Search

Background: Recurrence after resection of pancreatic cancer occurs in up to 80% of patients in the first 2 years after complete resection. While most patients are not eligible for surgical treatment due to disseminated disease, a certain group of patients can be evaluated for re-resection of local recurrence. This review summarizes the current literature on surgical treatment of recurrent pancreatic cancer and potential prognostic factors. Summary: Re-resection of recurrent pancreatic cancer provides a significant survival benefit to selected patients with acceptable procedure-related mortality. Median overall survival after re-resection of recurrent pancreatic cancer is up to 28 months. The most relevant clinical parameters associated with a prognostic benefit are young patient age (10 months), and preoperative chemotherapy before re-resection. Molecular markers are currently under investigation and might help to improve patient selection in the future. Key Message: Re-resection of recurrent pancreatic cancer is safe and feasible in experienced hands. Selected patients benefit from surgical treatment, but future studies are needed to identify reliable prognostic markers predicting survival.

Background Malnutrition is associated with poor survival in pancreatic cancer patients. Nutritional scores show great heterogeneity diagnosing malnutrition. The aim of this study was to find the score best suitable to identify patients with malnutrition related to worse survival after surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study represents a follow‐up study to the prospective NURIMAS Pancreas trial that evaluated short term impact of nutritional score results after surgery. Methods Risk of malnutrition was evaluated preoperatively using 12 nutritional assessment scores. Patients were followed‐up prospectively for at least 3 years. Patients at risk for malnutrition were compared with those not at risk according to each score using Kaplan–Meier survival statistics. Results A total of 116 patients receiving a PDAC resection in curative intent were included. Malnutrition according to the Subjective Global Assessment score (SGA), the Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ), and the INSYST2 score was associated with worse overall survival (SGA: at‐risk: 392 days; not at‐risk: 942 days; P = 0.001; SNAQ: at‐risk: 508 days; not at‐risk: 971 days; P = 0.027; INSYST2: at‐risk: 538 days; not at risk: 1068; P = 0.049). In the multivariate analysis, SGA (hazard ratio of death 2.16, 95% confidence interval 1.34–3.47, P = 0.002) was associated with worse overall survival. Conclusions Malnutrition as defined by the Subjective Global Assessment is independently associated with worse survival in resected PDAC patients. The SGA should be used to stratify PDAC patients in clinical studies. Severely malnourished patients according to the SGA profit from intensified nutritional therapy should be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

Background Gastric and esophageal cancers are malignant diseases with rising importance in Western countries. To improve oncologic outcome after surgery, it is essential to understand the relevance of germline mutations. The aim of the study was to identify and distinguish clinically relevant single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Patients and Methods In total, 190 patients with curative oncological resections of gastric and distal esophageal adenocarcinomas at Heidelberg University Hospital were eligible for this study. Outcome differences were determined for each SNP by analysis of clinical variables, survival, and mRNA expression levels. Results Significant survival differences were found on univariate analysis for usual prognostic variables (such as pTNM) and for six SNPs. On multivariate survival analysis, the SNPs rs12268840 (intron variant of MGMT, p = 0.045) and rs9972882 (intron variant of STARD3 and eQTL of PGAP3, p = 0.030) were independent and significant survival predictors along with R status and pT/pN category. Group TT of rs12268840 had the highest rate of second primary carcinoma (30.4%, p = 0.0003), lowest expression of MGMT based on cis-eQTL analysis in normal gastroesophageal tissue (p = 1.99 × 10−17), and worst oncologic outcome. Group AA of rs9972882 had the highest rate of distant metastases pM1 (42.9%, p = 0.0117), highest expression of PGAP3 (p = 1.29 × 10−15), and worst oncologic outcome. Conclusions Two intron variant SNPs of MGMT and STARD3 were identified that were significant survival predictors and may influence tumor biology. The data indicate that DNA methylation (MGMT) and malfunction of GPI anchoring (PGAP3) are distinct mechanisms that are relevant for tumor progression and relapse.

