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.

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.

Robotics in surgery: is a robot necessary? For what?

Every operation can be categorized along a spectrum from "most invasive" to "least invasive", based on the approach(es) through which it is commonly undertaken. Operations that are considered "most invasive" are characterized by "open" approaches with a relatively high degree of morbidity, while operations that are considered "least invasive" are undertaken with minimally invasive techniques and are associated with relatively improved patient outcomes, including faster recovery times and fewer complications. Because of the potential for reduced morbidity, movement along the spectrum towards minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with a host of salutary benefits and, as well, lower costs of patient care. Accordingly, the goal of all stakeholders in surgery should be to attain universal application of the most minimally invasive approaches. Yet the difficulty of performing minimally invasive operations has largely limited its widespread application in surgery, particularly in the context of complex operations (i.e., those requiring complex extirpation and/or reconstruction). Robotic surgery, however, may facilitate application of minimally invasive techniques requisite for particular operations. Enhancements in visualization and dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems allow busy surgeons to quickly gain proficiency in demanding techniques (e.g., pancreaticojejunostomy), within a short learning curve. That is not to say, however, that all operations undertaken with minimally invasive techniques require robotic technology. Herein, we attempt to define how surgeon skill, operative difficulty, patient outcomes, and cost factors determine when robotic technology should be reasonably applied to patient care in surgery.