Recurrence and Survival after Minimally Invasive and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer - A Post Hoc Analysis of the Ensure Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of operative approach (open [OE], hybrid [HMIE] and total minimally invasive esophagectomy [TMIE]) on operative and oncologic outcomes for patients treated with curative intent for esophageal and junctional cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The optimum oncologic surgical approach to esophageal and junctional cancer is unclear. METHODS: This secondary analysis of the European multicenter ENSURE study includes patients undergoing curative-intent esophagectomy for cancer between 2009-2015 across 20 high-volume centers. Primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and the incidence and location of disease recurrence. Secondary endpoints included among others R0 resection rate, lymph node yield and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 3,199 patients were included. Of these, 55% underwent OE, 17% HMIE and 29% TMIE. DFS was independently increased post TMIE (HR 0.86 [95% CI 0.76-0.98], P=0.022) compared with OE. Multivariable regression demonstrated no difference in absolute locoregional recurrence risk according to operative approach (HMIE vs. OE OR 0.79, P=0.257, TMIE vs. OE OR 0.84, P=0.243). The probability of systemic recurrence was independently increased post HMIE (OR 2.07, P=0.031), but not TMIE (OR 0.86, P=0.508). R0 resection rates (P=0.005) and nodal yield (P<0.001) were independently increased after TMIE, but not HMIE (P=0.424; P=0.512) compared with OE. OS was independently improved following both HMIE (HR 0.79, P=0.009) and TMIE (HR 0.82, P=0.003) as compared with OE. CONCLUSION: In this European multicenter study, TMIE was associated with improved surgical quality and DFS, while both TMIE and HMIE were associated with improved OS as compared with OE for esophageal cancer.

Western European Variation in the Organization of Esophageal Cancer Surgical Care.

Reasons for structural and outcome differences in esophageal cancer surgery in Western Europe remain unclear. This questionnaire study aimed to identify differences in the organization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. A cross-sectional international questionnaire study was conducted among upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons from Western Europe. One surgeon per country was selected based on scientific output and active membership in the European Society for Diseases of the Esophagus or (inter)national upper GI committee. The questionnaire consisted of 51 structured questions on the structural organization of esophageal cancer surgery, surgical training, and clinical audit processes. Between October 2021 and October 2022, 16 surgeons from 16 European countries participated in this study. In 5 countries (31%), a volume threshold was present ranging from 10 to 26 annual esophagectomies, in 7 (44%) care was centralized in designated centers, and in 4 (25%) no centralizing regulations were present. The number of centers performing esophageal cancer surgery per country differed from 4 to 400, representing 0.5-4.9 centers per million inhabitants. In 4 countries (25%), esophageal cancer surgery was part of general surgical training and 8 (50%) reported the availability of upper GI surgery fellowships. A national audit for upper GI surgery was present in 8 (50%) countries. If available, all countries use the audit to monitor the quality of care. Substantial differences exist in the organization and centralization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. The exchange of experience in the organizational aspects of care could further improve the results of esophageal cancer surgical care in Europe.

Sex-related differences in oncologic outcomes, operative complications and health-related quality of life after curative-intent oesophageal cancer treatment: multicentre retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal cancer, in particular adenocarcinoma, has a strong male predominance. However, the impact of patient sex on operative and oncologic outcomes and recovery of health-related quality of life is poorly documented, and was the focus of this large multicentre cohort study. METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent oncological oesophagectomy from 2009 to 2015 in the 20 European iNvestigation of SUrveillance after Resection for Esophageal cancer study group centres were assessed. Clinicopathologic variables, therapeutic approach, postoperative complications, survival and health-related quality of life data were compared between male and female patients. Multivariable analyses adjusted for age, sex, tumour histology, treatment protocol and major complications. Specific subgroup analyses comparing adenocarcinoma versus squamous cell cancer for all key outcomes were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 3974 patients were analysed, 3083 (77.6%) male and 891 (22.4%) female; adenocarcinoma was predominant in both groups, while squamous cell cancer was observed more commonly in female patients (39.8% versus 15.1%, P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated improved outcomes in female patients for overall survival (HRmales 1.24, 95% c.i. 1.07 to 1.44) and disease-free survival (HRmales 1.22, 95% c.i. 1.05 to 1.43), which was caused by the adenocarcinoma subgroup, whereas this difference was not confirmed in squamous cell cancer. Male patients presented higher health-related quality of life functional scores but also a higher risk of financial problems, while female patients had lower overall summary scores and more persistent gastrointestinal symptoms. CONCLUSION: This study reveals uniquely that female sex is associated with more favourable long-term survival after curative treatment for oesophageal cancer, especially adenocarcinoma, although long-term overall and gastrointestinal health-related quality of life are poorer in women.

