Major perioperative morbidity does not affect long-term survival in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of cancer of the esophagus/GE junction is dramatically increasing but continues to have a dismal prognosis. Esophagectomy provides the best opportunity for long-term cure but is hampered by increased rates of perioperative morbidity. We reviewed our large institutional experience to evaluate the impact of postoperative complications on the long-term survival of patients undergoing resection for curative intent. METHODS: We identified 237 patients who underwent esophagogastrectomy, with curative intent, for cancer between 1994 and 2008. Complications were graded using the previously published Clavien scale. Survival was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology and survival curves were compared using log-rank tests. Multivariate analysis was performed with continuous and categorical variables as predictors of survival, and examined with logistic regression and odds ratio confidence intervals. RESULTS: There were 12 (5 %) perioperative deaths. The average age of all patients was 62 years, and the majority (82 %) was male. Complication grade did not significantly affect long-term survival, although patients with grade IV (serious) complications did have a decreased survival (p = 0.15). Predictors of survival showed that the minimally invasive type esophagectomy (p = 0.0004) and pathologic stage (p = 0.0007) were determining factors. There was a significant difference in overall survival among patients who experienced pneumonia (p = 0.00016) and respiratory complications (p = 0.0004), but this was not significant on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-institution series, we found that major perioperative morbidity did not have a negative impact on long-term survival which is different than previous series. The impact of tumor characteristics at time of resection on long-term survival is of most importance

Recurrence and survival outcomes after anatomic segmentectomy versus lobectomy for clinical stage I non- Small-cell lung cancer: a propensity-matched analysis

Purpose: Although anatomic segmentectomy has been considered a compromised procedure by many surgeons, recent retrospective, single-institution series have demonstrated tumor recurrence and patient survival rates that approximate those achieved by lobectomy. The primary objective of this study was to use propensity score matching to compare outcomes after these anatomic resection approaches for stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients and Methods: A retrospective data set including 392 segmentectomy patients and 800 lobectomy patients was used to identify matched segmentectomy and lobectomy cohorts (n = 312 patients per group) using a propensity score matching algorithm that accounted for confounding effects of preoperative patient variables. Primary outcome variables included freedom from recurrence and overall survival. Factors affecting survival were assessed by Cox regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier estimates. Results: Perioperative mortality was 1.2% in the segmentectomy group and 2.5% in the lobectomy group (P = .38). At a mean follow-up of 5.4 years, comparing segmentectomy with lobectomy, no differences were noted in locoregional (5.5% v 5.1%, respectively; P = 1.00), distant (14.8% v 11.6%, respectively; P = .29), or overall recurrence rates (20.2% v 16.7%, respectively; P = .30). Furthermore, when comparing segmentectomy with lobectomy, no significant differences were noted in 5-year freedom from recurrence (70% v 71%, respectively; P = .467) or 5-year survival (54% v 60%, respectively; P = .258). Segmentectomy was not found to be an independent predictor of recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.40) or overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.52). Conclusion: In this large propensity-matched comparison, lobectomy was associated with modestly increased freedom from recurrence and overall survival, but the differences were not statistically significant. These results will need further validation by prospective, randomized trials (eg, Cancer and Leukemia Group B 140503 trial)

Oncologic efficacy is not compromised, and may be improved with minimally invasive esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Major morbidity and mortality rates continue to be high in large series of transthoracic esophagectomies. Minimally invasive approaches are being increasingly used. We compare our growing series of minimally invasive (combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic) esophagectomies (MIEs) with a series of open transthoracic esophagectomies. STUDY DESIGN: We identified 65 patients who underwent an MIE with thoracoscopy/laparotomy (n = 11), Ivor Lewis (n = 2), or 3-hole approach (n = 52). These patients were compared with 53 patients who underwent open Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (n = 15) or 3-hole esophagectomy (n = 38) over the past 10 years. RESULTS: The MIE and open groups were similar regarding gender and average age. The majority of patients in the open group underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (81%); a significantly smaller (43%) number of patients in the MIE group underwent neoadjuvant therapy (p \u3c 0.0001). Regarding oncologic efficacy, 97% and 94% of patients in both groups underwent R0 resections. Patients undergoing MIE had a significant increase in the number of harvested lymph nodes (median 20 vs 9; p \u3c 0.0001). Length of stay was significantly decreased in patients who underwent MIE (8.5 days vs 16 days; p = 0.002). Finally, there were significantly fewer serious complications (grades 3-5) in the MIE group (19% vs 48%; p = 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: In this initial report of a single-institution series of MIE, we demonstrate that oncologic efficacy is not compromised and may actually be improved with a significantly increased number of harvested LNs. We also demonstrate that this approach is associated with fewer serious complications and a significant decrease in the length of postoperative hospital stay

Definitive chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for stage II to III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma Discussion

status: publishe