Antireflux Surgery Versus Antireflux Medication and Risk of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Antireflux treatment is recommended to reduce esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett's esophagus. Antireflux surgery (fundoplication) counteracts gastroesophageal reflux of all types of carcinogenic gastric content and reduces esophageal acid exposure to a greater extent than antireflux medication (eg, proton pump inhibitors). We examined the hypothesis that antireflux surgery prevents esophageal adenocarcinoma to a larger degree than antireflux medication in patients with Barrett's esophagus. METHODS: This multinational and population-based cohort study included all patients with a diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus in any of the national patient registries in Denmark (2012-2020), Finland (1987-1996 and 2010-2020), Norway (2008-2020), or Sweden (2006-2020). Patients who underwent antireflux surgery were compared with nonoperated patients using antireflux medication. The risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma was calculated using multivariable Cox regression, providing hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs adjusted for age, sex, country, calendar year, and comorbidity. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 33,939 patients with Barrett's esophagus. Of these, 542 (1.6%) had undergone antireflux surgery. During up to 32 years of follow-up, the overall HR was not decreased in patients having undergone antireflux surgery compared with nonoperated patients using antireflux medication, but rather increased (adjusted HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5). In addition, HRs did not decrease with longer follow-up, but instead increased for each follow-up category, from 1.8 (95% CI, 0.6-5.0) within 1-4 years of follow-up to 4.4 (95% CI, 1.4-13.5) after 10-32 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Barrett's esophagus who undergo antireflux surgery do not seem to have a lower risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma than those using antireflux medication.

Risk of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma After Helicobacter pylori Eradication Treatment in a Population-Based Multinational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Helicobacter pylori infection is associated with a decreased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma, and the decreasing prevalence of such infection might contribute to the increasing incidence of this tumor. We examined the hypothesis that eradication treatment of H pylori increases the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This population-based multinational cohort, entitled "Nordic Helicobacter Pylori Eradication Project (NordHePEP)," included all adults (≥18 years) receiving H pylori eradication treatment from 1995-2018 in any of the 5 Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) with follow-up throughout 2019. Data came from national registers. We calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by dividing the cancer incidence in the exposed cohort by that of the entire Nordic background populations of the corresponding age, sex, calendar period, and country. Analyses were stratified by factors associated with esophageal adenocarcinoma (ie, education, comorbidity, gastroesophageal reflux, and certain medications). RESULTS: Among 661,987 participants who contributed 5,495,552 person-years after eradication treatment (median follow-up, 7.8 years; range, 1-24 years), 550 cases of esophageal adenocarcinoma developed. The overall SIR of esophageal adenocarcinoma was not increased (SIR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82-0.97). The SIR did not increase over time after eradication treatment, but rather decreased and was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61-0.86) at 11-24 years after treatment. There were no major differences in the stratified analyses. The overall SIR of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, calculated for comparison, showed no association (SIR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: This absence on an increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma after eradication treatment of H pylori suggests eradication is safe from a cancer perspective.

Precision endoscopy in the era of climate change and sustainability.

Global warming caused by increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has a direct impact on human health. Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy contributes significantly to GHG emissions due to energy consumption, reprocessing of endoscopes and accessories, production of equipment, safe disposal of biohazardous waste, and travel by patients. Moreover, GHGs are also generated in histopathology through tissue processing and the production of biopsy specimen bottles. The reduction in unnecessary surveillance endoscopies and biopsies is a practical approach to decrease GHG emissions without affecting disease outcomes. This narrative review explores the role of precision medicine in GI endoscopy, such as image-enhanced endoscopy and artificial intelligence, with a focus on decreasing unnecessary endoscopic procedures and biopsies in the surveillance and diagnosis of premalignant lesions in the esophagus, stomach, and colon. This review offers strategies to minimize unnecessary endoscopic procedures and biopsies, decrease GHG emissions, and maintain high-quality patient care, thereby contributing to sustainable healthcare practices.

Anterior versus posterior mediastinal reconstruction after esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Esophagectomy is the primary surgical treatment for esophageal cancer, although other treatment approaches are often incorporated, including preoperative chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy. The two major routes of esophageal reconstruction after esophagectomy are the anterior mediastinal (retrosternal, heterotopic) and posterior mediastinal (prevertebral, orthotopic) routes. However, which of these two routes of reconstruction is the most appropriate remains controversial. This systematic review aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of anterior mediastinal reconstruction with those of posterior mediastinal reconstruction after esophagectomy in esophageal cancer. METHODS: In January 2022, a literature search of the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases was conducted to identify all published and unpublished randomized controlled trials, regardless of language. Eight studies were included for quantitative synthesis. RESULTS: Postoperative death (9/129 and 4/125, risk ratio [RR]: 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-6.64) and incidence of anastomotic leak (24/208 and 26/208, RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.56-1.62) were not significantly different between the two mediastinal reconstructions. We could not perform a meta-analysis for quality of life, loss of body weight, or postoperative hospital stay due to data limitations. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was low-quality evidence to suggest that the outcomes of the anterior and posterior mediastinal routes of reconstruction are not significantly different in patients with esophageal cancer.

Prevalence of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma With and Without Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms are an essential criterion for Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening in most gastroenterology society guidelines, a significant proportion of BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) cases do not endorse them. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to study the prevalence of BE/EAC in those with and without GERD. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted through 5 major databases for studies reporting prevalence of BE/EAC in patients with and without GERD. Pooled proportions and odds ratios (ORs) of BE, long-segment BE, short-segment BE, dysplasia, and EAC in patients with and without GERD were synthesized. RESULTS: Forty-three articles (12,883 patients with GERD; 51,350 patients without GERD) were included in the final analysis. BE prevalence was 7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.8%-8.5%) and 2.2% (95% CI, 1.6%-3%) among individuals with and without GERD, respectively. EAC prevalence was 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4%-1%) and 0.1% (95% CI, 0%-0.2%) in those with and without GERD, respectively. The overall risks for BE (OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 2.06-4.11) and long-segment BE (OR,4.17; 95% CI, 1.78-9.77) were higher in patients with GERD, but the risk for short-segment BE (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.89-3.52) did not differ between the two groups. In 9 population-based high-quality studies (2244 patients with GERD; 3724 patients without GERD), BE prevalence in patients without GERD was 4.9% (95% CI, 2.6%-9%). BE prevalence was highest in North American studies (10.6% [GERD] and 4.8% [non-GERD]). CONCLUSIONS: BE prevalence in those without GERD is substantial, particularly in large high-quality population-based studies. These data are important to factor in future BE/EAC early detection guidelines.

Incidence and Mortality in Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer After Negative Endoscopy for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is associated with an increased risk of cancer of the upper gastrointestinal tract. This study aimed to assess whether and to what extent a negative upper endoscopy in patients with GERD is associated with decreased incidence and mortality in upper gastrointestinal cancer (ie, esophageal, gastric, or duodenal cancer). METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of all patients with newly diagnosed GERD between July 1, 1979 and December 31, 2018 in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The exposure, negative upper endoscopy, was examined as a time-varying exposure, where participants contributed unexposed person-time from GERD diagnosis until screened and exposed person-time from the negative upper endoscopy. The incidence and mortality in upper gastrointestinal cancer were assessed using parametric flexible models, providing adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Among 1,062,740 patients with GERD (median age 58 years; 52% were women) followed for a mean of 7.0 person-years, 5324 (0.5%) developed upper gastrointestinal cancer and 4465 (0.4%) died from such cancer. Patients who had a negative upper endoscopy had a 55% decreased risk of upper gastrointestinal cancer compared with those who did not undergo endoscopy (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.43-0.48), a decrease that was more pronounced during more recent years (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.30-0.38 from 2008 onward), and was otherwise stable across sex and age groups. The corresponding reduction in upper gastrointestinal mortality among patients with upper endoscopy was 61% (adjusted HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.37-0.42). The risk reduction after a negative upper endoscopy in incidence and mortality lasted for 5 and at least 10 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Negative upper endoscopy is associated with strong and long-lasting decreases in incidence and mortality in upper gastrointestinal cancer in patients with GERD.

