Mortality Of Esophagectomy Research Articles

Dynamic volume-outcome association for esophagectomies: Do current volume thresholds still apply?

BackgroundIt is unknown if the current minimum case volume recommendation of 20 cases per year per hospital is applicable to contemporary practice. MethodsPatients undergoing esophageal resection between 2005 and 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database. High, medium, and low-volume hospital strata were defined by quartiles. Adjusted odds ratios and adjusted 30-day mortality between low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals were calculated using logistic regression analyses and trended over time. ResultsOnly 1.1% of hospitals had ≥20 annual cases. The unadjusted 30-day mortality for esophagectomy was 3.8% overall. Unadjusted and adjusted 30-day mortality trended down for all three strata between 2005 and 2015, with disproportionate decreases for low-volume and medium-volume versus high-volume hospitals. By 2015, adjusted 30-day mortality was similar in medium- and high-volume hospitals (odds ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 0.96–1.91). For hospitals with 20 or more annual cases the adjusted 30-day mortality was 2.7% overall. To achieve this same 30-day mortality the minimum volume threshold had lowered to 7 annual cases by 2015. ConclusionOnly 1.1% of hospitals meet current volume recommendations for esophagectomy. Differential improvements in postoperative mortality at low- and medium- versus high-volume hospitals have led to 7 cases in 2015 achieving the same adjusted 30-day mortality as 20 cases in the overall cohort. Lowering volume thresholds for esophagectomy in contemporary practice would potentially increase the proportion of hospitals able to meet volume standards and increase access to quality care without sacrificing quality.

Minimally invasive laparo-thoracoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with semi-mechanical triangular anastomosis: Short-term outcomes of 114 consecutive patients.

Several surgical teams have developed so-called minimally invasive esophagectomy techniques with the intention of decreasing post-operative complications. The goal of this report is to determine the feasibility, reproducibility, morbidity and mortality of esophagectomy and intrathoracic anastomosis via thoracoscopy. This retrospective series included 114 consecutive non-selected patients who underwent Lewis Santy type esophagectomy between 2016 and 2020. The procedure was performed via abdominal laparoscopy, thoracoscopy with the patient in a supine position, without selective intubation, with intra-thoracic semi-mechanical triangular esophagogastric anastomosis. Mean patient age was 62.8years. Conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy was required in three patients (2.6%); no patient required conversion from thoracoscopy to thoracotomy. A semi-mechanical triangular esophagogastric anastomosis was successfully performed in all patients. Median duration of hospital stay was 16 (8-116) days. Mortality was 2.6%; 34 patients (29.8%) had major complications, 55 (48%) had a respiratory complication. The leakage rate was 12.3%; most were type I. Only 5.2% required an additional procedure. There was no mortality. The analysis of this consecutive series found that this operative technique was reproducible and reliable. These results need to be confirmed by other studies. Pulmonary morbidity was high and remains the main challenge in this type of surgery.

Indocyanine green fluorescent lymphography: Surgical procedure.

Several surgical teams have developed so-called minimally invasive esophagectomy techniques with the intention of decreasing post-operative complications. The goal of this report is to determine the feasibility, reproducibility, morbidity and mortality of esophagectomy and intrathoracic anastomosis via thoracoscopy.This retrospective series included 114 consecutive non-selected patients who underwent Lewis Santy type esophagectomy between 2016 and 2020. The procedure was performed via abdominal laparoscopy, thoracoscopy with the patient in a supine position, without selective intubation, with intra-thoracic semi-mechanical triangular esophagogastric anastomosis.Mean patient age was 62.8 years. Conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy was required in three patients (2.6%); no patient required conversion from thoracoscopy to thoracotomy. A semi-mechanical triangular esophagogastric anastomosis was successfully performed in all patients. Median duration of hospital stay was 16 (8–116) days. Mortality was 2.6%; 34 patients (29.8%) had major complications, 55 (48%) had a respiratory complication. The leakage rate was 12.3%; most were type I. Only 5.2% required an additional procedure. There was no mortality.The analysis of this consecutive series found that this operative technique was reproducible and reliable. These results need to be confirmed by other studies. Pulmonary morbidity was high and remains the main challenge in this type of surgery.

