Search

Epidemiologically, around 15,500 persons per year contract gastric cancer with continuously decreasing incidence and a 5-year survival rate of only 30% to 35%. Contrary to the Asian countries, there are no prevention programs for gastric cancer in Germany, which leads to the disease frequently being diagnosed in locally advanced stages and predominantly being treated with multimodal therapy concepts. Complete (R0) resection is the therapy of choice for resectable gastric cancer. Special forms of gastric cancer that are limited to the mucosa can be endoscopically resected with a curative intent. Systematic D2 lymphadenectomy (LAD) plays a decisive role in the management of local advanced tumors because it significantly contributes to the reduction of tumor-related death and both local and regional relapse rates. Perioperative chemotherapy improves prognosis in the advanced stages, whereas palliative chemotherapy is normally indicated for metastatic diseases. Standardized resection procedures and the use of individualized multimodal therapy concepts have led to improvement in the 5-year survival rate.

Delayed gastric emptying after esophagectomy with gastric replacement can pose a significant postoperative problem, often leading to aspiration and pneumonia. The present study analyzes retrospectively the effectiveness of endoscopic pyloric dilatation for post-surgical gastric outlet obstruction. Between March 2006 and March 2010, 403 patients underwent a transthoracic en-bloc esophagectomy and reconstruction with a gastric tube and intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy. In patients with postoperative symptoms of an outlet dysfunction and the confirmation by endoscopy, pyloric dilatations were performed without preference with either 20- or 30-mm balloons. A total of 89 balloon dilatations of the pylorus after esophagectomy were performed in 60 (15.6 %) patients. In 21 (35 %) patients, a second dilatation of the pylorus was performed. 55 (61.8 %) dilatations were performed with a 30-mm balloon and 34 (38.2 %) with a 20-mm balloon. The total redilatation rate for the 30-mm balloon was 20 % (n = 11) and 52.9 % (n = 18) for the 20-mm balloon (p < 0.001). All dilatations were performed without any complications. Pylorus spasm contributes to delayed gastric emptying leading to postoperative complications after esophagectomy. Endoscopic pyloric dilatation after esophagectomy is a safe procedure for treatment of gastric outlet obstruction. The use of a 30-mm balloon has the same safety profile but a 2.5 lower redilatation rate compared to the 20-mm balloon. Thus, the use of 20-mm balloons has been abandoned in our clinic.

Background: Clinical reasoning is based on the declarative and procedural knowledge of workflows in clinical medicine. Educational approaches such as problem-based learning or mannequin simulators support learning of procedural knowledge. Immersive patient simulators (IPSs) go one step further as they allow an illusionary immersion into a synthetic world. Students can freely navigate an avatar through a three-dimensional environment, interact with the virtual surroundings, and treat virtual patients. By playful learning with IPS, medical workflows can be repetitively trained and internalized. As there are only a few university-driven IPS with a profound amount of medical knowledge available, we developed a university-based IPS framework. Our simulator is free to use and combines a high degree of immersion with in-depth medical content. By adding disease-specific content modules, the simulator framework can be expanded depending on the curricular demands. However, these new educational tools compete with the traditional teaching Objective: It was our aim to develop an educational content module that teaches clinical and therapeutic workflows in surgical oncology. Furthermore, we wanted to examine how the use of this module affects student performance. Methods: The new module was based on the declarative and procedural learning targets of the official German medical examination regulations. The module was added to our custom-made IPS named ALICE (Artificial Learning Interface for Clinical Education). ALICE was evaluated on 62 third-year students. Results: Students showed a high degree of motivation when using the simulator as most of them had fun using it. ALICE showed positive impact on clinical reasoning as there was a significant improvement in determining the correct therapy after using the simulator. ALICE positively impacted the rise in declarative knowledge as there was improvement in answering multiple-choice questions before and after simulator use. Conclusio

