Search

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS: In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS: A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). CONCLUSION: The OMEC project has resul

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Consensus about the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer across multidisciplinary tumour boards (MDTs) in Europe. MATERIAL AND METHODS: European expert centers (n = 49) were requested to discuss 15 real-life cases in their MDT with at least a medical, surgical, and radiation oncologist present. The cases varied in terms of location and number of metastases, histology, timing of detection (i.e. synchronous versus metachronous), primary tumour treatment status, and response to systemic therapy. The primary outcome was the agreement in the definition of oligometastatic disease at diagnosis and after systemic therapy. The secondary outcome was the agreement in treatment strategies. Treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease were categorised into upfront local treatment (i.e. metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy), systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment or systemic therapy alone. The agreement across MDTs was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%), or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS: A total of 47 MDTs across 16 countries fully discussed the cases (96%). Oligometastatic disease was considered in patients with 1-2 metastases in either the liver, lung, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, adrenal gland, soft tissue or bone (consensus). At follow-up, oligometastatic disease was considered after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy when no progression or progression in size only of the oligometastatic lesion(s) was seen (consensus). If at restaging after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy the number of lesions progressed, this was not considered as oligometastatic disease (fair agreement). There was no consensus on treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease. CONCLUSION: A broad consensus on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer was found among MDTs of oeso

Summary 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.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: In recent years, minimally invasive Ivor Lewis (IL) esophagectomy with high intrathoracic anastomosis has emerged as surgical standard of care for esophageal cancer in expert centers. Alongside this process, many divergent technical aspects of this procedure have been devised in different centers. This study aims at achieving international consensus on the surgical steps of IL reconstruction using Delphi methodology. METHODS: The expert panel consisted of specialized esophageal surgeons from 8 European countries. During a two-round Delphi process, a detailed analysis and consensus on key steps of intrathoracic gastric tube reconstruction (IL esophagectomy) was performed. RESULTS: Response rates in Delphi rounds 1 and 2 were 100% (22 of 22 experts) and 83.3% (20 of 24 experts), respectively. Three essential technical areas of intrathoracic gastric tube reconstruction were identified: first, vascularization of the gastric conduit, second, gastric mobilization, tube formation and pull-up, and third, anastomotic technique. In addition, 3 main techniques for minimally invasive intrathoracic anastomosis are currently practiced: (i) end-to-side circular stapled, (ii) end-to-side double stapling, and (iii) side-to-side linear stapled technique. The step-by-step procedural analysis unveiled common approaches but also different expert practice. CONCLUSION: This precise technical description may serve as a clinical guideline for intrathoracic reconstruction after esophagectomy. In addition, the results may aid to harmonize the technical evolution of this complex surgical procedure and thereby facilitate surgical training.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy is a technically challenging procedure, associated with significant morbidity. The introduction of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has reduced postoperative morbidity. OBJECTIVE: Although the short-term effect on complications is increasingly being recognized, the impact on long-term survival remains unclear. This study aims to investigate the association between postoperative complications following MIE and long-term survival. METHODS: Data were collected from the EsoBenchmark Collaborative composed by 13 high-volume, expert centers routinely performing MIE. Patients operated between June 1, 2011 and May 31, 2016 were included. Complications were graded using the Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification. To correct for short-term effects of postoperative complications on mortality, patients who died within 90 days postoperative were excluded. Primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 915 patients were included with a mean follow-up time of 30.8 months (standard deviation 17.9). Complications occurred in 542 patients (59.2%) of which 50.2% had a CD grade ≥III complication [ie, (re)intervention, organ dysfunction, or death]. The incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) was 135 of 915 patients (14.8%) of which 84 patients were classified as a CD grade ≥III. Multivariable analysis showed a significantly deteriorated long-term survival in all patients with AL [hazard ratio (HR) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.24]. This inverse relation was most distinct when AL was scored as a CD grade ≥III (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.30-2.58). For all other complications, no significant association with long-term survival was found. CONCLUSION: The occurrence and severity of AL, but not overall complications, after MIE negatively affect long-term survival of esophageal cancer patients.

There are no internationally recognized criteria available to determine preparedness for hospital discharge after esophagectomy. This study aims to achieve international consensus using Delphi methodology. The expert panel consisted of 40 esophageal surgeons spanning 16 countries and 4 continents. During a 3-round, web-based Delphi process, experts voted for discharge criteria using 5-point Likert scales. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Consensus was reached if agreement was >= 75% in round 3. Consensus was achieved for the following basic criteria: nutritional requirements are met by oral intake of at least liquids with optional supplementary nutrition via jejunal feeding tube. The patient should have passed flatus and does not require oxygen during mobilization or at rest. Central venous catheters should be removed. Adequate analgesia at rest and during mobilization is achieved using both oral opioid and non-opioid analgesics. All vital signs should be normal unless abnormal preoperatively. Inflammatory parameters should be trending down and close to normal (leucocyte count <= 12G/l and C-reactive protein <= 80 mg/dl). This multinational Delphi survey represents the first expert-led process for consensus criteria to determine 'fit-for-discharge' status after esophagectomy. Results of this Delphi survey may be applied to clinical outcomes research as an objective measure of short-term recovery. Furthermore, standardized endpoints identified through this process may be used in clinical practice to guide decisions regarding patient discharge and may help to reduce the risk of premature discharge or prolonged admission.

