Maartje van der Schaaf1, Martin Rutegård, Pernilla Lagergren. 1. Unit of Upper Gastrointestinal Research, Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. maartje.van.der.schaaf@ki.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the long-term effects of surgical approach and type of anastomosis in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer on patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: A Swedish nationwide, population-based cohort study included patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in 2001-2005. The predefined exposures included surgical approach (transhiatal or transthoracic) and anastomotic technique (hand-sewn or mechanical). The outcomes were esophageal-specific symptoms 3 years after the surgery. Symptoms were measured using the cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, the QLQ-C30, supplemented by an esophageal cancer-specific module (QLQ-OES18), both developed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Logistic regression models were used to estimate relative risk, expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI), of experiencing symptoms as assessed by the questionnaires. RESULTS: Among the 178 included patients, there was an 84 % participation rate. No statistically significant differences were found regarding surgical approach. However, point estimates indicate that patients operated on with a transhiatal approach had a lower risk for symptoms of nausea and vomiting (OR = 0.5, 95 % CI 0.1-1.9), diarrhea (OR = 0.5, 95 % CI 0.2-1.8), and trouble swallowing (OR = 0.4, 95 % CI 0-3), and a slightly higher risk for loss of appetite (OR = 2, 95 % CI 0.7-5.6) compared with patients operated on with a transthoracic approach. Anastomotic technique did not seem to influence the risk for any of the selected symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical approach and type of anastomosis do not seem to influence the risk of general and esophageal-specific cancer symptoms 3 years after surgery for esophageal cancer.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the long-term effects of surgical approach and type of anastomosis in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer on patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: A Swedish nationwide, population-based cohort study included patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in 2001-2005. The predefined exposures included surgical approach (transhiatal or transthoracic) and anastomotic technique (hand-sewn or mechanical). The outcomes were esophageal-specific symptoms 3 years after the surgery. Symptoms were measured using the cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, the QLQ-C30, supplemented by an esophageal cancer-specific module (QLQ-OES18), both developed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Logistic regression models were used to estimate relative risk, expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI), of experiencing symptoms as assessed by the questionnaires. RESULTS: Among the 178 included patients, there was an 84 % participation rate. No statistically significant differences were found regarding surgical approach. However, point estimates indicate that patients operated on with a transhiatal approach had a lower risk for symptoms of nausea and vomiting (OR = 0.5, 95 % CI 0.1-1.9), diarrhea (OR = 0.5, 95 % CI 0.2-1.8), and trouble swallowing (OR = 0.4, 95 % CI 0-3), and a slightly higher risk for loss of appetite (OR = 2, 95 % CI 0.7-5.6) compared with patients operated on with a transthoracic approach. Anastomotic technique did not seem to influence the risk for any of the selected symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical approach and type of anastomosis do not seem to influence the risk of general and esophageal-specific cancer symptoms 3 years after surgery for esophageal cancer.
Authors: Xi Luo; Qin Xie; Qiuling Shi; Yan Miao; Qingsong Yu; Hongfan Yu; Hong Yin; Xuefeng Leng; Yongtao Han; Hong Zhou Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: E Jezerskyte; L M Saadeh; E R C Hagens; M A G Sprangers; L Noteboom; H W M van Laarhoven; W J Eshuis; M C C M Hulshof; M I van Berge Henegouwen; S S Gisbertz Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Alexandra D Dreyfuss; Andrew R Barsky; E Paul Wileyto; Jennifer R Eads; John C Kucharczuk; Noel N Williams; Thomas B Karasic; James M Metz; Edgar Ben-Josef; John P Plastaras; Andrzej P Wojcieszynski Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 4.452