Search

Background Use of enhanced recovery after surgery(ERAS) protocol in the patients after esophagectomy is reported to be feasible and safe in recent studies. And in Prof. Yin Li's research, patients after minimally invasive esophagectomy(MIE) with Li's anastomosis took oral feeding on the 1st day after operation (POD1). However, all the esophagectomy-procedures were proceeded by experienced experts. There was no report regarding whether ERAS protocol after MIE with Li's anastomosis could be safely proceeded by a young surgeon after training course. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of 'Non-Tube No Fasting' ERAS Protocol in patients after MIE with Li's Anastomosis proceeded by a surgeon after the training course. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who underwent MIE for cancer from December 2015 to September 2017 by a new surgical team finished MIE training course in our department. During the study period, the new team performed Mckeown MIE with Li's anastomosis for 127 esophageal cancer patients. We analyzed the data of 113 patients who followed the protocol of 'Non-tube No Fasting' ERAS. The primary end-points were the incidence of anastomotic fistula, the injury of recurrent laryngeal nerve, pneumonia, and postoperative length of hospital-stay. Results All the 113 patients began oral feeding on POD1. Two patients exited the ERAS protocol on account of bucking caused by recurrent laryngeal nerve injury on POD3. The incidence of anastomotic fistula, recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and pneumonia were 3.5% (4/113), 12.4%(14/113) and 18.5%(21/113). The average length of postoperative hospital-stay was 8.6 ± 6.9 days. Both of the in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality were 0. Conclusion Our date indicated that it was feasible and safe for a selected surgeon after 'Non-tube no fasting' ERAS and MIE training courses to proceed the protocol. Of course, more clinical researches are needed to confirm this result. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed to compare the feasibility of nab‐paclitaxel plus platinum‐based chemotherapy (nabTP) versus paclitaxel plus platinum‐based chemotherapy (TP) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as a neoadjuvant modality for locally resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Methods: Between April 2019 and March 2022, we identified ESCC patients who received neoadjuvant immunotherapy with both nabTP (n = 213) and TP (n = 98) at our institution and Henan Cancer Hospital. The patients in the ICIs‐nabTP and ICIs‐TP groups were pair‐matched (1:1) for tumor location, sex, smoking, drinking, clinical T and N stage. The primary endpoint was the hazard of 30‐day major postoperative complications. Second, logistic models were applied to estimate the risk factors for pathological complete response (pCR) rate. Results: All patients underwent esophagectomy with R0 resection. A statistically significant increase in the risk of developing major pulmonary (odds ratio [OR], 1.182; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.530–2.635; p = 0.683), anastomotic (OR, 1.881; 95% CI: 0.607–5.830; p = 0.267), cardiac (OR, 1.000; 95% CI: 0.426–2.349; p = 1.000) complications after neoadjuvant immunotherapy plus nabTP was not observed. The median interval to surgery was 39 days in the ICIs‐nabTP group versus 44 days in the ICIs‐TP group (p = 0.119). There was no 30‐day mortality in each group. However, there was a slight difference in the 30‐day readmission rate (p = 0.043) and the incidence of hydropneumothorax (p = 0.027) between the two groups. The pCR rates of the ICIs‐nabTP and ICIs‐TP group were 36.7 and 21.4%, respectively (p = 0.018). Conclusions: It appears to be feasible to add immunotherapy to nabTP regimen for locally advanced ESCC. Compared with TP, nabTP plus ICIs can achieve a better pCR rate in ESCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This retrospective study aimed to explore risk factors for liver metastases (LiM) in patients with esophageal cancer (EC) and to identify prognostic factors in patients initially diagnosed with LiM. Methods: A total of 28 654 EC patients were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database from 2010 to 2018. A multivariate logistic regression model was utilized to identify risk factors for LiM. A Cox regression model was used to identify prognostic factors for patients with LiM. Results: Of 28 654 EC patients, 4062 (14.2%) had LiM at diagnosis. The median overall survival (OS) for patients with and without LiM was 6.00 (95% CI: 5.70–6.30) months and 15.00 (95% CI: 14.64–15.36) months, respectively. Variables significantly associated with LiM included gender, age, tumor site, histology, tumor grade, tumor size, clinical T stage, clinical N stage, bone metastases (BoM), brain metastases (BrM) and lung metastases (LuM). Variables independently predicting survival for EC patients with LiM were age, histology, tumor grade, BoM, BrM, LuM, and chemotherapy. A risk prediction model and two survival prediction models were then constructed revealing satisfactory predictive accuracy. Conclusions: Based on the largest known cohort of EC, independent predictors of LiM and prognostic indicators of survival for patients with LiM were identified. Two models for predicting survival as well as a risk prediction model were developed with robust predictive accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]