Aspirin or statin use in relation to survival after surgery for esophageal cancer: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant postoperative treatment with aspirin and statins may improve survival in several solid tumors. This study aimed to assess whether these medications improve the survival after curatively intended treatment (including esophagectomy) for esophageal cancer in an unselected setting. METHODS: This nationwide cohort study included nearly all patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in Sweden from 2006 to 2015, with complete follow-up throughout 2019. Risk of 5-year disease-specific mortality in users compared to non-users of aspirin and statins was analyzed using Cox regression, providing hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The HRs were adjusted for age, sex, education, calendar year, comorbidity, aspirin/statin use (mutual adjustment), tumor histology, pathological tumor stage, and neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy. RESULTS: The cohort included 838 patients who survived at least 1 year after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Of these, 165 (19.7%) used aspirin and 187 (22.3%) used statins during the first postoperative year. Neither aspirin use (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.67-1.28) nor statin use (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64-1.23) were associated with any statistically significant decreased 5-year disease-specific mortality. Analyses stratified by subgroups of age, sex, tumor stage, and tumor histology did not reveal any associations between aspirin or statin use and 5-year disease-specific mortality. Three years of preoperative use of aspirin (HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.98-1.65) or statins (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67-1.45) did not decrease the 5-year disease-specific mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Use of aspirin or statins might not improve the 5-year survival in surgically treated esophageal cancer patients.

Linked color imaging provides enhanced visibility with a high color difference in upper gastrointestinal neoplasms.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The aim of this post-hoc analysis in a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial was to evaluate the visibility of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) neoplasms detected using linked color imaging (LCI) compared with those detected using white light imaging (WLI). METHODS: The visibility of the detected UGI neoplasm images obtained using both WLI and LCI was subjectively reviewed, and the median color difference (ΔE) between each lesion and the surrounding mucosa according to the CIE L*a*b* color space was evaluated objectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with neoplasms that were missed under WLI and detected under LCI. RESULTS: A total of 120 neoplasms, including 10, 32, and 78 neoplasms in the pharynx, esophagus, and stomach, respectively, were analyzed in this study. LCI enhanced the visibility 80.9% and 93.6% of neoplasms in pharynx/esophagus and stomach compared with WLI, respectively. LCI also achieved a higher ΔE of enhanced neoplasms compared with WLI in the pharynx/esophagus and stomach. The median WLI ΔE values for gastric neoplasms missed under WLI and later detected under LCI were significantly lower than those for gastric neoplasms detected under WLI (8.2 vs 9.6, respectively). Furthermore, low levels of WLI ΔE (odds ratio [OR], 7.215) and high levels of LCI ΔE (OR, 22.202) were significantly associated with gastric neoplasms missed under WLI and later detected under LCI. CONCLUSION: Color differences were independently associated with missing gastric neoplasms under WLI, suggesting that LCI has an obvious advantage over WLI in enhancing neoplastic visibility.

Development and validation of a model to determine the risk of esophageal strictures after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal neoplasms.

