BACKGROUND: After neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CXRT) for esophageal cancer, surgery has traditionally been recommended to be performed within 8 weeks. However, surgery is often delayed for various reasons. Data from other cancers suggest that delaying surgery may increase the pathologic complete response rate. However, there are theoretical concerns that waiting longer after radiation may lead to a more difficult operation and more complications. The optimal timing of esophagectomy after CXRT is unknown. METHODS: From a prospective database, we analyzed 266 patients with resected esophageal cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant CXRT from 2002 to 2008. Salvage resections were excluded from this analysis. We compared patients who had surgery within 8 weeks of CXRT and those who had surgery after 8 weeks. We used multivariable analysis to determine whether increased interval between chemoradiation and surgery was independently associated with perioperative complication, pathologic response, or overall survival. RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients were resected within 8 weeks and 116 were resected greater than 8 weeks after completing CXRT. Mean length of operation, intraoperative blood loss, anastomotic leak rate, and perioperative complication rate were similar for the two groups. Pathologic complete response rate and overall survival were also similar for the two groups (p=not significant). In multivariable analysis, timing of surgery was not an independent predictor of perioperative complication, pathologic complete response, or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The timing of esophagectomy after neoadjuvant CXRT is not associated with perioperative complication, pathologic response, or overall survival. It may be reasonable to delay esophagectomy beyond 8 weeks for patients who have not yet recovered from chemoradiation.
BACKGROUND: After neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CXRT) for esophageal cancer, surgery has traditionally been recommended to be performed within 8 weeks. However, surgery is often delayed for various reasons. Data from other cancers suggest that delaying surgery may increase the pathologic complete response rate. However, there are theoretical concerns that waiting longer after radiation may lead to a more difficult operation and more complications. The optimal timing of esophagectomy after CXRT is unknown. METHODS: From a prospective database, we analyzed 266 patients with resected esophageal cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant CXRT from 2002 to 2008. Salvage resections were excluded from this analysis. We compared patients who had surgery within 8 weeks of CXRT and those who had surgery after 8 weeks. We used multivariable analysis to determine whether increased interval between chemoradiation and surgery was independently associated with perioperative complication, pathologic response, or overall survival. RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients were resected within 8 weeks and 116 were resected greater than 8 weeks after completing CXRT. Mean length of operation, intraoperative blood loss, anastomotic leak rate, and perioperative complication rate were similar for the two groups. Pathologic complete response rate and overall survival were also similar for the two groups (p=not significant). In multivariable analysis, timing of surgery was not an independent predictor of perioperative complication, pathologic complete response, or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The timing of esophagectomy after neoadjuvant CXRT is not associated with perioperative complication, pathologic response, or overall survival. It may be reasonable to delay esophagectomy beyond 8 weeks for patients who have not yet recovered from chemoradiation.
Authors: E F W Courrech Staal; B M P Aleman; H Boot; M-L F van Velthuysen; H van Tinteren; J W van Sandick Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: J F Bosset; M Gignoux; J P Triboulet; E Tiret; G Mantion; D Elias; P Lozach; J C Ollier; J J Pavy; M Mercier; T Sahmoud Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-07-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bryan H Burmeister; B Mark Smithers; Val Gebski; Lara Fitzgerald; R John Simes; Peter Devitt; Stephen Ackland; David C Gotley; David Joseph; Jeremy Millar; John North; Euan T Walpole; James W Denham Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Val Gebski; Bryan Burmeister; B Mark Smithers; Kerwyn Foo; John Zalcberg; John Simes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: K Nygaard; S Hagen; H S Hansen; R Hatlevoll; R Hultborn; A Jakobsen; M Mäntyla; H Modig; E Munck-Wikland; B Rosengren Journal: World J Surg Date: 1992 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: C M Dolinsky; N N Mahmoud; R Mick; W Sun; R W Whittington; L J Solin; D G Haller; B J Giantonio; P J O'Dwyer; E F Rosato; R D Fry; J M Metz Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: J A Ajani; L Xiao; J A Roth; W L Hofstetter; G Walsh; R Komaki; Z Liao; D C Rice; A A Vaporciyan; D M Maru; J H Lee; M S Bhutani; A Eid; J C Yao; A P Phan; A Halpin; A Suzuki; T Taketa; P F Thall; S G Swisher Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-08-23 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Talha Shaikh; Karen Ruth; Walter J Scott; Barbara A Burtness; Steven J Cohen; Andre A Konski; Harry S Cooper; Igor Astsaturov; Joshua E Meyer Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 4.330