Postoperative outcomes in oesophagectomy with trainee involvement

Abstract Background The complexity of oesophageal surgery and the significant risk of morbidity necessitates that oesophagectomy is predominantly performed by a consultant surgeon, or a senior trainee under their supervision. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of trainee involvement in oesophagectomy on postoperative outcomes in an international multicentre setting. Methods Data from the multicentre Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group (OGAA) cohort study were analysed, which comprised prospectively collected data from patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April 2018 and December 2018. Procedures were grouped by the level of trainee involvement, and univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to compare patient outcomes across groups. Results Of 2232 oesophagectomies from 137 centres in 41 countries, trainees were involved in 29.1 per cent of them (n = 650), performing only the abdominal phase in 230, only the chest and/or neck phases in 130, and all phases in 315 procedures. For procedures with a chest anastomosis, those with trainee involvement had similar 90-day mortality, complication and reoperation rates to consultant-performed oesophagectomies (P = 0.451, P = 0.318, and P = 0.382, respectively), while anastomotic leak rates were significantly lower in the trainee groups (P = 0.030). Procedures with a neck anastomosis had equivalent complication, anastomotic leak, and reoperation rates (P = 0.150, P = 0.430, and P = 0.632, respectively) in trainee-involved versus consultant-performed oesophagectomies, with significantly lower 90-day mortality in the trainee groups (P = 0.005). Conclusion Trainee involvement was not found to be associated with significantly inferior postoperative outcomes for selected patients undergoing oesophagectomy. The results support continued supervised trainee involvement in oesophageal cancer surgery. </jats:sec

Postoperative and Pathological Outcomes of CROSS and FLOT as Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophageal and Junctional Adenocarcinoma: An International Cohort Study From the Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA)

Objective: This study aimed to compare the postoperative and pathological outcomes between carboplatin, paclitaxel, radiotherapy (CROSS) and 5-FU, leucovorine, oxaliplatin and docetaxel (FLOT) in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) patients from an international, multicenter cohort. Summary of Background Data: Ongoing debate exists around optimum approach to locally advanced EAC, with proponents for perioperative chemotherapy, such as FLOT, or multimodal therapy, in particular the CROSS regimen. Methods: Patients undergoing CROSS (n = 350) and FLOT (n = 368), followed by curative esophagectomy for EAC were identified from the Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit. Results: The 90-day mortality was higher after CROSS than FLOT (5% vs 1%, P = 0.005), even on adjusted analyses [odds ratio (OR): 3.97, confidence interval (CI)95%: 1.34-13.67]. Postoperative mortality in CROSS were related to higher pulmonary (74% vs 60%) and cardiac complications (42% vs 20%) compared to FLOT. CROSS was associated with higher pathologic complete response (pCR) rates (18% vs 10%, P = 0.004) and margin-negative resections (93% vs 76%, P < 0.001) compared with FLOT. On adjusted analyses, CROSS was associated with higher pCR rates (OR: 2.05, CI95%: 1.26-3.34) and margin-negative resections (OR: 4.55, CI95%: 2.70-7.69) compared to FLOT. Conclusions: This study provides real-world data CROSS was associated with higher 90-day mortality than FLOT, related to cardio-pulmonary complications with CROSS. These warrant a further review into causes and mechanisms in selected patients, and at minimum suggest the need for strict radiation therapy quality assurance. Research into impact of higher pCR rates and R0 resections with CROSS compared to FLOT on long-term survival is needed

Predictors of anastomotic leak and conduit necrosis after oesophagectomy: Results from the oesophago-gastric anastomosis audit (OGAA)

Background: Both anastomotic leak (AL) and conduit necrosis (CN) after oesophagectomy are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Therefore, the identification of preoperative, modifiable risk factors is desirable. The aim of this study was to generate a risk scoring model for AL and CN after oesophagectomy. Methods: Patients undergoing curative resection for oesophageal cancer were identified from the international Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA) from April 2018–December 2018. Definitions for AL and CN were those set out by the Oesophageal Complications Consensus Group. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for both AL and CN. A risk score was then produced for both AL and CN using the derivation set, then internally validated using the validation set. Results: This study included 2247 oesophagectomies across 137 hospitals in 41 countries. The AL rate was 14.2% and CN rate was 2.7%. Preoperative factors that were independent predictors of AL were cardiovascular comorbidity and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The risk scoring model showed insufficient predictive ability in internal validation (area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve [AUROC] = 0.618). Preoperative factors that were independent predictors of CN were: body mass index, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, previous myocardial infarction and smoking history. These were converted into a risk-scoring model and internally validated using the validation set with an AUROC of 0.775. Conclusion: Despite a large dataset, AL proves difficult to predict using preoperative factors. The risk-scoring model for CN provides an internally validated tool to estimate a patient's risk preoperatively