Search

Introduction: Postoperative complications following major surgery have been shown to be associated with reduced health-related quality of life (HRQL), and severe complications may have profound negative effects. This study aimed to examine whether long-term HRQL differs with the occurrence and severity of complications in a European multicenter prospective dataset of patients following esophagectomy for cancer. Methods: Disease-free patients following esophagectomy for cancer between 2010 and 2016 from the LASER study were included. Patients completed the LASER, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OG25 questionnaires >1 year following treatment. Long-term HRQL was compared between patients with and without postoperative complications, subgroup analysis was performed for severity of complications (no, minor [Clavien-Dindo I-II], severe [Clavien-Dindo ≥ III]), using univariable and multivariable regression. Results: 645 patients were included: 283 patients with no, 207 with minor and 155 with severe complications. Significantly more dyspnea (QLQ-C30) was reported by patients with compared to patients without complications (differenceinmeans 6.3). In subgroup analysis, patients with severe complications reported more dyspnea (difference in means 8.3) than patients with no complications. None of the differences were clinically relevant (difference in means ≥ 10 points). LASER-based low mood (OR2.3) was statistically different for minor versus severe complications. Conclusion: Comparable HRQL was found in patients with and without postoperative complications following esophagectomy for cancer, after a mean follow-up of 4.4 years. Furthermore, patients with different levels of severity of complications had comparable HRQL. The level of HRQL in esophageal cancer patients are more likely explained by the impact of the complex procedure of the esophagectomy itself.

Summary Large hiatus hernias with a significant paraesophageal component (types II–IV) have a range of insidious symptoms. Management of symptomatic hernias includes conservative treatment or surgery. Currently, there is no paraesophageal hernia disease-specific symptom questionnaire. As a result, many clinicians rely on the health-related quality of life questionnaires designed for gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GORD) to assess patients with hiatal hernias pre- and postoperatively. In view of this, a paraesophageal hernia symptom tool (POST) was designed. This POST questionnaire now requires validation and assessment of clinical utility. Twenty-one international sites will recruit patients with paraesophageal hernias to complete a series of questionnaires over a five-year period. There will be two cohorts of patients—patients with paraesophageal hernias undergoing surgery and patients managed conservatively. Patients are required to complete a validated GORD-HRQL, POST questionnaire, and satisfaction questionnaire preoperatively. Surgical cohorts will also complete questionnaires postoperatively at 4–6 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and then annually for a total of 5 years. Conservatively managed patients will repeat questionnaires at 1 year. The first set of results will be released after 1 year with complete data published after a 5-year follow-up. The main results of the study will be patient’s acceptance of the POST tool, clinical utility of the tool, assessment of the threshold for surgery, and patient symptom response to surgery. The study will validate the POST questionnaire and identify the relevance of the questionnaire in routine management of paraesophageal hernias.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of evidence-based guidelines regarding surveillance for recurrence after esophageal and gastric (OG) cancer surgical resection, and which symptoms should prompt endoscopic or radiological investigations for recurrence. The aim of this study was to develop a core symptom set using a modified Delphi consensus process that should guide clinicians to carry out investigations to look for suspected recurrent OG cancer in previously asymptomatic patients. METHODS: A web-based survey of 42 questions was sent to surgeons performing OG cancer resections at high volume centers. The first section evaluated the structure of follow-up and the second, determinants of follow-up. Two rounds of a modified Delphi consensus process and a further consensus workshop were used to determine symptoms warranting further investigations. Symptoms with a 75% consensus agreement as suggestive of recurrent cancer were included in the core symptom set. RESULTS: 27 surgeons completed the questionnaires. A total of 70.3% of centers reported standardized surveillance protocols, whereas 3.7% of surgeons did not undertake any surveillance in asymptomatic patients after OG cancer resection. In asymptomatic patients, 40.1% and 25.9% of centers performed routine imaging and endoscopy, respectively. The core set that reached consensus, consisted of eight symptoms that warranted further investigations included; dysphagia to solid food, dysphagia to liquids, vomiting, abdominal pain, chest pain, regurgitation of foods, unexpected weight loss and progressive hoarseness of voice. CONCLUSION: There is global variation in monitoring patients after OG cancer resection. Eight symptoms were identified by the consensus process as important in prompting radiological or endoscopic investigation for suspected recurrent malignancy. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to link surveillance strategies to survival outcomes and evaluate prognostic value. ispartof: DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS vol:36 issue:1 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Background Upper gastrointestinal cancers are aggressive malignancies with poor prognosis, even following multimodality therapy. As such, they require timely and accurate diagnostic and surveillance strategies; however, such radiological workflows necessitate considerable expertise and resource to maintain. In order to lessen the workload upon already stretched health systems, there has been increasing focus on the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI)-centred diagnostic systems. This systematic review summarizes the clinical applicability and diagnostic performance of AI-centred systems in the diagnosis and surveillance of esophagogastric cancers. Methods A systematic review was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Review, and Scopus databases. Articles on the use of AI and radiomics for the diagnosis and surveillance of patients with esophageal cancer were evaluated, and quality assessment of studies was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of sequencing methodologies. Results Thirty-six studies that described the use of AI were included in the qualitative synthesis and six studies involving 1352 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Of these six studies, four studies assessed the utility of AI in gastric cancer diagnosis, one study assessed its utility for diagnosing esophageal cancer, and one study assessed its utility for surveillance. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 73.4% (64.6–80.7) and 89.7% (82.7–94.1), respectively. Conclusions AI systems have shown promise in diagnosing and monitoring esophageal and gastric cancer, particularly when combined with existing diagnostic methods. Further work is needed to further develop systems of greater accuracy and greater consideration of the clinical workflows that they aim to integrate within.

Background There is a paucity of data describing the incidence and causes of escalation in level of care after oesophagectomy for cancer. This study aimed to address this, including the description of baseline predisposing variables, and contrasting the profile of care escalation among different surgical approaches to oesophagectomy. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database (‘CODA’) at a UK tertiary centre. CODA is a bespoke, high-quality resource, based on senior clinician and data scientist data entry at every stage of the care of the patient's pathway. Complications are updated weekly using the Esophageal Complications Consensus group definition-set. The inclusion criteria were anyone undergoing cancer oesophagectomy between 01/06/2015 and 31/05/2021. Exclusion criteria included patients not on the ‘Enhanced Recovery after Surgery’ pathway and patients with delayed extubation (>2 days post-operatively). Escalation of care was defined as re-admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or re-intubation on ICU. Standard care at our centre is to maintain epidural analgesia for four days after surgery. Inadequate analgesia was defined as more than one reference to inadequate pain control in the first four days after surgery when the patient deteriorated and required care escalation. Characteristics were compared between patients with and without care escalation, and between patients with and without respiratory failure related to inadequate analgesia. Results From 448 oesophagectomys, 42 patients had escalation in their level of care (9.38%). Baseline characteristics between oesophagectomy patients with and without escalation in care were similar, except for escalated patients more likely to have squamous cell carcinoma histology (28.6% vs 14.3%, P = 0.02). 20.0% of 3-phase oesophagectomy patients required care escalation but this just failed to achieve significance when compared with other oesophagectomy approaches (9.6%, P = 0.06). Of escalated patients, 35.7% had respiratory failure related to inadequate analgesia, 33.3% had respiratory failure not related to inadequate analgesia and 31.0% did not have respiratory failure as the reason for care escalation. The major cause of respiratory failure not related to analgesia was pneumonia (6 of 14, 42.9%) and the most frequent cause of non-respiratory failure associated escalation in care was re-operation (5 of 13, 38.5%). Inadequate analgesia was more commonly a contributing factor to escalation in care after left thoracoabdominal oesophagectomy compared to all other approaches (11 of 18 [61.1%] vs 4 of 24 [16.7%], P = 0.003). Conclusions The overall rate for escalation in care in this centre was low at 9.38%. This figure may be useful for benchmarking and ongoing research into morbidity after oesophagectomy. There was no clear influence from baseline characteristics or surgical approach on the rate of escalation in care. Respiratory failure contributed to escalation in care for the majority of patients. Our data indicates that left thoraco-abdominal incisions are particularly sensitive to inadequate analgesia, which suggests that effective analgesic rescue plans are especially critical after this type of oesophagectomy.