Purpose To define instructions for delineation of target volumes in the neoadjuvant setting in oesophageal cancer. Materials and methods Radiation oncologists of five European centres participated in the following consensus process: [1] revision of published (MEDLINE) and national/institutional delineation guidelines; [2] first delineation round of five cases (patient 1–5) according to national/institutional guidelines; [3] consensus meeting to discuss the results of step 1 and 2, followed by a target volume delineation proposal; [4] circulation of proposed instructions for target volume delineation and atlas for feedback; [5] second delineation round of five new cases (patient 6–10) to peer review and validate (two additional centres) the agreed delineation guidelines and atlas; [6] final consensus on the delineation guidelines depicted in an atlas. Target volumes of the delineation rounds were compared between centres by Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and maximum/mean undirected Hausdorff distances (Hmax/Hmean). Results In the first delineation round, the consistency between centres was moderate (CTVtotal: DSC = 0.59–0.88; Hmean = 0.2–0.4 cm). Delineations in the second round were much more consistent. Lowest variability was obtained between centres participating in the consensus meeting (CTVtotal: DSC: p < 0.050 between rounds for patients 6/7/8/10; Hmean: p < 0.050 for patients 7/8/10), compared to validation centres (CTVtotal: DSC: p < 0.050 between validation and consensus meeting centres for patients 6/7/8; Hmean: p < 0.050 for patients 7/10). A proposal for delineation of target volumes and an atlas were generated. Conclusion We proposed instructions for target volume delineation and an atlas for the neoadjuvant radiation treatment in oesophageal cancer. These will enable a more uniform delineation of patients in clinical practice and clinical trials.

Contains fulltext : 225948.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) after esophagectomy for cancer is associated with adverse outcomes and troubling symptoms. Widely accepted diagnostic criteria and a symptom grading tool for DGCE are missing. This hampers the interpretation and comparison of studies. A modified Delphi process, using repeated web-based questionnaires, combined with live interim group discussions was conducted by 33 experts within the field, from Europe, North America, and Asia. DGCE was divided into early DGCE if present within 14 days of surgery and late if present later than 14 days after surgery. The final criteria for early DGCE, accepted by 25 of 27 (93%) experts, were as follows: >500 mL diurnal nasogastric tube output measured on the morning of postoperative day 5 or later or >100% increased gastric tube width on frontal chest x-ray projection together with the presence of an air-fluid level. The final criteria for late DGCE accepted by 89% of the experts were as follows: the patient should have 'quite a bit' or 'very much' of at least two of the following symptoms; early satiety/fullness, vomiting, nausea, regurgitation or inability to meet caloric need by oral intake and delayed contrast passage on upper gastrointestinal water-soluble contrast radiogram or on timed barium swallow. A symptom grading tool for late DGCE was constructed grading each symptom as: 'not at all', 'a little', 'quite a bit', or 'very much', generating 0, 1, 2, or 3 points, respectively. For the five symptoms retained in the diagnostic criteria for late DGCE, the minimum score would be 0, and the maximum score would be 15. The final symptom grading tool for late DGCE was accepted by 27 of 31 (87%) experts. For the first time, diagnostic criteria for early and late DGCE and a symptom grading tool for late DGCE are available, based on an international expert consensus process.

Delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) after esophagectomy for cancer is associated with adverse outcomes and troubling symptoms. Widely accepted diagnostic criteria and a symptom grading tool for DGCE are missing. This hampers the interpretation and comparison of studies. A modified Delphi process, using repeated web-based questionnaires, combined with live interim group discussions was conducted by 33 experts within the field, from Europe, North America, and Asia. DGCE was divided into early DGCE if present within 14 days of surgery and late if present later than 14 days after surgery. The final criteria for early DGCE, accepted by 25 of 27 (93%) experts, were as follows: >500 mL diurnal nasogastric tube output measured on the morning of postoperative day 5 or later or >100% increased gastric tube width on frontal chest x-ray projection together with the presence of an air-fluid level. The final criteria for late DGCE accepted by 89% of the experts were as follows: the patient should have 'quite a bit' or 'very much' of at least two of the following symptoms; early satiety/fullness, vomiting, nausea, regurgitation or inability to meet caloric need by oral intake and delayed contrast passage on upper gastrointestinal water-soluble contrast radiogram or on timed barium swallow. A symptom grading tool for late DGCE was constructed grading each symptom as: 'not at all', 'a little', 'quite a bit', or 'very much', generating 0, 1, 2, or 3 points, respectively. For the five symptoms retained in the diagnostic criteria for late DGCE, the minimum score would be 0, and the maximum score would be 15. The final symptom grading tool for late DGCE was accepted by 27 of 31 (87%) experts. For the first time, diagnostic criteria for early and late DGCE and a symptom grading tool for late DGCE are available, based on an international expert consensus process.

Delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) after esophagectomy for cancer is associated with adverse outcomes and troubling symptoms. Widely accepted diagnostic criteria and a symptom grading tool for DGCE are missing. This hampers the interpretation and comparison of studies. A modified Delphi process, using repeated webbased questionnaires, combined with live interim group discussions was conducted by 33 experts within the field, from Europe, North America, and Asia. DGCE was divided into early DGCE if present within 14 days of surgery and late if present later than 14 days after surgery. The final criteria for early DGCE, accepted by 25 of 27 (93%) experts, were as follows: >500 mL diurnal nasogastric tube output measured on the morning of postoperative day 5 or later or >100% increased gastric tube width on frontal chest x-ray projection together with the presence of an air-fluid level. The final criteria for late DGCE accepted by 89% of the experts were as follows: the patient should have 'quite a bit' or 'very much' of at least two of the following symptoms; early satiety/fullness, vomiting, nausea, regurgitation or inability to meet caloric need by oral intake and delayed contrast passage on upper gastrointestinal water-soluble contrast radiogram or on timed barium swallow. A symptom grading tool for late DGCE was constructed grading each symptom as: 'not at all', 'a little', 'quite a bit', or 'very much', generating 0, 1, 2, or 3 points, respectively. For the five symptoms retained in the diagnostic criteria for late DGCE, the minimum score would be 0, and the maximum score would be 15. The final symptom grading tool for late DGCE was accepted by 27 of 31 (87%) experts. For the first time, diagnostic criteria for early and late DGCE and a symptom grading tool for late DGCE are available, based on an international expert consensus process.

Contains fulltext : 215779.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: An important parameter for survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma is lymph node status. The distribution of lymph node metastases depends on tumor characteristics such as tumor location, histology, invasion depth, and on neoadjuvant treatment. The exact distribution is unknown. Neoadjuvant treatment and surgical strategy depends on the distribution pattern of nodal metastases but consensus on the extent of lymphadenectomy has not been reached. The aim of this study is to determine the distribution of lymph node metastases in patients with resectable esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction carcinoma in whom a transthoracic esophagectomy with a 2- or 3-field lymphadenectomy is performed. This can be the foundation for a uniform worldwide staging system and establishment of the optimal surgical strategy for esophageal cancer patients. METHODS: The TIGER study is an international observational cohort study with 50 participating centers. Patients with a resectable esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction carcinoma in whom a transthoracic esophagectomy with a 2- or 3-field lymphadenectomy is performed in participating centers will be included. All lymph node stations will be excised and separately individually analyzed by pathological examination. The aim is to include 5000 patients. The primary endpoint is the distribution of lymph node metastases in esophageal and esophago-gastric junction carcinoma specimens following transthoracic esophagectomy with at least 2-field lymphadenectomy in relation to tumor histology, tumor location, invasion depth, number of lymph nodes and lymph node metastases, pre-operative diagnostics, neo-adjuvant therapy and (disease free) survival. DISCUSSION: The TIGER study will provide a roadmap of the location of lymph node metastases in relation to tumor histology, tumor location, invasion depth, number of lymph nodes and lymph node metastases, pre-operative diagnostics, neo-adjuvant therapy and survival. Patient-tailored

Background: An important parameter for survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma is lymph node status. The distribution of lymph node metastases depends on tumor characteristics such as tumor location, histology, invasion depth, and on neoadjuvant treatment. The exact distribution is unknown. Neoadjuvant treatment and surgical strategy depends on the distribution pattern of nodal m

Contains fulltext : 194570.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Up to 40 per cent of patients undergoing oesophagectomy develop pneumonia. The aim of this study was to assess whether preoperative inspiratory muscle training (IMT) reduces the rate of pneumonia after oesophagectomy. METHODS: Patients with oesophageal cancer were randomized to a home-based IMT programme before surgery or usual care. IMT included the use of a flow-resistive inspiratory loading device, and patients were instructed to train twice a day at high intensity (more than 60 per cent of maximum inspiratory muscle strength) for 2 weeks or longer until surgery. The primary outcome was postoperative pneumonia; secondary outcomes were inspiratory muscle function, lung function, postoperative complications, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay and physical functioning. RESULTS: Postoperative pneumonia was diagnosed in 47 (39.2 per cent) of 120 patients in the IMT group and in 43 (35.5 per cent) of 121 patients in the control group (relative risk 1.10, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 1.53; P = 0.561). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative outcomes between the groups. Mean(s.d.) maximal inspiratory muscle strength increased from 76.2(26.4) to 89.0(29.4) cmH2 O (P < 0.001) in the intervention group and from 74.0(30.2) to 80.0(30.1) cmH2 O in the control group (P < 0.001). Preoperative inspiratory muscle endurance increased from 4 min 14 s to 7 min 17 s in the intervention group (P < 0.001) and from 4 min 20 s to 5 min 5 s in the control group (P = 0.007). The increases were highest in the intervention group (P < 0.050). CONCLUSION: Despite an increase in preoperative inspiratory muscle function, home-based preoperative IMT did not lead to a decreased rate of pneumonia after oesophagectomy. Registration number: NCT01893008 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov).