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.

Improved radiologic diagnosis of delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) after esophagectomy using a functional upper gastrointestinal contrast study.

BACKGROUND: With increasing incidence of esophageal cancer, a growing number of patients are at risk of developing delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) in the early postoperative phase after esophagectomy. This condition is of great postoperative concern due to its association with adverse outcomes. PURPOSE: To give a narrative review of the literature concerning radiological diagnosis of DGCE after esophagectomy and a proposal for an improved, functional protocol with objective measurements. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The protocol was designed at Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle and is based on the Timed Barium Esophagogram (TBE) concept, which has been adapted to assess the passage of contrast from the gastric conduit into the duodenum. RESULTS: The literature review showed a general lack of standardization and scientific evidence behind the use of radiology to assess DGCE. We found that our proposed standardized upper gastrointestinal (UGI) contrast study considers both the time aspect in DGCE and provides morphologic information of the gastric conduit. This radiological protocol was tested on 112 patients in a trial performed at two high-volume centers for esophageal surgery and included an UGI contrast study 2-3 days postoperatively. The study demonstrated that this UGI contrast study can be included in the standardized clinical pathway after esophagectomy. CONCLUSION: This new, proposed UGI contrast study has the potential to diagnose early postoperative DGCE in a standardized manner and to improve overall patient outcomes after esophagectomy.

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.

Development of a Preliminary Question Prompt List as a Communication Tool for Adults With Achalasia: A Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions that enhance patient-physician communication by encouraging patients to ask questions during consultations. AIM: The aim of this study was to develop a preliminary achalasia-specific QPL created by esophageal experts. METHODS: The QPL content was derived through a modified Delphi method consisting of 2 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts "What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of achalasia" and "What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?" In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. Questions considered "essential" or "important" were accepted into the QPL. Feedback regarding the QPL was obtained in a pilot study wherein patients received the QPL before their consultation and completed surveys afterwards. RESULTS: Nineteen esophageal experts participated in both rounds. Of 148 questions from round 1, 124 (83.8%) were accepted into the QPL. These were further reduced to 56 questions to minimize redundancy. Questions were categorized into 6 themes: "What is achalasia," "Risks with achalasia," "Symptom management in achalasia," "Treatment of achalasia," "Risk of reflux after treatment," and "Follow-up after treatment." Nineteen patients participated in the pilot, most of whom agreed that the QPL was helpful (84.2%) and recommended its wider use (84.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first QPL developed specifically for adults with achalasia. Although well-received in a small pilot, follow-up studies will incorporate additional patient feedback to further refine the QPL content and assess its usability, acceptability, and feasibility.

EAES Multidisciplinary Rapid Guideline: systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment and evidence-informed recommendations on the surgical management of paraesophageal hernias.

BACKGROUND: New evidence has emerged since latest guidelines on the management of paraesophageal hernia, and guideline development methodology has evolved. Members of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery have prioritized the management of paraesophageal hernia to be addressed by pertinent recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on paraesophageal hernias, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. METHODS: We performed three systematic reviews, and we summarized and appraised the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. A panel of general and upper gastrointestinal surgeons, gastroenterologists and a patient advocate discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost and use of resources, moderated by a Guidelines International Network-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: The panel suggests surgery over conservative management for asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic paraesophageal hernias (conditional recommendation), and recommends conservative management over surgery for asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic paraesophageal hernias in frail patients (strong recommendation). Further, the panel suggests mesh over sutures for hiatal closure in paraesophageal hernia repair, fundoplication over gastropexy in elective paraesophageal hernia repair, and gastropexy over fundoplication in patients who have cardiopulmonary instability and require emergency paraesophageal hernia repair (conditional recommendation). A strong recommendation means that the proposed course of action is appropriate for the vast majority of patients. A conditional recommendation means that most patients would opt for the proposed course of action, and joint decision-making of the surgeon and the patient is required. Accompanying evidence summaries and evidence-to-decision frameworks should be read when using the recommendations. This guideline applies to adult patients with moderate to large paraesophageal hernias type II to IV with at least 50% of the stomach herniated to the thoracic cavity. The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/j7q7Gn . CONCLUSION: An interdisciplinary panel provides recommendations on key topics on the management of paraesophageal hernias using highest methodological standards and following a transparent process. GUIDELINE REGISTRATION NUMBER: PREPARE-2023CN018.

