Search

Although some studies have compared esophagectomy outcomes by technique or approach, there is opportunity to strengthen our knowledge surrounding these outcomes. We aimed to perform a comprehensive comparison of esophagectomy postoperative complications.We retrospectively reviewed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2007-2018). Esophagectomies were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes and grouped by operative technique (Ivor Lewis, transhiatal, McKeown) and surgical approach (minimally invasive vs open esophagectomy). Twelve postoperative complications were compared. Significant complications underwent risk adjustment using multivariate logistic regression.Analysis was performed on 13,457 esophagectomies: 11,202 (83.2%) open and 2255 (16.8%) minimally invasive. There were 7611 (56.6%) Ivor Lewis, 3348 (24.9%) transhiatal, and 2498 (18.6%) McKeown procedures. There were significant differences among the surgical techniques in 6 of 12 risk-adjusted complications. When comparing the outcomes of minimally invasive techniques, there were only significant differences in 2 of 12 complications: overall morbidity (minimally invasive Ivor Lewis 30.5%, minimally invasive transhiatal 43.4%, minimally invasive McKeown 40.3%, P = .0009) and infections (minimally invasive Ivor Lewis 15.4%, minimally invasive transhiatal 26.0%, minimally invasive McKeown 25.3%, P = .0003). Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery were less likely to have overall morbidity (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.75), respiratory complications (odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.87), urinary tract infection (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.88), renal complications (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.81), bleeding complications (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.43), and nonhome discharge (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.64), and had shorter length of stay (9.7 vs 13.2 days, P .0001).Patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy have lower rates of postoperative complications regardless of esophagectomy techniques. The minimally invasive approach was associated with reduced complication variance among 3 common esophagectomy techniques.

Objective Although previous studies have identified variation in quality lung cancer care, existing quality metrics may not fully capture the complexity of cancer care. The Thoracic Surgery Outcomes Research Network recently developed quality measures to address this. We evaluated baseline adherence to these measures and identified factors associated with adherence. Methods Patients with pathologic stage I and II non–small cell lung cancer from 2010 to 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database. Patient-level and hospital-level adherence to 7 quality measures was calculated. Goal hospital adherence threshold was 85%. Factors influencing adherence were identified using multilevel logistic regression. Results We identified 253,182 patients from 1324 hospitals. Lymph node sampling was performed in 91% of patients nationally, but only 76% of hospitals met the 85% adherence mark. Similarly, 89% of T1b (seventh edition staging) tumors had anatomic resection, with 69% hospital-level adherence. Sixty-nine percent of pathologic stage II patients were recommended chemotherapy, with only 23% hospitals adherent. Eighty-three percent of patients had biopsy before primary radiation, with 64% hospitals adherent. Higher volume and academic institutions were associated with nonadherence to adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy measures. Conversely, lower volume and nonacademic institutions were associated with inadequate nodal sampling and nonanatomic resection. Conclusions Significant gaps continue to exist in the delivery of quality care to patients with early-stage lung cancer. High-volume academic hospitals had higher adherence for surgical care measures, but lower rates for coordination of care measures. This requires further investigation, but suggests targets for quality improvement may vary by institution type.

Objective We hypothesized that most relapses in patients with esophageal cancer having neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy would occur outside of the surgical and radiation fields. Methods Recurrence patterns, time to recurrence, and median survival were examined in 267 patients who had esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy at Johns Hopkins over 19 years. Results Of 267 patients, 82 (30.7%) showed complete response to neoadjuvant therapy, with 108 (40.4%) and 77 (28.8%) showing partial response or no response, respectively. Recurrence developed in 84 patients (patients with complete response 18/82, 21.4%; patients with partial response 39/108, 36.1%; patients with no response 27/77, 35.1%; P = .055, respectively). Most patients had recurrences at distant sites (65/84;77.4%) regardless of pathologic response, and subsequent survival was brief (median 8.37 months). Median disease-free survival was short (10 months) and did not differ based on recurrence site for patients with partial response or no response, but was longer for patients with complete response with distant recurrence, whose median disease-free survival was 27.3 months (P = .008). By multivariate analysis, no other factor except for pathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy was associated with disease recurrence or death. Patients with partial response or no response were 1.97 and 2.23 times more likely to have recurrence than patients with complete response (P = .024 and P = .012, respectively). Conclusions Most esophageal cancer recurrences after neoadjuvant therapy and surgery are distant, and survival time after recurrence is short regardless of pathologic response. Fewer patients achieving complete response had recurrences, and distant recurrences in these patients manifest later than in patients showing partial response and those showing no response. Only pathologic response is significantly associated with disease recurrence, suggesting that tumor biology and chemosensitivity are critical in long-term patient outcome.

Objective Volume–outcome relationships for esophageal cancer resection have been well described with centers of excellence defined by volume. No consensus exists for what constitutes a "high-volume" center. We aim to determine if an objective evidence-based threshold of operative volume associated with improvement in operative outcome for esophageal resections can be defined. Methods Retrospective analysis was performed on patients undergoing esophageal resection for cancer in the 1998 to 2005 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. A series of multivariable analyses were performed, changing the resection volume cutoff to account for the range of annual hospital resections. The goodness of fit of each model was compared by pseudo r 2 , the amount of data variance explained by each model. Results A total of 4080 patients underwent esophageal resection. The median annual hospital resection volume was 4 (range: 1–34). The mortality rate of "high-volume" centers ranged from 9.94% (≥2 resection/year) to 1.56% (≥30 resections/year). The best model was with an annual hospital resection volume greater than or equal to 15 (3.87% of data variance explained). The difference in goodness of fit between the best model and other models with different volume cutoffs was 0.64%, suggesting that volume explains less than 1% of variance in perioperative death. Conclusion Our data do not support the use of volume cutoffs for defining centers of excellence for esophageal cancer resections. Although volume has an incremental impact on mortality, volume alone is insufficient for defining centers of excellence. Volume seems to function as an imperfect surrogate for other variables, which may better define centers of excellence. Additional work is needed to identify these variables.