BACKGROUND: Currently, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely used as therapeutic methods for superficial esophageal neoplasms (SENs). However, patients are likely to develop esophageal strictures after ESD. Our study aims to explore the possible risk factors for esophageal strictures after ESD and develop and validate a risk model for predicting the progression of postoperative esophageal strictures. METHODS: Clinical data of patients who underwent ESD in our hospital for suspected early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were collected from January 2014 to March 2020. The possible risk factors for postoperative esophageal strictures were analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Eventually, a risk-scoring model was built, in which 70% of patients were used to develop the model and the remaining 30% were used for validation. RESULTS: A total of 553 patients who received ESD were involved, and the incidence of esophageal strictures after ESD was 16.6% (92/553). In our study, the operating time, circumferential range, lesion location, depth of infiltration, and R0 resection were independent risk factors for esophageal strictures after ESD. According to the risk of postoperative esophageal stenosis, a risk-scoring model for esophageal strictures prediction was developed. The risk score ranged from 0 to 11 points, and the risk scores were divided into low risk (0-3 points), intermediate risk (4-7 points), and high risk (8-11 points). The proportions of esophageal stenosis progression in the corresponding risk categories were 6.33%, 29.14%, and 100%. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a risk-scoring model based on factors including circumferential range, lesion location, depth of infiltration, and R0 resection. It stratified patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups for postoperative esophageal strictures development. This scoring model may have the potential to guide the management of patients after ESD in the future.

Maximum phonation time: an independent predictor of late-onset pneumonia after esophageal cancer surgery.

Dysphagia after esophagectomy is a major risk factor for aspiration pneumonia, thus preoperative assessment of swallowing function is important. The maximum phonation time (MPT) is a simple indicator of phonatory function and also correlates with muscle strength associated with swallowing. This study aimed to determine whether preoperative MPT can predict postoperative aspiration pneumonia. The study included 409 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between 2017 and 2021. Pneumonia detected by routine computed tomography on postoperative days 5-6 was defined as early-onset pneumonia, and pneumonia that developed later (most often aspiration pneumonia) was defined as late-onset pneumonia. The correlation between late-onset pneumonia and preoperative MPT was investigated. Patients were classified into short MPT (<15 seconds for males and <10 seconds for females, n = 156) and normal MPT groups (≥15 seconds for males and ≥10 seconds for females, n = 253). The short MPT group was significantly older, had a lower serum albumin level and vital capacity, and had a significantly higher incidence of late-onset pneumonia (18.6 vs. 6.7%, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that short MPT was an independent risk factor for late-onset pneumonia (odds ratio: 2.26, P = 0.026). The incidence of late-onset pneumonia was significantly higher in the short MPT group (15.6 vs. 4.7%, P = 0.004), even after propensity score matching adjusted for clinical characteristics. MPT is a useful predictor for late-onset pneumonia after esophagectomy.

Is early extubation after esophagectomy safe? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is no consensus on the timing of extubation after esophagectomy. There is a fear that premature extubation may result in a high risk of urgent reintubation. On the other hand, there is a risk of lung damage in prolonged intubation. The present systematic review compares early and late extubation. Five articles were selected. Early extubation after esophagectomy does not increase the risk of reintubation, mortality, complications, and length of stay.

Early versus the traditional start of oral intake following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nil by mouth is considered the standard of care during the first days following esophagectomy. However, with the routine implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery, early oral intake is more likely to be the preferred mode of nutrition following esophagectomy. The present study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of early oral intake following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated as the effect sizes for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with a total of 1947 patients were included. Length of hospital stay (WMD = - 3.94, CI: - 4.98 to - 2.90; P < 0.001), the time to first flatus (WMD = - 1.13, CI: - 1.25 to - 1.01; P < 0.001) and defecation (WMD = - 1.26, CI: - 1.82 to - 0.71; P < 0.001) favored the early oral intake group. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (OR = 1.23, CI: 0.45 to 3.36; P = 0.69). Early oral intake also did not increase the risk of pneumonia and overall postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence indicates early oral intake following esophagectomy seems to be safe and effective. It may be the preferred mode of nutrition following esophagectomy. However, more high-quality studies are still needed to further validate this conclusion.

Receipt of Serial Endoscopy Procedures Prior to Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Diagnosis Is Associated with Better Survival.