Background Patients with locally advanced esophageal or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma benefit from multimodal therapy concepts including neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT), respectively, perioperative chemotherapy (pCT). However, it remains unclear which treatment is superior concerning postoperative morbidity. Methods In this study, we compared the postsurgical survival (30-day/90-day/1-year mortality) (primary endpoint), treatment response, and surgical complications (secondary endpoints) of patients who either received nCRT (CROSS protocol) or pCT (FLOT protocol) due to esophageal/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Between January 2013 and December 2017, 873 patients underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in our high-volume center. 339 patients received nCRT and 97 underwent pCT. After 1:1 propensity score matching (matching criteria: sex, age, BMI, ASA score, and Charlson score), 97 patients per subgroup were included for analysis. Results After matching, tumor response (ypT/ypN) did not differ significantly between nCRT and pCT (p = 0.118, respectively, p = 0.174). Residual nodal metastasis occurred more often after pCT (p = 0.001). Postsurgical mortality was comparable within both groups. No patient died within 30 or 90 days after surgery while the 1-year survival rate was 72.2% for nCRT and 68.0% for pCT (p = 0.47). Only grade 3a complications according to Clavien-Dindo were increased after pCT (p = 0.04). There was a trend towards a higher rate of pylorospasm within the pCT group (nCRT: 23.7% versus pCT: 37.1%) (p = 0.061). Multivariate analysis identified pCT, younger age, and Charlson score as independent variables for pylorospasm. Conclusion Both nCRT and pCT are safe and efficient within the multimodal treatment of esophageal/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. We did not observe differences in postoperative morbidity. However, functional aspects such as gastric emptying might be more frequent after pCT.

Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) and endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) are endoscopic options for treating leaks of the esophagus. VACStent(R) is a variant of SEMS that aims to combine the advantages of SEMS and EVT in one device. Due to this unique construction, VACStent(R) can build a barrier to the leak and facilitate wound healing with EVT, all while maintaining intestinal passage. We present the first prospective feasibility study of VACStent(R) for treating leaks of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Between September 2019 and November 2020, we performed a prospective, investigator-initiated, single-center study and included all patients who underwent endoscopic stenting with VACStent(R) for various kinds of esophageal leaks, such as spontaneous, iatrogenic or anastomotic leaks. We included 20 patients, who underwent a total of 24 endoscopic VACStent(R) implantations. Technical success of the application of the VACStent(R) was achieved in all interventions (n = 24, 100%). Overall, clinical success in closing the leaks with VACStent(R) treatment was achieved in 60% of patients (12/20). No severe VACStent(R) treatment-related adverse events occurred. Oral feeding with supplement high-energy drinks failed in all patients due to clogging of the suction tube. VACStent(R) is a safe and feasible endoscopic treatment option for leaks of the upper gastrointestinal tract. However, our data could not show the expected advantage of orally feeding the patients during the treatment with the VACStent(R) in its current form. Efficacy of VACStent(R) compared to EVT or SEMS needs to be investigated in a further study.

Background Esophageal anastomotic leakage still represents a challenging complication after esophageal surgery. Endoscopically placed self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are the treatment of choice, but since the introduction of endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) for esophageal leakage 10 years ago, increasing evidence has demonstrated that EVT might be a superior alternative. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and related morbidity of SEMS and EVT in the treatment of esophageal leak. Methods We systematically searched for studies comparing SEMS and EVT to treat anastomotic leakage after esophageal surgery. Predefined end points including outcome, treatment success, endoscopy, treatment duration, hospitalization time, morbidity, and mortality were assessed and included in the meta-analysis. Results Five retrospective studies including 274 patients matched the inclusion criteria. Compared with stenting, EVT was significantly associated with a higher rate of leak closure (odds ratio [OR] 3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23 to 7.98), more endoscopic device changes (pooled median difference of 3.09; 95%CI 1.54 to 4.64]), a shorter duration of treatment (pooled median difference -11.90 days; 95%CI -18.59 to -5.21 days), and a lower mortality rate (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.83). There were no significant differences in short-term and major complications. Conclusions Owing to the retrospective quality of the studies with potential biases, the results of the meta-analysis must be interpreted with caution. However, the analysis indicates the potential benefit of EVT, which should be further investigated with standardized and prospectively collected data.

A number of different surgical techniques for the treatment of cancer of the esophagus and the esophagogastric junction have been proposed. Guidelines generally recommend a transthoracic approach for esophageal cancer, including Siewert type I tumors. In tumors of the proximal esophageal third, transthoracic esophagectomy may be extended to a three-field approach, including resection of cervical lymph nodes. However, the choice between transthoracic esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis (Ivor Lewis esophagectomy) and the three-incision approach with cervical esophago-gastrostomy (McKeown esophagectomy) remains controversial, with guidelines varying among different countries. Furthermore, it is commonly accepted that Siewert type III tumors should be treated by extended total gastrectomy with transhiatal resection of the lower esophagus, whereas currently no consensus exists regarding the optimal surgical approach for the treatment of Siewert type II adenocarcinoma. Likewise, there is a major controversy regarding palliative and potentially curative treatment modalities in oligometastatic disease. This review deals with current surgical treatment standards for cancer of the esophagus and the eosphagogastric junction, including discussion of ongoing trials.

Esophagectomy, even with the progress in surgical technique and perioperative management, is a highly specialized surgery, associated with a high rate of complications. Early recognition and adequate treatment should be a standard of care for the most common postoperative complications: anastomotic leakage, pneumonia, atrial fibrillation, chylothorax, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Recent progress in endoscopy with vacuum and stent placement, or in radiology with embolization, has changed the management of these complications. The success of nonoperative treatments should be frequently reassessed and reoperation must be proposed in case of failure. We have summarized the clinical signs, diagnostic process, and management of the frequent complications after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Introduction: Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are an established option for treating leaks in the upper gastrointestinal tract, and endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has become a promising alternative. A novel approach is the use of an esophageal hybrid SEMS (VACStent (R)), which can maintain esophageal passage during EVT. We present the first study demonstrating successful use of the VACStent (R) for treating leaks of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Method: We performed a retrospective, single-center study of all patients who underwent endoscopic stenting with the VACStent (R) of leaks in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Results: Indications for treatment with the VACStent (R) were: iatrogenic esophageal perforation (n = 1), spontaneous perforation (n = 2), esophageal fistula (n = 2), and anastomotic leak after upper gastrointestinal surgery (n = 5). Successful application of the VACStent (R) was achieved in all patients (n = 10; 100%) with a total of 15 interventions. VACStent (R) therapy was used as a first-line treatment in 5 patient (success rate 80%; 4 out 5 patients) and as a second-line treatment after failed previous endoscopic therapy in 5 patients (success rate 60%; 3 out of 5 patients). Overall, VACStent (R) treatment was successful in 70% of the patients (7 out of 10). No severe VACStent (R) treatment-related adverse events occurred. Conclusion: The initial experience has been that the technical application of the VACStent (R) is safe and technically feasible. However, due to the small number of patients this study could not show the clear advantages of this novel hybrid stent. More studies are necessary to show significant advantages.

Background & aims: Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) occurs frequently and is associated with a significant morbidity and mortality, especially in patients receiving antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy (APT and ACT, respectively). We aimed to evaluate adherence to guideline recommendations published by European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients with NVUGIB und prior exposition to APT or ACT at a single university hospital between 01 January 2016 and 31 December 2017. Results: 270 patients were identified (70.4% male, median age 72 years). 6/17 (35.3%) patients receiving APT for primary cardiovascular prophylaxis, 39/71 (54.9%) and 35 (49.3%) patients receiving APT for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis (using strict and liberal definition, respectively) and 13/25 (52%) patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) were not managed according to current recommendations. Management of ACT for secondary thromboembolic prophylaxis did not follow guideline recommendations in 59/93 (63.4%) and 34/93 (36.6%) patients (using strict and liberal definition, respectively). 23.7% of patients with NVUGIB were exposed to combined APT and ACT for whom no guideline recommendations exist. Mortality for any reason was twice as high in patients who were not managed according to guideline recommendations (18.8% vs. 8% using strict definition, 20.5% vs. 10.2% using liberal definition), which did not remain significant after adjusting for comorbidities, whereas cardiovascular events were observed at similar rates. Conclusion: A significant number of patients with NVUGIB receiving APT or ACT is not managed according to current ESGE guideline recommendations. Strategies to implement these guidelines into daily practice need to be developed.

