Linda C Cummings1, Tzuyung Doug Kou2, Mark D Schluchter2, Amitabh Chak1, Gregory S Cooper1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Liver Disease, Department of Medicine, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 2. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic treatment of early esophageal cancer provides an alternative to esophagectomy, which older patients may not tolerate. Population-based data regarding short-term outcomes and recurrence after endoscopic treatment for esophageal cancer are limited. We compared short-term outcomes, treated recurrence, and survival after endoscopic versus surgical therapy for early esophageal cancers in an older population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study identifying patients aged ≥66 years with Tis or T1a tumors without nodal involvement diagnosed from 1994 to 2011 from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. RESULTS: Of 2193 patients, 41% (n = 893) underwent esophagectomy, and 12% (n = 255) underwent endoscopic treatment within 6 months of diagnosis. Those treated endoscopically were older and more likely to have a Charlson comorbidity score ≥2. A composite endpoint, hospitalization and/or adverse events at 60 days, was higher in surgical patients than in the endoscopic treatment group (30% vs 12%; P < .001). In a Cox model stratified by histology, adjusting for other factors, endoscopic treatment was associated with improved 2-year survival (hazard ratio 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: In this older population, a composite short-term endpoint was worse in the surgical group. Endoscopic treatment was associated with improved survival through 2 years. These results suggest that endoscopic treatment is a reasonable approach for early esophageal cancers in the elderly. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic treatment of early esophageal cancer provides an alternative to esophagectomy, which older patients may not tolerate. Population-based data regarding short-term outcomes and recurrence after endoscopic treatment for esophageal cancer are limited. We compared short-term outcomes, treated recurrence, and survival after endoscopic versus surgical therapy for early esophageal cancers in an older population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study identifying patients aged ≥66 years with Tis or T1atumors without nodal involvement diagnosed from 1994 to 2011 from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. RESULTS: Of 2193 patients, 41% (n = 893) underwent esophagectomy, and 12% (n = 255) underwent endoscopic treatment within 6 months of diagnosis. Those treated endoscopically were older and more likely to have a Charlson comorbidity score ≥2. A composite endpoint, hospitalization and/or adverse events at 60 days, was higher in surgical patients than in the endoscopic treatment group (30% vs 12%; P < .001). In a Cox model stratified by histology, adjusting for other factors, endoscopic treatment was associated with improved 2-year survival (hazard ratio 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: In this older population, a composite short-term endpoint was worse in the surgical group. Endoscopic treatment was associated with improved survival through 2 years. These results suggest that endoscopic treatment is a reasonable approach for early esophageal cancers in the elderly. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Attila Dubecz; Boris Sepesi; Renato Salvador; Marek Polomsky; Thomas J Watson; Daniel P Raymond; Carolyn E Jones; Virginia R Litle; Juan P Wisnivesky; Jeffrey H Peters Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-10-25 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Giuseppe Portale; Jeffrey A Hagen; Jeffrey H Peters; Linda S Chan; Steven R DeMeester; Tasha A K Gandamihardja; Tom R DeMeester Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Oliver Pech; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Hendrik Manner; Jessica Leers; Christian Ell; Arnulf H Hölscher Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Grace L Smith; Benjamin D Smith; Thomas A Buchholz; Zhongxing Liao; Melenda Jeter; Stephen G Swisher; Wayne L Hofstetter; Jaffer A Ajani; Mary F McAleer; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-03-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Julian A Abrams; Donna L Buono; Joshua Strauss; Russell B McBride; Dawn L Hershman; Alfred I Neugut Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Craig C Earle; Ann B Nattinger; Arnold L Potosky; Kathleen Lang; Rajiv Mallick; Mark Berger; Joan L Warren Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Ganapathy A Prasad; Tsung Teh Wu; Dennis A Wigle; Navtej S Buttar; Louis-Michel Wongkeesong; Kelly T Dunagan; Lori S Lutzke; Lynn S Borkenhagen; Kenneth K Wang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2009-06-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Saurabh Chandan; Smit Deliwala; Shahab R Khan; Daryl Ramai; Babu P Mohan; Mohammad Bilal; Antonio Facciorusso; Lena L Kassab; Faisal Kamal; Banreet Dhindsa; Abhilash Perisetti; Douglas G Adler Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Linda C Cummings; Tzuyung Doug Kou; Amitabh Chak; Mark D Schluchter; Seunghee Margevicius; Gregory S Cooper Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 3.199