Hybrid laparoscopic versus fully robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: an international propensity-score matched analysis of perioperative outcome.

BACKGROUND: Currently, little is known regarding the optimal technique for the abdominal phase of RAMIE. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in both the abdominal and thoracic phase (full RAMIE) compared to laparoscopy during the abdominal phase (hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE). METHODS: This retrospective propensity-score matched analysis of the International Upper Gastrointestinal International Robotic Association (UGIRA) database included 807 RAMIE procedures with intrathoracic anastomosis between 2017 and 2021 from 23 centers. RESULTS: After propensity-score matching, 296 hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE patients were compared to 296 full RAMIE patients. Both groups were equal regarding intraoperative blood loss (median 200 ml versus 197 ml, p = 0.6967), operational time (mean 430.3 min versus 417.7 min, p = 0.1032), conversion rate during abdominal phase (2.4% versus 1.7%, p = 0.560), radical resection (R0) rate (95.6% versus 96.3%, p = 0.8526) and total lymph node yield (mean 30.4 versus 29.5, p = 0.3834). The hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE group showed higher rates of anastomotic leakage (28.0% versus 16.6%, p = 0.001) and Clavien Dindo grade 3a or higher (45.3% versus 26.0%, p < 0.001). The length of stay on intensive care unit (median 3 days versus 2 days, p = 0.0005) and in-hospital (median 15 days versus 12 days, p < 0.0001) were longer for the hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE group. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE and full RAMIE were oncologically equivalent with a potential decrease of postoperative complications and shorter (intensive care) stay after full RAMIE.

Multi-society consensus conference and guideline on the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common diseases in North America and globally. The aim of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the most utilized and available endoscopic and surgical treatments for GERD. METHODS: Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical and endoscopic treatments for GERD in adults: preoperative evaluation, endoscopic vs surgical or medical treatment, complete vs partial fundoplication, and treatment for obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 35 kg/m2) and concomitant GERD. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: The consensus provided 13 recommendations. Through the development of these evidence-based recommendations, an algorithm was proposed for aid in the treatment of GERD. Patients with typical symptoms should undergo upper endoscopy, manometry, and pH-testing; additional testing may be required for patients with atypical or extra-esophageal symptoms. Patients with normal or abnormal findings on manometry should consider undergoing partial fundoplication. Magnetic sphincter augmentation or fundoplication are appropriate surgical procedures for adults with GERD. For patients who wish to avoid surgery, the Stretta procedure and transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF 2.0) were found to have better outcomes than proton pump inhibitors alone. Patients with concomitant obesity were recommended to undergo either gastric bypass or fundoplication, although patients with severe comorbid disease or BMI > 50 should undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the additional benefits that follow weight loss. CONCLUSION: Using the recommendations an algorithm was developed by this panel, so that physicians may better counsel their patients with GERD. There are certain patient factors that have been excluded from included studies/trials, and so these recommendations should not replace surgeon-patient decision making. Engaging in the identified research areas may improve future care for GERD patients.

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.