Background Gastric cancer is one of the most frequent malignancies worldwide. Angiogenic growth factors play a crucial role in mediating the crosstalk between cancer cells and the surrounding microenvironment. In this exploratory study, we investigate the impact of angiogenic proteins within the tumor cell or stroma compartment on survival of patients with gastric cancer. Materials and methods In 29 patients, tumor and stromal compartments were separated using laser capture microdissection. Angiogenic protein expression was measured using a bead-based immunoassay and correlated with tumor stage and overall survival. Results Overall survival was significantly shorter in patients with a high stroma concentration of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A (23.5 (±17.6) versus 33.6 (±21.0) mo; P = 0.009) and stem cell factor (22.2 (±18.5) versus 33.6 (±21.8) mo; P = 0.01) compared with patients with a low stroma concentration. High stromal VEGF-D showed a trend toward worse survival (26.8 (±22.0) versus 37.2 (±19.0) mo; P = 0.09). We did not observe any significant correlation between tumor-specific expression of angiogenic cytokines and survival. Conclusions This translational study highlights the difference in clinical impact between tumor and stromal expression of angiogenic proteins. Compartment-specific concentrations of VEGF-A and stem cell factor affect the clinical prognosis and help to identify the best therapy for patients with gastric cancer.

Background Based on two benchmark studies perioperative chemotherapy (CTx) has become standard treatment for locally advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (EGA) in Europe. However, only half of the patients in both studies actually received postoperative CTx (aCTx). Thus, we evaluated the prognostic impact of preoperative CTx (nCTx) and aCTx combined versus nCTx alone. Furthermore, we aimed to identify subgroups potentially beneficial of aCTx and factors associated with its non-administration. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 299 consecutive patients with EGA, who underwent complete resection (all M0, R0) after nCTx in our institution and were eligible for aCTx. Patients with and without aCTx were compared regarding clinicopathological data, treatment, morbidity, and long-term prognosis. Results 129 patients (43.1%) did not receive aCTx. Administration of aCTx did not significantly improve overall (OS) and recurrence free survival (RFS) (median OS: 78.2 months vs. not reached, p = 0.331; RFS: 43.3 vs. 41.1 months, p = 0.118), but was an independent positive predictor of RFS (HR 1.6 95%CI 1.1–2.5, p = 0.024). aCTx improved RFS in non-intestinal tumors (p = 0.023) and patients receiving FLOT regimen (p = 0.038). By logistic regression analysis factors predictive of non-administration of aCTx were older age (>65 years: OR 3.2, p = 0.028), longer hospital stay (15–28 days: OR 2.6, p = 0.001; >28 days: OR 5.2, p Conclusion Advanced age, histopathologic non-response, and prolonged convalescence due to postoperative morbidity lead to omission of aCTx. However, this study could not provide evidence to support the beneficial role of aCTx in perioperative chemotherapy regimens for a selected patient collective with EGA and excellent prognosis.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) for oesophageal cancer may reduce surgical complications compared with open oesophagectomy. MIO is, however, technically challenging and may impair optimal oncological resection. The aim of the present study was to assess if MIO for cancer is beneficial.A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL was performed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIO with open oesophagectomy were included in a meta-analysis. Survival was analysed using individual patient data. Random-effects model was used for pooled estimates of perioperative effects.Among 3219 articles, six RCTs were identified including 822 patients. Three-year overall survival (56 (95 per cent c.i. 49 to 62) per cent for MIO versus 52 (95 per cent c.i. 44 to 60) per cent for open; P = 0.54) and disease-free survival (54 (95 per cent c.i. 47 to 61) per cent versus 50 (95 per cent c.i. 42 to 58) per cent; P = 0.38) were comparable. Overall complication rate was lower for MIO (odds ratio 0.33 (95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.53); P 0.010) mainly due to fewer pulmonary complications (OR 0.44 (95 per cent c.i. 0.27 to 0.72); P 0.010), including pneumonia (OR 0.41 (95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.77); P 0.010).MIO for cancer is associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications compared with open resection. Overall and disease-free survival are comparable for the two techniques.Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.

