Open Transthoracic Esophagectomy Research Articles

Robotic-assisted esophagectomy with total mesoesophageal excision enhances R0-resection in patients with esophageal cancer: A single-center experience

BackgroundThe focus of this research is to examine the growing use of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy. Specifically, it evaluates the immediate clinical and cancer-related results of combining robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with a systematic approach to total mesoesophageal excision, as opposed to traditional open transthoracic esophagectomy methods that do not employ a structured total mesoesophageal excision protocol. MethodsA propensity score–matched analysis of 185 robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomies and 223 open transthoracic esophagectomies after standardized Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was performed. After 1:1 nearest neighbor matching to account for confounding by covariates, outcomes of 181 robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and 181 open transthoracic esophagectomy were compared. ResultsThe patient characteristics showed significant differences in the age distribution and in comorbidities such as coronary heart disease, arterial hypertension, and anticoagulant intake. The R0-resection rate of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (96.7%) was significantly higher than open transthoracic esophagectomy (89.0%, P = .004). Thirty-day mortality and hospital mortality showed no significant differences. Postoperative pneumonia rate after robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (12.7%) was significantly reduced (open transthoracic esophagectomy 28.7%, P < .001). Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy had a significantly shorter intensive care unit stay (P < .001) and shorter hospital stay (P < .001). ConclusionThis single-center, retrospective study employing propensity score matching found that combining robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with structured total mesoesophageal excision results in better short-term clinical and oncologic outcomes than open transthoracic esophagectomy. This finding is significant because the increased rate of R0 resection could indicate a higher likelihood of improved long-term survival. Additionally, enhanced overall postoperative recovery may contribute to better risk management in esophagectomy procedures.

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Provides Better Short- and Long-Term Outcomes Than Open Esophagectomy in Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been increasingly performed for locally advanced esophageal cancer in place of open transthoracic esophagectomy (OE). This study explored the significance of MIE for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), focusing mainly on the depth of primary esophageal tumors. This study retrospectively assessed short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent esophagectomy for ESCC from 2005 through 2021. The inverse probability of the treatment-weighting (IPTW) method was used to compare the outcomes between OE and MIE. The outcomes also were evaluated in the subgroups stratified by cT category. Among 1117 patients, 447 (40%) underwent OE and 670 (60%) underwent MIE. After IPTW adjustment, the incidence of any postoperative complications was significantly higher in the OE group than in the MIE group (60.8% vs 53.7%; p = 0.032), whereas the R0 resection rate was significantly higher in the MIE group (98.6% vs 92.7%; p < 0.001). The MIE group showed better 3year overall and cancer-specific survival than the OE group (p < 0.001). The incidence of locoregional recurrence within the surgical field was significantly more frequent in the OE group (p < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis stratified by cT category, the R0 resection rate was significantly higher and the incidence of locoregional recurrence was lower in the MIE group among the patients with cT3-4 tumors. In the patients with cT1-2 tumors, MIE showed no significant benefit over OE. For the patients with cT3-4 tumors, MIE showed fewer postoperative complications, better locoregional control, and better prognosis than OE. Compared with OE, MIE is beneficial, especially for locally advanced ESCC.

A randomized controlled phase III trial comparing thoracoscopic esophagectomy and open esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer: JCOG1409 (MONET trial).

