A preoperative predictive tool to assess the need for staging laparoscopy in oesophagogastric cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Staging laparoscopy (SL) has become commonplace in the preoperative staging pathway for oesophagogastric (OG) cancer. SL is often performed before curative treatment to examine for macroscopic peritoneal metastases (PM) or positive peritoneal cytology (PPC). The aim of this study was to develop an objective risk scoring system to predict both PM and PPC at SL. METHODS: A prospectively collected and maintained database of all OG cancer patients treated between 2006 and 2020 was reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for both PM and PPC at SL. A risk score was produced for both PM and PPC, and then validated internally. RESULTS: Among 968 patients who underwent SL, 96 (9.9%) had PM and 81 (8.4%) had PPC at SL. Tumour site (p < 0.001), computed tomography (CT) T stage (p < 0.001) and N stage (p = 0.029) were significantly associated with PM at SL (p < 0.001). Tumour site (p < 0.001), biopsy histology (p = 0.041), CT T stage (p < 0.001) and N stage (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with PPC. The risk scoring model for PM included cancer site and CT T stage. This was successfully tested on the validation set (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] = 0.730). The risk scoring model for PPC included cancer site, CT T and N stage. This was successfully tested on the validation set (AUROC = 0.773). CONCLUSIONS: The current risk scores are valid tools with which to predict the risk PM and PPC in patients undergoing SL for OG cancer and may help to avoid subjecting patients to unnecessary SL.

The impact of age on long-term survival following gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Gastrectomy remains the primary curative treatment modality for patients with gastric cancer. Concerns exist about offering surgery with a high associated morbidity and mortality to elderly patients. The study aimed to evaluate the long-term survival of patients with gastric cancer who underwent gastrectomy comparing patients aged <70 years with patients aged ≥70 years. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma with curative intent between January 2000 and December 2017 at a single centre were included. Patients were stratified by age with a cut-off of 70 years used to create two cohorts. Log rank test was used to compare overall survival and Cox multivariable regression used to identify predictors of long-term survival. RESULTS: During the study period, 959 patients underwent gastrectomy, 520 of whom (54%) were aged ≥70 years. Those aged <70 years had significantly lower American Society of Anesthesiologists grades (p<0.001) and were more likely to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (39% vs 21%; p<0.001). Overall complication rate (p=0.001) and 30-day postoperative mortality (p=0.007) were lower in those aged <70 years. Long-term survival (median 54 vs 73 months; p<0.001) was also favourable in the younger cohort. Following adjustment for confounding variables, age ≥70 years remained a predictor of poorer long-term survival following gastrectomy (hazard ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.09, 1.67; p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Low postoperative mortality and good long-term survival were demonstrated for both age groups following gastrectomy. Age ≥70 years was, however, associated with poorer outcomes. This should be regarded as important factor when counselling patients regarding treatment options.

Racial disparity in curative treatment and survival from solid-organ cancers.

Race is an important prognostic factor affecting receipt of surgical intervention and survival from cancer in the USA. The findings of this study highlight the importance of implementing changes aimed at narrowing the disparities in outcomes between race in patients with cancers.