IntroductionThe only curative treatment for most gastric cancer is radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (LAD). Minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MIG) aims to reduce postoperative morbidity, but its use has not yet been widely established in Western countries. Minimally invasivE versus open total GAstrectomy is the first Western multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare postoperative morbidity following MIG vs open total gastrectomy (OG).Methods and analysisThis superiority multicentre RCT compares MIG (intervention) to OG (control) for oncological total gastrectomy with D2 or D2+LAD. Recruitment is expected to last for 2 years. Inclusion criteria comprise age between 18 and 84 years and planned total gastrectomy after initial diagnosis of gastric carcinoma. Exclusion criteria include Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status >2, tumours requiring extended gastrectomy or less than total gastrectomy, previous abdominal surgery or extensive adhesions seriously complicating MIG, other active oncological disease, advanced stages (T4 or M1), emergency setting and pregnancy.The sample size was calculated at 80 participants per group. The primary endpoint is 30-day postoperative morbidity as measured by the Comprehensive Complications Index. Secondary endpoints include postoperative morbidity and mortality, adherence to a fast-track protocol and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) scores (QoR-15, EUROQOL EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D), EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-STO22, activities of daily living and Body Image Scale). Oncological endpoints include rate of R0 resection, lymph node yield, disease-free survival and overall survival at 60-month follow-up.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been received by the independent Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty, University of Heidelberg (S-816/2021) and will be received from each responsible ethics committee for each individual participating centre prior to recruitment. Results will be published open access.Trial registration numberDRKS00025765., publishedVersion

Background: The only curative treatment for most esophageal cancers is radical esophagectomy. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) aims to reduce postoperative morbidity, but is not yet widely established. Linear stapled anastomosis is a promising technique for MIE because it is quite feasible even without robotic assistance. Aim of the present study is to compare total MIE with linear stapled anastomosis to open esophagectomy (OE) with circular stapled anastomosis with special regard to postoperative morbidity in an expertise-based randomized controlled trial (RCT). Methods/design: This superiority RCT compares MIE with linear stapled anastomosis (intervention) to OE with circular stapled anastomosis (control) for Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. It was initiated in February 2019 and recruitment is expected to last for 3 years. For inclusion, patients must be 18 years of age or more with a resectable primary malignancy in the distal esophagus. Participants with tumor localizations above the azygos vein, metastasis or infiltration into adjacent tissue will be excluded. In an expertise-based approach the allocated treatment will only be carried out by the single most experienced surgeon of the surgical center for each respective technique. The sample size was calculated with 20 participants per group for the primary endpoint postoperative morbidity according to comprehensive complication index (CCI) within 30 postoperative days. Secondary endpoints include anastomotic insufficiency, pulmonary complications, other intra- and postoperative outcome parameters such as estimated blood loss, operative time, length of stay, short-term oncologic endpoints, adherence to a standardized fast-track protocol, postoperative pain, and postoperative recovery (QoR-15). Quality of life (SF-36, CAT EORTC QLQ-C30, CAT EORTC QLQ-OES18) and oncological outcomes are evaluated with 60 months follow-up. Discussion: MIVATE is the first RCT to compare OE with circular stapled anastomosis to total MIE with linear stapled anastomosis exclusively for intrathoracic anastomosis. The expertise-based approach limits bias due to heterogeneity of surgical expertise. The use of a dedicated fast-track protocol in both OE and MIE will shed light on the role of the access strategy alone in this setting. The findings of this study will serve to define which approach has the best perioperative outcome for patients requiring esophagectomy. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00016773. Registered on February 18th, 2019.

