Distribution of lymph node metastases in esophageal carcinoma [TIGER study]: study protocol of a multinational observational study.

BACKGROUND: An important parameter for survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma is lymph node status. The distribution of lymph node metastases depends on tumor characteristics such as tumor location, histology, invasion depth, and on neoadjuvant treatment. The exact distribution is unknown. Neoadjuvant treatment and surgical strategy depends on the distribution pattern of nodal metastases but consensus on the extent of lymphadenectomy has not been reached. The aim of this study is to determine the distribution of lymph node metastases in patients with resectable esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction carcinoma in whom a transthoracic esophagectomy with a 2- or 3-field lymphadenectomy is performed. This can be the foundation for a uniform worldwide staging system and establishment of the optimal surgical strategy for esophageal cancer patients. METHODS: The TIGER study is an international observational cohort study with 50 participating centers. Patients with a resectable esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction carcinoma in whom a transthoracic esophagectomy with a 2- or 3-field lymphadenectomy is performed in participating centers will be included. All lymph node stations will be excised and separately individually analyzed by pathological examination. The aim is to include 5000 patients. The primary endpoint is the distribution of lymph node metastases in esophageal and esophago-gastric junction carcinoma specimens following transthoracic esophagectomy with at least 2-field lymphadenectomy in relation to tumor histology, tumor location, invasion depth, number of lymph nodes and lymph node metastases, pre-operative diagnostics, neo-adjuvant therapy and (disease free) survival. DISCUSSION: The TIGER study will provide a roadmap of the location of lymph node metastases in relation to tumor histology, tumor location, invasion depth, number of lymph nodes and lymph node metastases, pre-operative diagnostics, neo-adjuvant therapy and survival. Patient-tailored treatment can be developed based on these results, such as the optimal radiation field and extent of lymphadenectomy based on the primary tumor characteristics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03222895 , date of registration: July 19th, 2017.

Techniques and short-term outcomes for total minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophageal resection in distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers: pooled data from six European centers.

INTRODUCTION: Esophagectomy for cancer can be performed in a two-stage procedure with an intrathoracic anastomosis: the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. A growing incidence of distal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas and increasing use of minimally invasive techniques have prompted interest in this procedure. The aim of this study was to assess short-term results of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIE-IL). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed from June 2007 until September 2014, including patients that underwent MIE-IL for distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer in six different hospitals in the Netherlands and Spain. Data were collected with regard to operative techniques, pathology and postoperative complications. RESULTS: In total, 282 patients underwent MIE-IL, of which 90.2 % received neoadjuvant therapy. Anastomotic leakage was observed in 43 patients (15.2 %), of whom 13 patients (4.6 %) had empyema, necessitating thoracotomy for decortication. With an aggressive treatment of complications, the 30-day and in-hospital mortality rate was 2.1 %. An R0-resection was obtained in 92.5 % of the patients. After neoadjuvant therapy, 20.1 % of patients had a complete response. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas is an upcoming approach for reducing morbidity caused by laparotomy and thoracotomy. Anastomotic leakage rate is still high possibly due to technical diversity of anastomotic techniques, and a high percentage of patients treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. An aggressive approach to complications leads to a low mortality of 2.1 %. Further improvement and standardization in the anastomotic technique are needed in order to perform a safe intrathoracic anastomosis.

Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal esophagectomy for distal and junction cancer.

BACKGROUND: the only curative treatment for esophageal cancer is surgical resection. This treatment is associated with a high morbidity rate and long in-hospital recovery period. Both transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomies are performed worldwide. The transhiatal approach may reduce the respiratory infection rate in compromised patients with distal esophageal and gastro-esophageal (GE) cancers. Minimally invasive esophagectomy could further improve post-operative outcome. Two cohorts of laparoscopic and open transhiatal esophagectomy for cancer were compared for short- and long-term outcome. METHODS: from January 2001 through December 2004, 50 patients who underwent laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy were compared to a historical group of 50 patients who had undergone open transhiatal esophagectomy between January 1998 and December 2000. Post-operative management was identical in both groups. RESULTS: no significant differences were seen between the two groups with regard to baseline characteristics and oncological parameters including resection margin (R0 82 vs. 74%, p = 0.334) and 5-year survival. Operation time did not differ significantly between the groups. (300 vs. 280 min, p = 0.110). Median hospital stay and intensive care unit stay were significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (13 vs. 16 days, p = 0.001 and 1 vs. 3 days, p = 0.000 respectively). CONCLUSION: minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy is feasible and has the same oncological outcome as open transhiatal esophagectomy. Faster recovery without a significant longer operation time could be the major benefit of the laparoscopic transhiatal approach. To our knowledge, this is the largest comparative study in literature comparing laparoscopic transhiatal with open transhiatal esophagectomy for cancers of distal and GE junction. Randomized trials are needed to further clarify the role of laparoscopic transhiatal approach for esophageal cancer.

Thoracoscopic resection for esophageal cancer: A review of literature.

Esophageal resection remains the only curative option in high grade dysplasia of the Barrett esophagus and non metastasized esophageal cancer. In addition, it may also be an adequate treatment in selected cases of benign disease. A wide variety of minimally invasive procedures have become available in esophageal surgery. Aim of the present review article is to evaluate minimally invasive procedures for esophageal resection, especially the approach performed through right thoracoscopy.