Race is an important prognostic factor affecting receipt of surgical intervention and survival from cancer in the USA. The findings of this study highlight the importance of implementing changes aimed at narrowing the disparities in outcomes between race in patients with cancers.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy alone for oesophageal cancer: population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and chemotherapy (nCT) are used as neoadjuvant treatment for oesophageal cancer, it is unknown whether one provides a survival advantage over the other, particularly with respect to histological subtype. This study aimed to compare prognosis after nCRT and nCT in patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) or squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). METHODS: Data from the National Cancer Database (2006-2015) were used to identify patients with OAC and OSCC. Propensity score matching and Cox multivariable analyses were used to account for treatment selection biases. RESULTS: The study included 11 167 patients with OAC (nCRT 9972, 89.3 per cent; nCT 1195, 10.7 per cent) and 2367 with OSCC (nCRT 2155, 91.0 per cent; nCT 212, 9.0 per cent). In the matched OAC cohort, nCRT provided higher rates of complete pathological response (35.1 versus 21.0 per cent; P < 0.001) and margin-negative resections (90.1 versus 85.9 per cent; P < 0.001). However, patients who had nCRT had similar survival to those who received nCT (hazard ratio (HR) 1.04, 95 per cent c.i. 0.95 to 1.14). Five-year survival rates for patients who had nCRT and nCT were 36 and 37 per cent respectively (P = 0.123). For OSCC, nCRT had higher rates of complete pathological response (50.9 versus 30.4 per cent; P < 0.001) and margin-negative resections (92.8 versus 82.4 per cent; P < 0.001). A statistically significant overall survival benefit was evident for nCRT (HR 0.78, 0.62 to 0.97). Five-year survival rates for patients who had nCRT and nCT were 45.0 and 38.0 per cent respectively (P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Despite pathological benefits, including primary tumour response to nCRT, there was no prognostic benefit of nCRT compared with nCT for OAC suggesting that these two modalities are equally acceptable. However, for OSCC, nCRT followed by surgery appears to remain the optimal treatment approach.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is still unclear, and whether robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) offers benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is unknown because large multicentre studies are lacking. This study compared perioperative outcomes between RDP and LDP. METHODS: A multicentre international propensity score-matched study included patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication in 21 European centres from six countries that performed at least 15 distal pancreatectomies annually (January 2011 to June 2019). Propensity score matching was based on preoperative characteristics in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome was the major morbidity rate (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or above). RESULTS: A total of 1551 patients (407 RDP and 1144 LDP) were included in the study. Some 402 patients who had RDP were matched with 402 who underwent LDP. After matching, there was no difference between RDP and LDP groups in rates of major morbidity (14.2 versus 16.5 per cent respectively; P = 0.378), postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.6 versus 26.5 per cent; P = 0.543) or 90-day mortality (0.5 versus 1.3 per cent; P = 0.268). RDP was associated with a longer duration of surgery than LDP (median 285 (i.q.r. 225-350) versus 240 (195-300) min respectively; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (6.7 versus 15.2 per cent; P < 0.001), higher spleen preservation rate (81.4 versus 62.9 per cent; P = 0.001), longer hospital stay (median 8.5 (i.q.r. 7-12) versus 7 (6-10) days; P < 0.001) and lower readmission rate (11.0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The major morbidity rate was comparable between RDP and LDP. RDP was associated with improved rates of conversion, spleen preservation and readmission, to the detriment of longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

Comparison of multimodal analgesia with thoracic epidural after transthoracic oesophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) has been regarded as the standard of care after oesophagectomy for pain control, but has several side-effects. Multimodal (intrathecal diamorphine, paravertebral and rectus sheath catheters) analgesia (MA) may facilitate postoperative mobilization by reducing hypotensive episodes and the need for vasopressors, but uncertainty exists about whether it provides comparable analgesia. This study aimed to determine whether MA provides comparable analgesia to TEA following transthoracic oesophagectomy. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing oesophagectomy for cancer between January 2015 and December 2018 were grouped according to postoperative analgesia regimen. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to account for treatment selection bias. Pain scores at rest and on movement, graded from 0 to 10, were used. The incidence of hypotensive episodes and the requirement for vasopressors were evaluated. RESULTS: The study included 293 patients; 142 (48.5 per cent) received TEA and 151 (51.5 per cent) MA. After PSM, 100 patients remained in each group. Mean pain scores were significantly higher at rest in the MA group (day 1: 1.5 versus 0.8 in the TEA group, P = 0.017; day 2: 1.7 versus 0.9 respectively, P = 0.014; day 3: 1.2 versus 0.6, P = 0.047). Fewer patients receiving MA had a hypotensive episode (25 per cent versus 45 per cent in the TEA group; P = 0.003) and fewer required vasopressors (36 versus 53 per cent respectively; P = 0.016). There was no significant difference in the overall complication rate (71.0 versus 61.0 per cent; P = 0.136). CONCLUSION: MA is less effective than TEA at controlling pain, but this difference may not be clinically significant. However, fewer patients experienced hypotension or required vasopressor support with MA; this may be beneficial within an enhanced recovery programme.

Bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure: a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation.

BACKGROUND: Achieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterise the stage of innovation for bioabsorbable mesh devices used during both midline closure prophylaxis and complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence. METHODS: A systematic review of published and ongoing studies was performed until 31st December 2019. Inclusion criteria were studies where bioabsorbable mesh was used to support fascial closure either prophylactically after midline laparotomy or for repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. Exclusion criteria were: (1) study design was a systematic review, meta-analysis, letter, review, comment, or conference abstract; (2) included less than p patients; (3) only evaluated biological, synthetic or composite meshes. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) criteria for study quality. RESULTS: Twelve studies including 1287 patients were included. Three studies considered mesh prophylaxis and nine studies considered hernia repair. There were only two published studies of IDEAL 2B. The remainder was IDEAL 2A studies. The quality of the evidence was categorised as having a risk of bias of a moderate, serious or critical level in nine of the twelve included studies using the ROBINS-I tool. CONCLUSION: The evidence base for bioabsorbable mesh is limited. Better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although new trial results over the next decade will improve the evidence base, more trials in emergency and contaminated settings are required to establish the limits of indication.