Background Perforation of the oesophagus (OP) represent a potentially lethal yet poorly managed clinical condition due to its rarity, variation in clinical presentation and little consensus on the optimal management of these patients. Previous studies have shown that timely and appropriate treatment of OPs is the most important determinant of patient outcomes, and a delay in initiating the correct management within 24 hours increased the mortality rate from 10% to over 60%. Historically, patients have been managed based on the personal experience and preference of the surgeon, and accordingly most patients underwent surgical management based on data from small retrospective case series. Depending on the cause of injury, location of perforation and status of the patient, options include conservative management; endoscopy (stenting or clipping); and surgery (drainage, diversion, primary repair, or oesophagectomy). Currently, there are no recent large-scale studies investigating the outcomes in oesophageal perforation, leading to a paucity of high-grade evidence on the management of oesophageal injuries. This study aims to characterise the variation in the management of OPs, update its epidemiology in the UK; and evaluate the mortality and morbidity outcomes of surgical and non-surgical modalities in managing OP. Methods This was a multi-centred cohort study involving eligible centers from the Association of Upper Gastro-intestinal Surgeons for Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS) research network. All adult patients who were admitted with a diagnosis of esophageal perforation (iatrogenic, spontaneous or traumatic causes) and managed as an inpatient for more than 24 hours were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were as follows: pediatric population; OP due to anastomotic leaks post-esophagectomy; and unavailability of data matching primary outcome measures. The time period for inclusion of patients was from January 2016 to December 2020. Investigators were asked to actively monitor patients and their electronic medical records to identify post-intervention complications up to 90 days from time of intervention if appropriate. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Other secondary outcomes included the incidence of complications secondary to OP or interventions; incidence of 30-day re-intervention; length of hospital stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay; readmission within 30 days; and recurrence. Results During the study period 369 patients with oesophageal perforation from eight centres and were included in the study. The mean age of the population was 63 (18) years, body mass index was 25 (9)kg/m2, 60% were male, 30% were ASA grade 3, and 41% ECOG performance status 0. The aetiology of OP was spontaneous in 57% and iatrogenic in 37%. The mean time from presentation to referral and intervention were 37 hours and 111 hours respectively. In patients transferred from a district general to a tertiary hospital the mean time from presentation to transfer was 100 hours. Surgery was used as the primary treatment approach in 31%, endoscopic intervention in 10% and conservative management in 56%. Thoractomy and laparotomy was used in 20% and 24% respectively, endosponge and endoscopic stent used in 11% and 7% respectively. 90-day mortality was 20% across the cohort, 30-day re-admission rate was 18%, mean ICU stay, and LOS were 10 days and 37 days respectively. 90-day mortality was significantly reduced in the surgery group (9%) when compared with endoscopic (24%) and conservative management groups (28%) (p Conclusions In a centralised oesophageal and gastric cancer service, the management of complex upper gastrointestinal conditions including oesophageal perforation is most commonly centralised to oesophageal and gastric cancer centres. This large multi-centre collaborative study provides robust data concerning modern practices of the management of oesophageal perforation in the UK. Through a detailed and highly granular dataset, we have examined factors associated with the patient pathway, presentation and treatment that are associated with mortality following oesophageal perforation.

In 2015 the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) reported consensus definitions for complications after oesophagectomy. This aimed to reduce variation in complication reporting, attributed to heterogeneous definitions. This systematic review aimed to describe the implementation of this definition-set, including the effect on complication frequency and variation. A systematic literature review was performed, identifying all observational and randomised studies reporting complication frequencies after oesophagectomy since the ECCG publication. Recruitment periods before and subsequent to the index ECCG publication date were included. Coefficients of variance were calculated to assess outcome heterogeneity. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa score. Of 144 studies which met inclusion criteria, 70 (48.6%) used ECCG definitions. The median number of separately reported complication types was five per study; only one study reported all ECCG complications. The coefficients of variance of the reported frequencies of eight of the ten most common complications was reduced in ECCG adopting studies vs non-adopting studies (p = 0.036) (see Figure 1). Among ECCG studies, the frequencies of post-operative pneumothorax, re-intubation and pulmonary emboli were reduced in 2020–2021, compared to 2015–2019 (p = 0.006, 0.034 and 0.037 respectively). There was no difference in the quality of ECCG adopting studies and non-adopting studies. The ECCG definition-set has reduced variation in oesophagectomy morbidity reporting. This adds greater confidence to the observed gradual improvement in outcomes with time, and its ongoing use and wider dissemination should be encouraged. However, only a handful of outcomes are widely reported, and only rarely is it used in its entirety.

Background No well validated and contemporaneous tools for personalized prognostication of gastric adenocarcinoma exist. This study aimed to derive and validate a prognostic model for overall survival after surgery for gastric adenocarcinoma using a large national dataset. Methods National audit data from England and Wales were used to identify patients who underwent a potentially curative gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma of the stomach. A total of 2931 patients were included and 29 clinical and pathological variables were considered for their impact on survival. A non-linear random survival forest methodology was then trained and validated internally using bootstrapping with calibration and discrimination (time-dependent area under the receiver operator curve (tAUC)) assessed. Results The median survival of the cohort was 69 months, with a 5-year survival of 53.2 per cent. Ten variables were found to influence survival significantly and were included in the final model, with the most important being lymph node positivity, pT stage and achieving an R0 resection. Patient characteristics including ASA grade and age were also influential. On validation the model achieved excellent performance with a 5-year tAUC of 0.80 (95 per cent c.i. 0.78 to 0.82) and good agreement between observed and predicted survival probabilities. A wide spread of predictions for 3-year (14.8–98.3 (i.q.r. 43.2–84.4) per cent) and 5-year (9.4–96.1 (i.q.r. 31.7–73.8) per cent) survival were seen. Conclusions A prognostic model for survival after a potentially curative resection for gastric adenocarcinoma was derived and exhibited excellent discrimination and calibration of predictions.

Background Data on the long-term symptom burden in patients surviving oesophageal cancer surgery are scarce. The aim of this study was to identify the most prevalent symptoms and their interactions with health-related quality of life. Methods This was a cross-sectional cohort study of patients who underwent oesophageal cancer surgery in 20 European centres between 2010 and 2016. Patients had to be disease-free for at least 1 year. They were asked to complete a 28-symptom questionnaire at a single time point, at least 1 year after surgery. Principal component analysis was used to assess for clustering and association of symptoms. Risk factors associated with the development of severe symptoms were identified by multivariable logistic regression models. Results Of 1081 invited patients, 876 (81.0 per cent) responded. Symptoms in the preceding 6 months associated with previous surgery were experienced by 586 patients (66.9 per cent). The most common severe symptoms included reduced energy or activity tolerance (30.7 per cent), feeling of early fullness after eating (30.0 per cent), tiredness (28.7 per cent), and heartburn/acid or bile regurgitation (19.6 per cent). Clustering analysis showed that symptoms clustered into six domains: lethargy, musculoskeletal pain, dumping, lower gastrointestinal symptoms, regurgitation/reflux, and swallowing/conduit problems; the latter two were the most closely associated. Surgical approach, neoadjuvant therapy, patient age, and sex were factors associated with severe symptoms. Conclusion A long-term symptom burden is common after oesophageal cancer surgery.