MIRO study: Do the results of a randomized controlled trial apply in a real population?

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to evaluate the external validity of the MIRO randomized controlled trial findings in a similar nationwide setting "real life" population, especially the benefit of a hybrid approach in esophageal resection for pulmonary complication. The external validity of randomized controlled trial findings to the general population with the same condition remains problematic because of the inherent selection bias and rigid inclusion criteria. METHODS: This study was a cohort study from a National Health Database (Programme de Medicalisation des Systemes d'Informations) between 2010 and 2022. All adult patients operated on using Ivor Lewis resection for esophageal cancer were included. We first validated the detection algorithm of postoperative complications in the health database. Then, we assessed the primary outcome, which was the comparison of postoperative severe pulmonary complications, leak rate, and 30-day mortality between the 2 surgical approaches (hybrid versus open) over a decade. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2012, 162 of 205 patients in the MIRO trial were anonymously identified in the health care database. No difference between randomized controlled trials and healthcare database measurements was found within severe respiratory complications (24% vs 22%, respectively) nor within leak rate (10% vs 9%, respectively). After application of selection criteria according to the MIRO trial, 3,852 patients were included between 2013 and 2022. The hybrid approach was a protective factor against respiratory complications after adjustment for confounding variables (odds ratio = 0.83; 95% confidence interval = 0.71-0.98, P = .025). No significant difference in the 30-day mortality rate or 30-day leakage rate between the types of approach was reported. CONCLUSION: This national cohort study demonstrates the external validity of the MIRO randomized controlled trial findings in a real-life population within France.

Oncological outcomes of patients with oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer.

Oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer was recently defined by consensus as the presence of no more than two metastases and an 18-week period of oncological stability during chemotherapy. The number of patients who fit this criterion and whether their oncological outcome differs from those with multi-metastatic disease is unknown. We analysed a database of 497 patients from 2017 to 2021 with metastatic oesophageal cancer. In total, 36 (7.2%) had oligometastatic disease and significantly improved median overall survival (mOS) versus multi-metastatic disease. In synchronous OMD, mOS was 26.8 months versus 7.3 months and in metachronous OMD, 38.6 months versus 6.1 months (both p < 0.0001). A subset of oligometastatic patients who underwent surgical management of their oligometastases after primary tumour resection demonstrated significantly increased mOS compared with systemic treatment alone (60 months versus 24.4 months; p < 0.038). Oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is associated with improved oncological outcome when compared to multi-metastatic disease. Further work is needed to identify patients who will benefit from aggressive treatment of metastatic oesophagogastric cancer.

Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency after non-pancreatic upper gastrointestinal surgery: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Untreated pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) results in substantial patient harm. Upper gastrointestinal surgery (bariatric metabolic surgery and oesophagogastric resection) affects the delicate physiology of pancreatic exocrine function and may result in PEI. The aim of this study was to assimilate the literature on incidence, diagnosis, and management of PEI after bariatric metabolic surgery and oesophagogastric resection. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases identified studies investigating PEI after non-pancreatic upper gastrointestinal surgery. Meta-analyses were undertaken for incidence of PEI and benefit of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. RESULTS: Among 1620 patients from 24 studies included in quantitative synthesis, 36.0% developed PEI. The incidence of PEI was 23.0 and 50.4% after bariatric metabolic surgery and oesophagogastric resection respectively. Notably, the incidence of PEI was 44% after biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and 66.2% after total gastrectomy. The most common diagnostic test used was faecal elastase 1 (15 of 31 studies), with less than 200 µg/g being diagnostic of PEI. A total of 11 studies considered the management of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, with 78.6% of patients responding positively to pancreatic enzyme replacement when it was prescribed. CONCLUSION: PEI is common after non-pancreatic upper gastrointestinal surgery and patients may benefit from enzyme replacement therapy.

Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency occurs when enzymes from the pancreas are unable to help digest food. Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency is known to cause disruptive symptoms after gastrointestinal surgery. Although such symptoms are well known after pancreatic surgery, after other gastrointestinal operations, including bariatric metabolic surgery and oesophagogastric cancer resection, pancreatic exocrine insufficiency is often overlooked as a cause of both symptoms and poor nutrition. This study looked at, and combined, all the current evidence on the rate of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency after these operations, the way it is diagnosed, and how it is treated. Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency may be more common than previously thought after bariatric metabolic surgery or oesophagogastric surgery, and clinicians working with these patients should have a low threshold for starting treatment.

Evolution in Laparoscopic Gastrectomy From a Randomized Controlled Trial Through National Clinical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of the LOGICA RCT (randomized controlled trial) upon the practice and outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy within the Netherlands. BACKGROUND: Following RCTs the dissemination of complex interventions has been poorly studied. The LOGICA RCT included 10 Dutch centers and compared laparoscopic to open gastrectomy. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) on all gastrectomies performed in the Netherlands (2012-2021), and the LOGICA RCT from 2015 to 2018. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the effect of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy upon clinical outcomes before, during, and after the LOGICA RCT. RESULTS: Two hundred eleven patients from the LOGICA RCT (105 open vs 106 laparoscopic) and 4131 patients from the DUCA data set (1884 open vs 2247 laparoscopic) were included. In 2012, laparoscopic gastrectomy was performed in 6% of patients, increasing to 82% in 2021. No significant effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy on postoperative clinical outcomes was observed within the LOGICA RCT. Nationally within DUCA, a shift toward a beneficial effect of laparoscopic gastrectomy upon complications was observed, reaching a significant reduction in overall [adjusted odds ratio (aOR):0.62; 95% CI: 0.46-0.82], severe (aOR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46-0.90) and cardiac complications (aOR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.30-0.89) after the LOGICA trial. CONCLUSIONS: The wider benefits of the LOGICA trial included the safe dissemination of laparoscopic gastrectomy across the Netherlands. The robust surgical quality assurance program in the design of the LOGICA RCT was crucial to facilitate the national dissemination of the technique following the trial and reducing potential patient harm during surgeons learning curve.

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.

Long-Term Survival Associated with Direct Oral Feeding Following Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial (NUTRIENT II).

Advancements in perioperative care have improved postoperative morbidity and recovery after esophagectomy. The direct start of oral intake can also enhance short-term outcomes following minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIE-IL). Subsequently, short-term outcomes may affect long-term survival. This planned sub-study of the NUTRIENT II trial, a multicenter randomized controlled trial, investigated the long-term survival of direct versus delayed oral feeding following MIE-IL. The outcomes included 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), and the influence of complications and caloric intake on OS. After excluding cases of 90-day mortality, 145 participants were analyzed. Of these, 63 patients (43.4%) received direct oral feeding. At 3 years, OS was significantly better in the direct oral feeding group (p = 0.027), but not at 5 years (p = 0.115). Moreover, 5-year DFS was significantly better in the direct oral feeding group (p = 0.047) and a trend towards improved DFS was shown at 3 years (p = 0.079). Postoperative complications and caloric intake on day 5 did not impact OS. The results of this study show a tendency of improved 3-year OS and 5-year DFS, suggesting a potential long-term survival benefit in patients receiving direct oral feeding after esophagectomy. However, the findings should be further explored in larger future trials.

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.