Minimally invasive techniques for transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oesophagectomy is a demanding operation that can be performed by different approaches including open surgery or a combination of minimal access techniques. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of open, minimally invasive and robotic oesophagectomy techniques for oesophageal cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting open oesophagectomy, laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO), thoracoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (TAO), totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) or robotic MIO (RAMIO) for oesophagectomy. A network meta-analysis of intraoperative (operating time, blood loss), postoperative (overall complications, anastomotic leaks, chyle leak, duration of hospital stay) and oncological (R0 resection, lymphadenectomy) outcomes, and survival was performed. RESULTS: Ninety-eight studies involving 32 315 patients were included in the network meta-analysis (open 17 824, 55·2 per cent; LAO 1576, 4·9 per cent; TAO 2421 7·5 per cent; MIO 9558, 29·6 per cent; RAMIO 917, 2·8 per cent). Compared with open oesophagectomy, both MIO and RAMIO were associated with less blood loss, significantly lower rates of pulmonary complications, shorter duration of stay and higher lymph node yield. There were no significant differences between surgical techniques in surgical-site infections, chyle leak, and 30- and 90-day mortality. MIO and RAMIO had better 1- and 5-year survival rates respectively compared with open surgery. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive and robotic techniques for oesophagectomy are associated with reduced perioperative morbidity and duration of hospital stay, with no compromise of oncological outcomes but no improvement in perioperative mortality.

ANTECEDENTES: La esofaguectomía es una operación muy exigente que puede ser realizada a través de diferentes abordajes que incluyen la cirugía abierta o una combinación de técnicas con acceso mínimamente invasivo. Esta revisión sistemática y metaanálisis en red se propuso evaluar los resultados clínicos de la esofaguectomía abierta y de las técnicas de esofaguectomía mínimamente invasiva y robótica para el cáncer de esófago. MÉTODOS: Se llevó a cabo una búsqueda sistemática de la bibliografía de estudios que describiesen esofaguectomía abierta, esofaguectomía asistida por laparoscopia (laparoscopic assisted oesophagectomy, LAO), esofaguectomía asistida por toracoscopia (thoracoscopic assisted oesophagectomy, TAO), esofaguectomía totalmente mínimamente invasiva (totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy, MIO) o MIO robótica (RAMIO). Se realizó un mataanálisis en red de resultados intraoperatorios (tiempo operatorio, pérdida de sangre), postoperatorios (complicaciones globales, fuga anastomótica, quilotórax, duración estancia hospitalaria), oncológicos (resección R0, linfadenectomía) y supervivencia. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 98 estudios con 32.296 pacientes en el metaanálisis en red (abierta: n = 17.824, 55%; LAO: n = 1.576, 5%; TAO: n = 2.421, 7%; MIO: n = 9.558, 30%; RAMIO: n = 917, 3%). En comparación con la vía abierta, tanto MIO y RAMIO se asociaron con menos pérdidas hemáticas, tasas significativamente menores de complicaciones pulmonares, estancia más corta y obtención de un mayor número de ganglos linfáticos. No hubo diferencias significativas entre las técnicas quirúrgicas en las infecciones del sitio quirúrgico, quilotórax y mortalidad a los 30 y 90 días. MIO y RAMIO se asociaron con mejores tasas de supervivencia a 1 y 5 años respectivamente, en comparación con la cirugía abierta. CONCLUSIÓN: Las técnicas mínimamente invasivas y robótica para la esofaguectomía se asociaron con menor morbilidad postoperatoria y estancia hospitalaria, sin comprometer los resultados oncológicos, pero sin mejoría en la mortalidad perioperatoria.