Background Duodenal defects are complex clinical situations, and their management is challenging and associated with high mortality. Besides surgery, endoscopic treatment options exist, but the size and location of the perforation can limit their application. We present a retrospective study, demonstrating a successful application of endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) for duodenal leaks. Methods We performed a retrospective study of all patients who underwent EVT for duodenal perforations between 2016 and 2021 at two tertiary centers. We analyzed demographic and clinical patient characteristics, surgical outcomes, leak characteristics, sponge-related complications, and success rate. Results Indications for treatment with EVT in the duodenum consisted of leak after duodenal suture of a perforated ulcer (n = 4), iatrogenic perforation after endoscopic resection (n = 2), iatrogenic perforation during surgery (n = 2), and anastomotic leak after upper gastrointestinal surgery (n = 2). EVT was used as a first-line treatment in seven patients and as a second-line treatment in three patients. EVT was successfully applied in all interventions (n = 10, 100%). Overall, EVT lead to definitive closure of the defects in eight out of ten patients (80%). No severe EVT-related adverse events occurred. Conclusion EVT is safe and technically feasible, so it emerges as a promising endoscopic treatment option for duodenal leaks. However, multidisciplinary collaboration and management are important to reduce the occurrence of postoperative complications, and to improve recovery rates.

Objective of the study The most common functional complication after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy is the delayed emptying of the gastric conduit (DGCE) for which several diagnostic tools are available, e.g. chest X-ray, upper esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and water-soluble contrast radiogram. However, none of these diagnostic tools evaluate the pylorus itself. Our study demonstrates the successful measurement of pyloric distensibility in patients with DGCE after esophagectomy and in those without it. Methods and procedures Between May 2021 and October 2021, we performed a retrospective single-centre study of all patients who had an oncological Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy and underwent our post-surgery follow-up programme with surveillance endoscopies and computed tomography scans. EndoFlip (TM) was used to perform measurements of the pylorus under endoscopic control, and distensibility was measured at 40 ml, 45 ml and 50 ml balloon filling. Results We included 70 patients, and EndoFlip (TM) measurement was feasible in all patients. Successful application of EndoFlip (TM) was achieved in all interventions (n = 70, 100%). 51 patients showed a normal postoperative course, whereas 19 patients suffered from DGCE. Distensibility proved to be smaller in patients with symptoms of DGCE compared to asymptomatic patients. For 40 ml, 45 ml and 50 ml, the mean distensibility was 6.4 vs 10.1, 5.7 vs 7.9 and 4.5 vs 6.3 mm(2)/mmHg. The differences were significant for all three balloon fillings. No severe EndoFlip (TM) treatment-related adverse events occurred. Conclusion Measurement with EndoFlip (TM) is a safe and technically feasible endoscopic option for measuring the distensibility of the pylorus. Our study shows that the distensibility in asymptomatic patients after esophagectomy is significantly higher than that in patients suffering from DGCE. However, more studies need to be conducted to demonstrate the general use of EndoFlip (TM) measurement of the pylorus after esophagectom

Objective of the study In esophageal surgery, anastomotic leak (AL) remains one of the most severe and critical adverse events after oncological esophagectomy. Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) can be used to treat AL; however, in the current literature, treatment outcomes and reports on how to use this novel technique are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients with an AL after IL RAMIE and to determine whether using EVT as an treatment option is safe and feasible. Material and methods This study includes all patients who developed an Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) type II AL after IL RAMIE at our center between April 2017 and December 2021. The analysis focuses on time to EVT, duration of EVT, and follow up treatments for these patients. Results A total of 157 patients underwent an IL RAMIE at our hospital. 21 patients of these (13.4%) developed an ECCG type II AL. One patient died of unrelated Covid-19 pneumonia and was excluded from the study cohort. The mean duration of EVT was 12 days (range 4-28 days), with a mean of two sponge changes (range 0-5 changes). AL was diagnosed at a mean of 8 days post-surgery (range 2-16 days). Closure of the AL with EVT was successful in 15 out of 20 patients (75%). Placement of a SEMS (Self-expandlable metallic stent) after EVT was performed in four patients due to persisting AL. Overall success rate of anastomotic sealing independently of the treatment modality was achieved in 19 out of 20 Patients (95%). No severe EVT-related adverse events occurred. Conclusion This study shows that EVT can be a safe and effective endoscopic treatment option for ECCG type II AL.

Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) and endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) are endoscopic options for treating leaks of the esophagus. VACStent(R) is a variant of SEMS that aims to combine the advantages of SEMS and EVT in one device. Due to this unique construction, VACStent(R) can build a barrier to the leak and facilitate wound healing with EVT, all while maintaining intestinal passage. We present the first prospective feasibility study of VACStent(R) for treating leaks of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Between September 2019 and November 2020, we performed a prospective, investigator-initiated, single-center study and included all patients who underwent endoscopic stenting with VACStent(R) for various kinds of esophageal leaks, such as spontaneous, iatrogenic or anastomotic leaks. We included 20 patients, who underwent a total of 24 endoscopic VACStent(R) implantations. Technical success of the application of the VACStent(R) was achieved in all interventions (n = 24, 100%). Overall, clinical success in closing the leaks with VACStent(R) treatment was achieved in 60% of patients (12/20). No severe VACStent(R) treatment-related adverse events occurred. Oral feeding with supplement high-energy drinks failed in all patients due to clogging of the suction tube. VACStent(R) is a safe and feasible endoscopic treatment option for leaks of the upper gastrointestinal tract. However, our data could not show the expected advantage of orally feeding the patients during the treatment with the VACStent(R) in its current form. Efficacy of VACStent(R) compared to EVT or SEMS needs to be investigated in a further study.

Background Esophageal anastomotic leakage still represents a challenging complication after esophageal surgery. Endoscopically placed self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are the treatment of choice, but since the introduction of endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) for esophageal leakage 10 years ago, increasing evidence has demonstrated that EVT might be a superior alternative. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and related morbidity of SEMS and EVT in the treatment of esophageal leak. Methods We systematically searched for studies comparing SEMS and EVT to treat anastomotic leakage after esophageal surgery. Predefined end points including outcome, treatment success, endoscopy, treatment duration, hospitalization time, morbidity, and mortality were assessed and included in the meta-analysis. Results Five retrospective studies including 274 patients matched the inclusion criteria. Compared with stenting, EVT was significantly associated with a higher rate of leak closure (odds ratio [OR] 3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23 to 7.98), more endoscopic device changes (pooled median difference of 3.09; 95%CI 1.54 to 4.64]), a shorter duration of treatment (pooled median difference -11.90 days; 95%CI -18.59 to -5.21 days), and a lower mortality rate (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.83). There were no significant differences in short-term and major complications. Conclusions Owing to the retrospective quality of the studies with potential biases, the results of the meta-analysis must be interpreted with caution. However, the analysis indicates the potential benefit of EVT, which should be further investigated with standardized and prospectively collected data.

A number of different surgical techniques for the treatment of cancer of the esophagus and the esophagogastric junction have been proposed. Guidelines generally recommend a transthoracic approach for esophageal cancer, including Siewert type I tumors. In tumors of the proximal esophageal third, transthoracic esophagectomy may be extended to a three-field approach, including resection of cervical lymph nodes. However, the choice between transthoracic esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis (Ivor Lewis esophagectomy) and the three-incision approach with cervical esophago-gastrostomy (McKeown esophagectomy) remains controversial, with guidelines varying among different countries. Furthermore, it is commonly accepted that Siewert type III tumors should be treated by extended total gastrectomy with transhiatal resection of the lower esophagus, whereas currently no consensus exists regarding the optimal surgical approach for the treatment of Siewert type II adenocarcinoma. Likewise, there is a major controversy regarding palliative and potentially curative treatment modalities in oligometastatic disease. This review deals with current surgical treatment standards for cancer of the esophagus and the eosphagogastric junction, including discussion of ongoing trials.

