Initial Experience Using Laparoscopic HIPEC for Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Metastasis: Safety and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal metastases (PM) develop in approximately 20% of patients with gastric cancer (GC). For selected patients, treatment of PM with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has shown promising results. This report aims to describe the safety and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic HIPEC for GC/PM. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients who had GC and PM treated with laparoscopic HIPEC (2018-2022). The HIPEC involved cisplatin and mitomycin C (MMC) or MMC alone. The primary end point was perioperative safety. RESULTS: The 22 patients in this study underwent 27 procedures. The mean age was 58 ± 13 years. All the patients were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0 or 1 (55 and 45%, respectively). Five patients underwent a second laparoscopic HIPEC, with a median of 126 days (interquartile range [IQR], 117-166 days) between procedures. The median peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) was 4 (IQR, 2-9), and the median hospital stay was 2 days (IQR, 1-3 days). No 30-day readmissions or complications occurred. Eight patients (36%) underwent gastrectomy (CRS ± HIPEC). After an average follow-up period of 11 months, 7 (32%) of the 22 patients were alive. The median overall survival was 11 months (IQR, 195-739 days) from the initial procedure and 19.3 months (IQR, 431-1204 days) from the diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic HIPEC appears to be safe with minimal perioperative complications. Approximately one third of the patients undergoing initial laparoscopic HIPEC ultimately proceeded to cytoreduction and gastrectomy. Preliminary survival data from this highly selected cohort suggest that the addition of laparoscopic HIPEC to systemic chemotherapy does not compromise other treatment options. These initial results suggest that laparoscopic HIPEC may offer benefit to patients with GC and PM and aid in the selection of patients who may benefit from curative-intent resection.

Tumor Regression Grade and Overall Survival following Gastrectomy with Preoperative Therapy for Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pre-/perioperative chemotherapy is well-established for management of locoregional gastric cancer (LRGC). The American Joint Committee on Cancer advocates histopathologic assessment of tumor regression grade (TRG) but does not endorse a specific schema. We sought to examine the prognostic value of the recently revised National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) definition of TRG specifying TRG0 as no disease in primary tumor or lymph nodes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinical-stage T2+/N+/M0 LRGC receiving preoperative chemotherapy and curative-intent gastrectomy were identified (2000-2020). TRG using the current NCCN definition was retrospectively assigned. Factors associated with TRG were examined using ordinal logistic regression and overall survival (OS) was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression. RESULTS: Among 117 patients, the most common chemotherapy regimen was epirubicin, cisplatin, plus fluorouracil or capecitabine (ECF/ECX) (n = 48, 41%), followed by folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) (n = 30, 26%), and fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, plus docetaxel (FLOT) (n = 13, 11%). TRG3 was the most common histopathologic response (n = 68, 58%), followed by TRG2 (n = 25, 21%), TRG1 (n = 18, 15%), and, lastly, TRG0 (n = 6, 5.1%). The only preoperative factor independently associated with lower TRG was gastroesophageal junction tumor location (OR 0.24, p = 0.012). Higher TRG was independently associated with worse OS in a stepwise fashion (HR 1.49, p = 0.026). Posttreatment pathologic lymph node status was the strongest prognostic factor (HR 1.93, p = 0.026). Independent prognostic value of TRG and ypT stage could not be shown due to substantial overlap. CONCLUSIONS: TRG using the contemporary NCCN definition is associated with OS in LRGC. TRG0 is uncommon but with excellent prognosis. ypN status is the strongest prognostic factor and the revised NCCN definition acknowledging this is appropriate.