BACKGROUND: The poor prognosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has focused efforts on early detection by serial endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE). Previously, we reported that receipt of endoscopy before EAC diagnosis was associated with improved survival. AIM: We aimed to refine our previous analysis, assessing surveillance as measured by performance of serial endoscopy before EAC diagnosis and evaluating its association with stage and survival. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database. Patients aged ≥ 70 years with EAC diagnosed during 1998-2009 were identified. Diagnosis with BE and receipt of ≥ 2 upper endoscopic procedures within 5 years before cancer diagnosis were identified. We compared a reference group not receiving serial endoscopy to 3 patterns based on ≥ 2 endoscopy dates relative to a timepoint 2 years before cancer diagnosis: "remote," "recent," and "sustained." RESULTS: Among 5532 patients, 28% (n = 1,575) had localized stage. Thirteen percent (n = 703) received ≥ 2 endoscopic procedures before cancer diagnosis: 224, 298, and 181 in the "recent," "remote," and "sustained" groups. Serial endoscopy and prior BE were associated with localized stage ("sustained" group OR 2.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.07, 4.19; prior BE OR 2.68, 95% CI 2.03, 3.56). Serial endoscopy was associated with improved survival even with adjustment for lead time bias ("sustained" group HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.37, 0.55) and length time bias. CONCLUSIONS: Sustained endoscopy was associated with earlier stage and improved survival. These results support the role of sustained surveillance in early detection of EAC.

Esophagectomy versus definitive chemoradiotherapy as initial treatment for clinical stage I esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy and definitive chemoradiotherapy are commonly used in the treatment of stage I esophageal cancer (EC). The present study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of esophagectomy and definitive chemoradiotherapy as the initial treatment for clinical stage I EC. METHODS: This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020197203). Relevant studies were identified through PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from database inception to June 30, 2020. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was employed to compare overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was employed to compare treatment-related death, complications, and tumor recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 13 non-randomized controlled studies involving 3,346 patients were included. Compared with definitive chemoradiotherapy, esophagectomy showed an improved OS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55-0.86; P < 0.001), PFS (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33-0.67; P < 0.001), and a lower risk of tumor recurrence (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30-0.61; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.75-1.65; P = 0.60) and treatment-related death (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.31-4.30; P = 0.84) between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence shows esophagectomy has superior survival benefits as the initial treatment for clinical stage I EC. It is still the preferred choice for patients with clinical stage I EC. However, future high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to validate this conclusion.

Intramural Gastric Metastasis: A Rare Presentation of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Intramural gastric metastasis of the esophageal carcinoma, excluding the direct extension of primary neoplasm, is rare. However, intramural metastasis to the esophagus is commoner than this. These are more common in squamous cell carcinoma variant. This signifies a poor prognosis. It is due to the spread of pathology through the intramural lymphatic channels. Sometimes the metastatic lesion is more extensive in volume than the primary. This is more often diagnosed on histopathology in postoperative specimens. We share our imaging experience with surface esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with giant intramural gastric metastasis infiltrating the liver in a 39-year-old male. Due to its rarity, and secondary lesion being more extensive than the primary leads to misinterpretation and wrong diagnosis. Knowledge of this rare phenomenon can prevent misdiagnosis, fasten the imaging workup, and ultimately improve the patient's survival.

Postoperative Adjuvant Therapy Versus Surgery Alone for Stage IIB-III Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies have shown that adjuvant treatment improves survival of patients with stage IIB-III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, but there is no evidence from prospective trials so far. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with pathological stage IIB-III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were randomly assigned to receive surgery alone (SA), postoperative radiotherapy (PORT), or postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (POCRT). PORT patients received 54 Gy in 27 fractions; the POCRT group received 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, plus concurrent chemotherapy with paclitaxel (135-150 mg/m2 ) and cisplatin or nedaplatin (50-75 mg/m2 ) every 28 days. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS), and the secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 172 patients were enrolled (SA, n = 54; PORT, n = 54; POCRT, n = 64). The 3-year DFS was significantly better in PORT/POCRT patients than in SA patients (53.8% vs. 36.7%; p = .020); the 3-year OS was also better in PORT/POCRT patients (63.9% vs. 48.0%; p = .025). The 3-year DFS for SA, PORT, and POCRT patients were 36.7%, 50.0%, 57.3%, respectively (p = .048). The 3-year OS for SA, PORT, and POCRT patients were 48.0%, 60.8%, 66.5%, respectively (p = .048). CONCLUSION: PORT/POCRT (especially POCRT) may significantly improve DFS and OS in stage IIB-III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results of this phase III study indicated that postoperative radiotherapy/postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (PORT/POCRT) could significantly improve disease-free survival and overall survival in stage IIB-III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma compared with surgery alone with acceptable toxicities. In-field and out-of-field recurrences were comparable between the POCRT and PORT groups, which demonstrates the rationality and safety of the radiation field used in this study. The postoperative regimens in this trial might be accepted as standard treatment options for pathological stage IIB-III esophageal cancer. Larger sample size prospective randomized trials to identify the value are warranted.

