The impact of operative approach for oesophageal cancer on outcome: the transhiatal approach may influence circumferential margin involvement.
ABSTRACT Surgery for oesophageal cancer remains the only means of cure for invasive tumours. It is claimed that the surgical approach for these cancers impacts on morbidity and may influence the ability to achieve tumour clearance and therefore survival, however there is no conclusive evidence to support one approach over another. This study aims to determine the impact of operative approach on tumour margin involvement and survival.
Data were extracted from the Scottish Audit of Gastric and Oesophageal Cancer (SAGOC), a prospective population-based audit of all oesophageal and gastric cancers in Scotland between 1997 and 1999 with a minimum of five-year follow up. Analysis focused on the three commonest approaches (Ivor Lewis n = 140, transhiatal n = 68, left thoraco-laparotomy n = 142) for oesophageal cancer.
Operative approach had no significant impact on post-operative morbidity, mortality, overall margin involvement and survival. Transhiatal approach resulted in significantly more circumferential margin involvement (p = 0.019), and the presence of circumferential margin involvement significantly reduced five-year survival (median survival 13 months) compared to no margin involvement (median survival 25 months, p = 0.001).
Surgical approach for oesophageal cancer had no significant effect on morbidity, post-operative mortality and five-year survival. Non-selective use of the transhiatal approach is associated with a significantly greater circumferential margin involvement, with positive circumferential margin impacting adversely on 5-year survival.
- SourceAvailable from: Marcello Migliore[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Multiple factors are implicated in the long-term survival of patients who have undergone esophagectomy, among these the involvement of longitudinal and circumferential resection margins are well known important prognostic factors. A few studies have assessed the impact of the operative approach on the status of the resection margins, and the data are not well reported, often unclear and, more importantly, there is no scientific evidence or published guideline on what the optimal proximal, distal or circumferential resection margin clearance should be. Owing to the lack of clarity on these points, we undertook a systematic literature review of the impact of longitudinal and circumferential resection margins in patients with operable esophageal cancer, the prognostic significance of margin involvement and the role of neoadjuvant therapy.Future Oncology 04/2014; 10(5):891-901. · 2.61 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Ivor Lewis and Sweet approaches are the two most widely used open transthoracic esophagectomy techniques. We evaluated and compared the therapeutic efficacy of these two approaches to determine the appropriate method to treat middle or lower third esophageal carcinomas. We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent esophagectomy with the Sweet (n = 748) and Ivor Lewis (n = 167) approaches at Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University between January 2007 and December 2010. Patients with preoperatively identified superior mediastinal lymph node metastases, high-level lesions (above the carina), and benign tumors were excluded. Perioperative-related indicators and 5-year survival rates were compared between groups. Compared with the Ivor Lewis approach, the Sweet approach has a shorter operative time (181 ± 71 minutes versus 208 ± 63 minutes; p < 0.001), less blood loss (167 ± 71 mL versus 179 ± 87 mL; p = 0.043), and a lower incidence of transfusion (8.7% versus 13.8%; p = 0.044) and postoperative complications (12.3% versus 20.4%; p = 0.002). The Ivor Lewis approach was more likely to result in wound infection (3.2% versus 7.8%; p = 0.010) and delayed gastric emptying (1.7% versus 4.7%; p = 0.046). There was no significant difference between groups with regard to the number of lymph nodes harvested or total number of patients with lymph node metastases. There was no significant difference in locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence, or 5-year survival between approaches. The Sweet approach has many advantages for the treatment of middle or lower third esophageal carcinomas. It is a safe, effective, and worthwhile approach in modern thoracic surgery.The Annals of thoracic surgery 03/2014; · 3.45 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Introduction: despite advances in surgical and adjuvant therapy, recurrence in esophageal cancer submitted to R0 surgery remains high. The aim is to define risk factors and recurrence patterns. Additionally, to show the management carried out and the outcome of patients showing recurrence. Material and methods: observational and prospective study that included 61 patients. Neoadjuvancy therapy was indicated on T3, T4 and N+ tumors and every lymph node dissection was performed in two fields. Recurrence is defined at distance, regional or local, when, recurrence is detected after six months. According to clinical features and the recurrences, a palliative, chemotherapeutic or surgical management was indicated. Results: there were 54 men and the mean age was 59.7 years. The most frequent stage was the IIA and 17 (27.9%) had positive lymph nodes. Thirty (49.2%) had showed recurrence with a median disease-free interval of 10.5 months. The pTNM, the absence of response to the neoadjuvancy and the presence of compromised lymph nodes were found to be risk factors for recurrence. Only the presence of compromised lymph nodes was significant in the multivariate analysis. After diagnosis of the recurrence, median survival was 7 months and 6 subjects survived beyond 1 year. Conclusions: we confirmed the high incidence of recurrence in esophageal cancer, where the presence of compromised lymph nodes is probably the main risk factor. After the diagnosis of a relapse the prognosis would be bad, however there would be a small subsidiary group for treatment where outcomes would be better.Revista espanola de enfermedades digestivas: organo oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Patologia Digestiva 06/2013; 105(6):318-325. · 1.32 Impact Factor