Impact of anastomotic leak on long-term survival in patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: The impact of anastomotic leak (AL) on long-term outcomes after gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma is poorly understood. This study determined whether AL contributes to poor overall survival. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing gastrectomy in a single high-volume unit between 1997 and 2016 were evaluated. Clinicopathological characteristics, oncological and postoperative outcomes were stratified according to whether patients had no AL, non-severe AL or severe AL. Severe AL was defined as anastomotic leakage associated with Clavien-Dindo Grade III-IV complications. RESULTS: The study included 969 patients, of whom 58 (6·0 per cent) developed AL; 15 of the 58 patients developed severe leakage. Severe AL was associated with prolonged hospital stay (median 50, 30 and 13 days for patients with severe AL, non-severe AL and no AL respectively; P < 0·001) and critical care stay (median 11, 0 and 0 days; P < 0·001). There were no significant differences between groups in number of lymph nodes harvested (median 29, 30 and 28; P = 0·528) and R1 resection rates (7, 5 and 6·5 per cent; P = 0·891). Cox multivariable regression analysis showed that severe AL was independently associated with overall survival (hazard ratio 3·96, 95 per cent c.i. 2·11 to 7·44; P < 0·001) but not recurrence-free survival. In sensitivity analysis, the results for patients who had neoadjuvant therapy then gastrectomy were similar to those for the entire cohort. CONCLUSION: AL prolongs hospital stay and is associated with compromised long-term overall survival.

ANTECEDENTES: El impacto de la fuga anastomótica (anastomotic leak, AL) tras una gastrectomía por adenocarcinoma gástrico sobre los resultados a largo plazo es poco conocido. En este estudio se investigó si la AL contribuye a una peor supervivencia global (overall survival, OS). MÉTODOS: Se analizaron todos los pacientes consecutivos sometidos a una gastrectomía en un centro de alto volumen entre 1997 y 2016. Las características clinicopatológicas, los resultados postoperatorios y los resultados oncológicos se clasificaron en función de la AL: no AL versus NSL (Non-Severe Leak, fuga no grave) versus AL grave (severe AL, SAL). SAL se definió como fugas anastomóticas asociadas con complicaciones Clavien-Dindo grado III / IV. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 969 pacientes en el estudio, de los cuales el 6% (58/969) presentó una AL. De los que desarrollaron AL, el 26% desarrolló SAL (15/58). SAL se asoció con una estancia prolongada en el hospital (mediana: 50 versus 30 versus 13 días, P < 0,001) y en cuidados intensivos (mediana: 11 versus 0 versus 0 días, P < 0,001) en comparación con NSL o sin AL. No hubo diferencias significativas en los ganglios linfáticos identificados (mediana: 28 versus 30 versus 29 P = 0,5) ni en las tasas de resección R1 (mediana: 7% versus 5% versus 7%, P = 0,9) entre no AL, NSL y SAL, respectivamente. La regresión multivariable de Cox demostraba que SAL se asociaba independientemente con la OS (cociente de riesgos instantáneos, hazard ratio, HR 3,96, i.c. del 95% 2,11-7,44, P < 0,001) pero no la RFS. El análisis de sensibilidad en pacientes que recibieron tratamiento neoadyuvante y posteriormente gastrectomía fue similar a los que se sometieron únicamente a gastrectomía. CONCLUSIÓN: La AL prolonga la estancia hospitalaria y compromete la supervivencia global a largo plazo.

Anastomotic techniques for oesophagectomy for malignancy: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence on the benefits of different anastomotic techniques (hand-sewn (HS), circular stapled (CS), triangulating stapled (TS) or linear stapled/semimechanical (LSSM) techniques) after oesophagectomy is conflicting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the evidence for the techniques for oesophagogastric anastomosis and their impact on perioperative outcomes. METHODS: This was a systematic review and network meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically for randomized and non-randomized studies reporting techniques for the oesophagogastric anastomosis. Network meta-analysis of postoperative anastomotic leaks and strictures was performed. RESULTS: Of 4192 articles screened, 15 randomized and 22 non-randomized studies comprising 8618 patients were included. LSSM (odds ratio (OR) 0·50, 95 per cent c.i. 0·33 to 0·74; P = 0·001) and CS (OR 0·68, 0·48 to 0·95; P = 0·027) anastomoses were associated with lower anastomotic leak rates than HS anastomoses. LSSM anastomoses were associated with lower stricture rates than HS anastomoses (OR 0·32, 0·19 to 0·54; P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: LSSM anastomoses after oesophagectomy are superior with regard to anastomotic leak and stricture rates.