Esophagectomy, even with the progress in surgical technique and perioperative management, is a highly specialized surgery, associated with a high rate of complications. Early recognition and adequate treatment should be a standard of care for the most common postoperative complications: anastomotic leakage, pneumonia, atrial fibrillation, chylothorax, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Recent progress in endoscopy with vacuum and stent placement, or in radiology with embolization, has changed the management of these complications. The success of nonoperative treatments should be frequently reassessed and reoperation must be proposed in case of failure. We have summarized the clinical signs, diagnostic process, and management of the frequent complications after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Introduction: Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are an established option for treating leaks in the upper gastrointestinal tract, and endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has become a promising alternative. A novel approach is the use of an esophageal hybrid SEMS (VACStent (R)), which can maintain esophageal passage during EVT. We present the first study demonstrating successful use of the VACStent (R) for treating leaks of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Method: We performed a retrospective, single-center study of all patients who underwent endoscopic stenting with the VACStent (R) of leaks in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Results: Indications for treatment with the VACStent (R) were: iatrogenic esophageal perforation (n = 1), spontaneous perforation (n = 2), esophageal fistula (n = 2), and anastomotic leak after upper gastrointestinal surgery (n = 5). Successful application of the VACStent (R) was achieved in all patients (n = 10; 100%) with a total of 15 interventions. VACStent (R) therapy was used as a first-line treatment in 5 patient (success rate 80%; 4 out 5 patients) and as a second-line treatment after failed previous endoscopic therapy in 5 patients (success rate 60%; 3 out of 5 patients). Overall, VACStent (R) treatment was successful in 70% of the patients (7 out of 10). No severe VACStent (R) treatment-related adverse events occurred. Conclusion: The initial experience has been that the technical application of the VACStent (R) is safe and technically feasible. However, due to the small number of patients this study could not show the clear advantages of this novel hybrid stent. More studies are necessary to show significant advantages.

Background & aims: Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) occurs frequently and is associated with a significant morbidity and mortality, especially in patients receiving antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy (APT and ACT, respectively). We aimed to evaluate adherence to guideline recommendations published by European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients with NVUGIB und prior exposition to APT or ACT at a single university hospital between 01 January 2016 and 31 December 2017. Results: 270 patients were identified (70.4% male, median age 72 years). 6/17 (35.3%) patients receiving APT for primary cardiovascular prophylaxis, 39/71 (54.9%) and 35 (49.3%) patients receiving APT for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis (using strict and liberal definition, respectively) and 13/25 (52%) patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) were not managed according to current recommendations. Management of ACT for secondary thromboembolic prophylaxis did not follow guideline recommendations in 59/93 (63.4%) and 34/93 (36.6%) patients (using strict and liberal definition, respectively). 23.7% of patients with NVUGIB were exposed to combined APT and ACT for whom no guideline recommendations exist. Mortality for any reason was twice as high in patients who were not managed according to guideline recommendations (18.8% vs. 8% using strict definition, 20.5% vs. 10.2% using liberal definition), which did not remain significant after adjusting for comorbidities, whereas cardiovascular events were observed at similar rates. Conclusion: A significant number of patients with NVUGIB receiving APT or ACT is not managed according to current ESGE guideline recommendations. Strategies to implement these guidelines into daily practice need to be developed.

Background Patients with locally advanced esophageal or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma benefit from multimodal therapy concepts including neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT), respectively, perioperative chemotherapy (pCT). However, it remains unclear which treatment is superior concerning postoperative morbidity. Methods In this study, we compared the postsurgical survival (30-day/90-day/1-year mortality) (primary endpoint), treatment response, and surgical complications (secondary endpoints) of patients who either received nCRT (CROSS protocol) or pCT (FLOT protocol) due to esophageal/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Between January 2013 and December 2017, 873 patients underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in our high-volume center. 339 patients received nCRT and 97 underwent pCT. After 1:1 propensity score matching (matching criteria: sex, age, BMI, ASA score, and Charlson score), 97 patients per subgroup were included for analysis. Results After matching, tumor response (ypT/ypN) did not differ significantly between nCRT and pCT (p = 0.118, respectively, p = 0.174). Residual nodal metastasis occurred more often after pCT (p = 0.001). Postsurgical mortality was comparable within both groups. No patient died within 30 or 90 days after surgery while the 1-year survival rate was 72.2% for nCRT and 68.0% for pCT (p = 0.47). Only grade 3a complications according to Clavien-Dindo were increased after pCT (p = 0.04). There was a trend towards a higher rate of pylorospasm within the pCT group (nCRT: 23.7% versus pCT: 37.1%) (p = 0.061). Multivariate analysis identified pCT, younger age, and Charlson score as independent variables for pylorospasm. Conclusion Both nCRT and pCT are safe and efficient within the multimodal treatment of esophageal/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. We did not observe differences in postoperative morbidity. However, functional aspects such as gastric emptying might be more frequent after pCT.