Variation in outcomes across surgeons meeting the Leapfrog volume standard for complex oncologic surgery.

A large body of evidence supports regionalization of complex oncologic surgery to high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals. However, whether there is heterogeneity of outcomes among high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals remains unknown. Patients who underwent esophagectomy, lung resection, pancreatectomy, or proctectomy for primary cancer were identified within the Medicare 100% Standard Analytic File (2013-2017). Mixed-effects analyses assessed the association between Leapfrog annual volume standards for surgeons (esophagectomy ≥7, lung resection ≥15, pancreatectomy ≥10, proctectomy ≥6) and hospitals (esophagectomy ≥20, lung resection ≥40, pancreatectomy ≥20, proctectomy ≥16) relative to postoperative complications and 90-day mortality. Additional analyses using New York's all-payer Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (2004-2015) were performed. Among 112,154 Medicare beneficiaries, high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals were associated with lower adjusted odds of complications (esophagectomy: odds ratio [OR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.61-0.86]; lung resection: OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82-0.94]; pancreatectomy: OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.66-0.80]; proctectomy: OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]) and 90-day mortality (esophagectomy: OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.44-0.76]; lung resection: OR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93]; pancreatectomy: OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.56-0.76]; proctectomy: OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.65-0.85]). For the average patient at the average high-volume hospital, there was a 2-fold difference in the adjusted complication rate between the best-performing and worst-performing high-volume surgeon for all operations (esophagectomy, 28%-55%; lung resection, 7%-21%; pancreatectomy, 16%-35%; proctectomy, 16%-28%). Wide variation was also present in adjusted 90-day mortality for esophagectomy (3.5%-9.3%). Results from New York's all-payer database were similar. Even among high-volume surgeons meeting the Leapfrog volume standards, wide variation in postoperative outcomes exists. These findings suggest that volume alone should not be used as a quality indicator, and quality metrics should be continuously evaluated across all surgeons and hospital systems. Previous studies have demonstrated a surgical volume-outcome relationship for high-risk operations-that is high-volume surgeons and hospitals that perform a specific surgical procedure more frequently have better outcomes for that operation. Although most high-volume surgeons had better outcomes, this study demonstrated that some high-volume surgeons did not have better outcomes. Therefore, volume is an important factor but should not be the only factor considered when assessing the quality of a surgeon and a hospital for cancer surgery.

ID: 3524065 ENDOSCOPIC THERAPY VERSUS SURGICAL INTERVENTION IN MANAGING T1AN0M0 AND T1BN0M0 ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: A MORTALITY ANALYSIS

Endoscopic therapy is gaining more acceptance as a preferred intervention for superficial node-negative esophageal cancer, avoiding the morbidity and mortality of esophagectomy. Since 2010, guidelines have subdivided these neoplasms into T1a (mucosal only involvement) and T1b (submucosal involvement), with corresponding differences in treatment guidance. The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival in patients with T1a/T1b esophageal cancer managed with either endoscopic therapy or surgery.

Mortality After Esophagectomy: Analysis of Individual Complications and Their Association with Mortality

BackgroundThe relationship between individual complications and esophagectomy mortality is unclear. The influence of comorbidities on the impact of complications on operative mortality is also unknown. We sought to assess the impact of individual complications and the effect of coexisting comorbidities on operative mortality following esophagectomy. MethodsAll gastric conduit esophagectomies performed for cancer from 2008 to 2017 in the Society of Thoracic Surgery database were identified. Chi square was utilized to identify postoperative events associated with operative mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed, utilizing postoperative events, to determine the risk-adjusted effect on operative mortality for each postoperative event. To assess the effect of preoperative comorbidities, a second logistic regression analysis was performed, incorporating preoperative characteristics. ResultsOf 11,943 esophagectomy patients, 63.9% had a postoperative event and 3.3% died, which did not change over the study period. The postoperative events with the highest impact on operative mortality were respiratory distress syndrome (OR 7.48 (95% CI 5.23–10.7)), reintubation (OR 6.55 (4.61–9.30)), and renal failure (OR 5.97 (4.08–8.75)). Anastomotic leak requiring reoperation was associated with increased operative mortality (OR 1.48 (1.03–2.14)), but medically managed leak was not. Incorporating preoperative characteristics into the operative mortality model had little effect on odds ratio for death for individual postoperative events. ConclusionsIn the Society of Thoracic Surgery database, 64% of patients suffer postoperative events and 3.3% die following esophagectomy. The independent association of certain postoperative events with mortality is an objective method of terming a complication “major” and may aid efforts to reduce mortality.