A Retrospective Study of 52 Patients With Primary Small Cell Carcinoma of the Esophagus Treated With Radical Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Primary small cell carcinoma of the esophagus (SCCE) is a rare and extremely fatal disease. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of radical surgery for resectable SCCE and to explore potential prognostic factors. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 52 consecutive SCCE patients who underwent radical surgery from February 1993 to November 2014 at a single institution. The Kaplan-Meier estimator with log-rank test was used to assess overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and median survival time. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate prognostic factors through Cox proportional hazard regression model. RESULTS: Twenty-five (48.1%) patients were treated with surgery alone, whereas 27 (51.9%) patients underwent adjuvant therapy after surgery. The median OS time was 17.4 months (95% CI: 13.5-21.3). The median DFS time was 13.4 months (95% CI: 7.7-19.0). Patients whose tumors were located in the lower part of thoracic esophagus and the esophagogastric junction showed significantly better OS (27.0 vs. 13.2 months, P = 0.016) and DFS (27.0 vs. 11.3 months, P = 0.017) than those located in the upper and middle parts. Patients with N0 status experienced significantly better OS (21.4 vs. 11.6 months, P = 0.012) and DFS (21.4 vs. 8.6 months, P = 0.012) than those with N+ status. Patients whose tumor lengths were shorter than 5 cm had a better OS (17.4 vs. 5.7 months, P = 0.035) than those longer than 5 cm. Patients who underwent chemotherapy experienced a significantly improved OS (21.0 vs. 14.1 months, P = 0.032) compared to surgery alone. Multivariable analysis showed that lower tumor location, shorter tumor length, pN0 status and chemotherapy independently predicted better OS; lower tumor location and pN0 status independently predicted better DFS. CONCLUSIONS: Radical surgery in combination with chemotherapy has better outcomes than surgery alone for resectable SCCE. Higher tumor location, longer tumor length, lymph node metastasis and not undergoing chemotherapy independently predict worse prognoses.

A Meta-analysis of Jejunostomy Versus Nasoenteral Tube for Enteral Nutrition Following Esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nutritional therapy is of paramount importance for patients undergoing esophagectomy. The jejunostomy and nasoenteral tube are the popular routes for nutritional therapy. However, which one is the preferred route is unclear. This study aims to analyze the differences in safety and efficacy of the two routes for nutritional therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE (till September 17, 2020) were searched. The primary outcome was postoperative pneumonia. Secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stays (LOS), bowel obstruction, catheter dislocation, anastomotic leakage, overall postoperative complications, and postoperative albumin. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) were calculated for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Ten studies involving a total of 1,531 patients in the jejunostomy group and 1,375 patients in the nasoenteral tube group were included. Compared with patients in the nasoenteral tube group, those in the jejunostomy group had a lower incidence of postoperative pneumonia (OR = 0.68, P < 0.001), shorter LOS (WMD = -0.85, P < 0.001), and lower risk of catheter dislocation (OR = 0.15, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.84, P = 0.43), overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.87, P = 0.59), and postoperative albumin (WMD = -0.40, P = 0.24). However, patients in the jejunostomy group had a higher risk of bowel obstruction (OR = 8.42, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Jejunostomy for enteral nutrition showed superior outcomes in terms of postoperative pneumonia, LOS, and catheter dislocation. Jejunostomy may be the preferred enteral nutritional route following esophagectomy.

