Literature DB >> 27695394

Risk factors for complications after pharyngolaryngectomy with total esophagectomy.

Eisuke Booka1, Yasuhiro Tsubosa2, Masahiro Niihara2, Wataru Takagi2, Katsushi Takebayashi2, Ayako Shimada1, Takashi Kitani3, Masato Nagaoka3, Atsushi Imai3, Tomoyuki Kamijo3, Yoshiyuki Iida3, Tetsuro Onitsuka3, Masahiro Nakagawa4, Hiroya Takeuchi5, Yuko Kitagawa5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pharyngolaryngectomy with total esophagectomy (PLTE) is an effective surgical treatment for synchronous or metachronous hypopharyngeal or laryngeal cancer and thoracic esophageal cancer, although it is more invasive than esophagectomy and total pharyngolaryngectomy. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for complications after PLTE.
METHODS: From November 2002 to December 2014, a total of 8 patients underwent PLTE at the Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan. We investigated the clinicopathological characteristics, surgical procedures, and postoperative complications of these patients.
RESULTS: Of the 8 patients, 5 underwent one-stage PLTE and 3 underwent staged PLTE. There was no mortality in this study. Two cases of tracheal necrosis, two of anastomotic leakage, and one of ileus were observed as postoperative complications. Two patients who underwent one-stage PLTE with standard mediastinal lymph node dissection developed tracheal necrosis and severe anastomotic leakage.
CONCLUSION: One-stage PLTE and standard mediastinal lymph node dissection were identified as the risk factors for severe postoperative complications. Staged PLTE or transhiatal esophagectomy should be considered when PLTE is performed and standard mediastinal lymph node dissection should be avoided when one-stage PLTE is performed with transthoracic esophagectomy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Esophageal cancer; Hypopharyngeal cancer; Pharyngolaryngectomy; Total esophagectomy; Tracheal necrosis

Year:  2016        PMID: 27695394      PMCID: PMC5025499          DOI: 10.1007/s10388-016-0533-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Esophagus        ISSN: 1612-9059            Impact factor:   4.230


Introduction

Esophageal cancer is the sixth leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide because of its high malignant potential and poor prognosis [1]. The postoperative 5-year survival rate in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I esophageal cancer is approximately 90 %; it decreases to 45 % in patients with stage II disease, 20 % in those with stage III disease, and 10 % in those with stage IV disease [2]. Although the efficacy of chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer has been reported [3], esophagectomy remains the most viable treatment option for esophageal cancer. However, esophagectomy is a highly invasive procedure associated with several serious postoperative complications such as pneumonia, anastomotic leakage, and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis, which may result in multiorgan failure [4]. Another clinical problem associated with esophageal cancer is its frequent association with synchronous or metachronous gastric or head and neck cancer [5]. Similar to the difficulty regarding the treatment for gastric tube cancer after esophagectomy previously reported by us [5], it is complicated to treat esophageal cancer with synchronous or metachronous head and neck cancer. Pharyngolaryngectomy with total esophagectomy (PLTE) is an effective surgical treatment for synchronous or metachronous hypopharyngeal or laryngeal and thoracic esophageal cancers, although PLTE is more invasive than esophagectomy and total pharyngolaryngectomy (TPL) [6-9]. The fatal complications associated with PLTE are tracheal and gastric tube necrosis caused by insufficient blood flow [10]. PLTE is also indicated for cervicothoracic and cervical esophageal cancers with mediastinal lymph node metastasis [8]. To date, although a few earlier studies have reported the efficacy of PLTE for synchronous or metachronous pharyngeal and thoracic esophageal cancers [6-8], there has been no study investigating the differences between one-stage and staged PLTE. Therefore, this study is the first to draw a comparison between one-stage and staged PLTE. We hypothesized that the chosen surgical procedure for PLTE likely impacts the potential development of postoperative complications. Hence, the aim of this study was to identify potential risk factors for complications after PLTE.

Patients and methods

Patients

From November 2002 to December 2014, a total of 375 patients underwent esophagectomy and 140 patients underwent TPL at Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan. In this study, 8 patients who underwent PLTE were retrospectively analyzed. Of these patients, 5 underwent one-stage PLTE and 3 underwent staged PLTE for metachronous pharyngeal and thoracic esophageal cancers. Of the 5 patients who underwent one-stage PLTE, 2 underwent PLTE based on the indication of cervicothoracic esophageal cancer, 2 underwent PLTE based on the indication of synchronous pharyngeal and thoracic esophageal cancers, and 1 underwent PLTE based on the indication of synchronous cervical and thoracic esophageal cancers. Of the 3 patients who underwent staged PLTE for metachronous pharyngeal and thoracic esophageal cancers, 2 underwent TPL followed by esophagectomy and 1 underwent esophagectomy followed by TPL. Clinical staging of esophageal and pharyngeal cancers was categorized according to the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) 7th edition tumor–node–metastasis (TNM) classification [11].

Preoperative treatment

Of the 8 patients who underwent PLTE, 7 received preoperative treatment of definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) (5 patients) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (2 patients). Definitive chemoradiotherapy comprised the concurrent administration of approximately 60 Gy radiation with 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin. Salvage surgery was indicated for residual or recurrent lesions after dCRT. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy comprised 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin.

Surgical procedure

Esophagectomy was performed through right thoracotomy, video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), or transhiatal procedures by esophageal surgeons. Esophagectomy through right thoracotomy or VATS included standard mediastinal lymph node dissection. However, the dissection was avoided when salvage surgery was performed considering the high risk of complications associated with the surgery. TPL was performed by esophageal or head and neck surgeons according to the tumor location. In this study, the reconstructed organ was the stomach in all cases. Pharyngogastric anastomosis was performed by esophageal surgeons when the whole stomach or pulled-up gastric tube could reach the hypopharynx. When the gastric tube had been pulled up but could not reach the hypopharynx, free jejunal transfer (FJT) with microvascular anastomosis was performed to repair the cervical defect between the hypopharynx and the oral side of the gastric tube by plastic and reconstructive surgeons. Two anastomoses were required in this case: pharyngojejunal and jejunal gastric. Postoperative complications were categorized using the Clavien–Dindo (CD) classification [12, 13].

Results

Patient and clinicopathological characteristics

The clinicopathological characteristics of patients who underwent one-stage PLTE and staged PLTE are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The median age at the time of PLTE and first staged PLTE was 63.5 years (range 43–69 years). The study cohort of 8 patients comprised 6 males and 2 females. Standard mediastinal lymph node dissection was performed in all patients of staged PLTE (patients 6, 7, and 8) and 2 patients of one-stage PLTE (patients 4 and 5), whereas standard mediastinal lymph node dissection was avoided in all patients of salvage surgery (patients 1, 2, and 3).
Table 1

Clinicopathological characteristics of patients who underwent one-stage PLTE

PatientAge (years)SexCancer SitecTNM (UICC 7th)Preoperative treatmentMethod of esophagectomyStandard mediastinal lymph node dissectionReconstructed methodReconstructed route
164MaleCeT4bN1M0dCRT (2 months after radiation)TranshiatalNoWhole stomachPosterior mediastinal
269MaleUtCeT2N1M0dCRT (2 months after radiation)TranshiatalNoGastric tube + FJTPosterior mediastinal
366MalePhT2N0M0dCRT (52 months after radiation)TransthoracicNoGastric tube + FJTPosterior mediastinal
457FemaleMtCeT1aN1M0T3N0M0NeoFPTransthoracicYesGastric tube + FJTPosterior mediastinal
563MaleMtPhMtT1N0M0T4aN2bM0T1bN1M0VATSYesGastric tube + FJTPosterior mediastinal

PLTE Pharyngolaryngectomy with total esophagectomy, cTNM clinical tumor–node–metastasis, UICC international union against cancer, Ph pharynx, Ce cervical esophagus, Ut upper thoracic esophagus, Mt middle thoracic esophagus, dCRT definitive chemoradiotherapy, NeoFP neoadjuvant chemotherapy comprised 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin, VATS video-assisted thoracic surgery, FJT free jejunal transfer

Table 2

Clinicopathological characteristics of patients who underwent staged PLTE

PatientAge (years)SexFirst site of cancercTNM (UICC 7th)Preoperative treatmentFirst operationDuration (months)Second site of cancercTNM (UICC 7th)Preoperative treatmentSecond operation
643FemalePhT4aN2bM0TPL + FJT25LtT1bN1M0NeoFPTTE + posterior mediastinal gastric tube
764MaleCeT4bN0M0dCRT (36 months after radiation)TPL + FJT1MtT1bN0M0TTE + posterior mediastinal gastric tube
857MaleMtUtLtT4bN1M0dCRT (3 months after radiation)TTE + retrosternal gastric tube23PhT3N2cM0TPL + FJT

PLTE Pharyngolaryngectomy with total esophagectomy, cTNM clinical tumor–node–metastasis, UICC international union against cancer, Duration duration between operations (months), Ph pharynx, Ce cervical esophagus, Ut upper thoracic esophagus, Mt middle thoracic esophagus, Lt lower thoracic esophagus, dCRT definitive chemoradiotherapy, NeoFP neoadjuvant chemotherapy comprised 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin, TPL total pharyngolaryngectomy, FJT free jejunal transfer, TTE transthoracic esophagectomy

Clinicopathological characteristics of patients who underwent one-stage PLTE PLTE Pharyngolaryngectomy with total esophagectomy, cTNM clinical tumor–node–metastasis, UICC international union against cancer, Ph pharynx, Ce cervical esophagus, Ut upper thoracic esophagus, Mt middle thoracic esophagus, dCRT definitive chemoradiotherapy, NeoFP neoadjuvant chemotherapy comprised 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin, VATS video-assisted thoracic surgery, FJT free jejunal transfer Clinicopathological characteristics of patients who underwent staged PLTE PLTE Pharyngolaryngectomy with total esophagectomy, cTNM clinical tumor–node–metastasis, UICC international union against cancer, Duration duration between operations (months), Ph pharynx, Ce cervical esophagus, Ut upper thoracic esophagus, Mt middle thoracic esophagus, Lt lower thoracic esophagus, dCRT definitive chemoradiotherapy, NeoFP neoadjuvant chemotherapy comprised 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin, TPL total pharyngolaryngectomy, FJT free jejunal transfer, TTE transthoracic esophagectomy Patients 1 and 2 underwent dCRT and salvage PLTE for residual lesions. Patient 3 underwent dCRT for pharyngeal cancer, which resulted in a complete response. However, pharyngeal cancer recurrence after dCRT and synchronous esophageal cancer was observed in 2 lesions, which were subsequently treated by PLTE. Patients 4 and 5 underwent PLTE for synchronous double cancers. Patient 6 underwent TPL with FJT as the first surgery. However, 25 months later, this patient underwent esophagectomy with posterior mediastinal gastric tube reconstruction. Patient 7 underwent salvage TPL with FJT for severe stenosis after dCRT followed 1 month later by esophagectomy with posterior mediastinal gastric tube reconstruction as the second operation. Patient 8 underwent salvage esophagectomy with retrosternal gastric tube reconstruction for residual lesions after dCRT. Twenty-three months after salvage esophagectomy, this patient underwent TPL with FJT for metachronous pharyngeal cancer. A second operation was performed for palliative care, and a portion of the cervical esophagus was preserved with minimum invasiveness.

Clinical outcome after PLTE

The clinical outcomes after PLTE for all 8 patients are shown in Table 3. For the patients who underwent staged PLTE (patients 6, 7, and 8), there were no postoperative complications from the first operation. The perioperative and postoperative outcomes of the second operation are shown in Table 3.
Table 3

Clinical outcome after PLTE for all 8 patients

PatientSurgical duration (min)Blood loss (ml)Complications (CD classification)Hospital stay (day)Outcome
1443143030Dead at 14 months (lung metastasis)
27301002Anastomotic leakage (II)27Alive at 38 months
341558025Alive at 37 months
4536183Tracheal necrosis (IIIa)25Alive at 23 months
5724384Anastomotic leakage (IIIb), tracheal necrosis (IIIa)99Alive at 12 months
641463118Alive at 89 months
7587735Ileus (IIIb)45Dead at 53 months (pneumonia)
870217932Alive at 7 months (lymph node metastasis)

PLTE Pharyngolaryngectomy with total esophagectomy, CD Clavien–Dindo

Clinical outcome after PLTE for all 8 patients PLTE Pharyngolaryngectomy with total esophagectomy, CD Clavien–Dindo The mean operation time was 569 min (range 443–730 min) and the median blood loss was 640 ml (range 179–1430 ml). The median hospital stay was 28.5 days (range 18–99 days). There was no instance of mortality in this study. Two cases of tracheal necrosis (patients 4 and 5), 2 of anastomotic leakage (patients 2 and 5), and 1 of ileus (patient 7) were observed as postoperative complications. The occurrence of tracheal necrosis is shown in Fig. 1 (patients 4 and 5). In case of patient 4, tracheal necrosis was observed on postoperative day (POD) 9 (Fig. 1a) and a tracheostomy tube was inserted against tracheal stenosis on POD 79. Tracheal necrosis improved on POD 164 (Fig. 1b). In case of patient 5, tracheal necrosis was observed on POD 13 (Fig. 1c) and a tracheostomy tube was inserted against tracheal stenosis on POD 16. The membranous portion of the trachea was melted on POD 26 and fistula formation was observed on POD 40. Fistula closure was performed on POD 77 and tracheal necrosis improved on POD 113 (Fig. 1d).
Fig. 1

a, b Tracheal necrosis on postoperative day (POD) 9 (a) and improvement on POD 164 (b) in case 4. c, d Tracheal necrosis on postoperative day (POD) 13 (c) and improvement on POD 113 (d) in case 5

a, b Tracheal necrosis on postoperative day (POD) 9 (a) and improvement on POD 164 (b) in case 4. c, d Tracheal necrosis on postoperative day (POD) 13 (c) and improvement on POD 113 (d) in case 5 Patient 1 died because of lung metastasis at 14 months and patient 7 died because of pneumonia that were not related to esophageal cancer at 53 months. The remaining 6 patients are alive, including 1 who experienced lymph node recurrence (patient 8) and 5 who experienced no recurrence.

Discussion

PLTE is an effective surgical treatment for synchronous or metachronous hypopharyngeal or laryngeal and thoracic esophageal cancers. However, PLTE is more invasive than esophagectomy or TPL, and it is important to prevent postoperative complications and consider indications for this invasive procedure [6–8, 14]. At our institution, the eligibility criteria for PLTE were not clearly defined. However, we decided the criteria after careful consideration of all the factors that would comprehensively affect patient life. As a result, the average age of participants in this study cohort was less than usual cohort of esophageal cancer [15]. In this study, tracheal necrosis developed in patients 4 and 5 and severe anastomotic leakage developed in patient 5, and the severe anastomotic leakage was believed to stem from tracheal necrosis. Subsequently, these patients underwent transthoracic or thoracoscopic esophagectomy with standard mediastinal lymph node dissection, and it was possible that insufficient tracheal blood flow developed in response to standard mediastinal lymph node dissection [16]. Tracheal necrosis is considered to develop in response to insufficient tracheal blood flow [10, 16]. Patient 3 underwent transthoracic esophagectomy; however, standard mediastinal lymph node dissection was avoided considering the high risk associated with salvage surgery [17]; therefore, tracheal blood flow was preserved. For the 2 patients (patients 1 and 2) who underwent transhiatal esophagectomy, tracheal blood flow was preserved because mediastinal lymph node dissection was not performed. For the 3 patients (patients 6, 7, and 8) who underwent staged PLTE, transthoracic esophagectomy with standard mediastinal lymph node dissection was performed. However, tracheal blood flow bypass was thought to have been created in response. One-stage PLTE and standard mediastinal lymph node dissection were identified as risk factors of severe postoperative complications, particularly tracheal necrosis. Staged PLTE was performed for metachronous cancers but not planed as the first operation in this study. In the second operation, when the staged PLTE required efforts and cervical esophagus could not be resected in cases such as patient 8, staged PLTE may have contributed to the occurrence of tracheal blood flow bypass and was considered to be an effective procedure. Moreover, some reports have claimed that staged PLTE is safe and effective for high-risk patients [7, 8]. In this study, the shortest duration between the first and second procedures was 1 month, and tracheal blood flow bypass can occur within this period. Nonetheless, our experience indicates that staged PLTE could be effective and safe for both metachronous and synchronous cancers. Definitive CRT tends to be the initial treatment for synchronous double head and neck and thoracic esophageal cancers [7]. However, some salvage treatment is required in cases with either residual or recurrent disease after dCRT [7]. It is considered that salvage surgery after dCRT is a high-risk factor for severe postoperative complications [9, 17]. In this study, 5 patients (62.5 %) underwent salvage PLTE after dCRT, which resulted in no instance of tracheal necrosis or severe anastomotic leakage. Therefore, we propose that salvage surgery can be safely performed when staged PLTE or transhiatal esophagectomy is selected. In this study, those 2 patients who developed tracheal necrosis developed tracheal stenosis when tracheal necrosis improved. In these 2 patients, insertion of a tracheostomy tube was effective to improve tracheal stenosis. In cases in which tracheal stenosis cannot be avoided when tracheal necrosis improves, a tracheostomy tube should be inserted to treat tracheal stenosis [18]. In conclusion, one-stage PLTE and standard mediastinal lymph node dissection were identified as risk factors for severe postoperative complications. Staged PLTE or transhiatal esophagectomy should be considered when PLTE is performed and standard mediastinal lymph node dissection should be avoided when one-stage PLTE is performed with transthoracic esophagectomy.
  15 in total

1.  Risk factors for tracheal necrosis after total pharyngolaryngectomy.

Authors:  Masahide Fujiki; Shimpei Miyamoto; Minoru Sakuraba; Shogo Nagamatsu; Ryuichi Hayashi
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2014-07-10       Impact factor: 3.147

2.  Surgical resection of hypopharynx and cervical esophageal cancer with a history of esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Satoshi Ida; Masaru Morita; Yukiharu Hiyoshi; Keisuke Ikeda; Koji Ando; Yasue Kimura; Hiroshi Saeki; Eiji Oki; Tetsuya Kusumoto; Sei Yoshida; Torahiko Nakashima; Masayuki Watanabe; Hideo Baba; Yoshihiko Maehara
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-01-01       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Technical improvement of total pharyngo-laryngo-esophagectomy for esophageal cancer and head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Masaru Morita; Hiroshi Saeki; Shuhei Ito; Keisuke Ikeda; Nami Yamashita; Koji Ando; Yukiharu Hiyoshi; Satoshi Ida; Eriko Tokunaga; Hideaki Uchiyama; Eiji Oki; Tetsuo Ikeda; Sei Yoshida; Torahiko Nakashima; Yoshihiko Maehara
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-01-06       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Chemoradiotherapy of locally advanced esophageal cancer: long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized trial (RTOG 85-01). Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.

Authors:  J S Cooper; M D Guo; A Herskovic; J S Macdonald; J A Martenson; M Al-Sarraf; R Byhardt; A H Russell; J J Beitler; S Spencer; S O Asbell; M V Graham; L L Leichman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-05-05       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Early and long-term morbidity after minimally invasive total laryngo-pharyngo-esophagectomy with gastric pull-up reconstruction via thoracoscopy, laparoscopy and cervical incision.