The Surgeon Volume-outcome Relationship: Not Yet Ready for Policy.

Increasing surgeon volume may improve outcomes for index operations. We hypothesized that there may be surrogate operative experiences that yield similar outcomes for surgeons with a low-volume experience with a specific index operation, such as esophagectomy. The relationship between surgeon volume and outcomes has potential implications for credentialing of surgeons. Restrictions of privileges based on surgeon volume are only reasonable if there is no substitute for direct experience with the index operation. This study was aimed at determining whether there are valid surrogates for direct experience with a sample index operation-open esophagectomy. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2003-2009) was utilized. Surgeons were stratified into low and high-volume groups based on annual volume of esophagectomy. Surrogate volume was defined as the aggregate annual volume per surgeon of upper gastrointestinal operations including excision of esophageal diverticulum, gastrectomy, gastroduodenectomy, and repair of diaphragmatic hernia. In all, 26,795 esophagectomies were performed nationwide (2003-2009), with a crude inhospital mortality rate of 5.2%. Inhospital mortality decreased with increasing volume of esophagectomies performed annually: 7.7% and 3.8% for low and high-volume surgeons, respectively (P < 0.0001). Among surgeons with a low-volume esophagectomy experience, increasing volume of surrogate operations improved the outcomes observed for esophagectomy: 9.7%, 7.1%, and 4.3% for low, medium, and high-surrogate-volume surgeons, respectively (P = 0.016). Both operation-specific volume and surrogate volume are significant predictors of inhospital mortality for esophagectomy. Based on these observations, it would be premature to limit hospital privileges based solely on operation-specific surgeon volume criteria.

Endoscopic Treatment for Esophageal Cancer

Esophageal cancer incidence rate per 100,000 is 4.7 in 2013, which accounts for 1.1% of the total cancer incidence in Korea. Superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is frequently detected in persons undergoing upper endoscopy for gastrointestinal symptoms or for gastric cancer screening. Esophagectomy with lymph node dissection is the standard treatment for esophageal cancer. However, given the considerable morbidity and mortality of esophagectomy, endoscopic resection has become the standard of care for most cases of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma without metastasis. In addition, endoscopic submucosal dissection has increased the cure rate, even when the tumor is large, compared to endoscopic mucosal resection. Thus, endoscopic submucosal dissection is the treatment of choice for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with a negligible risk of lymph node metastasis. Endoscopic resection is usually associated with a low risk of morbidity and no mortality, and has also shown favorable long-term outcomes. However, the long-term risk of metastasis remains after endoscopic resection, which varies according to the characteristics of tumor. This review describes the indication and outcomes of endoscopic resection, complications of endoscopic resection, and management after treatment.

A practical guide to the management of dysphagia in patients with metastatic esophageal cancer

In patients with esophageal cancer, dysphagia can be a distressing symptom, subsequently resulting in weight loss and malnutrition. While luminal obstruction is a common complication, the optimal management approach remains undefined. Given the high morbidity and mortality of esophagectomy and esophageal bypass, surgical palliation has long fallen out of favor. Instead, various other palliative approaches are available, all of which are relatively effective, but differ in regards to time to benefit, durability and toxicity. The available literature is relatively limited, and decisions regarding how to manage dysphagia, and when to appropriately employ these various therapies, are left to individual judgment. Using a tertiary center experience and a review of the current literature, we would typically recommend either systemic chemotherapy or palliative external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) as initial measures. The benefits of chemotherapy include the high likelihood of symptomatic improvement, avoidance of delays in systemic therapy, and minimal loco-regional toxicity. Radiotherapy would similarly be an effective initial approach and may be best suited for patients with low volume (oligo-metastatic) disease. For patients who develop progressive dysphagia later in their disease course, radiotherapy or SEMS placement are the main therapy options. We recommend against “double palliation,” in which patients receive two palliative therapies simultaneously. Overall, decisions regarding management of malignant dysphagia should be individualized to consider the severity of the obstruction, the need for systemic therapy, prior therapy received, and finally the patient’s life expectancy and personal wishes.