Background The aim of this study was to develop a symptom severity instrument (ParaOesophageal hernia SympTom (POST) tool) specific to para-oesophageal hernia (POH). Methods The POST tool was developed in four stages. The first was establishment of a Steering Committee. In the second stage, items were generated through a systematic review and online scoping survey of international experts. In the third stage, a three-round modified Delphi consensus process was conducted with a group of international experts who were asked to rate the importance of candidate items. An a priori threshold for inclusion was set at 80 per cent. The modified Delphi process culminated in a consensus meeting to develop the first iteration of the tool. In the final stage, two international patient workshops were held to assess the content validity and acceptability of the POST tool. Results The systematic review and scoping survey generated 64 symptoms, refined to 20 for inclusion in the modified Delphi consensus process. Twenty-six global experts participated in the Delphi consensus process. Five symptoms reached consensus across two rounds: difficulty getting solid foods down, chest pain after meals, difficulty getting liquids down, shortness of breath only after meals, and an early feeling of fullness after eating. The subsequent patient workshops deemed these five symptoms to be relevant and suggested that reflux should be included; these were taken forward to create the final POST tool. Conclusion The POST tool is the first instrument designed to capture POH-specific symptoms. It will allow clinicians to standardize reporting of symptoms of POH and evaluate the response to surgical intervention.

Locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinomas (EACs) are treated with multimodal therapy, namely surgery, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) depending on patient and tumor level factors. Yet, there is little consensus on choice of the optimum systemic therapy. To compare the pathological complete response (pCR) after FLOT, non-FLOT-based chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy regimes in patients with EACs. A systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Review and Scopus databases. Studies were included if they had investigated the use of chemo(radio)therapy regimens in the neoadjuvant setting for EAC and reported the pCR rates. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed to compare the pooled pCR rates between FLOT, non-FLOT and CRT cohorts. We included 22 studies that described tumor regression post-NAC. Altogether, 1,056 patients had undergone FLOT or DCF regimes, while 1,610 patients had received ECF or ECX. The pCR rates ranged from 3.3% to 54% for FLOT regimes, while pCR ranged between 0% and 31% for ECF/ECX protocols. Pooled random-effects meta-meta-analysis of proportions showed a statistically significant higher incidence of pCR in FLOT-based chemotherapy at 0.148 (95%CI: 0.080, 0.259) compared with non-FLOT-based chemotherapy at 0.074 (95%CI: 0.042, 0.129). However, pCR rates were significantly highest at 0.250 (95%CI: 0.202, 0.306) for CRT. The use of enhanced FLOT-based regimens have improved the pCR rates for chemotherapeutic regimes but still falls short of pathological outcomes from CRT. Further work can characterize clinical responses to neoadjuvant therapy and determine whether an organ-preservation strategy is feasible.

In 2015 the Esophagectomy Complication Consensus Group (ECCG) reported consensus definitions for complications after esophagectomy. This aimed to reduce variation in complication reporting, attributed to heterogeneous definitions. This systematic review aimed to describe the implementation of this definition set, including the effect on complication frequency and variation. A systematic literature review was performed, identifying all observational and randomized studies reporting complication frequencies after esophagectomy since the ECCG publication. Recruitment periods before and subsequent to the index ECCG publication date were included. Coefficients of variance were calculated to assess outcome heterogeneity. Of 144 studies which met inclusion criteria, 70 (48.6%) used ECCG definitions. The median number of separately reported complication types was five per study; only one study reported all ECCG complications. The coefficients of variance of the reported frequencies of eight of the 10 most common complications were reduced in studies which used the ECCG definitions compared with those that did not (P = 0.036). Among ECCG studies, the frequencies of postoperative pneumothorax, reintubation, and pulmonary emboli were significantly reduced in 2020–2021, compared with 2015–2019 (P = 0.006, 0.034, and 0.037 respectively). The ECCG definition set has reduced variation in esophagectomy morbidity reporting. This adds greater confidence to the observed gradual improvement in outcomes with time, and its ongoing use and wider dissemination should be encouraged. However, only a handful of outcomes are widely reported, and only rarely is it used in its entirety.

Aim This is the first randomised study to evaluate toxicity and survival outcomes of two neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) regimens for patients with localised oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) or gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) adenocarcinoma. The initial results showed comparable toxicity between regimens and pathological complete response (pCR) rate favouring CarPacRT. Herein, we report survival, progression patterns, and long-term toxicity after a median follow-up of 40.7 months. Methods NeoSCOPE was an open-label, UK multicentre, randomised, phase II trial. Eighty-five patients with resectable OAC or GOJ adenocarcinoma, ≥cT3 and/or ≥cN1 (TNM v7), suitable for neoadjuvant CRT, were recruited between October 2013 and February 2015. Patients were randomised to OxCapRT (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on Days 1, 15, and 29; capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days of radiotherapy [RT]) or CarPacRT (carboplatin AUC2; paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29). RT dose was 45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks. Both arms received induction chemotherapy (two cycles oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on Day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily on Days 1–21) before CRT. Surgery was performed 6–8 weeks after CRT. The primary end-point was pCR. Secondary end-points were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and patterns of progression. Results Eighty-five patients were recruited from 17 UK centres. The median OS was 41.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.6 to not reached) in the OxCapRT arm and was not reached in the CarPacRT arm (multivariable hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48, 95% CIs: 0.24–0.95, P = 0.035). The median PFS was 32.6 months (95% CIs: 17.1 to not reached) in the OxCapRT arm and was not reached in the CarPacRT arm (multivariable HR = 0.54, 95% CIs: 0.29–1.01, P = 0.053). In both arms, the distant progression was twice as common as locoregional progression. Conclusions OS and PFS favoured neoadjuvant CarPacRT over OxCapRT. Distant was more common than locoregional progression; therefore, priority should be given to optimising the systemic treatment component. Clinical trial information EudraCT Number: 2012-000640-10; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01843829., Highlights • Randomised study of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma. • The median overall survival was significantly better with CarPacRT. • Across both arms, the distant was more common than locoregional progression.

Objective To identify the most prevalent symptoms and those with greatest impact upon health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among esophageal cancer survivors. Background Long-term symptom burden after esophagectomy, and associations with HRQOL, are poorly understood. Patients and methods Between 2010 and 2016, patients from 20 European Centers who underwent esophageal cancer surgery, and were disease-free at least 1 year postoperatively were asked to complete LASER, EORTC-QLQ-C30, and QLQ-OG25 questionnaires. Specific symptom questionnaire items that were associated with poor HRQOL as identified by EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25 were identified by multivariable regression analysis and combined to form a tool. Results A total of 876 of 1081 invited patients responded to the questionnaire, giving a response rate of 81%. Of these, 66.9% stated in the last 6 months they had symptoms associated with their esophagectomy. Ongoing weight loss was reported by 10.4% of patients, and only 13.8% returned to work with the same activities.Three LASER symptoms were correlated with poor HRQOL on multivariable analysis; pain on scars on chest (odds ratio (OR) 1.27; 95% CI 0.97-1.65), low mood (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.15-1.77) and reduced energy or activity tolerance (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.18-1.59). The areas under the curves for the development and validation datasets were 0.81 ± 0.02 and 0.82 ± 0.09 respectively. Conclusion Two-thirds of patients experience significant symptoms more than 1 year after surgery. The 3 key symptoms associated with poor HRQOL identified in this study should be further validated, and could be used in clinical practice to identify patients who require increased support.

