adoption and clinical impact of endoscopic resection (ER) in early esophageal cancer. BACKGROUND: Staging for early esophageal cancer is largely inaccurate. Assessment of the impact of ER on staging accuracy is unknown, as is the implementation of ER. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 2608 patients captured in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database between 2015 and 2020. Patients with clinical T1 and T2 esophageal cancer without nodal involvement (N0) who were treated with upfront esophagectomy were included. Staging accuracy was assessed by clinical-pathologic concordance among patients staged with and without ER. We also sought to measure adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network staging guidelines for esophageal cancer staging, specifically the implementation of ER. RESULTS: For early esophageal cancer, computed tomography/positron emission tomography/endoscopic ultrasound (CT/PET/EUS) accurately predicts the pathologic tumor (T) stage 58.5% of the time. The addition of ER to staging was related to a decrease in upstaging from 17.6% to 10.8% ( P =0.01). Adherence to staging guidelines with CT/PET/EUS improved from 58.2% between 2012 and 2014 to 77.9% between 2015 and 2020. However, when ER was added as a staging criterion, adherence decreased to 23.3%. Increased volume of esophagectomies within an institution was associated with increased staging adherence with ER ( P =0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The use of CT/PET/EUS for the staging of early esophageal cancer is accurate in only 56.3% of patients. ER may increase staging accuracy as it is related to a decrease in upstaging. ER is poorly utilized in staging of early esophageal cancer. Barriers to the implementation of ER as a staging modality should be identified and corrected.

Choosing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in porcelain aorta: outcomes versus surgical replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Porcelain aorta complicates aortic valve replacement and is an indication for transcatheter approaches. No study has compared surgical and transcatheter valve replacement in the setting of porcelain aorta. We characterize porcelain aorta patients undergoing aortic valve replacement and the association of aortic calcification and outcomes. METHODS: Patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with porcelain aorta were identified. Aortic calcium volume was determined using 3D computed tomography thresholding techniques. Propensity scoring was performed to assess the effect of surgical versus transcatheter approaches. Risk factors for composite major hospital complications (death, stroke and dialysis) were identified using random forest machine learning. RESULTS: From January 2006 to January 2015, 164 patients with porcelain aorta underwent aortic valve replacement [105 (64%) surgical replacement, 59 (36%) transcatheter replacement]. Propensity scoring matched 29 pairs (49% of transcatheter patients). Before matching, 5-year survival was 41% [(43% surgical, 35% transcatheter, P(log-rank) = 0.9]. After matching, mortality for surgical versus transcatheter replacement was 3.4% (n = 1) vs 10% (n = 3), stroke 14% (n = 4) vs 3.4% (n = 1) and dialysis 6.9% (n = 2) versus 11% (n = 3). Matched 5-year survival was 40% after surgical replacement and 29% after transcatheter replacement [P(log-rank) = 0.4]. Total aortic calcium volume was greater in transcatheter than surgical patients [18 (8.0) vs 17 (7.7) ml] and was associated with more major hospital complications after either approach. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical and transcatheter approaches are complementary options for aortic stenosis with porcelain aorta. Surgical valve replacement remains an effective treatment for patients requiring concomitant procedures. Quantifying aortic calcium volume is a helpful risk predictor in all patients with porcelain aorta.