249 Background: Thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) as minimally invasive esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer has become widely prevalent around the world over the past decade. However, results from a large-scale, multicenter randomized controlled trial that compared long-term survival as the primary endpoint between TE and conventional open transthoracic esophagectomy (OE) have not yet been demonstrated. We conducted a multicenter randomized phase III study (JCOG1409) to confirm the non-inferiority of TE to OE in terms of overall survival (OS) for thoracic esophageal cancer (UMIN000017628). Methods: Eligible patients with clinical stage I-III, excluding T4, thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were randomized to undergo either OE or TE. The primary endpoint was OS, with secondary endpoints including relapse-free survival (RFS), the proportion of patients achieving R0 resection, the proportion of patients needing conversion from TE to OE, adverse events, the proportion of patients requiring re-operation, changes in postoperative respiratory dysfunction, and postoperative quality-of-life score. Non-inferiority would be confirmed if the upper limit of the confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) does not exceed 1.44, the predefined non-inferiority margin. Results: We randomized 300 patients, assigning 150 to the TE group and 150 to the OE group between May 2015 and June 2022. The second planned interim analysis with 64 OS events was conducted in June 2023. Median follow-up (interquartile range) was 2.6 (1.4-4.9) years. Three-year OS was 82.0% (95% CI, 73.8%-87.8%) in the TE group, and 70.9% (61.6%-78.4%) in the OE group. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended terminating the trial and publishing the results because the non-inferiority of TE to OE in terms of OS was demonstrated after adjusting for multiplicity (HR 0.64; 98.8% CI, 0.34-1.21 [&lt;1.44], one-sided p-value for non-inferiority = 0.000726 &lt; 0.00616). Three-year RFS in the TE group was markedly better than that in the OE group (72.9% vs. 61.9%) with HR of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.46-1.01). R0 resection proportions were 95.3% in the TE group and 90.0% in the OE group. One patient in the TE group needed conversion from TE to OE intraoperatively. The postoperative overall morbidity was similar between the two groups, but the proportion of re-operation was 2.0% in the TE group and 4.1% in the OE group. Respiratory dysfunction proportion at 3 months after surgery were significantly lower in the TE group than in the OE group. Conclusions: TE was shown to be a standard treatment for patients with clinical stage I-III thoracic esophageal cancer. Clinical trial information: UMIN000017628 .

148. COMPARISON OF EARLY POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOME BETWEEN OPEN AND MINIMALLY INVASIVE TRANSTHORACIC ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

Abstract Background Esophagectomy is a highly invasive surgical procedure for esophageal cancer, with open thoracotomy associated with a significant risk of pulmonary complications. Minimally invasive techniques, such as minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), are expected to reduce these complications and enhance postoperative recovery. This study aimed to compare the early postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent open esophagectomy versus MIE. Methods We conducted a retrospective study using a single-center database from January 1, 2010, to February 28, 2023, including patients aged 18–90 years with a resectable lesion of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction who underwent either open transthoracic esophagectomy or MIE (thoracoscopic/robotic-assisted). Patient data, surgical procedures, interventions, and early outcomes (within 30 days of operation) were collected and analyzed. The study included a total of 76 patients, with 50 patients in open esophagectomy group and 26 patients in MIE group. The primary outcome was the incidence of pulmonary complications during the hospital stay, and logistic regression was used for data analysis. Results The overall incidence of pulmonary complications was 37 cases (74%) in the open esophagectomy group and 14 cases (53.8%) in the MIE group, with the incidence of pulmonary infection occurring in 19 cases (38%) and 8 cases (30.8%), respectively. Perioperative mortality was 1 cases (2%) in the open esophagectomy group and 0 cases (0%) in the MIE group. After adjusting for age, sex, BMI, smoking, COPD, and operative time, the open esophagectomy group had a 4.29 times higher risk of pulmonary complications than the MIE group (odds ratio 4.29, 95% confidence interval 1.30–14.16; p = 0.017). Conclusion Our study demonstrates that MIE is associated with a lower incidence of pulmonary complications, reduced blood loss, and shorter ICU stays compared to open esophagectomy. Rates of anastomosis leakage, vocal cord paralysis, and hospital stays were comparable. These findings support the feasibility and safety of MIE, potentially improving surgical outcomes and enhancing postoperative recovery for the treatment of esophageal cancer.

447. PERIOPERATIVE OUTCOMES AFTER THORACOSCOPIC AND OPEN TRANSTHORACIC ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR CANCER

Abstract Background Surgery for esophageal cancer is complex and associated with considerable postoperative morbidity. Several strategies have been attempted to decrease morbidity after esophageal resection including enhanced recovery programmes, concentration of surgery in high-volume centres, and minimally invasive surgical approaches. Randomized trials showing superior perioperative outcomes with thoracoscopic esophagectomy have sometimes not been replicated in real-world studies. We compared our short-term outcomes including postoperative complications, morbidity and mortality after thoracoscopic and open transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of esophageal resections for cancer at a tertiary referral cancer centre between Oct 2003 and Dec 2022. Consecutive patients undergoing either thoracoscopic or open transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE) with a cervical anastomosis were included in the study. Operative time, blood loss, lymph node yield, postoperative morbidity and mortality after surgery were compared between the two groups. Categorical data were analysed using the chi square test and numeric data using the Student t test. A p value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Results A total of 3328 patients were operated for esophageal cancer between 1st October 2003 and 31st Dec 2022. 897 patients who underwent thoracoscopic and 1591 patients who underwent open TTE were included in the study. Comparison between the two groups on the different variables are shown in the table. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, extended radical lymphadenectomy, higher modified risk score and open thoracic approach were significantly associated with increased postoperative morbidity. Conclusion Our series of thoracoscopic esophagectomy, one of the largest in the world, validates the results of randomized trials in the real-world setting, with significant reductions in operative blood loss, ICU stay, postoperative pulmonary complications, wound infections, and major morbidity. Thoracoscopic approach remained an independent determinant of decreased postoperative morbidity.

230. SURVIVAL OUTCOMES OF ROBOT-ASSISTED TRANS-MEDIASTIONAL ESOPHAGECTOMY IN PATIENTS WITH CT1N0 ESOPHAGEAL SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA

Abstract Background We have developed a robot-assisted trans-mediastinal esophagectomy (RATME) to reduce the surgical invasiveness of open trans-thoracic esophagectomy (oTTE). However, the long-term outcome of esophageal cancer patients who underwent RATME remains unclear. Methods Patients who underwent RATME or oTTE for clinical T1N0 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were enrolled in this study. The clinicopathological and surgical details, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and cause-specific survival (CSS) were compared between the RATME and oTTE groups. Results Forty-three and 47 patients who underwent RATME and oTTE, respectively, were included in this analysis. The RATME group included more male patients and had a significantly lower comorbidity index. There was no significant difference in age, tumor location, preoperative ESD rates, and pathological TNM factors between the two groups. The RATME group showed a longer operation time, less blood loss, low incidence of pneumonia, and shorter hospital stays. The OS and DFS rates in the RATME tended to be higher than in the oTTE group; The 5-year OS rates were 88.4 vs 71.5%, and the 5-year DFS rates were 81.4 vs 62.8% (RATME vs oTTE group, p = 0.09 and p = 0.11). The CSS in both groups were equivalent; The 5-year CSS rates were 93.7 vs 92.4% in the RATME and oTTE groups respectively. The RATME group had significantly fewer deaths than the oTTE group (p = 0.032). Conclusions The RATME group tended to show better OS and DFS than the oTTE group. The OS of the RATME group was equivalent to that of the comprehensive registry data in Japan, indicating that RATME radicality is guaranteed.

Cost analysis of robot-assisted versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer. Results of the ROBOT randomized clinical trial

BackgroundThe previously published ROBOT trial demonstrated that robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is associated with a lower percentage of postoperative complications compared to open esophagectomy (OTE) for patients with esophageal cancer. The implications of these results on healthcare costs are important given the increased attention for cost-reduction in healthcare. Therefore the aim of this study was to report the hospital costs of RAMIE compared to OTE as treatment for esophageal cancer. MethodsThe ROBOT trial randomized 112 patients with esophageal cancer between RAMIE and OTE through January 2012 and August 2016 in a single tertiary care academic centre in the Netherlands. The primary outcome of the current study was hospital costs from the day of esophagectomy until 90 days after discharge based on Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing methodology. Secondary outcomes included the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per complication prevented and risk factors for increased hospital costs. ResultsOf the 112 included patients, 109 patients underwent an esophagectomy, of whom 54 RAMIE and 55 OTE. The mean total hospital costs were comparable between RAMIE €40211 and OTE €39495 (mean difference €-715; bias-corrected and accelerated confidence interval € −14831 to 14783, p = 0.932). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20.000 to €25.000 (i.e. estimated additional costs to the hospital to treat patients with a complication) RAMIE had a probability 62%–70% of being cost effective to prevent postoperative complications. In multivariable regression analysis, major postoperative complications were the main driver of hospital costs after esophagectomy (€31839, p = 0.009). ConclusionIn this randomized trial RAMIE resulted in fewer postoperative complications compared to OTE without increasing total hospital costs.

Clinical advantage of transmediastinal esophagectomy in terms of postoperative respiratory complications.

Although the transmediastinal approach as a radical esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma patients has attracted attention, its advantages over the transthoracic approach remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of transmediastinal esophagectomy (TME) in terms of postoperative respiratory complications compared to that of open transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE). We reviewed patients with thoracic and abdominal esophageal carcinoma who underwent TME or TTE between February 2014 and November 2021. We compared postoperative respiratory complications as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included perioperative operation time, blood loss, postoperative complications, and the number of harvested mediastinal lymph nodes. Overall, 60 and 54 patients underwent TME and TTE, respectively. The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, except for age and histological type. There were no intraoperative lethal complications in either group. The incidence of respiratory complications was significantly lower in the TME group than in the TTE group (6.7 vs. 22.2%, p = 0.03). The TME group had a shorter operation time (403 vs. 451min, p < 0.01), less blood loss (107 vs. 253mL, p < 0.01), and slightly higher anastomotic leakage (11.7 vs. 5.6%, p = 0.33). The number of harvested lymph nodes was similar in both groups (24 vs. 26, p = 0.10). Multivariate analysis revealed that TME is an independent factor in reducing respiratory complications (odds ratio = 0.27, p = 0.04). TME for esophageal carcinoma was performed safely. TME was superior to TTE in terms of postoperative respiratory complications; however, the relatively higher frequency of anastomotic leakage should be considered and requires further evaluation.

422. ROBOT-ASSISTED MINIMALLY INVASIVE THORACO-LAPAROSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY VERSUS MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR RESECTABLE ESOPHAGEAL ADENOCARCINOMA, A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (ROBOT-2-TRIAL)

Abstract For patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent. Both conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) were shown to be superior compared to open transthoracic esophagectomy considering postoperative complications. However, no randomized comparison exists between MIE and RAMIE in the Western World for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. This is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0–3, M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 218) with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction are randomized to either RAMIE (n = 109) or MIE (n = 109). T. The primary outcome of this study is the total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes specified per lymph node station. Short-term results and the primary endpoint (total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes per lymph node station) will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient within this trial. This is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAMIE to MIE as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in the Western World. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that RAMIE will result in a higher abdominal and mediastinal lymph node yield specified per station compared to conventional MIE.

Population-Based Cohort Study from a Prospective National Registry: Better Long-Term Survival in Esophageal Cancer After Minimally Invasive Compared with Open Transthoracic Esophagectomy.

Recent research indicates long-term survival benefits of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) compared with open esophagectomy (OE) for patients with esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers, but there is a need for more population-based studies. We conducted a prospective population-based nationwide cohort study including all patients in Sweden diagnosed with esophageal or junctional cancer who underwent a transthoracic esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis. Data were collected from the Swedish National Register for Esophageal and Gastric Cancer in 2006-2019. Patients were grouped into OE and MIE including hybrid MIE (HMIE) and totally MIE (TMIE). Overall survival and short-term postoperative outcomes were compared using Cox regression and logistic regression models, respectively. All models were adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, clinical T and N stage, neoadjuvant therapy, year of surgery, and hospital volume. Among 1404 patients, 998 (71.1%) underwent OE and 406 (28.9%) underwent MIE. Compared with OE, overall survival was better following MIE (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.94), TMIE (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.94), and possibly also after HMIE (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56-1.02). MIE was associated with shorter operation time, less intraoperative bleeding, higher number of resected lymph nodes, and shorter hospital stay compared with OE. MIE was also associated with fewer overall complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.70, 95% CI 0.47-1.03) as well as non-surgical complications (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.40-1.00). MIE seems to offer better survival and similar or improved short-term postoperative outcomes in esophageal and GEJ cancers compared with OE in this unselected population-based cohort.

ASO Author Reflections: Better Long-Term Survival in Esophageal Cancer After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transthoracic Esophagectomy in Sweden: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

ASO Author Reflections: Better Long-Term Survival in Esophageal Cancer After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transthoracic Esophagectomy in Sweden: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

ASO Visual Abstract: Population-Based Cohort Study from a Prospective National Registry-Better Long-Term Survival in Esophageal Cancer after Minimally Invasive Compared with Open Transthoracic Esophagectomy

ASO Visual Abstract: Population-Based Cohort Study from a Prospective National Registry-Better Long-Term Survival in Esophageal Cancer after Minimally Invasive Compared with Open Transthoracic Esophagectomy

Robot-assisted and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy are associated with better postoperative results compared to hybrid and open transthoracic esophagectomy

BackgroundCurrently 4 surgical techniques are performed for transthoracic esophagectomy (open esophagectomy (OE), hybrid esophagectomy (HE), conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). Aim of this study was to compare these 4 different esophagectomy approaches regarding postoperative complications and short term oncologic outcomes. MethodsBetween 2008 and 2019, consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction were included in this single center study. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of postoperative complications. ResultsOverall 422 patients (OE (n = 107), HE (n = 101), MIE (n = 91) and RAMIE (n = 123)) were evaluated. Uncomplicated postoperative course was observed in 27% (OE), 34% (HE), 53% (MIE), and 63% (RAMIE) of patients (p < 0.001). Pulmonary complications were observed in 57% (OE), 44% (HE), 28% (MIE), and 21% (RAMIE) of patients (p < 0.001). Cardiac complications were present in 25% (OE), 23% (HE), 9% (MIE), and 11% (RAMIE) of patients (p < 0.001). MIE and RAMIE were associated with fewer wound infections (p < 0.001). Median hospital stay after MIE (13 days) and RAMIE (12 days) was shorter compared to OE (20 days) and HE (17 days) (p < 0.001). A median number of 21 (OE), 23 (HE), 23 (MIE), and 31 (RAMIE) lymph nodes was harvested (p < 0.001). ConclusionTotal minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE, RAMIE) was associated with a lower overall, pulmonary, cardiac and wound complication rate as well as a shorter hospital stay compared to open or hybrid approach (OE, HE). RAMIE resulted in higher lymph node harvest than MIE.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT-2 trial)

BackgroundFor patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent. Both conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) were shown to be superior compared to open transthoracic esophagectomy considering postoperative complications. However, no randomized comparison exists between MIE and RAMIE in the Western World for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.MethodsThis is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0–3, M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 218) with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction are randomized to either RAMIE (n = 109) or MIE (n = 109). The primary outcome of this study is the total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes specified per lymph node station.ConclusionThis is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAMIE to MIE as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in the Western World. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that RAMIE will result in a higher abdominal and mediastinal lymph node yield specified per station compared to conventional MIE.Short-term results and the primary endpoint (total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes per lymph node station) will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient within this trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04306458. Registered 13th March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04306458; Date of first enrolment 18.01.2021; Target sample size 218; Recruitment status: Recruiting; Protocol version 2; Issue date 10.03.2020; Rev. 02.02.2021; Authors ET, PCvdS, PPG.

Similar Quality of Life After Conventional and Robotic Transhiatal Esophagectomy

BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) for minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) have demonstrated benefits compared with open transthoracic or 3-hole esophagectomy. PROs, including quality of life (QoL) and fear of recurrence (FoR), comparing open transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) and transhiatal robotic-assisted MIE (Th-RAMIE) have been limited. MethodsAt a single, high-volume academic center, patients undergoing THE and Th-RAMIE with gastric conduit for clinical stage I to III esophageal cancer from 2013 to 2018 were evaluated. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire in Esophageal Cancer (QLQ-OES18), and the FoR survey were administered preoperatively and at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Linear mixed-effects models were used for QoL and FoR score comparisons. Perioperative outcomes were also compared. ResultsA total of 309 patients (212 in the group and 97 in the Th-RAMIE group) were included. The Th-RAMIE cohort had a significantly higher number of lymph nodes harvested (14 ± 0.8 vs 11.2 ± 0.4; P = .01), a shorter length of stay (days, 10.0 ± 6.7 vs 12.1 ± 7.0; P = .03), lower rates of postoperative ileus (5% vs 15%; P = .02), and fewer opioids prescribed at discharge (71% vs 85%; P = .03). After adjustment, there were no significant differences in QLQ-C30, QLQ-OES18, and FoR scores between the groups out to 1 year postoperatively. ConclusionsThere were no clear patient-reported benefits of Th-RAMIE over THE for esophageal cancer. However, Th-RAMIE conferred several perioperative benefits.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial.

Initial results of the ROBOT, which randomized between robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTE), showed significantly better short-term postoperative outcomes in favor of RAMIE. However, it is not yet clarified if RAMIE is equivalent to OTE regarding long-term outcomes. The aim of this study was to report the long-term oncological results of the ROBOT trial in terms of survival and disease-free survival. This study is a follow-up study of the ROBOT trial, which was a randomized controlled trial comparing RAMIE to OTE in 112 patients with intrathoracic esophageal cancer. Both the trial protocol and short-term results were previously published. The primary outcome of the current study was 5-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival and recurrence patterns. Analysis was by intention to treat. During the recruitment period, 109 patients were included in the survival analysis (RAMIE n = 54, OTE n = 55). Majority of patients had clinical stage III or IV (RAMIE 63%, OTE 55%) and received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (80%). Median follow-up was 60months (range 31-60). The combined 5-year overall survival rates for RAMIE and OTE were 41% (95% CI 27-55) and 40% (95% CI 26-53), respectively (log rank test P = 0.827). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 42% (95% CI 28-55) in the RAMIE group and 43% (95% CI 29-57) in the OTE group (log rank test P = 0.749). Out of 104 patients, 57 (55%) developed recurrent disease detected at a median of 10months (range 0-56) after surgery. No statistically difference in recurrence rate nor recurrence pattern was observed between both groups. Overall survival and disease-free survival of RAMIE are comparable to OTE. These results continue to support the use of robotic surgery for esophageal cancer.

Dexmedetomidine for prevention of postoperative delirium in older adults undergoing oesophagectomy with total intravenous anaesthesia: A double-blind, randomised clinical trial.

Dexmedetomidine is known to be a sedative. Recent studies suggest that administration of dexmedetomidine can prevent postoperative delirium (POD) which has been confirmed as a common complication after major surgery. However, its effects in patients undergoing oesophagectomy are scarce. To investigate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in reducing POD in elderly patients after transthoracic oesophagectomy with total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA). A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Single-centre, tertiary care hospital, November 2016 to September 2018. Eligible patients (n = 177) undergoing transthoracic oesophagectomy were randomly assigned to receive total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA, n = 87) or dexmedetomidine with TIVA (DEX-TIVA, n = 90). Patients receiving DEX-TIVA received a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (0.4 μg kg-1), over 15 min, followed by a continuous infusion at a rate of 0.1 μg kg-1 h-1 until 1 h before the end of surgery. Patients receiving TIVA received physiological saline with a similar infusion rate protocol. The primary outcome was the incidence of POD. The secondary endpoints were the incidence of emergence agitation, serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels and haemodynamic profile. All randomised patients were included with planned intention-to-treat analyses for POD. Delirium occurred in 15 (16.7%) of 90 cases given dexmedetomidine, and in 32 (36.8%) of 87 cases given saline (P = 0.0036). The DEX-TIVA group showed less frequent emergence agitation than the TIVA group (22.1 vs. 48.0%, P = 0.0058). The incremental change in surgery-induced IL-6 levels was greater in the TIVA group than DEX-TIVA group (P < 0.0001). Adding peri-operative dexmedetomidine to a total intravenous anaesthetic safely reduces POD and emergence agitation in elderly patients undergoing open transthoracic oesophagectomy. These benefits were associated with a postoperative reduction in circulating levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-6 and stabilisation of the haemodynamic profile. Chinese Clinical Trials Register Identifier: ChiCTR-IPR-17010881.

Long-term outcomes and safety of radical transmediastinal esophagectomy with preoperative docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil combination chemotherapy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus

BackgroundIt is unknown whether transmediastinal esophagectomy (TME) is an acceptable surgical procedure for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Therefore, we investigated the feasibility of long-term survival after TME with neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil combination chemotherapy (DCF therapy).MethodsThis retrospective, observational study included locally advanced resectable ESCC. All patients received two cycles of preoperative DCF therapy (60 mg/m2 of docetaxel and cisplatin on day 1 and 700 mg/m2/day of 5-FU on days 1–5 in each cycle) followed by radical TME. The main outcomes were survival and the rate of adverse events of chemotherapy and surgery.ResultsSixteen patients were included in this study. All patients received two cycles of DCF therapy, followed by surgery. The median follow-up duration of the 16 patients was 35.4 months. The 2-year overall survival (OS) was 93.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.3–99.0), and the 3-year OS was 78.8% (95% CI, 47.3–92.7). The 2-year and 3-year relapse-free survivals were both 73.3% (95% CI, 43.6–89.1). Leukopenia and neutropenia occurred in most patients; however, they were controllable. Fifteen patients completed TME, and one was converted to open transthoracic esophagectomy because of tracheal injury. Three-field dissection was performed for 12 of 16 patients (75%), and R0 resection was achieved in 15 of 16 patients (93.8%). Three cases of grade IIIb chylothorax were observed. There was no mortality in this study.ConclusionCombined neoadjuvant DCF and TME for locally advanced ESCC was safe and less invasive than traditional therapies and had a satisfactory long-term prognosis.

Robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE) versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: protocol for a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial (RAMIE trial, robot-assisted minimally invasive Esophagectomy)

BackgroundCurrently, there are three main surgical approaches for resectable esophageal cancer: open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTE), conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE). Previous studies had demonstrated the better short-term outcomes in MIE or RAE when compared to OTE, respectively. However, to date, no prospective study was designed to compare these two minimally invasive approaches (MIE and RAE). The primary objective of this study is to compare the outcomes on survival, safety and efficacy, quality of life between RAE and MIE in the treatment for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).MethodsThis study is designed as a multicenter, prospective, randomized, non-inferiority phase III clinical trial, investigating the safety and efficacy of RAE compared with MIE in the treatment of resectable ESCC. Eligible patients are randomly assigned to either RAE (n = 180) or MIE (n = 180) group. The follow-up visits will be scheduled at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in the first two years, and then every 6 months until the end of the study. During the follow-up period, clinical data and quality of life questionnaires will be examined. The primary endpoint is the 5-year overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints are 3-year OS, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), short-term outcomes as well as quality of life.DiscussionThis is the first prospectively randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAE with MIE as surgical treatment for resectable ESCC. According to our hypothesis, RAE will result in at least similar oncologic outcomes and long-term quality of life, but with a shorter operation time, lower percentage of perioperative complications, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay when compared with MIE. This study started in July 2017. Follow-up will terminate after 5 years from the time when the last patient was enrolled.Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov: NCT03094351 (March 29, 2017). The trial was prospectively registered.

Outcomes of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Cancer: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis of NSQIP Database.

We conducted this analysis to compare the outcomes of open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTTE) and minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy (MITTE) when performed for oncologic indications. The NSQIP esophagectomy-targeted database during 2-year period was used. Only patients who underwent elective TTE for oncologic indications were included. Patients were matched per a propensity score for the likelihood of receiving OTTE versus MITTE. Overall, 2098 esophagectomies were reported; 576 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 161 purely OTTE patients were matched 1:1 with patients who received purely MITTE. OTTE was associated with higher reported rates of abdominal and mediastinal lymphadenectomies (LAD) (26.7% vs. 3.1% and 38.5% vs. 16.1%, respectively; p < 0.001) and had shorter mean operative time (329 vs. 414min; p < 0.001). However, OTTE patients had higher rates of wound infection (7.5% vs. 1.9%), longer median hospitalization (10 vs. 8days), more non-home discharges (18.0 vs. 8.1%), and a tendency toward higher rates of postoperative transfusion (13.0% vs. 6.8%; p = 0.092). The overall complications rate was higher in OTTE (46.0% vs. 33.5%; p = 0.028). No difference was noted in the rates of anastomotic leak, negative margins, reoperation, readmission, or mortality. Laparoscopic versus robotic approaches were uniformly comparable, except for higher rates of reported abdominal LAD in laparoscopic and higher rates of reported mediastinal LAD in robotic approach. MITTE is comparable to OTTE for oncologic indications in immediate postoperative outcomes. A concern is raised regarding the oncologic outcome given the lower reported rates of lymphadenectomies. Comparison of long-term outcomes is essential to address this concern.