M Koëter1, N Kathiravetpillai1, J A Gooszen2, M I van Berge Henegouwen2, S S Gisbertz2, M J C van der Sangen3, M D P Luyer1, G A P Nieuwenhuijzen4, M C C M Hulshof5. 1. Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: grard.nieuwenhuijzen@catharinaziekenhuis.nl. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine, in a large series, the influence of the extent and dose of radiation to the fundus of the stomach and mediastinum on the development and severity of anastomotic complications in patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2005 and 2012, 364 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (41.4 Gy combined with chemotherapy) followed by esophagectomy were included. The future anastomotic region in the fundus was determined, and the mean dose, V20-V40, and upper planning target volume border in relation to mediastinal length, expressed as the mediastinal ratio, were calculated. RESULTS: Anastomotic leakage occurred in 22% and anastomotic stenosis in 41%. Logistic regression analysis revealed no influence of age, comorbidity, mean fundus dose, V20-V40, or the mediastinal ratio on the incidence of anastomotic leakage or anastomotic stenosis. In 28% of the patients severe complications (Clavien-Dindo score of ≥IIIB) occurred. The presence of multiple comorbidities (hazard ratio 2.4 [95% confidence interval 1.3-4.5], P=.006) and a mediastinal ratio of 0.5 to 1.0 (hazard ratio 1.9 [95% confidence interval 1.0-3.5], P=.036) were both independent predictors of severe complications. CONCLUSION: With a mean radiation dose of 24.2 Gy to the future anastomotic region of the gastric fundus, the radiation dose was not associated with the incidence of anastomotic leakage or anastomotic stenosis. The incidence of severe complications was associated with a high superior mediastinal planning target volume border.
PURPOSE: To determine, in a large series, the influence of the extent and dose of radiation to the fundus of the stomach and mediastinum on the development and severity of anastomotic complications in patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2005 and 2012, 364 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (41.4 Gy combined with chemotherapy) followed by esophagectomy were included. The future anastomotic region in the fundus was determined, and the mean dose, V20-V40, and upper planning target volume border in relation to mediastinal length, expressed as the mediastinal ratio, were calculated. RESULTS:Anastomotic leakage occurred in 22% and anastomotic stenosis in 41%. Logistic regression analysis revealed no influence of age, comorbidity, mean fundus dose, V20-V40, or the mediastinal ratio on the incidence of anastomotic leakage or anastomotic stenosis. In 28% of the patients severe complications (Clavien-Dindo score of ≥IIIB) occurred. The presence of multiple comorbidities (hazard ratio 2.4 [95% confidence interval 1.3-4.5], P=.006) and a mediastinal ratio of 0.5 to 1.0 (hazard ratio 1.9 [95% confidence interval 1.0-3.5], P=.036) were both independent predictors of severe complications. CONCLUSION: With a mean radiation dose of 24.2 Gy to the future anastomotic region of the gastric fundus, the radiation dose was not associated with the incidence of anastomotic leakage or anastomotic stenosis. The incidence of severe complications was associated with a high superior mediastinal planning target volume border.
Authors: Francine E M Voncken; Erik Vegt; Johanna W van Sandick; Jolanda M van Dieren; Cecile Grootscholten; Annemarieke Bartels-Rutten; Steven L Takken; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Jeroen B van de Kamer; Berthe M P Aleman Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Andrew Bang; Joel A Broomfield; Jessica Chan; Najlaa Alyamani; Agnes Crnic; Sebastien Gilbert; Jason R Pantarotto Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-01-24
Authors: Tom van den Ende; Frank A Abe Nijenhuis; Héctor G van den Boorn; Emil Ter Veer; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Martijn G H van Oijen; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Peiyuan Wang; Derong Zhang; Xiaozhou Lin; Yujie Chen; Hao He; Peng Chen; Weijie Chen; Hang Zhou; Suyu Chen; Zhen Chen; Raja M Flores; Connor J Wakefield; Inderpal S Sarkaria; Shuoyan Liu; Feng Wang Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2022-08