Background The only curative treatment for most esophageal cancers is radical esophagectomy. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) aims to reduce postoperative morbidity, but is not yet widely established. Linear stapled anastomosis is a promising technique for MIE because it is quite feasible even without robotic assistance. The aim of the present study is to compare total MIE with linear stapled anastomosis to open esophagectomy (OE) with circular stapled anastomosis with special regard to postoperative morbidity in an expertise-based randomized controlled trial (RCT). Methods/design This superiority RCT compares MIE with linear stapled anastomosis (intervention) to OE with circular stapled anastomosis (control) for Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. It was initiated in February 2019, and recruitment is expected to last for 3 years. For inclusion, patients must be 18 years of age or more with a resectable primary malignancy in the distal esophagus. Participants with tumor localizations above the azygos vein, metastasis, or infiltration into adjacent tissue will be excluded. In an expertise-based approach, the allocated treatment will only be carried out by the single most experienced surgeon of the surgical center for each respective technique. The sample size was calculated with 20 participants per group for the primary endpoint postoperative morbidity according to comprehensive complication index (CCI) within 30 postoperative days. Secondary endpoints include anastomotic insufficiency, pulmonary complications, other intra- and postoperative outcome parameters such as estimated blood loss, operative time, length of stay, short-term oncologic endpoints, adherence to a standardized fast-track protocol, postoperative pain, and postoperative recovery (QoR-15). Quality of life (SF-36, CAT EORTC QLQ-C30, CAT EORTC QLQ-OES18) and oncological outcomes are evaluated with 60 months follow-up. Discussion MIVATE is the first RCT to compare OE with circular stapled anastomosis to total MIE with linear stapled anastomosis exclusively for intrathoracic anastomosis. The expertise-based approach limits bias due to heterogeneity of surgical expertise. The use of a dedicated fast-track protocol in both OE and MIE will shed light on the role of the access strategy alone in this setting. The findings of this study will serve to define which approach has the best perioperative outcome for patients requiring esophagectomy. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00016773. Registered on 18 February 2019.

Patients with metachronous malignancies before carcinomas of the upper gastrointestinal tract were analyzed regarding clinical parameters, oncological outcome, and prognosis.We analyzed the data of 1583 patients with gastroesophageal cancer who underwent oncological resections between 2002 and 2018. Of 1583 patients, 172 had a malignant tumor before the upper gastrointestinal cancer (second primary carcinomas) and 1411 without preceding malignancies served as the control group. The analyses were performed between both groups and within the subgroup of second primary carcinomas.Patients with second primary carcinomas were older (P 0.0001), had more comorbidities (P 0.0001), and underwent longer surgical resections (P = 0.0024). They had lower (y)pT-categories (P = 0.0427) and had longer stays in intensive care unit (P = 0.0002) and hospital (P = 0.0018). R0-resection was more frequent (P = 0.0275) while having more surgical complications (P = 0.0378). The median survival was 39.5 mo (primary carcinoma) versus 32.9 mo for (second primary carcinoma) and was not significantly different (P = 0.5359).In the subgroup analysis of second primaries, there were no significant survival differences depending on primary tumor entity (P = 0.4989). pT status (P = 0.0062), pN status (P 0.0001), pM status (P 0.0001), and R-status (P 0.0001) were significant prognostic factors. A time period9 y after the primary cancer could be identified as a novel and beneficial survival factor (P = 0.0496). Most patients with primary colorectal, prostate, hematogenous, or breast cancer had adenocarcinoma, whereas patients with initial otolaryngologic cancers mainly had squamous cell carcinoma.Second primary carcinomas of the upper gastrointestinal tract show distinct clinical and oncological characteristics. Common prognostic factors are applicable, and oncologic resection is recommended.

BACKGROUND The liver is the most common site of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and surgical resection improves overall survival in selected patients. Here, we investigate outcomes and relevant prognostic factors after repeated hepatic resections for CRLM. METHODS From a prospective database, 578 patients who underwent 788 resections of colorectal liver metastases were included into this study. In total, 169 patients underwent a second and 41 patients had a third operation due to intrahepatic metastatic recurrence. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine prognostic risk factors. RESULTS 5-year overall survival was 36.7% (95% CI: 30.2%; 43.2%) and 10-year survival was 20.3% (95% CI: 7.6%; 33.0%) in patients undergoing single resection. In patients undergoing a second or third resection, 5- and 10-year survival rates were 56.6% (95% CI: 45.0%; 68.2%) and 21.9% (95% CI: 6.8%; 37.0%) or 53.2% (95% CI: 32.4%; 74.0%) and 25.4%, respectively. In patients undergoing single resection, established markers (number, size and pattern of CRLM [p = 0.030/0.015/