Contains fulltext : 288010.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: There are several options for the surgical management of GERD in adults. Previous guidelines and systematic reviews have compared the effects of total fundoplication versus pooled effects of different techniques of partial fundoplication. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-informed, trustworthy, pertinent recommendations on the use of total, posterior partial and anterior partial fundoplications for the management of GERD in adults. METHODS: We performed an update systematic review, network meta-analysis, and evidence appraisal using the GRADE and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis methodologies. An international, multidisciplinary panel of surgeons, gastroenterologists, and a patient representative reached unanimous consensus through an evidence-to-decision framework to select among multiple interventions, and a Delphi process to formulate the recommendation. The project was developed in an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), and was overseen by an external auditor. RESULTS: We suggest posterior partial fundoplication over total posterior or anterior 90° fundoplication in adult patients with GERD. We suggest anterior >90° fundoplication as an alternative, although relevant comparative evidence is limited (weak recommendation). The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries and decision aids in user friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/j20X4n. CONCLUSION: This rapid guideline was developed in line with highest methodological standards and provides evidence-informed recommendations on the surgical management of GERD. It provides user-friendly decision aids to inform healthcare professionals' and patients' decision making. 01 november 2022

Introduction\ud \ud Patients with cancer who develop small bowel obstruction are at high risk of malnutrition and morbidity following compromise of gastrointestinal tract continuity. This study aimed to characterise current management and outcomes following malignant small bowel obstruction.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud A prospective, multicentre cohort study of patients with small bowel obstruction who presented to UK hospitals between 16th January and 13th March 2017. Patients who presented with small bowel obstruction due to primary tumours of the intestine (excluding left-sided colonic tumours) or disseminated intra-abdominal malignancy were included. Outcomes included 30-day mortality and in-hospital complications. Cox-proportional hazards models were used to generate adjusted effects estimates, which are presented as hazard ratios (HR) alongside the corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The threshold for statistical significance was set at the level of P ≤ 0.05 a-priori.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud 205 patients with malignant small bowel obstruction presented to emergency surgery services during the study period. Of these patients, 50 had obstruction due to right sided colon cancer, 143 due to disseminated intraabdominal malignancy, 10 had primary tumours of the small bowel and 2 patients had gastrointestinal stromal tumours. In total 100 out of 205 patients underwent a surgical intervention for obstruction. 30-day in-hospital mortality rate was 11.3% for those with primary tumours and 19.6% for those with disseminated malignancy. Severe risk of malnutrition was an independent predictor for poor mortality in this cohort (adjusted HR 16.18, 95% CI 1.86 to 140.84, p = 0.012). Patients with right-sided colon cancer had high rates of morbidity.\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud Mortality rates were high in patients with disseminated malignancy and in those with right sided colon cancer. Further research should identify optimal management strategy to reduce morbidity for these patient groups.

Background Perioperative chemotherapy is widely used in the treatment of oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (OGAC) with a substantial survival benefit over surgery alone. However, the postoperative part of these regimens is given in less than half of patients, reflecting uncertainty among clinicians about its benefit and poor postoperative patient fitness. This study estimated the effect of postoperative chemotherapy after surgery for OGAC using a large population-based data set. Methods Patients with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus, gastro-oesophageal junction or stomach diagnosed between 2012 and 2018, who underwent preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery, were identified from a national-level audit in England and Wales. Postoperative therapy was defined as the receipt of systemic chemotherapy within 90 days of surgery. The effectiveness of postoperative chemotherapy compared with observation was estimated using inverse propensity treatment weighting. Results Postoperative chemotherapy was given to 1593 of 4139 patients (38.5 per cent) included in the study. Almost all patients received platinum-based triplet regimens (4004 patients, 96.7 per cent), with FLOT used in 3.3 per cent. Patients who received postoperative chemotherapy were younger, with a lower ASA grade, and were less likely to have surgical complications, with similar tumour characteristics. After weighting, the median survival time after postoperative chemotherapy was 62.7 months compared with 50.4 months without chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.84, 95 per cent c.i. 0.77 to 0.94; P = 0.001). Conclusion This study has shown that postoperative chemotherapy improves overall survival in patients with OGAC treated with preoperative chemotherapy and surgery.

Background The typical paradigm for surgical service evaluation is intermittent audit based on perceived clinical need and mandated requirements. A better model would be monitoring patient outcomes automatically in real-time, with up-to-date cumulative frequencies of key surgical performance indicators such as surgical quality and morbidity, as changes in performance could be detected and reacted to at an earlier stage. This study aimed to develop a dashboarding technology to support real-time visualisation of prospectively maintained oesophagogastric cancer surgery data. Methods CODA is a bespoke databank (implemented in MS SQL Server, with HTML, C# and JavaScript) for oesophagogastric cancer care at our centre. We built on a custom dashboard interface for displaying this information in real-time, using Shiny for R and Tableau. We identified the key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor in the dashboard, and defined benchmarks based on accepted standards, or our prevailing performance (based on 448 consecutive patients who underwent oesophagectomy between 2015 – 2020). The domains selected were surgical quality, length of stay, early mortality, and priority complications. Complications were defined according to the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group. Results For surgical quality, our benchmarks based on prevailing performance were (i) >90% >15 lymph node yield (ii) 33% meeting 8 day discharge target (ii) 2 / year, monitored 2-yearly) (ii) impactful complications (>1 / year, >1 week median additional stay, monitored 5-yearly) Conclusions The CODA dashboard provides real-time appraisal of oesophagogastric cancer surgery practice, highlighting changes in performance and providing opportunity for early intervention. The platform can be used for personal, departmental or inter-institutional service evaluation. The KPIs will be extended to oesophagogastric cancer survival as the test set matures. The interface and wider benefits of CODA implementation are presented, together with the dissemination plan for use in other oesophagogastric centres.

Background Perioperative chemotherapy is widely used in the treatment of oesophageal cancer with substantial survival benefit over surgery alone. However, the postoperative part of these regimens is given in less than half of cases, reflecting uncertainty about its benefit. This study estimates the effect of postoperative chemotherapy after surgery for oesophageal cancer using a large population-based dataset and modern statistical methods. Methods Patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2012 and 2018 and underwent preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery, were identified from a national level audit in England and Wales (National Oesophagogastric Cancer Audit). Postoperative therapy was defined as the receipt of at least one cycle of systemic chemotherapy within 90 days of surgery. The comparative effectiveness of postoperative chemotherapy compared to observation was estimated using inverse propensity treatment weighting (IPTW). Results The study included 2,814 patients, in whom postoperative therapy was given to 1,054 (37.5%). Patients who received postoperative therapy were younger, with a lower ASA grade and were less likely to have surgical complications of any type, including anastomotic leak (all p Conclusions Among patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma treated with preoperative chemotherapy and surgery, improved overall survival was observed in those patients who received postoperative chemotherapy. Minimising surgical complications and improving patient fitness could increase the use of postoperative chemotherapy, leading to better outcomes for patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Background Over 1,500 patients with oesophageal cancer undergo a resection in the UK each year. At surgery, patients commonly have a nasogastric tube (NGT) placed and may undergo a pyloric intervention. There is conflicting evidence on the use of both NGTs and pyloric interventions during oesophageal resections. We performed a national survey of oesophageal centres and assessed practice variation. Methods An electronic survey was distributed to all resection centres in England, Wales and Scotland. Variations in practice regarding NGTs and pyloric intervention were assessed, and compared to nationally reported centre volumes and length-of-stay data Results Most centres (31/39, 79%) responded to the survey. All centres reported routine NGT use. The majority of centres (19/31, 61%) did not perform pyloric interventions. When used, surgical pyloroplasty was the most frequent strategy (8/31, 26%). Routine post-operative radiological assessment was utilised in 9/31 (29%) of centres. Criteria for NGT removal and dietary progression was highly variable, with every centre reporting different protocols. There were no significant differences in practice between high and low volume centres. There were also no trends seen when comparing centres above vs at-or-below the median length-of-stay. The majority (68%) of centres were willing to take part in a trial assessing NGT use and pyloric interventions. Conclusions Pyloric intervention use varies widely, with no clear link to outcomes. NGT use remains standard practice despite evidence for safe omission. Surgeons require and recognise the need for a trial to assess requirement for NGTs and pyloric intervention after oesophageal resection.