ANTECEDENTES: La evidencia actual sobre los beneficios de diferentes técnicas de anastomosis, incluyen la técnica manual (hand-sewn, HS), la sutura mecánica circular (circular stapled, CS), la sutura mecánica triangular (triangular stapler, TS) o la sutura mecánica lineal/semi-mecánica (linear stapler/semi-mechanical., LSSM) tras una esofaguectomía es contradictoria. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la evidencia referente a las técnicas de anastomosis esofagogástrica (oesophagogastric, OG) y su impacto sobre los resultados perioperatorios. MÉTODOS: Se efectuó una revisión sistemática y metaanálisis en red, basados en una búsqueda sistemática en las bases de datos PubMed, EMBASE y Cochrane Library de estudios aleatorizados y no aleatorizados que describiese técnicas para la anastomosis OG. Se llevó a cabo un metaanálisis en red para los resultados de fugas anastomóticas y estenosis postoperatorias. RESULTADOS: De los 4.192 artículos revisados, se incluyeron 15 estudios aleatorizados y 22 no aleatorizados con un total de 8.618 pacientes. Las anastomosis con LSSM (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR 0,49, i.c. del 95%: 0,33-0,74, P = 0,001) y las anastomosis con CS (OR 0,68, i.c. del 95%: 0.48-0,95, P = 0,027) se asociaron con tasas de fugas anastomóticas más bajas que las anastomosis con HS. Las anastomosis con LSSM se asociaron con unas tasas más bajas de estenosis (OR 0,15, i.c. del 95%: 0,08-0,28, P < 0,001), frente a las anastomosis con TS y HS. CONCLUSIONES: Las anastomosis con LSSM después de esofaguectomía son superiores en relación a las tasas de fugas anastomóticas y estenosis.

Significance of Neoadjuvant Downstaging in Carcinoma of Esophagus and Gastroesophageal Junction.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of downstaging on outcomes in esophageal cancer, the prognostic value of clinical and pathological stage, and the difference in survival in patients with similar pathological stages with and without neoadjuvant treatment. BACKGROUND: There is little data evaluating adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and difference in outcomes for similar pathological stage with and without neoadjuvant treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with esophageal cancer from a single center were evaluated. Patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or SCC treated with transthoracic esophagectomy and two-field lymphadenectomy were included. Comparison of outcomes with those primarily treated with surgery was made. The cTNM and ypTNM 8th edition was used. RESULTS: This study included 992 patients, of whom 417 received surgery alone and 575 received neoadjuvant therapy and surgery. In the neoadjuvant group, 7 (1%) had cTNM stage 2 and 418 (73%) had cTNM stage 3. Downstaging rates were similar between adenocarcinoma and SCC (54% vs. 61%, p = 0.5). Downstaging was associated with longer survival than patients with no change (adenocarcinoma, median: 82 vs. 26 months, p < 0.001; SCC, median: NR vs. 29 months, p < 0.001). On Cox regression analysis, downstaging was associated with significantly longer survival in adenocarcinoma but not in SCC. For SCC and more advanced adenocarcinoma, overall survival was significantly better when comparing like-for-like ypTN to pTN groups. CONCLUSIONS: Pathological stage provides a better estimate of prognosis compared with clinical stage. Downstaged patients may have an improved outcome over those with comparable pathological stage who did not receive neoadjuvant treatment.

Anastomotic Leak Does Not Impact on Long-Term Outcomes in Esophageal Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy is a technically demanding procedure associated with high levels of morbidity. Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common complication with potentially major ramifications for patients. It has also been associated with poorer long-term overall survival (OS) and disease recurrence. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether AL contributes to poor OS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) for patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing a two-stage, two-field transthoracic esophagectomy from a single high-volume unit between 1997 and 2016 were evaluated. Clinicopathologic characteristics, along with oncological and postoperative outcomes, were stratified by no AL versus non-severe leak (NSL) versus severe esophageal AL (SEAL). SEAL was defined as ALs associated with Clavien-Dindo grade III/IV complications. RESULTS: This study included 1063 patients, of whom 8% (87/1063) developed AL; 45% of those who developed AL were SEALs (39/87). SEAL was associated with a prolonged critical care stay (median 8 vs. 3 vs. 2 days; p < 0.001) and prolonged hospital stay (median 43 vs. 27 vs. 15 days; p < 0.001) compared with NSL or no AL. There were no significant differences in number of lymph nodes harvested and rates of R1 resection between groups. OS and RFS were not affected by either NSL or SEAL, and Cox multivariate regression showed NSL and SEAL were not independently associated with OS and RFS. Sensitivity analysis in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy followed by esophagectomy demonstrated similar findings. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that AL leads to prolonged critical care and in-hospital length of stay; however, contrary to previous reports, our results do not compromise long-term outcomes and are unlikely to have a detrimental oncological impact.