Only a few studies have analyzed multimodal treatment concepts in the subgroup of signet-ring-cell containing upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer. Recent retrospective, multicentric data favor primary resection without neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric signet-ring-cell containing carcinomas (SRCs). We compared the outcomes of primarily resected carcinomas with neoadjuvantly treated, locally advanced esophagogastric SRCs.A total of 310 patients with esophagogastric SRC-staged cT3/4/Nany/Many from a prospective unicentric database were included in this study; 192 (61.9%) received neoadjuvant therapy (NEO group) and 118 (38.1%) were primarily resected (RES group).Overall, 128 (41.3%) patients presented with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) and 182 (58.7%) presented with gastric cancer. Neoadjuvant therapy was significantly associated with resection in curative intent (NEO: 91.1%; RES: 75.4%; P = 0.001), improved (y)pT category (P = 0.035), improved (y)pN category (P 0.001), and R0 resections (curative intent cohort: 76.0% in NEO vs. 60.7% in RES; P = 0.010), among others, but not with postoperative complications. Overall survival was significantly improved by neoadjuvant treatment {median survival 28.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4-39.6) vs. RES: 14.9 months (10.6-17.5); P 0.001}, as well as in subgroups (AEG and gastric tumors, R0-resected patients, and patients with and without relevant comorbidities). Independent prognostic factors were neoadjuvant therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; P = 0.023), pT4 category (HR 1.71; P = 0.041), pN2 category (HR 1.86; P = 0.013), pN3 category (HR 2.40; P 0.001), pM1 category (HR 1.95; P = 0.003), age 70 years (HR 1.79; P = 0.006), gastric localization (HR 0.69; P = 0.032), American Society of Anesthesiologists classification 3/4 (HR 1.71; P = 0.004), and incomplete resection R1/2 (HR 1.6; P = 0.014).Our results demonstrate a survival advantage for advanced-stage esophagogastric SRC patients by neoadjuvant treatment.

While several trials have compared laparoscopic to open surgery for colon cancer showing similar oncological results, oncological quality of laparoscopic versus open rectal resection is not well investigated. A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials was conducted in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. Qualitative and quantitative meta-analyses of short-term (rate of complete resections, number of harvested lymph nodes, circumferential resection margin positivity) and long-term (recurrence, disease-free and overall survival) oncologic results were conducted. Fourteen randomized controlled trials were identified including 3528 patients. Patients in the open resection group had significantly more complete resections (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51–0.97; p = 0.03) and a higher number of resected lymph nodes (mean difference − 0.92; 95% CI − 1.08 to 0.75; p

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Die onkologische Ösophagektomie ist mit hoher Morbidität verbunden. Mit minimal invasiven Operationsverfahren ist verschiedentlich versucht worden, diese zu reduzieren. Hauptproblem ist dabei die intrathorakale Anastomose. Es existieren verschiedene Techniken, mit dem Problem umzugehen, wie die Anlage einer funktionell problematischen zervikalen Anastomose, die offene Anlage der thorakalen Anastomose (Hybrid-Technik) oder die robotergestützte Anlage der technisch sehr anspruchsvollen Zirkularstapleranastomose. Als minimal invasiv auch ohne Roboterassistenz relativ einfach machbare Alternative zeigen wir die intrathorakale Seit-zu-Seit Ösophagogastrostomie in Linearstapler-Technik. Operationstechnik Der abdominelle Teil erfolgt in French-Lagerung. Nach Dissektion des Omentum majus entlang der gastroepiploischen Arkade und des Milzhilus sowie Trennung des Omentum minus 6 cm präpylorisch wird ein 4,5 cm breiter Magenschlauch in Linearstaplertechnik gebildet. Dann erfolgt die systematische abdominale und transmediastinale Lymphadenekotmie. Nach Umlagerung des Patienten in Links-Seitenlage wird die Lymphadenektomie thorakal komplettiert und das Präparat entfernt. Die Seit-zu-Seit Ösophagogastrostomie beginnt mit der Inzision des Ösophagusstumpfes. Dann wird der Magenschlauch mesonah 5 cm vom oralen Absetzungsrand inzidiert und ein Linearstapler über 3 cm in die beiden Inzisionen eingebracht und abgefeuert. Die verbleibende Öffnung wird mit einer fortlaufenden Naht modifiziert zweireihig quer verschlossen. Diskussion Die Seit-zu-Seit Ösophagogastrostomie in Linearstapler-Technik scheint eine einfache und sichere Alternative für die Rekonstruktion nach minimal invasiver Ösophagektomie zu sein. Die Methode wird aktuell in einer randomisiert kontrollierten Studie untersucht.