Surgical Management of Early-Stage Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Based on Lymph Node Metastasis Risk.

In early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), esophagectomy improves staging but also increases mortality compared with endoscopic resection. Our objective was to quantify esophagectomy mortality and lymph node metastasis (LNM) risk in early-stage EAC to improve surgical treatment allocation. We identified National Cancer Database (2004-2014) patients with nonmetastatic, Tis, T1a, or T1b EAC who had primary surgical resection and microscopic examination of at least 15 lymph nodes. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of LNM. Cox regression identified predictors of death. The Kaplan-Meier method predicted overall survival (OS). In 782 patients, LNM rates were: all patients 13.8%, Tis 0%, T1a 3.6%, T1b 23.4%. Independent predictors of LNM were submucosal invasion, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), decreasing differentiation, and tumor size ≥2 cm (P<0.05). For T1a tumors with poor differentiation or size ≥2cm, LNM rates were 10.2 and 6.7%, respectively; 90-day mortality was 3.1%. The LNM rate in well differentiated T1b tumors <2cm was 4.2%; 90-day mortality was 6.0%. Estimated 5-year OS was 80.2% versus 64.4% (T1a vs. T1b). LNM increased risk of death for T1a (hazard ratio [HR] 8.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.13-23.22, P<0.001) and T1b tumors (HR 2.52, 95% CI 1.59-4.00, P<0.001). In T1a EAC with poor differentiation or size ≥2cm, esophagectomy should be considered, whereas in T1b EAC with low-risk features (well-differentiated T1b EAC <2cm without LVI), endoscopic resection may be sufficient. Treatment guidelines for early-stage EAC should include all high-risk tumor features for LNM and stage-specific esophagectomy mortality.

The effects of neoadjuvant therapy on morbidity and mortality of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program (ACS-NSQIP) 2005-2012.

This study used a multi-center database to evaluate the impact of neoadjuvant therapy on the 30-day morbidity and mortality following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. The NSQIP database was queried for 2005-2012 for patients, who had esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Patients were divided into two groups: neoadjuvant therapy and esophagectomy only. The neoadjuvant group had a lower rates of sepsis (8% vs. 13%, unadjusted P = 0.004) and acute renal failure (0.4% vs. 2%, unadjusted P = 0.01), and a higher rate of pulmonary embolism (PE) (3% vs. 1%, unadjusted P = 0.04). The adjusted odds of PE for patients, who received neoadjuvant therapy were 2.8 times the odds of PE for patients in the esophagectomy group, controlling for BMI. The association with renal failure was not significant, when one adjusted for race. There was no difference in the rates of reoperation, readmission, stroke, cardiac arrest, MI, surgical site and deep organ infections, anastomosis failure, blood transfusions, DVT, septic shock, pneumonia, UTI, respiratory failure, and 30-day mortality between the two groups. We conclude that neoadjuvant therapy followed by esophagectomy for esophageal cancer does not have a negative impact on 30-day mortality. Neoadjuvant therapy is associated with increased odds of PE. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017;115:296-300. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Characterizing the role of a high-volume cancer resection ecosystem on low-volume, high-quality surgical care

