Literature DB >> 21713594

Diagnostic evaluation, surgical technique, and perioperative management after esophagectomy: consensus statement of the German Advanced Surgical Treatment Study Group.

Daniel Palmes1, Matthias Brüwer, Franz G Bader, Michael Betzler, Heinz Becker, Hans-Peter Bruch, Markus Büchler, Heinz Buhr, Beta Michael Ghadimi, Ulrich T Hopt, Ralf Konopke, Katja Ott, Stefan Post, Jörg-Peter Ritz, Ulrich Ronellenfitsch, Hans-Detlev Saeger, Norbert Senninger.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Correct diagnosis, surgical treatment, and perioperative management of patients with esophageal carcinoma remain crucial for prognosis within multimodal treatment procedures. This study aims to achieve a consensus regarding current management strategies in esophageal cancer by questioning a panel of experts from the German Advanced Surgical Treatment Study (GAST) group, comprised of 9 centers specialized in esophageal surgery, with a combined total of >220 esophagectomies per year.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Delphi method, a systematic and interactive, evidence-based approach, was used to obtain consensus statements from the GAST group regarding ambiguities and disparities in diagnosis, patient selection, surgical technique, and perioperative management of patients with esophageal carcinoma. After four rounds of surveys, agreement was measured by Likert scales and defined as full (100% agreement), near (≥66.6% agreement), or no consensus (<66.6% agreement).
RESULTS: Full or near consensus was obtained for essential aspects of esophageal cancer staging, proper surgical technique, perioperative management and indication for primary surgery, and neoadjuvant treatment or palliative treatment. No consensus was achieved regarding acceptability of minimally invasive technique and postoperative nutrition after esophagectomy.
CONCLUSION: The GAST consensus statement represents a position paper for treatment of patients with esophageal carcinoma which both contributes to the development of clinical treatment guidelines and outlines topics in need of further clinical studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21713594     DOI: 10.1007/s00423-011-0818-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg        ISSN: 1435-2443            Impact factor:   3.445


  71 in total

1.  Early enteral feeding compared with parenteral nutrition after oesophageal or oesophagogastric resection and reconstruction.

Authors:  S Gabor; H Renner; V Matzi; B Ratzenhofer; J Lindenmann; O Sankin; H Pinter; A Maier; J Smolle; F M Smolle-Jüttner
Journal:  Br J Nutr       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.718

2.  Comparison of hand-sewn and stapled esophagogastric anastomosis after esophageal resection for cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  S Law; M Fok; K M Chu; J Wong
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Comparison of positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and endoscopic ultrasound in the initial staging of patients with esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Val J Lowe; Fargol Booya; J G Fletcher; Mark Nathan; Eric Jensen; Brian Mullan; Eric Rohren; Maurits J Wiersema; Enrique Vazquez-Sequeiros; Joseph A Murray; Mark S Allen; Michael J Levy; Jonathan E Clain
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.488

4.  [Anastomotic leaks in the upper gastrointestinal tract].

Authors:  J R Siewert; H J Stein; H Bartels
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 0.955

5.  The prognostic importance of pathologically involved celiac node metastases in node-positive patients with carcinoma of the distal esophagus or gastroesophageal junction: a surgical series from the Mayo Clinic.

Authors:  David A Schomas; J Fernando Quevedo; James M Donahue; Francis C Nichols; Yvonne Romero; Robert C Miller
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2009-06-09       Impact factor: 3.429

Review 6.  Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  F Fiorica; D Di Bona; F Schepis; A Licata; L Shahied; A Venturi; A M Falchi; A Craxì; C Cammà
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  Benefits versus risks: a prospective audit. Feeding jejunostomy during esophagectomy.

Authors:  Vikas Gupta
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Long-term results of RTOG trial 8911 (USA Intergroup 113): a random assignment trial comparison of chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  David P Kelsen; Katryn A Winter; Leonard L Gunderson; Joanne Mortimer; Norman C Estes; Daniel G Haller; Jaffer A Ajani; Walter Kocha; Bruce D Minsky; Jack A Roth; Christopher G Willett
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-08-20       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Randomized clinical trial to determine the effect of nasogastric drainage on tracheal acid aspiration following oesophagectomy.

Authors:  M J Shackcloth; E McCarron; J Kendall; G N Russell; S H Pennefather; J Tran; R D Page
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kamal Nagpal; Kamran Ahmed; Amit Vats; Danny Yakoub; David James; Hutan Ashrafian; Ara Darzi; Krishna Moorthy; Thanos Athanasiou
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 4.584

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  [Intrathoracic anastomotic leakage following esophageal and cardial resection : Definition and validation of a new severity grading classification].

Authors:  A Schaible; T Schmidt; M Diener; U Hinz; P Sauer; D Wichmann; A Königsrainer
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 0.955

2.  Postoperative complications do not affect long-term outcome in esophageal cancer patients.

Authors:  Kirsten Lindner; Mathias Fritz; Christina Haane; Norbert Senninger; Daniel Palmes; Richard Hummel
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Significant decrease of mortality due to anastomotic leaks following esophageal resection: management makes the difference.

Authors:  Anja Schaible; Thorsten Brenner; Ulf Hinz; Thomas Schmidt; Markus Weigand; Peter Sauer; Markus W Büchler; Alexis Ulrich
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 3.445

4.  Role of endoscopy to predict a leak after esophagectomy.

Authors:  Anja Schaible; Alexis Ulrich; Ulf Hinz; Markus W Büchler; Peter Sauer
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 3.445

5.  Management of intra-thoracic anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy: updated systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic vacuum therapy versus stenting.

Authors:  Pasquale Scognamiglio; Matthias Reeh; Nathaniel Melling; Marcus Kantowski; Ann-Kathrin Eichelmann; Seung-Hun Chon; Nader El-Sourani; Gerhard Schön; Alexandra Höller; Jakob R Izbicki; Michael Tachezy
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2022-08-11       Impact factor: 2.030

6.  Bypass laparoscopic procedure for palliation of esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Marcos Duarte Siosaki; Croider Franco Lacerda; Paulo Anderson Bertulucci; José Orlando da Costa Filho; Antônio Talvane Torres de Oliveira
Journal:  J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2013-03-26
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.