Search

Evidence suggests that structured training programs for laparoscopic procedures can ensure a safe standard of skill acquisition prior to independent practice. Although minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIO) is technically demanding, no consensus on requirements for training for the MIO procedure exists. The aim of this study is to determine essential steps required for a structured training program in MIO using the Delphi consensus methodology. Eighteen MIO experts from 13 European hospitals were asked to participate in this study. The consensus process consisted of two structured meetings with the expert panel and two Delphi questionnaire rounds. A list of items required for training MIO were constructed for three key domains of MIO, including (1) requisite criteria for units wishing to be trained and (2) to proctor MIO and (3) a framework of a MIO training program. Items were rated by the experts on a scale 1-5, where 1 signified 'not important' and 5 represented 'very important.' Consensus for each domain was defined as achieving Cronbach alpha ⩾0.70. Items were considered as fundamental when ⩾75% of experts rated it important (4) or very important (5). Both Delphi rounds were completed by 16 (89%) of the 18 invited experts, with a median experience of 18 years with minimally invasive surgery. Consensus was achieved for all three key domains. Following two rounds of a 107-item questionnaire, 50 items were rated as essential for training MIO. A consensus among European MIO experts on essential items required for training MIO is presented. The identified items can serve as directive principles and core standards for creating a comprehensive training program for MIO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The accepted importance of a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (defined as R1 in the TNM classification) is based on histopathology of the resection specimen obtained after primary surgery in esophageal cancer patients. The aim of this study is to look for the prognostic value of CRM after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and to compare the clinical significance of a histologically CRM < 1 mm from the cut margin (Royal College of Pathologists definition of R1) to a positive cut margin (College of American Pathologists definition of R1) and to ≥1 mm margin (R0) resections in patients with ypT3-esophageal tumors after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Between 2000 and 2014, 458 patients who received esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy were selected. Overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were calculated by means of Kaplan-Meier curves and compared by Cox regression analysis. There were 163 (35.9%) patients who had a ypT3 tumor; in 118 (72.4%) resection was complete (R0). In 37 (22.7%) patients a CRM < 1 mm was found and 8 (4.9%) had a circumferential R1-resection. CRM involvement was inversely correlated with tumor regression grading, lymph node capsular involvement, and number of positive lymph nodes. On univariate analysis, no statistically significant difference was found between R0-resection and CRM < 1 mm (P = 0.103) for OS, but DFS showed a significant difference (P = 0.025). Circumferential R1-resections showed a significant difference compared to R0-resections for OS and DFS (both P = 0.002). In multivariate analysis, extracapsular lymph node involvement and circumferential R1-resection were withheld as independent prognosticators for OS, whereas extracapsular lymph node involvement, absence of regression on the primary tumor and circumferential R1-resection were withheld for DFS. After correcting for different variables in the multivariate model, CRM < 1 mm showed no statistical difference compared to R0-resections neither for OS nor for DFS. After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, CRM is correlated with biological behavior of the tumor and with therapy response. Furthermore it is an independent prognosticator for OS and DFS. HoweverCRM<1mm itself is no independent prognosticator for OS nor DFS survival in multivariable analysis. These results suggest that the definition of R1-resection should be limited to true invasion of the section plane. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recurrent disease after esophagectomy bears an infaust prognosis, especially when multiple recurrences are present. But little is known about survival in patients with limited recurrence (solitary locoregional recurrence or solid organ metastasis). Herein, we report our experience with these subgroups. We analyzed 1754 consecutive patients surgically treated with curative resection for esophageal cancer and cancer of the gastroesophageal junction between 1990 and 2012. Seven subgroups were defined according to the recurrence type (locoregional vs. organ metastasis), the site of recurrence (abdominal, thoracic, cervical for lymph nodes and lung, liver, adrenals and others for organ metastasis) and also the number of lesions (one vs. multiple lymph node stations or organ metastasis) Of these groups; clinical isolated locoregional recurrence (ciLR) was defined as solitary lymph-node recurrence confined to one compartment (cervical, thoracic or abdominal, within or outside surgical dissection-field) at clinical staging. Clinical solitary solid organ metastasis (csSOM) was defined as metastasis in a resectable solid organ, i.e. liver, lung, brain or adrenal. Salvage therapies were grouped in five categories. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to calculate survival. Recurrent disease was observed in 766 patients (43.7%) with overall 5-year survival of 4.5% after diagnosis of recurrence. Fifty-seven patients (7.4%) showed ciLR and 110 (14.4%) csSOM. Median timeto-recurrence was 16.8 months in ciLR and 9.9 months in csSOM (P=0.0074). Survival is significantly improved compared to supportive therapy when local therapy is possible (P<0.0001). In 25 (15%) of ciLR or csSOM patients, surgical therapy with or without systemic therapy, yielded a 5-year survival of 49.9% (median 54.8 months) after diagnosis of recurrence. When surgery was impossible or contraindicated, the combination of chemoradiotherapy appeared to be superior to chemotherapy alone (respectively 27.0% vs. 4.6% 5-year survival) or radiotherapy alone (no 5-year survival). Recurrent disease after esophagectomy is a common problem with poor overall survival. However prolonged survival could be obtained in selected patients if the recurrent disease is limited to ciLR or csSOM, if surgery (+/- systemic therapy) can be performed. If not a combination of chemoradiotherapy seems to offer the second best option. Patients presenting with a ciLR or csSOM should be discussed in a dedicated multidisciplinary team meeting as to evaluate and define the place of salvage treatment which in well selected cases could offer a perspective of prolonged survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]