Dataset Information

Short-term outcomes of three- and two-field lymphadenectomy with minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matching analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Whether patients can benefit from three-field lymphadenectomy (3-FL) in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) remains unclear. This study retrospectively compared short-term outcomes between 3-FL and two-field lymphadenectomy (2-FL) in MIE for patients with esophageal cancer (EC) and aimed to evaluate the clinical significance of 3-FL.

Methods

There were 284 patients enrolled in the study (124 patients with 3-FL and 160 patients with 2-FL). The cases were matched based on their propensity scores using a matching ratio of 1:1, the nearest neighbor matching protocol, and a caliper of 0.02. Patients were propensity-score matched for sex, cancer location, Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI), and neoadjuvant treatment. The short-term outcomes were postoperative complications, operation characteristics, pathology results and postoperative hospital stay.

Results

There were no significant differences in intraoperative hemorrhage, postoperative hospital stay, or postoperative complications between the 2-FL and 3-FL groups. The operation time of the two groups was significantly different (227.1±46.2 vs. 248.5±45.9 min, P=0.001); the operation time of the 3-FL group was about 20 minutes longer than that of the 2-FL group. The number of lymphatic nodes (LNs) obtained in the 3-FL group was significantly higher than that in the 2-FL group (31.3±12.9 vs. 54.6±18.0, P<0.001). Pathological N stage was also significantly different (P=0.002); the 3-FL group was more advanced than the 2-FL group.

Conclusions

Compared to 2-FL MIE, 3-FL MIE does not increase postoperative complications, can obtain more LNs, and improves the accuracy of tumor LN staging.

SUBMITTER: Sun ZF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11319954 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Short-term outcomes of three- and two-field lymphadenectomy with minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matching analysis.

Sun Zeng-Feng ZF Fan Bo-Shi BS Liu Jun-Qiang JQ Di Shou-Yin SY Yue Cai-Ying CY Zhao Jia-Hua JH Wang Ju-Si JS Song Wei-An WA Lu Jing J Zhang Jia-Le JL Gong Tai-Qian TQ

Translational cancer research 20240712 7

<h4>Background</h4>Whether patients can benefit from three-field lymphadenectomy (3-FL) in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) remains unclear. This study retrospectively compared short-term outcomes between 3-FL and two-field lymphadenectomy (2-FL) in MIE for patients with esophageal cancer (EC) and aimed to evaluate the clinical significance of 3-FL.<h4>Methods</h4>There were 284 patients enrolled in the study (124 patients with 3-FL and 160 patients with 2-FL). The cases were matched based ...[more]

PMID: 39145057

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTransthoracic esophagectomy is a highly complex and sophisticated procedure with high morbidity rates and a significant mortality. Surgical access has consistently become less invasive, transitioning from open esophagectomy to hybrid esophagectomy (HE) then to totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), and most recently to robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), with each step demonstrating improved patient outcomes. Aim of this study with more than 600 patients is to complete a propensity-score matched comparison of postoperative short-term outcomes after highly standardized RAMIE vs. HE in a European high volume center.Patients and methodsSix hundred and eleven patients that underwent transthoracic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between May 2016 and May 2021 were included in the study. In January 2019, we implemented an updated robotic standardized anastomotic technique using a circular stapler and ICG (indocyanine green) for RAMIE cases. Data were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained IRB-approved database. Outcomes of patients undergoing standardized RAMIE from January 2019 to May 2021 were compared to our overall cohort from May 2016-April 2021 (HE) after a propensity-score matching analysis was performed.ResultsSix hundred and eleven patients were analyzed. 107 patients underwent RAMIE. Of these, a total of 76 patients underwent a robotic thoracic reconstruction using the updated standardized circular stapled anastomosis (RAMIE group). A total of 535 patients underwent HE (Hybrid group). Seventy patients were propensity-score matched in each group and analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics. RAMIE patients had a significantly shorter ICU stay (p = 0.0218). Significantly more patients had no postoperative complications (Clavien Dindo 0) in the RAMIE group [47.1% vs. 27.1% in the HE group (p = 0.0225)]. No difference was seen in lymph node yield and R0 resection rates. Anastomotic leakage rates when matched were 14.3% in the hybrid group vs. 4.3% in the RAMIE group (p = 0.07).ConclusionOur analysis confirms the safety and feasibility of RAMIE and HE in a large cohort after propensity score matching. A regular postoperative course (Clavien-Dindo 0) and a shorter ICU stay were seen significantly more often after RAMIE compared to HE. Furthermore it shows that both procedures provide excellent short-term oncologic outcomes, regarding lymph node harvest and R0 resection rates. A randomized controlled trial comparing RAMIE and HE is still pending and will hopefully contribute to ongoing discussions.

Project description:To update our experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 445 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy between January 2009 and July 2015 at the Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and used 103 patients who underwent open McKeown esophagectomy in the same period as controls. Among 375 patients who underwent total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy, 180 in the early period were chosen for the study of learning curve of total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. These 180 minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomies performed by five surgeons were divided into three groups according to time sequence as group 1 (n = 60), group 2 (n = 60) and group 3 (n = 60).Patients who underwent total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy had significantly less intraoperative blood loss than patients who underwent hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy or open McKeown esophagectomy (100 mL vs 300 mL vs 200 mL, P = 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in operation time, number of harvested lymph nodes, or postoperative morbidity including incidence of pulmonary complication and anastomotic leak between total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy, hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy and open McKeown esophagectomy groups. There were no significant differences in 5-year survival between these three groups (60.5% vs 47.9% vs 35.6%, P = 0.735). Patients in group 1 had significantly longer duration of operation than those in groups 2 and 3. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, or postoperative morbidity including incidence of pulmonary complication and anastomotic leak between groups 1, 2 and 3.Total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss and comparable short term and long term survival compared with hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy or open Mckeown esophagectomy. At least 12 cases are needed to master total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy in a high volume center.

Project description: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.

Project description:Background The safety, feasibility, and prognosis of sleeve lobectomy by minimally invasive surgery (MIS) remain to be validated. The purpose of this study was to investigate outcomes in real-world patients receiving minimally invasive sleeve lobectomy in a balanced large cohort. Methods Between January 2013 and December 2018, 578 consecutive patients undergoing sleeve resection at a high-volume center were retrospectively analyzed. Surgical and oncologic outcomes were compared between MIS and thoracotomy patients after propensity-score matching (PSM). Results MIS sleeve lobectomy was increasingly used as a time-trend in real-world. Before PSM, the MIS group had smaller tumor size, more T2-stage cases, and more right upper lobe sleeve lobectomies compared to the Open group. After 1:4 PSM by patient demographics and tumoral characteristics, 100 cases of MIS and 338 cases of Open sleeve lobectomy were further analyzed. Although median operation time was longer in the MIS group than in the Open group (170.5 minutes vs.149.5 minutes, P < 0.001), patients in MIS group had significantly less estimated intraoperative blood loss (100 ml vs. 200 ml, P = 0.003), shorter drainage duration (5 days vs. 6 days, P = 0.027) and less amount of drainage (1280 ml vs. 1640 ml, P < 0.001) after surgery. Complete resection rate, combined angioplasty, number of dissected lymph nodes, post-operative length of stay, postoperative morbidity and mortality rate, and application of adjuvant therapy were similar between the two matched groups. Conversion to open thoracotomy was necessary in 13.6% patients, but with similar perioperative outcomes compared to Open cases except for longer operation time. More lower lobe sleeve lobectomies were accomplished via robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery than via video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (40.0% vs. 12.0%, P = 0.017) in MIS patients. Five-year overall survivals (MIS vs. Open: 72.7% vs. 64.4%, P = 0.156) and five-year progression-free survivals (MIS vs. Open: 49.2% vs. 50.5%, P = 0.605) were similar between the two matched groups. Conclusions MIS sleeve lobectomy is associated with similar or even better perioperative results and oncologic outcomes to open thoracotomy. Conversion to thoracotomy does not compromise perioperative outcomes. Robot surgery may be preferable for more complex sleeve resections.

Dataset Information

Short-term outcomes of three- and two-field lymphadenectomy with minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matching analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Short-term outcomes of three- and two-field lymphadenectomy with minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matching analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets