Search

Background: Intrathoracic (vs cervical) anastomosis and a thoracotomy (vs absence) have previously been associated with increasing postoperative mortality (POM). Recent improvements in surgical practices and perioperative management may have changed these dogmas. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of performing intrathoracic anastomosis and/or thoracotomy on POM after esophageal cancer surgery in recent years. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent esophageal cancer surgery with reconstruction between 2010 and 2012 in France were included (n = 3286). Patients with a thoracoscopic approach were excluded (n = 4). We compared 30-day POM between patients having received intrathoracic (vs cervical) anastomosis and between those having received a thoracotomy or not. Multivariate analyses and propensity score matching were used to adjust for confounding factors. Results: Patients had either cervical (n = 548) or intrathoracic (n = 2738) anastomosis. Thirty-day POM was higher after cervical anastomosis (8.8% vs 4.9%, P < 0.001). Having received a thoracotomy (n = 3061) was associated with a decreased risk of 30-day POM (5.3% vs 9.3%, P = 0.011). After adjustment for confounding factors, cervical anastomosis was associated with 30-day POM [odds ratio (OR) 1.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-2.77); P = 0.032], whereas performing a thoracotomy was not associated with 30- day POM (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.51-1.84; P = 0.926). Conclusions: Nowadays, intrathoracic anastomosis provides a lower 30-day POM rate compared to cervical anastomosis, and performing a thoracotomy is not associated with POM. Systematic anastomosis neck placement or thoracotomy avoidance is not a relevant argument anymore to decrease POM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Based on current guidelines, clinical T3N0M0 esophageal tumors may or may not receive neoadjuvant treatment, according to their perception as locally advanced (cT3) or early-stage tumors (stage II). The study aim was to assess the impact of neoadjuvant treatment upon survival for cT3N0M0 esophageal cancer patients, with subgroup analyses by histological type (squamous cell carcinoma vs adenocarcinoma) and type of neoadjuvant treatment (chemotherapy vs radiochemotherapy). Methods: Data from patients operated on for esophageal cancer in 30 European centers were collected. Among the 382 of 2944 patients withclinical T3N0M0 stage at initial diagnosis (13.0%), we compared those treated with primary surgery (S, n = 193) versus with neoadjuvant treatment plus surgery (NS, n = 189). Results: The S and NS groups were similar regarding their demographic and surgical characteristics. In-hospital postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were comparable between groups. Patients were found to be pNþ in 64.2% versus 42.9% in the S and NS groups respectively (P < 0.001), pN2/N3 in 35.2% versus 21.2% (P < 0.001), stage 0 in 0% versus 16.4% (P < 0.001), and R0 in 81.3% versus 89.4% of cases (P = 0.026). Median overall and disease-free survivals were significantly better in the NS group, 38.4 versus 27.9 months (P = 0.007) and 31.6 versus 27.5 months (P = 0.040), respectively, and this difference remained for both histological types. Radiotherapy did not offer a benefit compared with chemotherapy alone (P = 0.687). In multivariable analysis, neoadjuvant treatment was an independent favorable prognostic factor (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-0.99, P = 0.044). Conclusion: Neoadjuvant treatment offers a significant survival benefit for clinical T3N0M0 esophageal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate complete tumor resection rate (primary objective), 30-day postoperative outcomes, and survival (secondary objectives) in patients with a hiatal hernia (HH) ≥5 cm (HH group) compared with those who did not have a HH or presented with a HH <5 cm (control group). Background: HH is a risk factor for esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma (EGJA). Its impact on the outcomes after EGJA surgery is unknown. Methods: Among 367 patients who underwent surgery for EGJA, a HH was searched for on computerized tomography scan and barium swallow, with comparison between the HH (n = 42) and control (n = 325) groups. Results: In the HH group, EGJAs exhibited higher rates of incomplete resection (50.0% vs 4.0%; P < 0.001), of pN3 stages (28.5% vs 10.1%; P = 0.002), and lower median survival (20.9 vs 41.0 mos; P = 0.001). After adjustment, a HH ≥5 cm was a predictor of incomplete resection (odds ratio 21.0, 95% confidence interval 9.4-46.8, P < 0.001) and a poor prognostic factor (hazard ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.1-2.5, P = 0.025). In the HH group, 30-day mortality was significantly higher in patients who received neoadjuvant radiotherapy (20.0% vs 0%; P = 0.040), which was related to greater cardiac and pulmonary toxicity. Conclusions: For the first time, we showed that a HH ≥5 cm is associated with a poor prognosis in patients who had surgery for EGJA, linked to greater incomplete resection and lymph node involvement. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was associated with a significant toxicity in patients with a HH ≥5 cm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the impact of center volume on postoperative mortality (POM) according to patient condition. Background: Centralization has been shown to improve POM in esophageal and, to a lesser extent, gastric cancer surgery; however, the benefit of centralization for patients with low operative risk is questionable. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent esophageal or gastric cancer surgery between 2010 and 2012 in France were included (N = 11,196). The 30-day POM was compared in terms of the center volume (low: <20 cases per year, intermediate: 20-39, high: 40-59, and very high: ≥60) and stratified according to the Charlson score (0, 1-2, ≥3). The consistency across the esophageal (n = 3286) and gastric (n = 7910) subgroups, and variations between 30-day and 90-day POM were analyzed. Results: Low-volume centers treated 64.2% of patients. A linear decrease in 30-day and 90-day POM was observed with increasing center volume, with rates of 5.7% and 10.2%, 4.3% and 7.9%, 3.3% and 6.7%, and 1.7% and 3.6% in low, intermediate, high, and very high-volume centers, respectively (P < 0.001). Comparing low and very high-volume centers, 30-day POM was 4.0% versus 1.1% for Charlson 0 (P = 0.001), 7.5% versus 3.4% for Charlson 1 to 2 (P < 0.001), and 14.7% versus 3.7% for Charlson ≥3 (P = 0.003) patients. A similar linear decrease was observed in the esophageal and gastric cancer subgroups. Between the low and very high-volume centers, an almost 70% reduction in the relative risk of POM was systematically observed, independent of Charlson score or tumor location. Conclusions: To improve POM, esophageal and gastric cancer surgery should be centralized, irrespective of the patient's comorbidity or tumor location. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe the management of pathogenic CDH1 variant carriers (pCDH1vc) within the FREGAT (FRench Eso-GAsTric tumor) network. Primary objective focused on clinical outcomes and pathological findings, Secondary objective was to identify risk factor predicting postoperative morbidity (POM)., Background: Prophylactic total gastrectomy (PTG) remains the recommended option for gastric cancer risk management in pCDH1vc with, however, endoscopic surveillance as an alternative., Methods: A retrospective observational multicenter study was carried out between 2003 and 2021. Data were reported as median (interquartile range) or as counts (proportion). Usual tests were used for univariate analysis. Risk factors of overall and severe POM (ie, Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or more) were identified with a binary logistic regression., Results: A total of 99 patients including 14 index cases were reported from 11 centers. Median survival among index cases was 12.0 (7.6-16.4) months with most of them having peritoneal carcinomatosis at diagnosis (71.4%). Among the remaining 85 patients, 77 underwent a PTG [median age=34.6 (23.7-46.2), American Society of Anesthesiologists score 1: 75%] mostly via a minimally invasive approach (51.9%). POM rate was 37.7% including 20.8% of severe POM, with age 40 years and above and low-volume centers as predictors ( P =0.030 and 0.038). After PTG, the cancer rate on specimen was 54.5% (n=42, all pT1a) of which 59.5% had no cancer detected on preoperative endoscopy (n=25)., Conclusions: Among pCDH1vc, index cases carry a dismal prognosis. The risk of cancer among patients undergoing PTG remained high and unpredictable and has to be balanced with the morbidity and functional consequence of PTG., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an increasingly recognized childhood disease. Esophageal atresia (EA) is the most frequent congenital malformation of the esophagus. Recently, cases of EoE occurring in patients with EA have been reported, although the exact prevalence of EoE in EA remains unknown. The aim is to investigate the prevalence of EoE among EA in adolescents and to describe these patients' characteristics., Methods: Systematic upper gastrointestinal endoscopies with multistage esophageal biopsies were prospectively performed in 63 adolescents with EA. A standardized form was used to collect clinical and endoscopic data. Diagnosis of EoE was made as ≥15 intraepithelial eosinophils/high power field, whatever the response on proton pump inhibitors therapy., Results: Six patients (9.5%) presented an EoE (17-100 eosinophils/high power field). An atopic condition was reported more frequently in the eosinophil ≥15 group than in patients with no EoE (66% vs 16%; P = 0.014). Except for chest pain, symptoms and endoscopic features were similar in patients with EoE and patients with no EoE., Conclusion: In our series of 63 patients born with EA, mainly distal tracheoesophageal fistula, the prevalence of EoE is increased, and therefore should be considered in adolescents with EA.

Objective: To evaluate complete tumor resection rate (primary objective), 30-day postoperative outcomes, and survival (secondary objectives) in patients with a hiatal hernia (HH) ≥5 cm (HH group) compared with those who did not have a HH or presented with a HH <5 cm (control group)., Background: HH is a risk factor for esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma (EGJA). Its impact on the outcomes after EGJA surgery is unknown., Methods: Among 367 patients who underwent surgery for EGJA, a HH was searched for on computerized tomography scan and barium swallow, with comparison between the HH (n = 42) and control (n = 325) groups., Results: In the HH group, EGJAs exhibited higher rates of incomplete resection (50.0% vs 4.0%; P < 0.001), of pN3 stages (28.5% vs 10.1%; P = 0.002), and lower median survival (20.9 vs 41.0 mos; P = 0.001). After adjustment, a HH ≥5 cm was a predictor of incomplete resection (odds ratio 21.0, 95% confidence interval 9.4-46.8, P < 0.001) and a poor prognostic factor (hazard ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.1-2.5, P = 0.025). In the HH group, 30-day mortality was significantly higher in patients who received neoadjuvant radiotherapy (20.0% vs 0%; P = 0.040), which was related to greater cardiac and pulmonary toxicity., Conclusions: For the first time, we showed that a HH ≥5 cm is associated with a poor prognosis in patients who had surgery for EGJA, linked to greater incomplete resection and lymph node involvement. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was associated with a significant toxicity in patients with a HH ≥5 cm.