Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
It's not always too late: a case for minimally invasive salvage esophagectomy.
Broderick, Ryan C; Lee, Arielle M; Blitzer, Rachel R; Zhao, Beiqun; Lam, Jenny; Cheverie, Joslin N; Sandler, Bryan J; Jacobsen, Garth R; Onaitis, Mark W; Kelly, Kaitlyn J; Bouvet, Michael; Horgan, Santiago.
Afiliação
  • Broderick RC; Department of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
  • Lee AM; Department of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA. aml133@health.ucsd.edu.
  • Blitzer RR; Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
  • Zhao B; Department of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
  • Lam J; Department of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
  • Cheverie JN; Department of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
  • Sandler BJ; Department of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
  • Jacobsen GR; Department of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
  • Onaitis MW; Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
  • Kelly KJ; Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
  • Bouvet M; Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
  • Horgan S; Department of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
Surg Endosc ; 35(8): 4700-4711, 2021 08.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32940794
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Standard of care for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) and surgical resection 4-8 weeks after completion of nCRT. It is recommended that the CRT to surgery interval not exceed 90 days. Many patients do not undergo surgery within this timeframe due to patient/physician preference, complete clinical response, or poor performance status. Select patients are offered salvage esophagectomy (SE), defined in two ways resection for recurrent/persistent disease after complete response to definitive CRT (dCRT) or esophagectomy performed > 90 days after completion of nCRT. Salvage esophagectomy reportedly has higher postoperative morbidity and poor survival outcomes. In this study, we assessed outcomes, overall, and disease-free survival of patients undergoing salvage esophagectomy by both definitions (recurrent/persistent disease after dCRT and/or > 90 days), compared to planned (resection after nCRT/within 90 days) esophagectomy (PE). MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy at a single institution from 2009 to 2019. Esophagectomy for benign disease and patients who did not receive nCRT were excluded. Outcomes included postoperative complications, length of stay (LOS), disease-free survival, and overall survival.

RESULTS:

97 patients underwent minimally invasive esophageal resection for esophageal carcinoma. 89.7% of patients were male. Mean age was 64.9 years (range 36-85 years). 94.8% of patients had adenocarcinoma, with 16 transthoracic and 81 transhiatal approaches. On comparing planned esophagectomy (n = 87) to esophagectomy after dCRT failure (n = 10), no significant differences were identified in overall survival (p = 0.73), disease-free survival (p = 0.32), 30-day or major complication rate, anastomotic leak, or LOS. Similarly, when comparing esophagectomy < 90 days after CRT (n = 62) to > 90 days after CRT completion (n = 35), no significant differences were identified in overall survival (p = 0.39), disease-free survival (p = 0.71), 30-day or major complication rate, LOS, or anastomotic leak rate between groups. In this comparison, local recurrence was noted to be elevated with SE as compared to PE (64.3% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION:

Overall survival and disease-free survival were equivalent between SE and PE. Local recurrence was noted to be increased with SE, though this did not appear to affect survival. Although planned esophagectomy remains the standard of care, salvage esophagectomy has comparable outcomes and is appropriate for selected patients.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias Esofágicas / Esofagectomia Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies Limite: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias Esofágicas / Esofagectomia Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies Limite: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article