Evaluation of International Contemporary Operative Outcomes and Management Trends Associated With Esophagectomy: A 4-Year Study of >6000 Patients Using ECCG Definitions and the Online Esodata Database.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to verify the utility of international online datasets to benchmark and monitor treatment and outcomes in major oncologic procedures. BACKGROUND: The Esophageal Complication Consensus Group (ECCG) has standardized the reporting of complications after esophagectomy within the web-based Esodata.org database. This study will utilize the Esodata dataset to update contemporary outcomes and to monitor trends in practice in an era of rapid technical change. METHODS: This observational study, based on a prospectively developed specific database, updates esophagectomy outcomes collected between 2015 and 2018. Evolution in patient and operative demographics, treatment, complications, and quality outcome measures were compared between patients undergoing surgery in 2015 to 2016 and 2017 to 2018. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2018, 6022 esophagectomies from 39 centers were entered into Esodata. Most patients were male (78.3%) with median age 63. Patients having minimally invasive esophagectomy constituted 3177 (52.8%), a chest anastomosis 3838 (63.7%), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy 2834 (48.7%), and R0 resections 5441 (93.5%). For quality measures, 30- and 90-day mortality was 2.0% and 4.5%, readmissions 9.7%, transfusions 12%, escalation in care 22.1%, and discharge home 89.4%. Trends in quality measures between 2015 and 2016 (2407 patients) and 2017 and 2018 (3318 patients) demonstrated significant (P < 0.05) improvements in readmissions 11.1% to 8.5%, blood transfusions 14.3% to 10.2%, and escalation in care from 24.5% to 20% A significantly (P < 0.05) reduced incidence in pneumonia (15.3%-12.8%) and renal failure (1.0%-0.4%) was observed. Anastomotic leak rates increased from 11.7% to 13.1%, whereas leaks requiring surgery decreased 3.3% and 3.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Esodata database provides a valuable resource for assessing contemporary international outcomes. This study highlights an increased application of minimally invasive approaches, a high percentage of complications, improvements in pneumonia and key quality metrics, but with anastomotic leak rates still >10%.

Is Local Endoscopic Resection a Viable Therapeutic Option for Early Clinical Stage T1a and T1b Esophageal Adenocarcinoma?: A Propensity-matched Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of endoscopic resection (ER) versus esophagectomy in node-negative cT1a and cT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The role of ER in the management of subsets of clinical T1N0 esophageal adenocarcinoma is controversial. METHODS: Data from the National Cancer Database (2010-2015) were used to identify patients with clinical T1aN0 (n = 2545) and T1bN0 (n = 1281) esophageal adenocarcinoma that received either ER (cT1a, n = 1581; cT1b, n = 335) or esophagectomy (cT1a, n = 964; cT1b, n = 946). Propensity score matching and Cox analyses were used to account for treatment selection bias. RESULTS: ER for cT1a and cT1b disease was performed more commonly over time. The rates of node-positive disease in patients with cT1a and cT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma were 4% and 15%, respectively. In the matched cohort for cT1a cancers, ER had similar survival to esophagectomy [hazard ratio (HR): 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-1.04, P = 0.1]. The corresponding 5-year survival for ER and esophagectomy were 70% and 74% (P = 0.1), respectively. For cT1b cancers, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the treatment groups (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.66-1.14, P = 0.3). The corresponding 5-year survival for ER and esophagectomy were 53% versus 61% (P = 0.3), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates ER has comparable long-term outcomes for clinical T1aN0 and T1bN0 esophageal adenocarcinoma. However, 15% of patients with cT1b esophageal cancer were found to have positive nodal disease. Future research should seek to identify the subset of T1b cancers at high risk of nodal metastasis and thus would benefit from esophagectomy with lymphadenectomy.

Definitive Chemoradiotherapy Compared to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy With Esophagectomy for Locoregional Esophageal Cancer: National Population-based Cohort Study.