Our objective was to determine the hospital resources required for low-volume, high-quality care at high-volume cancer resection centers. Patients who underwent esophageal, pancreatic, and rectal resection for malignancy were identified using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database (Florida and California) between 2007 and 2011. Annual case volume by procedure was used to identify high- and low-volume centers. Hospital data were obtained from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database. Procedure risk-adjusted mortality was calculated for each hospital using multilevel, mixed-effects models. A total of 24,784 patients from 302 hospitals met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 13 hospitals were classified as having a high-volume, oncologic resection ecosystem by being a high-volume hospital for ≥2 studied procedures. A total of 11 of 31 studied hospital factors were strongly associated with hospitals that performed a high volume of cancer resections and were used to develop the High Volume Ecosystem for Oncologic Resections (HIVE-OR) score. At low-volume centers, increasing HIVE-OR score resulted in decreased mortality for rectal cancer resection (P=.038). HIVE-OR was not related to risk-adjusted mortality for esophagectomy (P=.421) or pancreatectomy (P=.413) at low-volume centers. Our study found that in some settings, low-volume, high-quality cancer surgical care can be explained by having a high-volume ecosystem.

Postoperative 30-day mortality may underestimate the risk of esophagectomy

To summarize the mortality of esophagectomy in our series and compare the different mortalities based on 30-day deaths and 90-day deaths postoperatively. A total of 954 patients undergoing esophagectomy by single-surgeon-team between January 2000 and December 2012 from our prospective database were enrolled. The mortalities based on 30-day and 90-day deaths postoperatively were compared, and the causes of deaths within 30 days and 90 days were analyzed. Among all these 954 patients, a total of 20 postoperative deaths(2.1%) were observed: 11 within 30 days(1.1%) and 9 between 30 and 90 days after surgery(1.0%). The reasons for deaths within 30 days were as follows: 3 for respiratory failure related to anastomotic leakage,1 for bleeding after stenting due to anastomotic fistula, 1 for sepsis, 3 for respiratory failure from presenting preoperative respiratory morbidities, 2 for cardiac arrest caused by preoperative heart disorder, and 1 for multiple organ failure caused by early adjuvant chemotoxicity. The reasons for deaths between 30 and 90 days were as follows: 1 for respiratory failure related to anastomotic leakage, 1 for cardiac arrest from preoperative heart disorder, 1 for cerebrovascular accident, 1 for liver failure from liver cirrhosis presenting preoperatively, 1 for renal failure after operation, 1 for tumor progression and 2 for unknown reasons. Since postoperative mortality calculated based on 30 days deaths postoperatively may underestimate the risk of esophagectomy, mortality calculated based on 90 days may be a better option.

Evaluation of the Caprini Model for Venothromboembolism in Esophagectomy Patients

Patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer are in the highest-risk group for venous thromboembolism, with a 7.3% incidence reported by the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Venothromboembolism (VTE) doubles esophagectomy mortality. The Caprini risk assessment model (RAM) is a method to stratify postoperative thromboembolism risk for consideration of prolonged preventive anticoagulation in higher-risk patients. Our aim was to examine the potential use of this model for reducing the VTE incidence in esophagectomy patients. The records of patients who underwent an esophagectomy by the thoracic surgery service at our institution between June 2005 and June 2013 were reviewed. The inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of esophageal cancer treated with esophagectomy (any approach) and with available 60-day postoperative follow-up. Exclusion criteria were the presence of an inferior vena cava filter or chronic anticoagulation therapy. The Caprini risk score and the number of VTE events were recorded retrospectively for each patient. Seventy patients satisfied eligibility criteria. The VTE incidence was 14.3%. Patients with esophageal thromboembolism had a higher Caprini score distribution than patients without thromboembolism (p < 0.001). Adjusted logistic regression analysis demonstrated increased odds of VTE with increasing score (p < 0.05), with good discrimination. In this first report examining the Caprini model categories in an esophagectomy population, the VTE incidence in true high-risk patients was high. From this retrospective calculation of risk and events, patients in the highest-risk Caprini group may benefit from an enhanced course of postoperative anticoagulation.

Approaches to Perioperative Care for Esophagectomy

DESPITE ITS LONGSTANDING RECOGNITION, esophageal carcinoma remains a highly lethal disease that affects thousands of patients annually. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports heterogenous development of mortality from esophageal cancer over time (Fig 1). Although improvements over time have been made in the mortality rates of black women and men, the mortality for white men actually has increased in the last decade of the 20th century. In 2010, death rates from esophageal cancer were approximately 40/100,000 for men Z 65 years of age and about 10/100,000 for women Z 65 years of age. In 1990, death rates were significantly higher for black than for white patients; in 2010 the death rates were similar (Fig 1). Perioperative mortality for esophagectomy is the highest among elective procedures, and has been reported from 1% to 3% in contemporary single-center studies and between 3.4% high-volume hospitals and 17.3% in low-volume hospitals in a large multicenter retrospective study assessing cancer outcomes from 1984 to 1993 in patients older than 65. A recent study looking at trends and outcomes of esophageal surgery in the United States examined the national inpatient sample database to analyze results for patients with esophageal cancer treated with either total or partial esophagectomy. Between 2001 and 2010 in the United States, 15,190 esophagectomies were performed. Although numbers increased progressively during this period, mortality decreased from 8.3% to 4.2%.

The frequency of lymph node metastasis in early-stage adenocarcinoma of the esophagus with incipient submucosal invasion (pT1b sm1) depending on histological risk patterns.

A prerequisite for endoscopic treatment (ET) of not only mucosal, but also submucosal early adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (EAC) would be a rate of lymph node (LN) metastasis below the mortality rate of esophagectomy (2-5%). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the rate of LN metastasis in patients with pT1b sm1 EAC. 1996-2010, 1,718 patients with suspicion of EAC were referred to the Department of Internal Medicine II at HSK Wiesbaden. In 123/1718 patients, the suspicion (endoscopic ultrasound, EUS) or definitive diagnosis of sm1 EAC (ER/surgery) was made. Rate of LN metastasis was analyzed separately for low-risk (LR; G1-2, L0, V0) and high-risk lesions (HR; G3, L1, V1; ≥ 1 risk factor). LN metastasis was only evaluated in patients who had a proven maximum invasion depth of sm1 (ER and/or surgery), and who in case of ET had a follow-up (FU) by EUS of at least 24 months. Of the 72/123 patients included into the study, 49 patients had LR (68%) and 23 HR lesions (32%). In endoscopically treated LR patients (37/49), mean EUS-FU was 60 ± 30 mo (range 25-146); in HR patients undergoing ET (6/23), it was 63 ± 17 mo (46-86; p = 0.4). Mean number of resected LN was 27 ± 16 (12-62) in operated LR patients and 27 ± 10 (12-47) in HR-patients. The rate of LN metastasis was 2% in the LR (1 patient) and 9% in the HR group (2 patients; p = 0.24). Mortality of esophagectomy was 3%. The rate of LN metastasis in pT1b sm1 early adenocarcinoma with histological LR pattern was lower than the mortality rate of esophagectomy. ER may therefore be used alternatively to surgery in this group of patients.

Endoscopic assessment and management of early esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Esophageal carcinoma affects more than 450000 people worldwide and the incidence is rapidly increasing. In the United States and Europe, esophageal adenocarcinoma has superseded esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in its incidence. Esophageal cancer has a high mortality rates secondary to the late presentation of most patients at advanced stages. Endoscopic screening is recommended for patients with multiple risk factors for cancer in Barrett's esophagus. These risk factors include chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease, hiatal hernia, advanced age, male sex, white race, cigarette smoking, and obesity. The annual risk of esophageal cancer is approximately 0.25% for patients without dysplasia and 6% for patients with high-grade dysplasia. Twenty percent of all esophageal adenocarcinoma in the United States is early stage with disease confined to the mucosa or submucosa. The significant morbidity and mortality of esophagectomy make endoscopic treatment an attractive option. The American Gastroenterological Association recommends endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with high-grade dysplasia. Endoscopic modalities for treatment of early esophageal adenocarcinoma include endoscopic resection techniques and endoscopic ablative techniques such as radiofrequency ablation, photodynamic therapy and cryoablation. Endoscopic therapy should be precluded to patients with no evidence of lymphovascular invasion. Local tumor recurrence is low after endoscopic therapy and is predicted by poor differentiation of tumor, positive lymph node and submucosal invasion. Surgical resection should be offered to patients with deep submucosal invasion.