Authors:  Akihiro Homma; Yuji Nakamaru; Hiromitsu Hatakeyama; Takatsugu Mizumachi; Satoshi Kano; Jun Furusawa; Tomohiro Sakashita; Toshiaki Shichinohe; Yuma Ebihara; Satoshi Hirano; Hiroshi Furukawa; Toshihiko Hayashi; Yuhei Yamamoto; Satoshi Fukuda
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Surgical resection for esophageal cancer synchronously or metachronously associated with head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Masaru Morita; Hiroyuki Kawano; Hajime Otsu; Yasue Kimura; Hiroshi Saeki; Koji Ando; Satoshi Ida; Eiji Oki; Tetsuo Ikeda; Tetsuya Kusumoto; Jun-Ichi Fukushima; Torahiko Nakashima; Yoshihiko Maehara
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-01-29       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Salvage pharyngolaryngectomy with total esophagectomy following definitive chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  Y Niwa; M Koike; Y Fujimoto; H Oya; N Iwata; N Nishio; M Hiramatsu; M Kanda; D Kobayashi; C Tanaka; S Yamada; T Fujii; G Nakayama; H Sugimoto; S Nomoto; M Fujiwara; Y Kodera
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 3.429

8.  Circumferential pharyngolaryngectomy with total esophagectomy for locally advanced carcinomas.

Authors:  D Elias; A Cavalcanti; P Dubé; M Julieron; G Mamelle; J Kac; M Ducreux; S Bonvallot; G Nitenberg; P Lasser
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.

Authors:  Daniel Dindo; Nicolas Demartines; Pierre-Alain Clavien
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  The Impact of Postoperative Complications on Survivals After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.

Authors:  Eisuke Booka; Hiroya Takeuchi; Tomohiko Nishi; Satoru Matsuda; Takuji Kaburagi; Kazumasa Fukuda; Rieko Nakamura; Tsunehiro Takahashi; Norihito Wada; Hirofumi Kawakubo; Tai Omori; Yuko Kitagawa
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 1.817

View more
  4 in total

1.  Treatment outcomes for one-stage concurrent surgical resection and reconstruction of synchronous esophageal and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Yu-Hsuan Lin; Chun-Yen Ou; Wei-Ting Lee; Yao -Chou Lee; Tzu -Yen Chang; Yi-Ting Yen
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus with a history of total pharyngolaryngectomy.

Authors:  Keita Takahashi; Shinji Mine; Ryotaro Kozuki; Tasuku Toihata; Akihiko Okamura; Yu Imamura; Masayuki Watanabe
Journal:  Esophagus       Date:  2019-05-18       Impact factor: 4.230

3.  Induction chemotherapy for the individualised treatment of hypopharyngeal carcinoma with cervical oesophageal invasion: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Tian-Qiao Huang; Ru Wang; Ju-Gao Fang; Shi-Zhi He; Qi Zhong; Li-Zhen Hou; Hong-Zhi Ma; Xiao-Hong Chen; Xue-Jun Chen; Ping-Dong Li; Ling Feng; Qian Shi; Meng Lian
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-12-11       Impact factor: 2.754

4.  Postoperative delirium after pharyngolaryngectomy with esophagectomy: a role for ramelteon and suvorexant.

Authors:  Eisuke Booka; Yasuhiro Tsubosa; Teruaki Matsumoto; Mari Takeuchi; Takashi Kitani; Masato Nagaoka; Atsushi Imai; Tomoyuki Kamijo; Yoshiyuki Iida; Ayako Shimada; Katsushi Takebayashi; Masahiro Niihara; Keita Mori; Tetsuro Onitsuka; Hiroya Takeuchi; Yuko Kitagawa
Journal:  Esophagus       Date:  2017-01-21       Impact factor: 4.230

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.