Search

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) may lead to early restoration of health-related quality of life, but few prospective comparative studies have been performed. This exploratory study compared recovery between totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), laparoscopically assisted esophagectomy (LAE) and open surgery (OE).A prospective study in 2 specialist centers recruited consecutive patients undergoing OE, LAE, or MIE for high-grade dysplasia or cancer. Patients completed validated questionnaires, the Multi-Dimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20), modified Katz Scale, and modified Lawton and Brody Scale (assessing activities of daily living) before and 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months after surgery.A total of 97 patients (26 women; median age 64 years) were scheduled for surgery that was abandoned in 11 due to occult low-volume metastatic disease. In the remaining 86 (OE = 19, LAE = 31, and MIE = 36), there were 4 in-hospital deaths (4 %), and 54 postoperative complications (OE = 12, LAE = 19, and MIE = 23). Overall questionnaire compliance was high (77 %) and baseline scores similar in all groups, although clinical differences between groups were observed with earlier tumors and more squamous cell cancers selected for MIE. Following surgery fatigue levels increased dramatically and activity levels reduced in all groups. These gradually recovered to baseline following MIE and LAE within 6 months, but the ability to perform activities of daily living and most parameters of fatigue had not returned to baseline levels in the OE group.This exploratory prospective nonrandomized study of recovery after different types of surgery for esophageal cancer showed possible small benefits to MIE. A much larger study is needed to confirm these findings.

Multimodal strategies before surgery are often used to improve outcomes, but disease progression (precluding surgical resection) and inoperability at planned surgery still occur following neoadjuvant treatment. The standards of reporting of these outcomes have not previously been considered. This study examined reporting of rates of progression to surgical resection and inoperability at planned surgery following neoadjuvant treatment in surgical oncology, using esophageal cancer as a case study. A systematic review identified randomized trials and prospective nonrandomized studies reporting short-term outcomes of neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for esophageal cancer. Of 4,763 abstracts, 224 papers were retrieved and 76 studies included (8 randomized trials and 68 cohort studies of 19,441 esophagectomies). Articles reported outcomes of preoperative chemotherapy (n = 33, 43.4 %), chemoradiotherapy (n = 13, 17.1 %), or both within one paper (n = 18, 23.7 %) and 12 (15.8 %) did not specify the type of neoadjuvant treatment. Also, 20 papers (26.3 %) reported numbers of patients not progressing to surgery after neoadjuvant treatment (with rates of nonprogression ranging between 2.0 and 35.3 %). In addition, 24 papers (31.6 %) reported rates of inoperability at planned surgery (with inoperability rates ranging between 0 and 26.2 %). More randomized controlled trials (RCTs) than observational studies reported nonprogression (4 randomized and 16 nonrandomized studies, 95 % CI −9.6 to 62.6 %, p = 0.108) and inoperability (6 randomized trials and 18 observational studies, 95 % CI 16.8–80.3 %, p = 0.005). Some 17 and 10 articles provided reasons for the observed rates of nonprogression and inoperability, respectively. Reporting rates of progression to surgery after neoadjuvant treatment and inoperability at planned surgery for esophageal cancer were poor, limiting data synthesis and comparisons. It is suggested that core outcome sets for trials in surgical oncology are developed with inclusion of these important endpoints. Collaboration between medical and surgical oncologists is necessary to achieve this.