AIM: Ongoing randomized controlled trials seek to evaluate the potential organ-preservation strategy of definitive chemoradiotherapy as a primary treatment for esophageal cancer. This population-based cohort study aimed to assess survival following definitive chemoradiotherapy (DCR) with or without salvage esophagectomy (SALV) in the treatment of esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004 to 2015, was used to identify patients with nonmetastatic esophageal cancer receiving either DCR (n = 5977) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with planned esophagectomy (NCRS) (n = 13,555). Propensity score matching and multivariable analyses were used to account for treatment selection bias. Subset analyses compared patients receiving SALV after DCR with NCRS. RESULTS: Comparison of baseline demographics of the unmatched cohort revealed that patients receiving NCRS were younger, had a lower burden of medical comorbidities, lower proportion of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and more positive lymph nodes. Following matching, NCRS was associated with significantly improved survival compared with DCR [hazard ratio (HR): 0.60, 95% confidence Interval (CI): 0.57-0.63, P < 0.001], which persisted in subset analyses of patients with adenocarcinoma (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.56-0.63, P < 0.001) and SCC (HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.53-0.63, P < 0.001). Of 829 receiving SALV after DCR, 823 patients were matched to 1643 NCRS. There was no difference in overall survival between SALV and NCRS (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.90-1.11, P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery remains an integral component of the management of patients with esophageal cancer. Neoadjuvant therapy followed by planned esophagectomy appears to remain the optimum curative treatment regime in patients with locoregional esophageal cancer.

Assessment of Health Related Quality of Life and Digestive Symptoms in Long-term, Disease Free Survivors After Esophagectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate long-term HRQOL and symptom evolution in disease free patients up to 20 years after esophagectomy. BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy has been associated with decreased HRQOL and persistent gastrointestinal symptoms. METHODS: The study cohort was identified from 2 high volume centers for the management of esophageal cancer. Patients completed HRQOL and symptom questionnaires, including: Digestive Symptom Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-OG25 Euro QoL 5D, and SF36. Patients were assessed in 3 cohorts: <1 year; 1-5 years, and; >5 years after surgery. RESULTS: In total 171 of 222 patients who underwent esophagectomy between 1991 and 2017 who met inclusion criteria and were contactable, responded to the questionnaires, corresponding to a response rate of 77%. Median age was 66.2 years, and median time from operation to survey was 5.6 years (range 0.3-23.1). Early satiety was the most commonly reported symptom in all patients irrespective of timeframe (87.4%; range 82%-92%). Dysphagia was seen to decrease over time (58% at <2 years; 28% at 2-5 years; 20% at >5 years; P = 0.013). Weight loss scores demonstrated nonstatistical improvement over time. All other symptom scores including heartburn, regurgitation, respiratory symptoms, and pain scores remained constant over time. Average HRQOL did not improve from levels 1 year after surgery compared to patients up to 23 years after esophagectomy. CONCLUSION: With the exception of dysphagia, which improved over time, esophagectomy was associated with decreased HRQOL and lasting gastrointestinal symptoms up to 20 years after surgery. Pertinently however long-term survivors after oesophagectomy demonstrated comparable to improved HRQOL compared to the general population. The impact of esophagectomy on gastrointestinal symptoms and long-term HRQOL should be considered when counseling and caring for patients undergoing esophagectomy.

Development of a Reliable Surgical Quality Assurance System for 2-stage Esophagectomy in Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to develop a reliable surgical quality assurance system for 2-stage esophagectomy. This development was conducted during the pilot phase of the multicenter ROMIO trial, collaborating with international experts. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is evidence that the quality of surgical performance in randomized controlled trials influences clinical outcomes, quality of lymphadenectomy and loco-regional recurrence. METHODS: Standardization of 2-stage esophagectomy was based on structured observations, semi-structured interviews, hierarchical task analysis, and a Delphi consensus process. This standardization provided the structure for the operation manual and video and photographic assessment tools. Reliability was examined using generalizability theory. RESULTS: Hierarchical task analysis for 2-stage esophagectomy comprised fifty-four steps. Consensus (75%) agreement was reached on thirty-nine steps, whereas fifteen steps had a majority decision. An operation manual and record were created. A thirty five-item video assessment tool was developed that assessed the process (safety and efficiency) and quality of the end product (anatomy exposed and lymphadenectomy performed) of the operation. The quality of the end product section was used as a twenty seven-item photographic assessment tool. Thirty-one videos and fifty-three photographic series were submitted from the ROMIO pilot phase for assessment. The overall G-coefficient for the video assessment tool was 0.744, and for the photographic assessment tool was 0.700. CONCLUSIONS: A reliable surgical quality assurance system for 2-stage esophagectomy has been developed for surgical oncology randomized controlled trials. ETHICAL APPROVAL: 11/NW/0895 and confirmed locally as appropriate, 12/SW/0161, 16/SW/0098.Trial registration number: ISRCTN59036820, ISRCTN10386621.

Worldwide Techniques and Outcomes in Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE): Results From the Multicenter International Registry.

OBJECTIVE: This international multicenter study by the Upper GI International Robotic Association aimed to gain insight in current techniques and outcomes of RAMIE worldwide. BACKGROUND: Current evidence for RAMIE originates from single-center studies, which may not be generalizable to the international multicenter experience. METHODS: Twenty centers from Europe, Asia, North-America, and South-America participated from 2016 to 2019. Main endpoints included the surgical techniques, clinical outcomes, and early oncological results of ramie. RESULTS: A total of 856 patients undergoing transthoracic RAMIE were included. Robotic surgery was applied for both the thoracic and abdominal phase (45%), only the thoracic phase (49%), or only the abdominal phase (6%). In most cases, the mediastinal lymphadenectomy included the low paraesophageal nodes (n=815, 95%), subcarinal nodes (n = 774, 90%), and paratracheal nodes (n = 537, 63%). When paratracheal lymphadenectomy was performed during an Ivor Lewis or a McKeown RAMIE procedure, recurrent laryngeal nerve injury occurred in 3% and 11% of patients, respectively. Circular stapled (52%), hand-sewn (30%), and linear stapled (18%) anastomotic techniques were used. In Ivor Lewis RAMIE, robot-assisted hand-sewing showed the highest anastomotic leakage rate (33%), while lower rates were observed with circular stapling (17%) and linear stapling (15%). In McKeown RAMIE, a hand-sewn anastomotic technique showed the highest leakage rate (27%), followed by linear stapling (18%) and circular stapling (6%). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to provide an overview of the current techniques and outcomes of transthoracic RAMIE worldwide. Although these results indicate high quality of the procedure, the optimal approach should be further defined.

Impact of Early Jejunostomy Tube Feeding on Clinical Outcome and Parameters of Body Composition in Esophageal Cancer Patients Receiving Multimodal Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition commonly affects patients with esophageal cancer and has the potential to negatively influence treatment outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of early (preoperative) jejunostomy tube feeding (JTF) in nutritionally 'high risk' patients receiving multimodal therapy for esophageal cancer. METHODS: Patients were selected to undergo early JTF during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in accordance with European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines. Clinical outcomes were compared with patients who received routine JTF from the time of esophagectomy. Body composition was determined from computed tomography (CT) images acquired at diagnosis, after nCRT, and ≥ 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: In total, 81 patients received early JTF and 91 patients received routine JTF. Patients who received early JTF had lower body mass index (BMI; 26.1 ± 4.6 vs. 28.4 ± 4.9; p = 0.002), greater weight loss, and worse performance status at diagnosis. Groups were otherwise well-matched for baseline characteristics. Rate of re-intubation (8.8% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.027), pulmonary embolism (5.0% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.046), and 90-day mortality (10.0% vs. 1.1%; p = 0.010) were worse in the early JTF group; however, overall survival was equivalent for both the early and routine JTF groups (p = 0.053). Wide variation in the degree of preoperative muscle loss and total adipose tissue loss was observed across the entire study cohort. Relative preoperative muscle and adipose tissue loss in patients with early and routine JTF was equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: In patients determined to be at 'high risk' of malnutrition, early JTF may prevent excess morbidity after esophagectomy with an associated relative preservation of parameters of body composition.