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus Chemotherapy for the Treatment of Locally Advanced Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in the European Multicenter ENSURE Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare clinicopathologic, oncologic, and health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) and chemotherapy (nCT) in the ENSURE international multicenter study. BACKGROUND: nCT and nCRT are the standards of care for locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC) treated with curative intent. However, no published randomized controlled trial to date has demonstrated the superiority of either approach. METHODS: ENSURE is an international multicenter study of consecutive patients undergoing surgery for LAEC (2009-2015) across 20 high-volume centers (NCT03461341). The primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS), secondary outcomes included histopathologic response, recurrence pattern, oncologic outcome, and HRQL in survivorship. RESULTS: A total of 2211 patients were studied (48% nCT, 52% nCRT). pCR was observed in 4.9% and 14.7% ( P <0.001), with R0 in 78.2% and 94.2% ( P <0.001) post nCT and nCRT, respectively. Postoperative morbidity was equivalent, but in-hospital mortality was independently increased [hazard ratio (HR)=2.73, 95% CI: 1.43-5.21, P= 0.002] following nCRT versus nCT. Probability of local recurrence was reduced (odds ratio=0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.93, P =0.012), and distant recurrence-free survival time reduced (HR=1.18, 95% CI: 1.02-1.37, P =0.023) after nCRT versus nCT, with no difference in OS among all patients (HR=1.10, 95% CI: 0.98-1.25, P =0.113). On subgroup analysis, patients who underwent R0 resection following nCT as compared with nCRT had improved OS (median: 60.7 months, 95% CI: 49.5-71.8 vs 40.8 months, 95% CI: 42.8-53.4, P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this European multicenter study, nCRT compared with nCT was associated with reduced probability of local recurrence but reduced distant recurrence-free survival for patients with LAEC, without differences in OS. These data support tailored patient-specific decision-making in the overall approach to achieving optimum outcomes in LAEC.

Decreased Risk of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma After Gastric Bypass Surgery in a Cohort Study From 3 Nordic Countries.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that bariatric surgery decreases the risk of esophageal and cardia adenocarcinoma. BACKGROUND: Obesity is strongly associated with esophageal adenocarcinoma and moderately with cardia adenocarcinoma, but whether weight loss prevents these tumors is unknown. METHODS: This population-based cohort study included patients with an obesity diagnosis in Sweden, Finland, or Denmark. Participants were divided into a bariatric surgery group and a nonoperated group. The incidence of esophageal and cardia adenocarcinoma (ECA) was first compared with the corresponding background population by calculating standardized incidence ratios (SIR) with 95% CIs. Second, the bariatric surgery group and the nonoperated group were compared using multivariable Cox regression, providing hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CI, adjusted for sex, age, comorbidity, calendar year, and country. RESULTS: Among 748,932 participants with an obesity diagnosis, 91,731 underwent bariatric surgery, predominantly gastric bypass (n=70,176; 76.5%). The SIRs of ECA decreased over time after gastric bypass, from SIR=2.2 (95% CI, 0.9-4.3) after 2 to 5 years to SIR=0.6 (95% CI, <0.1-3.6) after 10 to 40 years. Gastric bypass patients were also at a decreased risk of ECA compared with nonoperated patients with obesity [adjusted HR=0.6, 95% CI, 0.4-1.0 (0.98)], with decreasing point estimates over time. Gastric bypass was followed by a strongly decreased adjusted risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (HR=0.3, 95% CI, 0.1-0.8) but not of cardia adenocarcinoma (HR=0.9, 95% CI, 0.5-1.6), when analyzed separately. There were no consistent associations between other bariatric procedures (mainly gastroplasty, gastric banding, sleeve gastrectomy, and biliopancreatic diversion) and ECA. CONCLUSIONS: Gastric bypass surgery may counteract the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma in morbidly obese individuals.

Prognostic implications of the extent of downstaging after neoadjuvant therapy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma and oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: There are few data evaluating the extent of downstaging in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma and oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and the difference in outcomes for a similar pathological stage in neoadjuvant-naive patients. The aim of this study was to characterize the prognostic value of downstaging extent in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy for oesophageal cancer. METHODS: Oesophageal adenocarcinoma and oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients receiving either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy between 2004 and 2017 were identified from the National Cancer Database. The extent of downstaging was defined as the extent of migration between groups (for example stage IVa to IIIb = one stage). Cox multivariable regression was used to produce adjusted models for downstaging extent. RESULTS: Of 13 594 patients, 11 355 with oesophageal adenocarcinoma and 2239 with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma were included. In oesophageal adenocarcinoma, patients with downstaged disease by three or more stages (hazards ratio (HR) 0.40, 95 per cent c.i. 0.36 to 0.44, P < 0.001), two stages (HR 0.43, 95 per cent c.i. 0.39 to 0.48, P < 0.001), or one stage (HR 0.57, 95 per cent c.i. 0.52 to 0.62, P < 0.001) had significantly longer survival than those with upstaged disease in adjusted analyses. In oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, patients with downstaged disease by three or more stages had significantly longer survival than those with less downstaged disease, no change, or upstaged disease. Patients with downstaged disease by three or more stages (HR 0.55, 95 per cent c.i. 0.43 to 0.71, P < 0.001), two stages (HR 0.58, 95 per cent c.i. 0.46 to 0.73, P < 0.001), or one stage (HR 0.69, 95 per cent c.i. 0.55 to 0.86, P = 0.001) had significantly longer survival than those with upstaged disease in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: The extent of downstaging is an important prognosticator, whereas the optimal neoadjuvant therapy remains controversial. Identifying biomarkers associated with response to neoadjuvant regimens may permit individualized treatment.

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.

Surgeon proficiency gain and survival after gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: A population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Quality of surgery is essential for survival in gastric adenocarcinoma, but studies examining surgeons' proficiency gain of gastrectomies are scarce. This study aimed to reveal potential proficiency gain curves for surgeons operating patients with gastric cancer. METHODS: Population-based cohort study of patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma in Sweden between 2006 and 2015 with follow-up throughout 2020. Data were retrieved from national registries and medical records. Risk prediction models were used to calculate outcome probabilities, and risk-adjusted cumulative sum curves were plotted to assess differences (change points) between observed and expected outcomes. The main outcome was long-term (>3-5 years) all-cause mortality after surgery. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality within 30 days, 31-90 days, 91 days to 1 year and>1-3 years of surgery, resection margin status, and lymph node yield. RESULTS: The study included 261 surgeons and 1636 patients. The>3- to 5-year mortality was improved after 20 cases, and decreased from 12.4% before to 8.6% after this change point (p = 0.027). Change points were suggested, but not statistically significant, after 22 cases for 30-day mortality, 28 cases for 31- to 90-day mortality, 9 cases for 91-day to 1-year mortality, and 10 cases for>1- to 3-year all-cause mortality. There were statistically significant improvements in tumour-free resection margins after 28 cases (p < 0.005) and greater lymph node yield after 13 cases (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals proficiency gain curves regarding long-term survival, resection margin status, and lymph node yield in gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma, and that at least 20 gastrectomies should be conducted with experienced support before doing these operations independently.

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.

Results of the ARROW survey of anti-reflux practice in the United Kingdom.

Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common, significant health burden. United Kingdom guidance states that surgery should be considered for patients with a diagnosis of GERD not suitable for long-term acid suppression. There is no consensus on many aspects of patient pathways and optimal surgical technique, and an absence of information on how patients are currently selected for surgery. Further detail on the delivery of anti-reflux surgery (ARS) is required. A United Kingdom-wide survey was designed to gather surgeon opinion regarding pre-, peri- and post-operative practice of ARS. Responses were received from 155 surgeons at 57 institutions. Most agreed that endoscopy (99%), 24-hour pH monitoring (83%) and esophageal manometry (83%) were essential investigations prior to surgery. Of 57 units, 30 (53%) had access to a multidisciplinary team to discuss cases; case-loads were higher in those units (median 50 vs. 30, P < 0.024). The most popular form of fundoplication was a Nissen posterior 360° (75% of surgeons), followed by a posterior 270° Toupet (48%). Only seven surgeons stated they had no upper limit of body mass index prior to surgery. A total of 46% of respondents maintain a database of their practice and less than a fifth routinely record quality of life scores before (19%) or after (14%) surgery. While there are areas of consensus, a lack of evidence to support workup, intervention and outcome evaluation is reflected in the variability of practice. ARS patients are not receiving the same level of evidence-based care as other patient groups.