Social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic and health-related quality of life among esophageal cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: The purpose was to investigate whether social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic reduced health-related quality of life (HRQL) in esophageal cancer patients and if so, to identify factors related to the HRQL changes. METHODS: A prospective Swedish nationwide study of patients who undergone surgery for esophageal cancer between 2013 and 2019. Telephone interviews were conducted 5 weeks and 13 weeks after the introduction of social distancing recommendations. The participants responded to a few scales and items from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30. Regression models adjusted for potential confounders were used to examine mean score differences (MSD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) between compliance with the recommendations and HRQL. RESULTS: In total, 134 individuals participated in the study. At 5 weeks, a reduction in role function was seen for individuals who fully (MSD -8, 95% CI: -16 to 0) and to a large extent (MSD -19, 95% CI: -26 to -12) complied with the recommendations. Less fatigue (MSD 9, 95% CI: 3-15) was also detected for this group. Being female, elderly, having comorbidities, living in a region with higher COVID-19 incidence, living in a villa, and being considered as an at-risk person were related to changes in role function. At 13 weeks, reductions in role function continued for those who fully complied with the recommendations (MSD -10, 95% CI: -19 to -1), but the risk variables were of less importance. Improvements in fatigue were no longer detected. Global quality of life, emotional function, or insomnia remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that individuals who undergone surgery for esophageal cancer and fully or to a large extent complied with the recommendations experienced reductions in role function, but not in global quality of life or emotional function, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Impact of Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy with Low Negative Pressure for Esophageal Perforations and Postoperative Anastomotic Esophageal Leaks.

INTRODUCTION: Management of esophageal anastomotic leaks (AL) and esophageal perforations (EP) remains difficult and often requires an interdisciplinary treatment modality. For primary endoscopic management, self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement is often considered first-line therapy. Recently, endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has emerged as an alternative or adjunct for management of these conditions. So far, data for EVT in the upper gastrointestinal-tract is restricted to single centre, non-randomized trials. No studies on optimal negative pressure application during EVT exist. The aim of our study is to describe our centre's experience with low negative pressure (LNP) EVT for these indications over the past 5-years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2014 and December 2018, 30 patients were endoscopically treated for AL (n = 23) or EP (n = 7). All patients were primarily treated with EVT and LNP between -20 and -50 mm Hg. Additional endoscopic treatment was added when EVT failed. Procedural and peri-procedural data, as well as clinical outcomes including morbidity and mortality, were analysed. RESULTS: Clinical successful endoscopic treatment of EP and AL was achieved in 83.3% (n = 25/30), with 73.3% success using EVT alone (n = 22/30). Mean treatment duration until leak closure was 16.1 days (range 2-58 days). Additional treatment modalities for complete leak resolution was necessary in 10% (n = 3/30), including SEMS placement and fibrin glue injection. Mean hospital stay for patients with EP was shorter with 33.7 days compared to AL with 54.4 days (p = 0.08). Estimated preoperative 10-year overall survival (Charlson comorbidity score) was 39.4% in patients with AL and 59.9% in patients with EP (p = 0.26). A mean of 5.1 EVT changes (range 1-12) was needed in EP and 3.6 changes (range 1-13) in AL to achieve complete closure, switch to other treatment modality, or reach endoscopic failure (p = 0.38). CONCLUSION: LNP EVT enables effective minimally - invasive endoluminal leak closure from anastomotic esophageal leaks and EP in high-morbid patients. In this study, EVT was combined with other endoscopic treatment options such as SEMS placement or fibrin glue injection in order to achieve leak or perforation closure in the vast majority of patients (83.3%). Low aspiration pressures led to slower but still sufficient clinical results.