Outcomes of 350 Robotic-assisted Esophagectomies at a High-volume Cancer Center: A Contemporary Propensity-score Matched Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate perioperative and oncologic outcomes in our RAMIE cohort and compare outcomes with contemporary OE controls. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: RAMIE has emerged as an alternative to traditional open or laparoscopic approaches. Described in all esophagectomy techniques, rapid adoption has been attributed to both enhanced visualization and technical dexterity. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent RAMIE for malignancy. Patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and survival were evaluated. For perioperative and oncologic outcome comparison, contemporary OE controls were propensity-score matched from NSQIP and NCDB databases. RESULTS: We identified 350 patients who underwent RAMIE between 2010 and 2019. Median body mass index was 27.4, 32% demonstrated a Charlson Comorbidity Index >4. Nodal disease was identified in 50% of patients and 74% received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Mean operative time and blood loss were 425 minutes and 232 mL, respectively. Anastomotic leak occurred in 16% of patients, 2% required reoperation. Median LOS was 9 days, and 30-day mortality was 3%. A median of 21 nodes were dissected with 96% achieving an R0 resection. Median survival was 67.4 months. 222 RAMIE were matched 1:1 to the NSQIP OE control. RAMIE demonstrated decreased LOS (9 vs 10 days, P = 0.010) and reoperative rates (2.3 vs 12.2%, P = 0.001), longer operative time (427 vs 311 minutes, P = 0.001), and increased rate of pulmonary embolism (5.4% vs 0.9%, P = 0.007) in comparison to NSQIP cohort. There was no difference in leak rate or mortality. Three hundred forty-three RAMIE were matched to OE cohort from NCDB with no difference in median overall survival (63 vs 53 months; P = 0.130). CONCLUSION: In this largest reported institutional series, we demonstrate that RAMIE can be performed safely with excellent oncologic outcomes and decreased hospital stay when compared to the open approach.

Evaluation of Tumor DNA Sequencing Results in Patients with Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma Stratified by TP53 Mutation Status.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas (GEJ) are molecularly diverse. TP53 is the most frequently altered gene with approximately 50% of patients harboring mutations. This qualitative study describes the distinct genomic alterations in GCs and GEJs stratified by TP53 mutation status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tumor DNA sequencing results of 324 genes from 3741 patients with GC and GEJ were obtained from Foundation Medicine. Association between gene mutation frequency and TP53 mutation status was examined using Fisher's exact test. Functional gene groupings representing molecular pathways suggested to be differentially mutated in TP53 wild-type (TP53WT) and TP53 mutant (TP53MUT) tumors were identified. The association of the frequency of tumors containing a gene mutation in the molecular pathways of interest and TP53 mutation status was assessed using Fisher's exact test with a P-value of <.01 deemed statistically significant for all analyses. RESULTS: TP53 mutations were noted in 61.6% of 2946 GCs and 81.4% of 795 GEJs (P < .001). Forty-nine genes had statistically different mutation frequencies in TP53WT vs. TP53MUT patients. TP53WT tumors more likely had mutations related to DNA mismatch repair, homologous recombination repair, DNA and histone methylation, Wnt/B-catenin, PI3K/Akt/mTOR, and chromatin remodeling complexes. TP53MUT tumors more likely had mutations related to fibroblast growth factor, epidermal growth factor receptor, other receptor tyrosine kinases, and cyclin and cyclin-dependent kinases. CONCLUSION: The mutational profiles of GCs and GEJs varied according to TP53 mutation status. These mutational differences can be used when designing future studies assessing the predictive ability of TP53 mutation status when targeting differentially affected molecular pathways.

Management of Malignant Small Bowel Obstruction: Is Intestinal Bypass Effective Palliation?

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Malignant small bowel obstruction (mSBO) is a common consequence of advanced malignancies. Surgical consultation is common, however data on the outcomes following an operation are lacking. We investigated a specific operative approach-intestinal bypass-to determine the outcomes associated with this intervention. METHODS: Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of mSBO who underwent intestinal bypass between 2015 and 2021 were included. Isolated colonic obstruction was excluded as was gastric outlet obstruction. Perioperative and postoperative outcomes were measured, including complications, overall survival, return to oral intake, and return to intended oncologic therapy. Patients were additionally grouped as to whether the operation was performed as elective or as inpatient. RESULTS: Overall, 55 patients were identified, with a mean age of 61.2 ± 14 years. The most common primary malignancy was colorectal cancer (65.5%) and 80% of patients had a preoperative diagnosis of metastatic disease. Small bowel to colon was the most common bypass procedure (51%). Severe complications occurred in 25.5% of patients with three in-hospital mortalities (5.5%). Survival rates at 30, 90, and 180 days were 91%, 80%, and 62%, respectively. The majority of patients were discharged to home (85.5%) and were tolerating an oral diet (74.6%). Twenty-seven patients (49.1%) returned to some form of oncologic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with mSBO face a potentially terminal condition. In this study, approximately 75% of patients who underwent intestinal bypass were able to regain the ability to eat, and 49% returned to oncologic therapy. Although retrospective, these data suggest the approach is efficacious for palliation of this difficult sequela of advanced cancer.

Fundic gland polyps related to diverse aetiologies show subtle morphological differences: a multicentre retrospective study.

AIMS: Fundic gland polyps (FGPs) comprise 66% of all gastric polyps. Although they are usually non-syndromic, they may be associated with various syndromes, including familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) or gastric adenocarcinoma and proximal polyposis of the stomach (GAPPS). We aimed to evaluate how histological features relate to distinct FGP subtypes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 118 FGPs from 109 patients for the architecture of fundic glands, microcyst lining, parietal cell hyperplasia and surface foveolar epithelial changes. Age, gender and history of FAP or GAPPS were collected. Based on combinations of histological features, three distinct patterns (A, B and C) of FGPs were delineated and correlated to the aetiologies. Non-syndromic FGPs were well-formed polyps composed of disordered fundic glands with intermediate-sized microcysts typically lined by a mixture of oxyntic and mucin-secreting cells (73%). Parietal cell hyperplasia (80%) and foveolar surface hyperplasia (78%) were common. FAP-associated cases demonstrated small microcysts that were predominantly lined by fundic epithelium (77%), with limited parietal cell hyperplasia (27%); foveolar hyperplasia was uncommon. GAPPS-related polyps were the largest, with prominent, mucin-secreting epithelium-lined microcysts (73%). Hyperproliferative aberrant pits were universally present, whereas parietal cell hyperplasia was uncommon. Pattern A was identified in most non-syndromic FGPs (74%) and in a minority of FAP-related FGPs (26%). The majority (82%) of FAP-related FGPs showed pattern B, but only 18% of non-syndromic FGPs did. Pattern C consisted exclusively of GAPPS-associated polyps. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that, although FGPs share similar histomorphology, subtle differences exist between polyps of different aetiology. In the appropriate clinical setting, the recognition of these variations may help to consider syndromic aetiologies.

Prophylactic Perioperative Antibiotics in Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: When Less Is More and When It Is Not. A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Propensity-Matched Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We hypothesized that first-generation cephalosporins (G1CEP) provide adequate antimicrobial coverage for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) when no biliary stent is present but might be inferior to second-generation cephalosporins or broad-spectrum antibiotics (G2CEP/BS) in decreasing surgical-site infection (SSI) rates when a biliary stent is present. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2014-2019 was used to select patients who underwent elective open PD. We divided the population into no-stent versus stent groups based on the status of biliary drainage and then divided each group into G1CEP versus G2CEP/BS subgroups based on the choice of perioperative antibiotics. We matched the subgroups per a propensity score match and analyzed postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Six thousand two hundred forty five cases of 39,779 were selected; 2821 in the no-stent (45.2%) versus 3424 (54.8%) in the stent group. G1CEP were the antibiotics of choice in 2653 (42.5%) versus G2CEP/BS in 3592 (57.5%) cases. In the no-stent group, we matched 1129 patients between G1CEP and G2CEP/BS. There was no difference in SSI-specific complications (20.3% versus 21.0%; P = 0.677), general infectious complications (25.7% versus 26.9%; P = 0.503), PD-specific complications, overall morbidity, length of stay, or mortality. In the stent group, we matched 1244 pairs. G2CEP/BS had fewer SSI-specific complications (19.9% versus 26.6%; P < 0.001), collections requiring drainage (9.6% versus 12.9%; P = 0.011), and general infectious complications (28.5% versus 34.1%; P = 0.002) but no difference in overall morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS: G2CEP/BS are associated with reduced rates of SSI-specific and infectious complications in stented patients undergoing open elective PD. In patients without prior biliary drainage, G1CEP seems to provide adequate antimicrobial coverage.

The effect of histologic grade on neoadjuvant treatment outcomes in esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The gold standard for locoregional esophageal cancer (LEC) treatment includes preoperative chemoradiation and surgical resection, with possible perioperative or adjuvant systemic therapy. With few data associating histologic grade and prognosis in LEC patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by resection, we seek to evaluate this association. METHODS: Our institutional esophagectomy database between 1999 and 2019 was queried, selecting esophageal adenocarcinoma patients who completed neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), followed by esophagectomy. Propensity-score matching of low- and high-histologic grade groups was performed to assess survival metrics using initial clinical grade (cG) and final pathologic grade (pG). We performed a multivariable logistic regression to study predictors of pathologic complete response as a secondary objective. RESULTS: A total of 518 patients met the inclusion criteria. Kaplan-Meier analysis of the matched dataset showed no difference in initial or 5-year recurrence-free survival or overall survival (OS) between cG1 and cG2 versus cG3 based on original grade. When matched according to pG, cG1-2 had improved median survival parameters compared to cG3, with 5-year OS for cG1-2 of 45% versus 27% (p = 0.001). Higher pG, pathologic N stage, and poor response to NAT are predictors of poor survival. CONCLUSION: Patients with post-NAT pG1-2 demonstrated improved survival. Integrating histologic grade into postneoadjuvant staging may be warranted.

A microRNA Signature Identifies Patients at Risk of Barrett Esophagus Progression to Dysplasia and Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Progression of Barrett esophagus (BE) to esophageal adenocarcinoma occurs among a minority of BE patients. To date, BE behavior cannot be predicted on the basis of histologic features. AIMS: We compared BE samples that did not develop dysplasia or carcinoma upon follow-up of ≥ 7 years (BE nonprogressed [BEN]) with BE samples that developed carcinoma upon follow-up of 3 to 4 years (BE progressed [BEP]). METHODS: The NanoString nCounter miRNA assay was used to profile 24 biopsy samples of BE, including 13 BENs and 11 BEPs. Fifteen samples were randomly selected for miRNA prediction model training; nine were randomly selected for miRNA validation. RESULTS: Unpaired t tests with Welch's correction were performed on 800 measured miRNAs to identify the most differentially expressed miRNAs for cases of BEN and BEP. The top 12 miRNAs (P < .003) were selected for principal component analyses: miR-1278, miR-1301, miR-1304-5p, miR-517b-3p, miR-584-5p, miR-599, miR-103a-3p, miR-1197, miR-1256, miR-509-3-5p, miR-544b, miR-802. The 12-miRNA signature was first self-validated on the training dataset, resulting in 7 out of the 7 BEP samples being classified as BEP (100% sensitivity) and 7 out of the 8 BEN samples being classified as BEN (87.5% specificity). Upon validation, 4 out of the 4 BEP samples were classified as BEP (100% sensitivity) and 4 out of the 5 BEN samples were classified as BEN (80% specificity). Twenty-four samples were evaluated, and 22 cases were correctly classified. Overall accuracy was 91.67%. CONCLUSION: Using miRNA profiling, we have identified a 12-miRNA signature able to reliably differentiate cases of BEN from BEP.

Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Plus Chemoradiation as Neoadjuvant Therapy for Resectable Gastric Adenocarcinoma: A Multi-institutional Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus chemoradiation (CRT) for patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (GA). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal neoadjuvant therapy regimen for resectable GA is not defined. METHODS: Utilizing data from 2 high-volume cancer centers, we analyzed patients who underwent surgery for localized GA from 1/1/2000-12/31/2017. Standard CT regimens were used according to treatment period. We compared propensity matched cohorts based on age, sex, race, histology, and clinical stage. RESULTS: Four-hundred five patients (age 62 ± 12 year, 58% male, 56% White) were analyzed. 231 (57%) received CRT and 174 (43%) received CT. Groups differed based on histopathologic characteristics including preoperative stage (p = 0.013). To control for these differences, propensity matched cohorts of 113 CT and 113 CRT patients were compared. CRT had similar frequencies of microscopically negative resections to CT (93% vs 91%, p = 0.81), but higher rates of complete pathologic response (15% vs 4%, p = 0.003) and lower pathologic stage (p = 0.002). Completion of intended perioperative therapy occurred in 63% of CT and 91% of CRT patients (p < 0.001). Median DFS was 45mo (95%CI: 20-70) in the CT group and 113mo (95%CI: 75-151) in the CRT group (p = 0.018). Median OS was 53mo (95%CI: 30-77) versus 120mo (95%CI: 101-138); p = 0.015. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional comparison of neoadjuvant CT and CRT for resectable GA, CRT is associated with higher rates of completed perioperative therapy, higher rates of complete pathologic response, lower pathologic stage, and improved survival.Level of Evidence: Level III.

The Landmark Series: Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) for Treatment of Gastric Cancer Metastatic to Peritoneum.

Gastric cancer (GC) is a common cancer worldwide, with patients developing isolated peritoneal metastases (PM) in approximately 30% of cases. In patients with PM, prognosis is quite poor, and long-term survival is almost zero. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment in many peritoneal malignancies, including appendiceal and ovarian cancers and in peritoneal mesothelioma. In this educational review, we summarize many of the seminal studies addressing the potential benefit of CRS/HIPEC for patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases (GC/PM).

Will It Play in Peoria? A Pilot Study of a Robotic Skills Curriculum for Surgical Oncology Fellows.

INTRODUCTION: To implement a mastery-based robotic surgery curriculum using virtual reality (VR) and inanimate reality (IR) drills at multiple Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) fellowships. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective study of curriculum feasibility and efficacy was conducted at four CGSO fellowship sites. All sites had simulators, and kits were provided to perform 19 biotissue drills. Fellows from three non-UPMC sites (n = 15) in 2016-2018 were compared with fellows from University of Pittsburgh (UPMC; n = 15) where the curriculum was validated in 2014-2018. RESULTS: All fellows completed the pre- and post-test. There was no difference in pre-test scores between UPMC and non-UPMC sites. Only 7 of 15 non-UPMC fellows completed the VR curriculum (47% compliance) compared with all 15 UPMC fellows completing the VR curriculum (100% compliance). UPMC had higher curriculum times (217 versus 93 mins) and % mastery (86% versus 55%). Time spent on curriculum was associated with % mastery (p = 0.01). Both groups showed improvement between pre- and post-test. Post-test VR scores trended higher for UPMC (221 versus 180). Between the non-UPMC sites, there was a difference in compliance (p = 0.03) and % mastery (p = 0.03). Zero non-UPMC fellows performed the biotissue drills, while five contemporary UPMC fellows completed 253 biotissue drills. Approximately 140 UPMC faculty and 300 staff hours were spent on the pilot. CONCLUSIONS: A proficiency curriculum can result in improved robotic console skills. However, multiple barriers to implementation potentially exist, including availability of simulators, availability of a training robot, on-site support staff, and universal buy-in from fellows, faculty, and leadership.

Impact of histology classification on pathologic treatment response and overall survival in distal esophageal cancer patients: a propensity matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has been linked to superior pathologic treatment response compared to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. However, the impact of histology on survival remains unclear. It has been suggested, based on epidemiologic similarities, that distal EAC should be grouped with gastric cancers as an entity distinct from distal ESCC, but there is little data to support this recommendation. We therefore aim to compare pathologic treatment response (PTR) and overall survival (OS) in patients with distal EAC versus distal ESCC. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent esophagectomy for distal esophageal malignancy. Histologic sub-groups were matched (1:1) using a propensity-score matching approach. Pre-operative clinical parameters, oncologic outcomes and survival were compared between groups. RESULTS: 1031 distal EC patients, with a median age of 64.4 years and a male preponderance (86.5%), underwent esophagectomy at our institution between 1999 and 2019. 939 (91.1%) patients had a diagnosis of EAC and 92 (8.9%) had ESCC. A higher proportion of ESCC patients were female (26.1% vs. 12.1%; P < 0.01) and non-white (12.0% vs. 3.8%; P < 0.01). Propensity-score sub-analysis identified 75 matched pairs. Rates of pathologic complete response (58.0% vs. 48.9%; P = 0.67) and OS (43.0 vs. 52.0 months; P = 0.808) were not significantly different between matched groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although traditionally known to have a better overall PTR compared to EAC, ESCC patients in our large series did not show any improvement in PTR or OS. Treatment recommendations for patients with EAC and ESCC should consider tumor location in addition to histology.

Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, not platelet to lymphocyte or lymphocyte to monocyte ratio, is predictive of patient survival after resection of early-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: NLR, PLR, and LMR have been associated with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) survival. Prognostic value and optimal cutpoints were evaluated to identify underlying significance in surgical PDAC patients. METHODS: NLR, PLR, and LMR preoperative values were available for 277 PDAC patients who underwent resection between 2007 and 2015. OS, RFS, and survival probability estimates were calculated by univariate, multivariable, and Kaplan-Meier analyses. Continuous and dichotomized ratio analysis determined best-fit cutpoints and assessed ratio components to determine primary drivers. RESULTS: Elevated NLR and PLR and decreased LMR represented 14%, 50%, and 50% of the cohort, respectively. OS (P = .002) and RFS (P = .003) were significantly decreased in resected PDAC patients with NLR ≥5 compared to those with NLR < 5. Optimal prognostic OS and RFS cutpoints for NLR, PLR, and LMR were 4.8, 192.6, and 1.7, respectively. Lymphocytes alone were the primary prognostic driver of NLR, demonstrating identical survival to NLR. CONCLUSIONS: NLR is a significant predictor of OS and RFS, with lymphocytes alone as its primary driver; we identified optimal cutpoints that may direct future investigation of their prognostic value. This study contributes to the growing evidence of immune system influence on outcomes in early-stage pancreatic cancer.

Is Preoperative G-Tube Use Safe for Esophageal Cancer Patients?

Objective: Gastrostomy tubes (g-tubes) have been used with caution prior to esophageal resection due to the risks of inoculation metastasis and of injury to the gastric conduit used for reconstruction. In this study, we aim to evaluate the safety of preoperative g-tube placement by comparing outcomes in patients undergoing esophageal resection with and without prior g-tube use.Method: We retrospectively reviewed our institution's database of 1113 esophagectomies performed between 1994 and 2018. We included only patients who received neoadjuvant therapy and identified 65 patients who received preoperative nutritional support through a g-tube (GT+) and 657 who did not (GT-). Demographics, postoperative complications, survival, and cancer recurrence rates were compared between GT + and GT- using Chi-squared and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.Results: Seven-hundred twenty-two patients (122 female, 600 male) with a median age of 63.2 (28.2-86.3) met our inclusion criteria. Between GT+ (n = 65) and GT- (n = 657), there were no significant differences in anastomotic leak rates (11.5% vs 10.9%; p = 0.901), postoperative mortality (3.1% vs 3.9%; p = 0.765), or overall complications (63.1% vs 65.1%; p = 0.746). GT + was associated with a significantly lower overall survival compared to GT- (32.5 m vs 92.9 m; p = 0.003), and tumor recurrence rates were similar (30.6% vs 31.8%; p = 0.851). There were no cases documenting damage to the gastric conduit caused by prior g-tube placement.Conclusions: G-tube usage was not associated with increased tumor recurrence, anastomotic leak rates, or overall complication rates in this study. Our data suggest that g-tube usage is safe for patients with esophageal cancer requiring preoperative nutrition.

