Perioperative Treatment, Not Surgical Approach, Influences Overall Survival in Patients with Gastroesophageal Junction Tumors: A Nationwide, Population-Based Study in The Netherlands

Resectable gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) tumors are treated either with an esophageal-cardia resection or with gastrectomy. The difference in outcome between these two treatment modalities is unknown; Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate population-based treatment strategies for patients with resectable adenocarcinomas of the GEJ and to compare the oncological outcomes. Patients with potentially resectable GEJ tumors diagnosed between 2005 and 2012 were selected from the nationwide, population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Differences between patients were compared using the chi (2) test, and survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Overall multivariate survival was assessed using Cox regression analyses. Patients treated with esophagectomy (n = 939) were significantly younger than patients treated with gastrectomy (n = 257; 64 vs. 66 years; p < 0.001), and no differences were noted regarding lymph node yield, lymph node ratio, and radicality. Patients treated with an esophagectomy or gastrectomy exhibited comparable overall 5-year survival rates (36 vs. 33 %, respectively; p = 0.250). Multivariate analysis showed that patients receiving perioperative treatment and gastrectomy exhibited similar overall survival rates compared with patients receiving perioperative treatment and esophagectomy [hazard ratio (HR) 1.9, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.7-1.3; p = 0.908]; however, patients receiving esophagectomy alone (HR 1.3, 95 % CI 1.3-1.8; p = 0.002) or gastrectomy alone (HR 1.8, 95 % CI 1.4-2.4; p < 0.001) exhibited a significantly worse overall survival. The chosen type of surgery (esophagectomy or gastrectomy) did not influence the overall survival in our cohort of patients with GEJ tumors. The administration of perioperative chemo(radio)therapy improved survival regardless of the surgical approach

Leaving a Mobilized Thoracic Esophagus In Situ When Incurable Cancer Is Discovered Intraoperatively

Background. Occasionally incurable cancer is encountered after completion of the thoracic (first) phase of a three-phase esophagectomy. The outcome of aborting the operation at this stage, leaving the mobilized thoracic esophagus in situ, is unknown. Methods. A multicenter retrospective analysis was performed of patients in whom a completely mobilized thoracic esophagus was left in situ when incurable disease was discovered intraoperatively. The occurrence of esophageal necrosis or perforation, mortality, and all other adverse events were recorded and graded by severity. Results. Some 18 patients were included. The median admission time was 9 days. All patients had resumed oral intake at discharge, except for 1 patient who was fed through a nasojejunal tube. After the operation, the median overall survival was 2.9 months. Postoperatively, 7 patients (39%) experienced major surgical adverse events, and 11 patients (61%) had no or only minor adverse events. Major adverse events were associated with the patient's death in 6 patients (33%), within 5 to 34 days postoperatively. Esophageal perforation or ischemia developed in 4 patients (22%) and 1 patient (6%), respectively. No predictive factors could be identified. Conclusions. Leaving a completely mobilized thoracic esophagus in situ when incurable cancer was discovered intraoperatively was a successful strategy in more than half of the patients. However, one third experienced major adverse events leading to mortality. (C) 2015 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeon

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer, a multicenter prospectively randomized controlled trial (LOGICA-trial)

Background: For gastric cancer patients, surgical resection with en-bloc lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of curative treatment. Open gastrectomy has long been the preferred surgical approach worldwide. However, this procedure is associated with considerable morbidity. Several meta-analyses have shown an advantage in short-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy compared to open procedures, with similar oncologic outcomes. However, it remains unclear whether the results of these Asian studies can be extrapolated to the Western population. In this trial from the Netherlands, patients with resectable gastric cancer will be randomized to laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. Methods: The study is a non-blinded, multicenter, prospectively randomized controlled superiority trial. Patients (>= 18 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3b, M0) gastric adenocarcinoma and European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 are eligible to participate in the study after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 210) will be included in one of the ten participating Dutch centers and are randomized to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. The primary outcome is postoperative hospital stay (days). Secondary outcome parameters include postoperative morbidity and mortality, oncologic outcomes, readmissions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: In this randomized controlled trial laparoscopic and open gastrectomy are compared in patients with resectable gastric cancer. It is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will result in a faster recovery of the patient and a shorter hospital stay. Secondly, it is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will be associated with a lower postoperative morbidity, less readmissions, higher cost-effectiveness, better postoperative quality of life, but with similar mortality and oncologic outcomes, compared to open gastrectomy. The study started on 1 December 2014. Inclusion and follow-up will take 3 and 5 years respectively. Short-term results will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient

Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (LADIES): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, superiority trial

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis is superior to Hartmann's procedure. The likelihood of stoma reversal after primary anastomosis has been reported to be higher and reversal seems to be associated with lower morbidity and mortality. Although promising, results from these previous studies remain uncertain because of potential selection bias. Therefore, this study aimed to assess outcomes after Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy, for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (Hinchey III or IV disease) in a randomised trial. METHODS: A multicentre, randomised, open-label, superiority trial was done in eight academic hospitals and 34 teaching hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands. Patients aged between 18 and 85 years who presented with clinical signs of general peritonitis and suspected perforated diverticulitis were eligible for inclusion if plain abdominal radiography or CT scan showed diffuse free air or fluid. Patients with Hinchey I or II diverticulitis were not eligible for inclusion. Patients were allocated (1:1) to Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy. Patients were enrolled by the surgeon or surgical resident involved, and secure online randomisation software was used in the operating room or by the trial coordinator on the phone. Random and concealed block sizes of two, four, or six were used, and randomisation was stratified by age (<60 and ≥60 years). The primary endpoint was 12-month stoma-free survival. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR2037, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, and June 9, 2013, and trial termination on June 3, 2016, 133 patients (93 with Hinchey III disease and 40 with Hinchey IV disease) were randomly assigned to Hartmann's procedure (68 patients) or primary anastomosis (65 patients). Two patients in the Hartmann's group were excluded, as was one in the primary anastomosis group; the modified intention-to-treat population therefore consisted of 66 patients in the Hartmann's procedure group (46 with Hinchey III disease, 20 with Hinchey IV disease) and 64 in the primary anastomosis group (46 with Hinchey III disease, 18 with Hinchey IV disease). In 17 (27%) of 64 patients assigned to primary anastomosis, no stoma was constructed. 12-month stoma-free survival was significantly better for patients undergoing primary anastomosis compared with Hartmann's procedure (94·6% [95% CI 88·7-100] vs 71·7% [95% CI 60·1-83·3], hazard ratio 2·79 [95% CI 1·86-4·18]; log-rank p<0·0001). There were no significant differences in short-term morbidity and mortality after the index procedure for Hartmann's procedure compared with primary anastomosis (morbidity: 29 [44%] of 66 patients vs 25 [39%] of 64, p=0·60; mortality: two [3%] vs four [6%], p=0·44). INTERPRETATION: In haemodynamically stable, immunocompetent patients younger than 85 years, primary anastomosis is preferable to Hartmann's procedure as a treatment for perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey III or Hinchey IV disease). FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.status: publishe