Background Both curative chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (nCRTS) can be considered as treatments for potentially curable oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Whilst this equipoise does not exist in oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), there are patients in whom treatment decisions are not straightforward, creating an overlapping group in which cCRT might be considered in preference to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy and surgery (nC(R)TS). We aim to see how survival changes between unmatched and matched cohorts of patients with OAC and OSCC treated with cCRT or nC(R)TS, to reflect difficult multidisciplinary team treatment decisions. Methods Patients treated with nC(R)TS or cCRT for OSCC and OAC were identified on an intention-to-treat basis from April 2016 to April 2019, allowing a minimum 2-year follow up from diagnosis. Upper third tumours were excluded due to clear preference for cCRT. Preoperative variables were compared using descriptive statistics, with OSCC and OAC analysed separately. Significantly different variables were used to generate propensity scores. Cohorts were then matched and analysis repeated to assess cohort symmetry. Overall survival and 2-year survival were investigated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank testing. Analysis was performed in R. Results 60 and 231 patients with OSCC and OAC were treated with cCRT or nC(R)TS. In the unmatched analysis, nC(R)TS had superior overall and 2-year survival, however there were significant differences in age, Charlson comorbidity index and cancer stage in OSCC and OAC cohorts, and in tumour site for the OAC cohort. After propensity score matching, differences in overall and 2-year survival reduced, though no results reached significance (OSCC: nCRTS 2y survival 58% vs 51% and 54% in unmatched and matched cCRT cohorts, respectively; OAC: cCRT 2y survival 51% vs 60% and 56% in unmatched and matched nC(R)TS cohorts, respectively). Conclusions These data suggest that as patient and cancer related factors increase the difficulty of treatment decisions, the survival benefit of surgery reduces in both OSCC and OAC. These results underline the need for randomised controlled trials using current treatment and staging strategies, as there have been considerable advances since original comparisons of neoadjuvant and curative chemoradiotherapy. This study is limited by relatively short follow up and unpowered sample sizes, however the coded nature of the analysis provides a structure for regular review of outcomes in our unit using routinely collected data, and could be easily applied more widely.

Background Patients with a para-oesophageal hernia (POH) report a complex range of symptoms and quality of life (QOL) issues. Clinicians often utilise existing health related quality of life tools to (1) identify patients who are eligible for surgical management and (2) to evaluate the benefit of surgical intervention. However, the most commonly used tools for this purpose are not disease specific. As such, crucial POH specific symptoms which impact QOL may not be captured. In order to address this issue, a modified Delphi consensus study was undertaken to establish a HRQOL instrument specific to POH. Methods A two-round modified Delphi consensus study was conducted with a group of international experts. Participants were identified through (1) their authorship in landmark POH studies and (2) the professional networks of the study investigators. Prior to the Delphi process, a scoping survey was undertaken in order to generate a list of candidate items. Participants were asked to rate the items’ importance in assessing patients with POH using a 5-point Likert scale. The a priori threshold for inclusion was 80% for scores of 4 or 5. If consensus was not achieved, the item was carried through to the next round. Results The candidate list of items consisted of 64 symptoms, refined to 20 for inclusion within the first modified Delphi round. Four symptoms; ‘difficulty getting solid foods down’, ‘chest pain after meals’, ‘difficulty getting liquids down’ and ‘shortness of breath only after meals’, reached consensus threshold of 80% in the first round and one additional symptom, ‘early feeling of fullness after eating’, reached consensus in the second. A total of 26 participants took part in the first and 24 in the second round. These five symptoms have been identified to form the initial version of the Para-Oesophageal Hernia Symptom Tool (POST). Conclusions POST is the first tool that aims to capture POH-specific symptoms that impact upon HRQOL. Prior to clinical use, this tool will be presented in international patient workshops to assess its construct validity. Following this, we aim to assess the content validity of the tool through a longitudinal study in a cohort of patients with POH who are undergoing repair. We hope that this tool will serve as a decision support tool for clinicians who are evaluating the risk-benefit of surgical intervention in this cohort of patients.

Background Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal approach to decreasing morbidity and accelerating return-of-function after major surgery. However, the majority of patients undergoing oesophagectomy for cancer experience some kind of complication, which extends their admission and causes pathway deviation. Thus, the value of having a discharge target (Day 8 at our institution) could be challenged. In this study we reviewed our experience using this pathway, with a focus on: (i) whether length of stay and morbidity has improved since pathway implementation (ii) describing the medical and non-medical reasons for extended admission (iii) identifying pre-operative predictors of pathway deviation. Methods A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed. Complications are recorded during routine clinical care using standardised definitions set out by the Esophageal Complications Consensus group, and are updated in the database at a weekly departmental meeting. Median and interquartile range were used for descriptors and differences tested with Mann-Whitney U test or Chi squared tests, using SPSS ver 26. Multivariable models were fitted to establish independent predictors of pathway deviation, using a binary logistic regression approach with bootstrapping. Results 150 of 448 patients met the 8-day target. Patients treated since 2018 were significantly more likely meet their discharge date (OR 1.28, P = 0.041) compared to 2015-2017, and have less complications. Surgical quality was unchanged. Thirty-day mortality increased but was still low (0.9% vs 1.8%, P = 0.067). Aside from having a complication (OR 4.15, P < 0.001), independent predictor of delayed discharge was female sex (OR 2.6, P = 0.003), squamous cell cancer histology (OR 2.8, P = 0.014) and low socio-economic status (OR 1.33, P = 0.014), but not age, smoking, BMI, co-morbidities and other baseline variables. Conclusions Enhanced recovery after oesophagectomy provides clear goals for the patient and multi-disciplinary team, however the target is often not met owing to the frequent nature of post-operative complications. Nonetheless these targets provide a culture for accelerated recovery, with steady improvement in short-term outcomes over time. A number of specific patient-groups are more likely to have extended admissions independent of complications, which has implications for optimising prehabilitation services. Overall , these findings suggest that having a discharge target is valuable, even though it often is not met.

Background Oesophago-gastric malignancies are associated with a high recurrence rate, yet there is a lack of evidence to inform guidelines for the standardisation and structure of post-operative surveillance after curatively intended treatment. This study aimed to capture the variation in post-operative surveillance strategies across the United Kingdom and Ireland, and enquire the opinions and beliefs around surveillance from practicing clinicians. Methods A web based survey consisting of forty questions was sent to surgeons or allied health professionals performing or involved in surgical care for oesophago-gastric cancers at high volume centers in the United Kingdom (UK). Respondents from each centre completed the survey on what best represented their centre. The first section of the survey evaluated the timing and components of follow-ups, and their variation between centres. The second section evaluated respondents perspective on how surveillance can be structured. Results Thirty five surgeons from 25 centers consisting 28 consultants, 6 senior trainees and 1 specialist nurse had completed the questionnaire. 45.7% of responders arranged clinical follow-up at 2-4 weeks. Twenty responders had a specific post-operative surveillance protocol for their patients. Of these, 31.4% had a standardised protocol for all patients, while 25.7% tailored it to patient needs. Patient preference, comorbidities and chance of recurrence were considered as major factors for necessitating more intense surveillance than currently practised. Conclusions There is a significant variation in how patients are monitored after surgery between centers in the UK. Randomised controlled trials are necessary to link surveillance strategies to both survival outcomes and quality of life of patients and to evaluate the prognostic value of different post-operative surveillance strategies.

Summary Background There is no consensus or guidelines internationally to inform clinicians of how patients should be monitored for recurrence after esophagogastric resections. Aim This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the latest evidence investigating the usefulness of surveillance protocols in patients who underwent esophagectomy or gastrectomy. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Review and Scopus databases. Articles were evaluated for the use of surveillance strategies including history-taking, physical examination, imaging modalities and endoscopy for monitoring patients post-gastrectomy or esophagectomy. Studies that compared surveillance strategies and reported detection of recurrence and post-recurrence survival were also included in the meta-analysis. Results Fifteen studies that described a surveillance protocol for post-operative patients were included in the review. Seven studies were used in the meta-analysis. Random-effects analysis demonstrated a statistically significant higher post-recurrence survival (standardized mean difference [SMD] 14.15, 95% CI 1.40–27.26, p = 0.03) with imaging-based planned surveillance post-esophagectomy. However, the detection of recurrence (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.78–3.97, p = 0.17) for esophageal cancers as well as detection of recurrence (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.11–5.12, p = 0.76) and post-recurrence survival (SMD 6.42, 95% CI –2.16–18.42, p = 0.14) for gastric cancers were not significantly different with planned surveillance. Conclusion There is no consensus on whether surveillance carries prognostic survival benefit or how surveillance should be carried out. Surveillance may carry prognostic benefit for patients who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer. Randomized controlled trials are required to evaluate the survival benefits of intensive surveillance strategies, determine the ideal surveillance protocol and tailor it to the appropriate population.