Systematic review and validation of clinical models predicting survival after oesophagectomy for adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal adenocarcinoma poses a significant global health burden, yet the staging used to predict survival has limited ability to stratify patients by outcome. This study aimed to identify published clinical models that predict survival in oesophageal adenocarcinoma and to evaluate them using an independent international multicentre dataset. METHODS: A systematic literature search (title and abstract) using the Ovid Embase and MEDLINE databases (from 1947 to 11 July 2020) was performed. Inclusion criteria were studies that developed or validated a clinical prognostication model to predict either overall or disease-specific survival in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma undergoing surgical treatment with curative intent. Published models were validated using an independent dataset of 2450 patients who underwent oesophagectomy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma with curative intent. RESULTS: Seventeen articles were eligible for inclusion in the study. Eleven models were suitable for testing in the independent validation dataset and nine of these were able to stratify patients successfully into groups with significantly different survival outcomes. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for individual survival prediction models ranged from 0.658 to 0.705, suggesting poor-to-fair accuracy. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the need to concentrate on robust methodologies and improved, independent, validation, to increase the likelihood of clinical adoption of survival predictions models.

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.

ERAS guidelines-driven upper gastrointestinal contrast study after esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Early nasogastric tube (NGT) removal is a component of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for esophagectomy. The aim of this study is to assess a protocol-driven application of UGI contrast study to facilitate early NGT removal and direct a standardized therapeutic response in patients with evidence for delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE). METHODS: All patients undergoing esophagectomy between January 2017 and October 2019 were prospectively enrolled. Esophageal resections were performed through different surgical approaches involving gastric conduit reconstruction. A standardized clinical protocol (SCP) was systematically applied, which targeted a UGI contrast study on POD 2-3 to allow immediate NGT removal or initiate DGCE protocols. RESULTS: This study enrolled 50 patients undergoing open Ivor Lewis (42%), left thoracoabdominal (46%), and three-field procedure (12%) with gastric conduit reconstruction and either upper thoracic (66%) or cervical (34%) anastomosis. Jejunostomy was routinely placed while pyloric procedures were not performed. Patients achieving targeted contrast study (86%) demonstrated significantly earlier NGT removal (p-value 0.010), oral protocol initiation (0.001), and decreased length of hospital stay (6 vs 10 days, 0.024). Four patients (8%) presented with radiology signs of DCGE and underwent protocoled treatment, eventually achieving discharge similar to the overall study population (7 vs 8.5 days). CONCLUSIONS: Protocol-driven UGI contrast study can effectively provide objective data facilitating early NGT removal and discharge. Patients with DGCE can successfully undergo intervention to improve conduit emptying and adhere to ERAS discharge goals.

Analysis of Compliance with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol for Esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: ERAS guidelines have provided an effective recovery approach for esophagectomy. This study aimed to identify the relationship between the length of hospital stay (LOS) and compliance with clinical benchmarks of an established institutional ERAS program. METHODS: A single-center prospective database of esophageal cancer patients was retrospectively analyzed between January 2016 and January 2020. All patients underwent surgery within a standardized ERAS pathway for esophagectomy. Compliance with individual ERAS benchmarks and postoperative outcomes were evaluated according to patient's LOS; accelerated (≤ 6 days, AR), targeted (7-8 days, TR), and delayed recovery (≥ 9 days, DR). RESULTS: The study included 100 consecutive patients undergoing esophagectomy with a median LOS of 7 (3.8-40.8) days, and a 30-day readmission rate of 12.6%. LOS was not affected by comorbidities, tumor type or stage, neoadjuvant therapy, operative approach or anastomotic leak. Postoperative complications were 49.5%, and 90-day mortality was 3.8%. AR, TR, and DL were achieved by 45%, 31%, and 24% of patients, respectively. Postoperative morbidity differed significantly among groups, impacting LOS (p < 0.001). Overall compliance with ERAS protocol was 82.7% and adherence to specific benchmarks was initially (< 48 h) high, but significantly affected by postoperative complications afterwards. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to recovery benchmarks in patients undergoing esophagectomy is most commonly impacted by postoperative complications. In esophageal cancer surgery, the adherence to ERAS benchmarks after esophagectomy should be regularly audited. Modification to ERAS protocols to increase application in patients with complications should be considered.

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.