Hintergrund Magenstumpfkarzinome entstehen im Restmagen nach partieller Gastrektomie. Wahrend die Haufigkeit des Magenkarzinoms abnimmt, bleibt die Inzidenz des Magenstumpfkarzinoms aufgrund einer langen Latenzzeit stabil. Nachdem die chirurgische Therapie von Magenulzera durch partielle Gastrektomien an Bedeutung verloren hat, entwickeln sich zunehmend Magenstumpfkarzinome nach onkologischen Resektionen.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the oncological and perioperative outcomes of transhiatally extended gastrectomy (TEG) and thoracoabdominal esophagectomy (TAE) for therapy of adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) with focus on AEG type II, as the optimal approach for these tumors is still unclear. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) were searched until July 24, 2018. Studies comparing TAE and TEG for surgical treatment of AEG type tumors have been included. Patient’s baseline and perioperative data have been extracted and meta-analyses have been conducted for the outcomes: number of dissected lymph nodes, R0-resection rate, anastomotic leak rate, postoperative morbidity, and 30-day mortality. Of 6709 articles identified, 8 studies have been included for further analysis. One thousand thirty-four patients underwent TAE, and 1177 patients TEG. No differences were found between the approaches in regard to number of dissected lymph nodes (MD − 0.96; 95% CI − 3.07 to 1.15; p = 0.37), R0-resection rates (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.63; p = 0.90), anastomotic leak rates (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.86; p = 0.63), and 30-day mortality (OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.90 to 2.61; p = 0.11). However, a higher rate of postoperative morbidity was found after TAE (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.12 to 2.14; p = 0.008). The optimal approach to surgical therapy of AEG II still remains unclear. This study identified a significantly higher rate of postoperative morbidity after TAE at comparable surgical outcomes. Due to major limitations concerning the quality of included studies, current data strongly mandates a properly designed randomized controlled trial to identify the optimal surgical approach for AEG type II tumors.

Prognostic differences between pTN- and ypTN-categories and the prognostic accuracy of the 8th edition UICC-pTNM- and AJCC-ypTNM-staging-system for esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma are unclear.We retrospectively analyzed data of 740 patients with esophagogastric adenocarcinoma, who underwent curative surgery (344 after neoadjuvant treatment [NT]) at our institution. Survival analyses were performed according to Kaplan-Meier (log-rank test). Multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazard model.Low ypT-categories did not discriminate overall survival (ypT0: reference; ypT1: HR1.0/p = 0.909; ypT2: HR0.9/p = 0.845; ypT3: HR1.5/p = 0.184; ypT4: HR2.8/p = 0.004) and no difference was found between ypN1- and ypN2-disease (ypN0: HR0.4/p 0.001; ypN1: reference; ypN2: HR1.1/p = 0.653; ypN3: HR1.7/p = 0.014). In esophageal adenocarcinoma the UICC-TNM- and AJCC-ypTNM-staging-system was able to predict survival for patients after NT, while in gastric cancer it failed to provide sufficient prognostic information. A simplified staging system provided better stratification after NT and was an independent prognosticator for both esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma (stage I: reference; stage II: HR2.2/p = 0.005; stage III: HR4.1/p 0.001).Prognostic value of ypTN-categories seems limited. After NT the current UICC/AJCC-staging-system is able to predict survival in esophageal adenocarcinoma, but needs to be reevaluated in gastric cancer patients and modified if needed. A novel simplified staging system might be more practicable for patients after NT.