Surgical anatomy of the omental bursa and the stomach based on a minimally invasive approach: different approaches and technical steps to resection and lymphadenectomy.

BACKGROUND: It is imperative for surgeons to have a proper knowledge of the omental bursa in order to perform an adequate dissection during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract. This study aimed to describe (1) the various approaches which can be used to enter the bursa and to perform a complete lymphadenectomy, (2) the boundaries and anatomical landmarks of the omental bursa as seen during MIS, and (3) whether a bursectomy should be performed for oncological reasons in upper GI cancer. METHODS: In this observational study, videos of 20 patients undergoing different MIS procedures were reviewed, and the findings were verified prospectively in 5 patients undergoing a total gastrectomy and in a transversely sectioned cadaver. A systematic literature review (PubMed) was performed on the additive value of bursectomy during gastrectomy for cancer. RESULTS: The omental bursa can be surgically entered through the hepatogastric ligament, gastrocolic ligament, gastrosplenic ligament or through the transverse mesocolon. Anatomical boundaries of the omental bursa could be clearly identified, and new anatomical landmarks were described (gastro-omental folds). The cranial part of the omental bursa consists of two compartments (splenic recess and superior recess), separated by the gastropancreatic fold, communicating at the level of the pancreas, and extending distally as the inferior recess. There is no clear evidence regarding beneficial effect of a bursectomy in upper GI oncology. CONCLUSIONS: The description of the omental bursa in this study may help surgeons perform a more adequate oncological dissection during MIS. Bursectomy should not be routinely performed during oncological resections.

Minimally invasive oesophageal resection for distal oesophageal cancer: a review of the literature.

Oesophagus resection is adequate treatment for some benign oesophageal diseases, especially caustic and peptic stenosis and end-stage motility dysfunction. However, the most frequent indications for oesophageal resection are the high-grade dysplasia of Barrett oesophagus and non-metastasized oesophageal cancer. Different procedures have been developed for performing oesophageal resection given the 5-year survival rate of only 18% among patients operated on. A disadvantage of the conventional approach is the high morbidity rate, especially with pulmonary complications. Minimally invasive oesophageal resections, which were first performed in 1991, may reduce this important morbidity and preserve the oncologic outcome. The first reports of morbidity and respiratory complications with this approach were disappointing and it seemed likely that the procedure would have to be abandoned. However, in the past 5 years, Japanese groups and the group of Luketich in Pittsburgh have given these techniques an important impetus. The outcomes of the new series are different from those in the beginning period, and are leading to an enormous expansion worldwide. Important factors behind the change are standardization of the operative technique, the experience of many surgeons with more advanced laparoscopic procedures, important improvements in instruments for dissection and division of tissues, a better technique in use of anaesthesia, and a better selection of patients for operation. Two minimally invasive techniques are being perfected: the three-stage operation by right thoracoscopy and laparoscopy, and the transhiatal laparoscopic approach. The former may be applied successfully for any tumour in the oesophagus, whereas the latter seems ideal for distal oesophageal and oesophagogastric junction tumours. This review article discusses all these aspects, giving special attention to indications and operative technique.

Snapshot quiz - "Tattoo of Scheepers".

An ink marker at the descending part of the gastrojejunostomy or duodenojejunostomy after a pancreaticoduodenectomy or pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy prevents a misplacing of a postoperative endoscopic intervention.

Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal esophagectomy for distal and junction cancer / Esofagectomía laparoscópica frente a abierta en el cáncer esofágico distal y de la unión

Background: the only curative treatment for esophageal cancer is surgical resection. This treatment is associated with a high morbidity rate and long in-hospital recovery period. Both transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomies are performed worldwide. The transhiatal approach may reduce the respiratory infection rate in compromised patients with distal esophageal and gastro-esophageal (GE) cancers. Minimally invasive esophagectomy could further improve post-operative outcome. Two cohorts of laparoscopic and open transhiatal esophagectomy for cancer were compared for short- and long-term outcome. Methods: from January 2001 through December 2004, 50 patients who underwent laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy were compared to a historical group of 50 patients who had undergone open transhiatal esophagectomy between January 1998 and December 2000. Post-operative management was identical in both groups. Results: no significant differences were seen between the two groups with regard to baseline characteristics and oncological parameters including resection margin (R0 82 vs. 74%, p = 0.334) and 5-year survival. Operation time did not differ significantly between the groups. (300 vs. 280 min, p = 0.110). Median hospital stay and intensive care unit stay were significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (13 vs. 16 days, p = 0.001 and 1 vs. 3 days, p = 0.000 respectively). Conclusion: minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy is feasible and has the same oncological outcome as open transhiatal esophagectomy. Faster recovery without a significant longer operation time could be the major benefit of the laparoscopic transhiatal approach. To our knowledge, this is the largest comparative study in literature comparing laparoscopic transhiatal with open transhiatal esophagectomy for cancers of distal and GE junction. Randomized trials are needed to further clarify the role of laparoscopic transhiatal approach for esophageal cancer(AU)