Clinical Factors and Outcomes of Octogenarians Receiving Curative Surgery for Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of esophageal cancer is increasing in the United States. Although neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for locally advanced cancers followed by surgical resection is the standard of care, there are no clearly defined guidelines for patients aged ≥79 y. METHODS: Query of an institutional review board-approved database of 1031 esophagectomies at our institution revealed 35 patients aged ≥79 y from 1999 to 2017 who underwent esophagectomy. Age, gender, tumor location, histology, clinical stage, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), NAT administration, pathologic response rate to NAT, surgery type, negative margin resection status, postoperative complications, postoperative death, length of stay, 30- and 90-d mortality, and disease status parameters were analyzed in association with clinical outcome. RESULTS: The median age of the octogenarian cohort was 82.1 y with a male preponderance (91.4%). American Joint Committee on Cancer clinical staging was stage I for 20% of patients, stage II for 27% of patients, and stage III for 50% of patients, which was not statistically significant compared with the younger cohort (P = 0.576). Within the octogenarian group, 54% received NAT compared with 67% in the younger group (P = 0.098). There was no difference in postoperative complications (P = 0.424), postoperative death (P = 0.312), and recurrence rate (P = 0.434) between the groups. However, CCI was significantly different between the octogenarian and nonoctogenarian cohort (P = 0.008), and octogenarians had shorter overall survival (18 versus 62 mo, P<0.001). None of the other parameters assessed were associated with clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Curative surgery is viable and safe for octogenarians with esophageal cancer. Long-term survival was significantly shorter in the octogenarian group, suggesting the need for better clinical selection criteria for esophagectomy after chemoradiation and that identification of complete responders for nonoperative management is warranted.

Outcomes of Gastric Resection in the Establishment of a Comprehensive Oncologic Robotic Program.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted gastrectomy is increasingly utilized for the treatment of gastric malignancies. However, the benefits of robotic surgery have been questioned. This study describes short-term outcomes in the establishment of a comprehensive robotic program for gastric malignancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent robotic-assisted gastric resections between 2013 and 2018 were studied. Preoperative measures and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Finally we studied and analyzed robotic and open gastrectomy for the management of gastric adenocarcinoma (GC) at the same institution between 2000 and 2018 for quality benchmarking. RESULTS: Forty six patients (pts.) underwent robotic-assisted gastric resections. 26 (56.5%) were male, with a median age of 62 y (range: 29-87). Pathology included GC, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, neuroendocrine tumors, metastatic lesions, and benign processes. 19 pts. underwent total gastrectomy, 16 distal gastrectomy, four subtotal gastrectomy, and seven wedge resection. Pts. undergoing distal gastrectomy and wedge resection experienced shorter operative times and length of stay than total gastrectomy (P < 0.01; P < 0.01). Four operations (8.8%) were converted to open and 13 pts (28.3%) had postoperative complications, including an 8.7% readmission rate. Median lymph nodes retrieved during total, subtotal, and distal gastrectomy were 20 (13-46), 12.5 (0-26), and 16.5 (0-34), respectively. All pts. underwent margin negative resection. Median follow-up for GC was 21 mo, and 60% of pts. received adjuvant therapy at a median of 59d (range: 23-106). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic gastrectomy is a feasible alternative to open gastrectomy. Our results will help establish benchmarks to improve perioperative outcomes, especially length of stay and time to initiation of therapy.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy at high-volume centers improves survival in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma receiving trimodality therapy.

The standard of care trimodality therapy for resectable locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is complex and necessitates multidisciplinary care and expertise. In this work, it is hypothesized that facility clinical volume and utilization of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) may influence outcomes. The National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients with cT1-4-N0-3 M0 esophageal adenocarcinoma undergoing trimodality therapy from 2004 to 2013 (n = 2445). All patients received chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy at a Commission on Cancer facility. The facility volume was categorized into tertiles: high-volume centers (HVCs) in the highest 25th percentile of cases per year, intermediate-volume centers (IVCs) with the next highest 25th percentile of cases, and low- and very low-volume centers (LVCs) in the lowest 50th percentile. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazard regression. Propensity score matching to balance patient characteristics between volume centers was performed. Subgroup analysis was done comparing IMRT versus 3D conformal radiotherapy. The median follow-up was 26 months. Treatment at an HVC (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.81, P < 0.001) was found to be independently associated with improved overall survival in multivariable analysis. Three-year OS was 58.4%, 46.2%, and 47.5% for HVCs, IVCs, and LVCs, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients at HVCs were more likely to receive IMRT over 3D chemoradiation (CRT; OR 3.45, 95% CI 2.4-5.0, P < 0.001). Patients treated using IMRT at HVCs had improved OS compared to those treated at IVCs or LVCs (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.90, P < 0.01), while patients treated with 3D CRT at HVCs had no survival advantage over those at IVCs or LVCs (P = 0.28). Patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma treated with IMRT and at HVCs appear to have improved survival.