Our paper highlights the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in oesophageal and gastric malignancies with acceptable levels of accuracy for both diagnostic and surveillance purposes. Here, we comment on the past, present and future work necessary for incorporating AI into the clinical framework and practice.

Left thoracoabdominal esophagectomy (LTE) facilitates complete resection of esophageal cancer particularly for bulky tumors, but there are concerns that this approach is associated with significant morbidity. The aim of the current study was to evaluate short-term and oncological outcomes of left thoracoabdominal esophagectomy compared to minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Methods Prospectively entered esophagectomy databases from three high volume centers were reviewed for patients undergoing LTE or MIE 2012–2018. Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, operative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and pathologic surrogates of oncologic efficacy (R0 resection rate, and number of resected lymph nodes) were compared. In total 844 patients were included in the study, LTE was applied in 654 (77.5%) patients, and MIE in 190 (22.5%) patients. Results LTE patients had more neoadjuvant treatment (LTE = 74.5%, MIE = 64.9%, P = 0.027). There was no difference in overall postoperative complications (LTE = 61.9%, MIE = 64.6%, P = 0.517), severe complications (Clavien Dindo >IIIa (LTE = 26.6%, MIE 26.5%, P = 0.982), pneumonia (LTE = 29.8%, MIE = 26.3%, P = 0.349), anastomotic leak (LTE = 7.7%, MIE = 9.9%, P = 0.348), or in-hospital mortality (LTE = 1.5%, MIE = 2.1%, P = 0.584). Median length of stay was 11 days after LTE vs. 8 days after MIE (P Conclusion LTE was used for tumors with greater lymph node burden in patients that were more likely to have received neoadjuvant treatment compared to MIE. MIE was associated with significantly shorter length of hospital stay, however postoperative morbidity and Clavien-Dindo scores were equal to that of MIE in this cohort.

Background: Over 1500 patients with oesophageal cancer undergo a resection in the UK each year. At surgery, patients commonly have a nasogastric tube (NGT) placed and may undergo a pyloric intervention. There is conflicting evidence on the use of both NGTs and pyloric interventions during oesophageal resections. We performed a national survey of oesophageal centres and assessed practice variation.Material and methods: An electronic survey was distributed to all resection centres in England, Wales and Scotland. Variations in practice regarding NGTs and pyloric intervention were assessed, and compared to nationally reported centre volumes and length-of-stay data.Results: Most centres (31/39, 79%) responded to the survey. All centres reported routine NGT use. The majority of centres (19/31, 61%) did not perform pyloric interventions. When used, surgical pyloroplasty was the most frequent strategy (8/31, 26%). Routine post-operative radiological assessment was utilised in 9/31 (29%) of centres. Criteria for NGT removal and dietary progression was highly variable, with every centre reporting different protocols. There were no significant differences in practice between high and low volume centres. There were also no trends seen when comparing centres above vs at-or-below the median length-of-stay. The majority (68%) of centres were willing to take part in a trial assessing NGT use and pyloric interventions.Conclusions: Pyloric intervention use varies widely, with no clear link to outcomes. NGT use remains standard practice despite evidence for safe omission. Surgeons require and recognise the need for a trial to assess requirement for NGTs and pyloric intervention after oesophageal resection.

Summary Background Paraesophageal hernias (PEH) present with a range of symptoms affecting physical and mental health. This systematic review aims to assess the quality of reporting standards for patients with PEH, identify the most frequently used quality of life (QOL) and symptom severity assessment tools in PEH and to ascertain additional symptoms reported by these patients not captured by these tools. Methods A systematic literature review according to PRISMA protocols was carried out following a literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases for studies published between January 1960 and May 2020. Published abstracts from conference proceedings were included. Data on QOL tools used and reported symptoms were extracted. Results This review included 220 studies reporting on 28 353 patients. A total of 46 different QOL and symptom severity tools were used across all studies, and 89 different symptoms were reported. The most frequently utilized QOL tool was the Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease-Health related quality of life questionnaire symptom severity instrument (47.7%), 57.2% of studies utilized more than 2 QOL tools and ‘dysphagia’ was the most frequently reported symptom, in 55.0% of studies. Notably, respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms, although less common than GI symptoms, were reported and included ‘dyspnea’ reported in 35 studies (15.9%). Conclusions There lacks a QOL assessment tool that captures the range of symptoms associated with PEH. Reporting standards for this cohort must be improved to compare patient outcomes before and after surgery. Further investigations must seek to develop a PEH specific tool, that encompasses the relative importance of symptoms when considering surgical intervention and assessing symptomatic improvement following surgery.

Esophago-gastric malignancies are associated with a high recurrence rate; yet there is a lack of evidence to inform guidelines for the standardization and structure of postoperative surveillance after curatively intended treatment. This study aimed to capture the variation in postoperative surveillance strategies across the UK and Ireland, and enquire the opinions and beliefs around surveillance from practicing clinicians. A web-based survey consisting of 40 questions was sent to surgeons or allied health professionals performing or involved in surgical care for esophago-gastric cancers at high-volume centers in the UK. Respondents from each center completed the survey on what best represented their center. The first section of the survey evaluated the timing and components of follow-ups, and their variation between centers. The second section evaluated respondents perspective on how surveillance can be structured. Thirty-five respondents from 27 centers consisting 28 consultants, 6 senior trainees and 1 specialist nurse had completed the questionnaire; 45.7% of responders arranged clinical follow-up at 2–4 weeks. Twenty responders had a specific postoperative surveillance protocol for their patients. Of these, 31.4% had a standardized protocol for all patients, while 25.7% tailored it to patient needs. Patient preference, comorbidities and chance of recurrence were considered as major factors for necessitating more intense surveillance than currently practiced. There is a significant variation in how patients are monitored after surgery between centers in the UK. Randomized controlled trials are necessary to link surveillance strategies to both survival outcomes and quality of life of patients and to evaluate the prognostic value of different postoperative surveillance strategies.

Introduction For patients with oesophageal cancer, producing accurate prediction models for survival after oesophagectomy has proved challenging. We investigated whether Random Survival Forests (RSF), a novel machine learning method, could produce an accurate prognostic model for overall survival after oesophagectomy. Method The study used data from the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit and included patients diagnosed with oesophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma between 2012 and 2018 in England and Wales and who underwent a curative oesophagectomy with adequate lymphadenectomy (15 LN) and survived to discharge (n=6198). Missing data was handled using multiple imputation and the data was split into training and validation cohorts. 13 variables were selected for inclusion using Random Forest variable importance and used to train the final model. The same variables were used to develop a traditional Cox regression model. Result Median survival was 53 months in both cohorts. The final RSF model had good discrimination in the validation cohort with a C-index of 0.757(0.755-0.759), exceeding the Cox model; 0.748(0.746-0.750). At 3 years post-surgery, overall survival was 56.2%. The RSF yielded a mean predicted survival of 55.8%(IQR 29.5%-81.7%) compared to 55.4%(40.0%-77.7%) for the Cox model. The most important variables were lymph node involvement and pT/ypT stage, however other variables including neoadjuvant treatment completion and surgical complications were also found to be important. Conculsion A Random Forest survival model provided better performance in predicting survival after curative oesophagectomy. This will allow more personalised predictions to be delivered clinicians and patients. Take-home message Random Forest survival models can accurately predict post-operative prognosis after oesophagectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a predictive model for overall survival after esophagectomy using pre/postoperative clinical data and machine learning. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: For patients with esophageal cancer, accurately predicting long-term survival after esophagectomy is challenging. This study investigated survival prediction after esophagectomy using a Random Survival Forest (RSF) model derived from routine data from a large, well curated, national dataset. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma between 2012 and 2018 in England and Wales who underwent an esophagectomy were included. Prediction models for overall survival were developed using the RSF method and Cox regression from 41 patient and disease characteristics. Calibration and discrimination (time dependent AUC) were validated internally using bootstrap resampling. RESULTS: The study analysed 6399 patients, with 2625 deaths during follow-up. Median follow-up was 41 months. Overall survival was 47.1% at 5 years. The final RSF model included 14 variables and had excellent discrimination with a 5-year tAUC of 83.9% (95%CI 82.6-84.9%), compared to 82.3% (95%CI 81.1-83.3%) for the Cox model. The most important variables were lymph node involvement, pT stage, CRM involvement (tumour at