Endoscopic Therapy of Neoplasia Related to Barrett's Esophagus and Endoscopic Palliation of Esophageal Cancer

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the most important identifiable risk factor for the progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma. This article reviews the current endoscopic therapies for BE with high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal cancer and briefly discusses the endoscopic palliation of advanced esophageal cancer. The diagnosis of low-grade or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) is based on several cytologic criteria that suggest neoplastic transformation of the columnar epithelium. HGD and carcinoma in situ are regarded as equivalent. The presence of dysplasia, particularly HGD, is also a risk factor for synchronous and metachronous adenocarcinoma. Dysplasia is a marker of adenocarcinoma and also has been shown to be the preinvasive lesion. Esophagectomy has been the conventional treatment for T1 esophageal cancer and, although debated, is an appropriate option in some patients with HGD due to the presence of occult cancer in over one-third of patients. Endoscopic ablative modalities (eg, photodynamic therapy and cryoablation) and endoscopic resection techniques (eg, endoscopic mucosal resection) have demonstrated promising results. The significant morbidity and mortality of esophagectomy makes endoscopic treatment an attractive potential option.

A NSQIP comparison of modern multicenter results for transhiatial versus transthoracic esophagectomy.

68 Background: The surgical approach to esophageal cancer continues to be controversial. A transthoracic approach is often advocated for better oncologic staging and improved survival. A transhiatal approach is often preferred due to a perceived decreased operative morbidity and mortality. Methods: Using the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP) participant-use file, patients were identified who underwent esophagectomy for cancer at the 240 participating hospitals from 2005-2011. Demographic, clinical, intra-operative variables and 30-day morbidity and mortality were collected. Results: Of the 1108 patients that had esophagectomy, 649 (58.5%) had a transhiatal (TH) resection and 459 (41.4%) had a transthoracic (TT) resection. There were no significant differences in age, gender, comorbid conditions, preoperative chemotherapy or radiation, or ASA class. Operative time was greater in the TT group (360.4 vs. 298.4min, p=0.0001). Thirty day overall mortality (TH=3.4%, TT=4.5%, p=0.3) and mean hospital length of stay(TH=15.25, TT=16.76, p=0.08) were not significantly different. The TH group had a significantly higher superficial wound infection rate (13% vs. 7.4%, p=0.002). The TT group had significantly higher rate of perioperative transfusion (9% vs. 5.1%, p=0.023) and septic shock (12.2% vs. 7.1%, p=0.004). On multivariate analysis, history of congestive heart failure and pneumonia were significant predictors of 30 day mortality. Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and COPD were predictors of morbidity. There were no differences in the rates of pneumonia, need for reintubation, ventilator requirements, or need for reoperation in both groups. Conclusions: In this modern series of patients, utilizing standardized national data collection tools, there was no significant difference in mortality of esophagectomy between transthoracic and transhiatal approaches. However, morbidity rates do vary with an increased rate of substantial morbidity in the transthoracic group including septic shock.

Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Strategies for Treating Esophageal Adenocarcinoma and High-grade Dysplasia

ObjectiveThis study aims to synthesize cost and health outcomes for current treatment pathways for esophageal adenocarcinoma and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and to model comparative net clinical and economic benefits of alternative management scenarios. MethodsA decision-analytic model of real-world practices for esophageal adenocarcinoma treatment by tumor stage was constructed and validated. The model synthesized treatment probabilities, survival, quality of life, and resource use extracted from epidemiological datasets, published literature, and expert opinion. Comparative analyses between current practice and five hypothetical scenarios for modified treatment were undertaken. ResultsOver 5 years, outcomes across T stage ranged from 4.06 quality-adjusted life-years and costs of $3,179 for HGD to 1.62 quality-adjusted life-years and costs of $50,226 for stage T4. Greater use of endoscopic mucosal resection for stage T1 and measures to reduce esophagectomy mortality to 0–3 % produced modest gains, whereas a 20 % reduction in the proportion of patients presenting at stage T3 produced large incremental net benefits of $4,971 (95 % interval, $1,560–8,368). ConclusionThese findings support measures that promote earlier diagnosis, such as developing risk assessment processes or endoscopic surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus. Incremental net monetary benefits for other strategies are relatively small in comparison to predicted gains from early detection strategies.