INTRODUCTION: Postoperative morbidities, such as anastomotic leaks, are common after trimodality therapy (chemoradiation followed by surgery) for esophageal cancer. We investigated for factors associated with an increased incidence of anastomotic leaks. METHODS: Data from 285 esophageal cancer patients treated from 2000 to 2011 with trimodality therapy were analyzed. Anastomotic location relative to preoperative radiation field was assessed using postoperative computed tomographic imaging. Logistic regression was used to evaluate for factors associated with any or clinically relevant (CR) (≥ grade 2) leaks. RESULTS: Overall anastomotic leak rate was 11% (31 of 285), and CR leak rate was 6% (17 of 285). Multivariable analysis identified body mass index (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.17; OR, 1.11, 95% CI, 1.01-1.22), three-field surgery (OR, 10.01; 95% CI, 3.83-26.21; OR, 4.83; 95% CI, 1.39-16.71), and within radiation field ("in-field") anastomosis (OR, 5.37; 95% CI, 2.21-13.04; OR, 8.63; 95% CI, 2.90-25.65) as independent predictors of both all grade and CR leaks, respectively. While patients with distal esophageal tumors and Ivor-Lewis surgery had the lowest incidence of all grade (6.5%) and CR leaks (4.2%), most of the leaks were associated with the anastomosis constructed within the field of radiation (in-field: 39% and 30% versus out-of-field: 2.6% and 1.0%, respectively, for total and CR leaks, p less than 0.0001, Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Esophagogastric anastomosis placed within the preoperative radiation field was a very strong predictor for anastomotic leaks in esophageal cancer patients treated with trimodality therapy, among other factors. Surgical planning should include a critical evaluation of the preoperative radiation fields to ensure proper anastomotic placement after chemoradiation therapy.
INTRODUCTION: Postoperative morbidities, such as anastomotic leaks, are common after trimodality therapy (chemoradiation followed by surgery) for esophageal cancer. We investigated for factors associated with an increased incidence of anastomotic leaks. METHODS: Data from 285 esophageal cancerpatients treated from 2000 to 2011 with trimodality therapy were analyzed. Anastomotic location relative to preoperative radiation field was assessed using postoperative computed tomographic imaging. Logistic regression was used to evaluate for factors associated with any or clinically relevant (CR) (≥ grade 2) leaks. RESULTS: Overall anastomotic leak rate was 11% (31 of 285), and CR leak rate was 6% (17 of 285). Multivariable analysis identified body mass index (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.17; OR, 1.11, 95% CI, 1.01-1.22), three-field surgery (OR, 10.01; 95% CI, 3.83-26.21; OR, 4.83; 95% CI, 1.39-16.71), and within radiation field ("in-field") anastomosis (OR, 5.37; 95% CI, 2.21-13.04; OR, 8.63; 95% CI, 2.90-25.65) as independent predictors of both all grade and CR leaks, respectively. While patients with distal esophageal tumors and Ivor-Lewis surgery had the lowest incidence of all grade (6.5%) and CR leaks (4.2%), most of the leaks were associated with the anastomosis constructed within the field of radiation (in-field: 39% and 30% versus out-of-field: 2.6% and 1.0%, respectively, for total and CR leaks, p less than 0.0001, Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Esophagogastric anastomosis placed within the preoperative radiation field was a very strong predictor for anastomotic leaks in esophageal cancerpatients treated with trimodality therapy, among other factors. Surgical planning should include a critical evaluation of the preoperative radiation fields to ensure proper anastomotic placement after chemoradiation therapy.
Authors: Shu-lian Wang; Zhongxing Liao; Ara A Vaporciyan; Susan L Tucker; Helen Liu; Xiong Wei; Stephen Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani; James D Cox; Ritsuko Komaki Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-10-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stefan Schultze-Mosgau; Gerhard G Grabenbauer; Falk Wehrhan; Martin Radespiel-Tröger; Jörg Wiltfang; Rolf Sauer; Franz Rödel Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: O Hagry; W Coosemans; P De Leyn; P Nafteux; D Van Raemdonck; E Van Cutsem; K Hausterman; T Lerut Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Jason W Denbo; Morgan L Bruno; Jordan M Cloyd; Laura Prakash; Jeffrey E Lee; Michael Kim; Christopher H Crane; Eugene J Koay; Sunil Krishnan; Prajnan Das; Bruce D Minsky; Gauri Varadhachary; Rachna Shroff; Robert Wolff; Milind Javle; Michael J Overman; David Fogelman; Thomas A Aloia; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Jason B Fleming; Matthew H G Katz Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ryan C Broderick; Arielle M Lee; Rachel R Blitzer; Beiqun Zhao; Jenny Lam; Joslin N Cheverie; Bryan J Sandler; Garth R Jacobsen; Mark W Onaitis; Kaitlyn J Kelly; Michael Bouvet; Santiago Horgan Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Richard A Malthaner; Edward Yu; Michael Sanatani; Debra Lewis; Andrew Warner; A Rashid Dar; Brian P Yaremko; Joel Bierer; David A Palma; Dalilah Fortin; Richard I Inculet; Eric Fréchette; Jacques Raphael; Stewart Gaede; Sara Kuruvilla; Jawaid Younus; Mark D Vincent; George B Rodrigues Journal: Thorac Cancer Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 3.223
Authors: Can Yurttas; Doerte Wichmann; Cihan Gani; Malte N Bongers; Stephan Singer; Christian Thiel; Alfred Koenigsrainer; Karolin Thiel Journal: World J Clin Cases Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 1.534
Authors: Fredrik Klevebro; Signe Friesland; Mattias Hedman; Jon A Tsai; Mats Lindblad; Ioannis Rouvelas; Lars Lundell; Magnus Nilsson Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2016-03-28 Impact factor: 3.445