Background Histopathological outcomes, such as lymph node yield and margin positivity, are used to benchmark and assess surgical centre quality, and are reported annually by the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit (NOGCA) in England and Wales. The variation in pathological specimen assessment and how this affects these outcomes is not known. Methods A survey of practice was circulated to all tertiary oesophagogastric cancer centres across England and Wales. Questions captured demographic data, and information on how specimens were prepared and analysed. National performance data were retrieved from the NOGCA. Survey results were compared for tertiles of lymph node yield, and circumferential and longitudinal margins. Results Survey responses were received from 32 of 37 units (86 per cent response rate), accounting for 93.1 per cent of the total oesophagectomy volume in England and Wales. Only 5 of 32 units met or exceeded current guidelines on specimen preparation according to the Royal College of Pathologists guidelines. There was wide variation in how centres defined positive (R1) margins, and how margins and lymph nodes were assessed. Centres with the highest nodal yield were more likely to use systematic fat blocking, and to re-examine specimens when the initial load was low. Systematic blocking of lesser curve fat resulted in significantly higher rates of patients with at least 15 lymph nodes examined (91.4 versus 86.5 per cent; P = 0.027). Conclusion Preparation and histopathological assessment of specimens varies significantly across institutions. This challenges the validity of currently used surgical quality metrics for oesophageal and other tumours.

Background Risk assessment is relevant to predict postoperative outcomes in patients with gastro‐oesophageal cancer. This cohort study aimed to assess body composition changes during neoadjuvant chemotherapy and investigate their association with postoperative complications. Methods Consecutive patients with gastro‐oesophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery with curative intent between 2016 and 2019 were identified from a specific database and included in the study. CT images before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were used to assess the skeletal muscle index, sarcopenia, and subcutaneous and visceral fat index. Results In a cohort of 199 patients, the mean skeletal muscle index decreased during neoadjuvant therapy (from 51·187 to 49·19 cm2/m2; P, Deconditioning during neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a possible parameter for predicting operative outcomes. This retrospective cohort study aimed to assess body composition changes in patients with gastro‐oesophageal cancer during neoadjuvant therapy and investigate their association with postoperative complications. Skeletal muscle index values decrease during neoadjuvant therapy, but this change is not associated with postoperative complications. Does not predict risk of complications

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a format for multidisciplinary care and has been shown to predictably improve short term outcomes associated with surgical procedures. Esophagectomy has historically been associated with significant levels of morbidity and mortality and as a result routine application and audit of ERAS guidelines specifically designed for esophageal resection has significant potential to improve outcomes associated with this complex procedure. A team of international experts in the surgical management of esophageal cancer was assembled and the existing literature was identified and reviewed prior to the production of the guidelines. Well established procedure specific components of ERAS were reviewed and updated with changes relevant to esophagectomy. Procedure specific, operative and technical sections were produced utilizing the best current level of evidence. All sections were rated regarding the level of evidence and overall recommendation according to the evaluation (GRADE) system. Thirty-nine sections were ultimately produced and assessed for quality of evidence and recommendations. Some sections were completely new to ERAS programs due to the fact that esophagectomy is the first guideline with a thoracic component to the procedure. The current ERAS society guidelines should be reviewed and applied in all centers looking to improve outcomes and quality associated with esophageal resection.

Aim Long-term functional outcomes and the associations to health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after esophagectomy is largely unknown. LASER is a multi-center European study aimed to identify the most prevalent symptoms, and those with the greatest impact upon HRQOL among patients surviving more than one-year after esophagectomy for cancer, and to develop a clinically relevant symptom-based tool to measure HRQOL. Background & Methods Between 2010 and 2016, patients from 20 European Centers who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, and were disease-free at least one year postoperatively were invited to complete the LASER questionnaire, EORTC-QLQ30 and OG25. Specific symptom questionnaire items that were associated with a poor HRQOL as identified by EORTC-QLQC30 and OG25 were identified by multivariable linear and logistic regression analysis and combined to form a tool, which was tested using receiver operating characteristics curve analysis. Results A total of 876 of 1081 invited patients responded to the questionnaire, giving a response rate of 81%. Of these, 66.9% stated in the last 6 months they had had symptoms associated with their esophagectomy and 52.4% of patients had sought medical treatment for their symptoms. Ongoing weight loss was reported by 10.4% of patients while 32.4% were struggling to maintain their body weight, and 18.8% of patients required supplemental oral nutrition. Only 13.8% of patients had returned to work with the same activities as before. Three LASER symptoms in multivariate analysis were correlated with poor HRQOL; pain on scars on chest (Odds ratio (OR) 1.27; 95% CI 0.97-1.65), low mood (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.15-1.77) and reduced energy or activity tolerance (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.18-1.59). The areas under the curves for the development and validation datasets were 0.81±0.02 and 0.82±0.09 respectively. Conclusions Two-thirds of patients experience symptoms related to their esophagectomy more than one year after surgery. The three key symptoms associated with poor HRQOL identified in this study should be further validated, and could be used in clinical practice to identify patients who require increased long-term term support.

Background and aims: Radical endoscopic excision of Barrett’s epithelium performing 4 – 6 endoscopic resections during the same endoscopic session results in complete Barrett’s eradication but has a high stricture rate (40 – 80 %). Therefore radiofrequency ablation is preferred after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of visible nodules. We investigated the clinical outcome of non-radical, stepwise endoscopic mucosal resection with a maximum of two endoscopic resections per endoscopic session. Methods: We analysed our prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing esophageal EMR for early neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus from 2009 to 2014. EMR was performed using a maximum of two band ligation mucosectomies per endoscopic session; thereafter, follow-up was 3-monthly and EMR was repeated as required for Barrett’s eradication. Results: In total, 118 patients underwent staging EMR for early Barrett’s neoplasia. Subsequently, 27 patients underwent surgery/chemotherapy due to deep submucosal or more advanced tumor stages or were managed conservatively. The remaining 91 patients with high grade dysplasia (48), intramucosal (38) or submucosal cancer (5) in the resected nodule underwent further endoscopic therapy with a mean follow-up of 24 months. Remission of dysplasia/neoplasia was achieved in 95.6 % after 12 months treatment. Stepwise endoscopic Barrett’s resection resulted in complete Barrett’s eradication in 36/91 patients (39.6 %) in a mean of four sessions; 40/91 patients (44.0 %) had a short circumferential Barrett’s segment (

OBJECTIVE: Utilizing a standardized dataset with specific definitions to prospectively collect international data to provide a benchmark for complications and outcomes associated with esophagectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Outcome reporting in oncologic surgery has suffered from the lack of a standardized system for reporting operative results particularly complications. This is particularly the case for esophagectomy affecting the accuracy and relevance of international outcome assessments, clinical trial results, and quality improvement projects. METHODS: The Esophageal Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) involving 24 high-volume esophageal surgical centers in 14 countries developed a standardized platform for recording complications and quality measures associated with esophagectomy. Using a secure online database (ESODATA.org), ECCG centers prospectively recorded data on all resections according to the ECCG platform from these centers over a 2-year period. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and December 2016, 2704 resections were entered into the database. All demographic and follow-up data fields were 100% complete. The majority of operations were for cancer (95.6%) and typically located in the distal esophagus (56.2%). Some 1192 patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (46.1%) and 763 neoadjuvant chemotherapy (29.5%). Surgical approach involved open procedures in 52.1% and minimally invasive operations in 47.9%. Chest anastomoses were done most commonly (60.7%) and R0 resections were accomplished in 93.4% of patients. The overall incidence of complications was 59% with the most common individual complications being pneumonia (14.6%) and atrial dysrhythmia (14.5%). Anastomotic leak, conduit necrosis, chyle leaks, recurrent nerve injury occurred in 11.4%, 1.3%, 4.7%, and 4.2% of cases, respectively. Clavien-Dindo complications ≥ IIIb occurred in 17.2% of patients. Readmissions occurred in 11.2% of cases and 30- and 90-day mortality was 2.4% and 4.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Standardized methods provide contemporary international benchmarks for reporting outcomes after esophagectomy.

The objectives of this national study were to examine the short-term safety and long-term survival benefit associated with surgical resection of hepatic metastases from gastric cancer. Patients from the Hospital Episode Statistics database were classified by disease and treatment approach. Gastric cancer: 1. Without liver metastases treated by gastrectomy (GG). 2. With liver metastases treated by gastrectomy and hepatectomy (GGH). 3. With liver metastases treated by gastrectomy without hepatectomy (GGNH). 4. With liver metastases treated with no surgery (GNS). Propensity score matching and multivariable analyses were used to compensate for differences in some baseline characteristics. During the study period, 87,482 were patients diagnosed with gastric cancer, of whom 13,841 underwent partial or total gastrectomy. Of those who underwent gastrectomy, 336 had a diagnosis of liver metastases and 78 of these had a hepatectomy. Propensity-matched analysis showed no significant differences in 30- or 90-day mortality between the GGH and GG groups. The GGH group had significantly improved 1-year mortality (35.9 % vs. 50.0 %, p = 0.049) and 5-year mortality (61.5 % vs. 75.7 %, p = 0.031) compared to the GGNH group, and compared to the GNS group, the GCH group had 1-year mortality (35.9 % vs. 84.6 %, p

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a format for multidisciplinary care and has been shown to predictably improve short term outcomes associated with surgical procedures. Esophagectomy has historically been associated with significant levels of morbidity and mortality and as a result routine application and audit of ERAS guidelines specifically designed for esophageal resection has significant potential to improve outcomes associated with this complex procedure.A team of international experts in the surgical management of esophageal cancer was assembled and the existing literature was identified and reviewed prior to the production of the guidelines. Well established procedure specific components of ERAS were reviewed and updated with changes relevant to esophagectomy. Procedure specific, operative and technical sections were produced utilizing the best current level of evidence. All sections were rated regarding the level of evidence and overall recommendation according to the evaluation (GRADE) system.Thirty-nine sections were ultimately produced and assessed for quality of evidence and recommendations. Some sections were completely new to ERAS programs due to the fact that esophagectomy is the first guideline with a thoracic component to the procedure.The current ERAS society guidelines should be reviewed and applied in all centers looking to improve outcomes and quality associated with esophageal resection.

Dysphagia in people with advanced oesophageal cancer can be treated by oesophageal stents, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and intraluminal brachytherapy. Despite guidelines recommending brachytherapy for patients with a predicted life expectancy exceeding 3 months, its uptake in the UK has been limited. Here we examine the strength of the evidence supporting the use of brachytherapy compared with oesophageal stents and EBRT and possible reasons for its limited uptake. Trials and observational studies suggest brachytherapy alone confers a benefit to patients, but its impact is less immediate than oesophageal stents; the evidence on effectiveness and value-for-money is limited. Moreover, stronger evidence will probably be insufficient to increase uptake, due to the extra complexity of delivery compared with stents and EBRT and a lack of experience among specialists.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal adenocarcinoma is the sixth most common cause of cancer death worldwide and Barrett's oesophagus is the biggest risk factor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of high-dose esomeprazole proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) and aspirin for improving outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus.METHODS: The Aspirin and Esomeprazole Chemoprevention in Barrett's metaplasia Trial had a 2 × 2 factorial design and was done at 84 centres in the UK and one in Canada. Patients with Barrett's oesophagus of 1 cm or more were randomised 1:1:1:1 using a computer-generated schedule held in a central trials unit to receive high-dose (40 mg twice-daily) or low-dose (20 mg once-daily) PPI, with or without aspirin (300 mg per day in the UK, 325 mg per day in Canada) for at least 8 years, in an unblinded manner. Reporting pathologists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary composite endpoint was time to all-cause mortality, oesophageal adenocarcinoma, or high-grade dysplasia, which was analysed with accelerated failure time modelling adjusted for minimisation factors (age, Barrett's oesophagus length, intestinal metaplasia) in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2004-003836-77.FINDINGS: Between March 10, 2005, and March 1, 2009, 2557 patients were recruited. 705 patients were assigned to low-dose PPI and no aspirin, 704 to high-dose PPI and no aspirin, 571 to low-dose PPI and aspirin, and 577 to high-dose PPI and aspirin. Median follow-up and treatment duration was 8·9 years (IQR 8·2-9·8), and we collected 20 095 follow-up years and 99·9% of planned data. 313 primary events occurred. High-dose PPI (139 events in 1270 patients) was superior to low-dose PPI (174 events in 1265 patients; time ratio [TR] 1·27, 95% CI 1·01-1·58, p=0·038). Aspirin (127 events in 1138 patients) was not significantly better than no aspirin (154 events in 1142 patients; TR 1·24, 0·98-1·57, p=0·068). If patients using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were censored at the time of first use, aspirin was significantly better than no aspirin (TR 1·29, 1·01-1·66, p=0·043; n=2236). Combining high-dose PPI with aspirin had the strongest effect compared with low-dose PPI without aspirin (TR 1·59, 1·14-2·23, p=0·0068). The numbers needed to treat were 34 for PPI and 43 for aspirin. Only 28 (1%) participants reported study-treatment-related serious adverse events.INTERPRETATION: High-dose PPI and aspirin chemoprevention therapy, especially in combination, significantly and safely improved outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus.FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, Wellcome Trust, and Health Technology Assessment.

Barrett’s esophagus is a precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma. In this common condition, squamous epithelium in the esophagus is replaced by columnar epithelium in response to acid reflux. Barrett’s esophagus is highly heterogeneous and its relationships to normal tissues are unclear. We investigated the cellular complexity of Barrett’s esophagus and the upper gastrointestinal tract using RNA-sequencing of 2895 single cells from multiple biopsies from four patients with Barrett’s esophagus and two patients without esophageal pathology. We found that uncharacterised cell populations in Barrett’s esophagus, marked byLEFTY1andOLFM4, exhibit a profound transcriptional overlap with a subset of esophageal cells, but not with gastric or duodenal cells. Additionally, SPINK4 and ITLN1 mark cells that precede morphologically identifiable goblet cells in colon and Barrett’s esophagus, potentially aiding the identification of metaplasia. Our findings reveal striking transcriptional relationships between normal tissue populations and cells in a premalignant condition, with implications for clinical practice.

Background Following CT, guidelines for staging oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) cancer recommend endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), PET–CT and laparoscopy for T3–T4 GOJ tumours. These recommendations are based on generic utilities, but it is unclear whether the test risk outweighs the potential benefit for some patients. This study sought to quantify investigation risks, benefits and utilities, in order to develop pragmatic, personalized staging recommendations. Methods All patients with a histological diagnosis of oesophageal or GOJ cancer staged between May 2006 and July 2013 comprised a development set; those staged from July 2013 to July 2014 formed the prospective validation set. Probability thresholds of altering management were calculated and predictive factors identified. Algorithms and models (decision tree analysis, logistic regression, artificial neural networks) were validated internally and independently. Results Some 953 patients were staged following CT, by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET–CT (918), EUS (798) and laparoscopy (458). Of these patients, 829 comprised the development set (800 PET–CT, 698 EUS, 397 laparoscopy) and 124 the validation set (118 PET–CT, 100 EUS, 61 laparoscopy). EUS utility in the 71·8 per cent of patients with T2–T4a disease on CT was minimal (0·4 per cent), its risk exceeding benefit. EUS was moderately accurate for pT1 N0 disease. A number of factors predicted metastases on PET–CT and laparoscopy, although none could inform an algorithm. PET–CT altered management in 23·0 per cent, and laparoscopy in 7·1 per cent, including those with T2 and distal oesophageal tumours. Conclusion Although EUS provided additional information on T and N category, its risk outweighed potential benefit in patients with T2–T4a disease on CT. Laparoscopy seemed justified for distal oesophageal tumours of T2 or greater.