BACKGROUND: Few studies reported the outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in treating patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). The aim of the study was to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of nCRT plus MIE (RM) strategy in treating locally advanced resectable ESCC. METHODS: This retrospective study included 175 patients with ESCC undergoing surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy in our institution from 2010 to 2016. Patients were stratified into three groups: RM, [neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) plus MIE] (CM) and [nCT plus open esophagectomy (OE)] (CO). RESULTS: Seventy-six (43.4%), 42 (24%) and 57 (32.6%) patients received RM, CM and CO approach, respectively. Compared with CO approach, RM or CM approach had shorter operation duration (188±39, 185±37 vs. 209±45 minutes, P=0.004, P=0.009) and less blood loss (124±88, 122±79 vs. 166±92 mL, P=0.001, P=0.003). There was a trend with lower risk of postoperative non-surgical complications in RM and CM approach [odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 0.200-1.040; P=0.062; OR 0.41, 0.150-1.160; P=0.093]. There were no differences in 30- and 90-day mortality among all groups. RM approach was more likely to achieve pathological complete regression (27.6% vs. 4.8%, 1.8%, P=0.001, P=0.001) and fewer lymph node metastasis (25.0% vs. 57.1%, 61.4%, P=0.001, P=0.001) than CM or CO approach. Survival analysis revealed a potential trend towards improved overall survival in RM approach compared with CM or CO approach (P=0.098, P=0.166). CONCLUSIONS: RM approach was a safe and efficient strategy in treating locally advanced resectable ESCC.
BACKGROUND: Few studies reported the outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in treating patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). The aim of the study was to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of nCRT plus MIE (RM) strategy in treating locally advanced resectable ESCC. METHODS: This retrospective study included 175 patients with ESCC undergoing surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy in our institution from 2010 to 2016. Patients were stratified into three groups: RM, [neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) plus MIE] (CM) and [nCT plus open esophagectomy (OE)] (CO). RESULTS: Seventy-six (43.4%), 42 (24%) and 57 (32.6%) patients received RM, CM and CO approach, respectively. Compared with CO approach, RM or CM approach had shorter operation duration (188±39, 185±37 vs. 209±45 minutes, P=0.004, P=0.009) and less blood loss (124±88, 122±79 vs. 166±92 mL, P=0.001, P=0.003). There was a trend with lower risk of postoperative non-surgical complications in RM and CM approach [odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 0.200-1.040; P=0.062; OR 0.41, 0.150-1.160; P=0.093]. There were no differences in 30- and 90-day mortality among all groups. RM approach was more likely to achieve pathological complete regression (27.6% vs. 4.8%, 1.8%, P=0.001, P=0.001) and fewer lymph node metastasis (25.0% vs. 57.1%, 61.4%, P=0.001, P=0.001) than CM or CO approach. Survival analysis revealed a potential trend towards improved overall survival in RM approach compared with CM or CO approach (P=0.098, P=0.166). CONCLUSIONS: RM approach was a safe and efficient strategy in treating locally advanced resectable ESCC.
Authors: Smita Sihag; Cameron D Wright; John C Wain; Henning A Gaissert; Michael Lanuti; James S Allan; Douglas J Mathisen; Christopher R Morse Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2012-02-15 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: J F Bosset; M Gignoux; J P Triboulet; E Tiret; G Mantion; D Elias; P Lozach; J C Ollier; J J Pavy; M Mercier; T Sahmoud Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-07-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: N N Sanford; P J Catalano; P C Enzinger; B L King; R Bueno; N E Martin; T S Hong; J Y Wo; H J Mamon Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 3.429
Authors: Surya S A Y Biere; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Kirsten W Maas; Luigi Bonavina; Camiel Rosman; Josep Roig Garcia; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Markus W Hollmann; Elly S M de Lange; H Jaap Bonjer; Donald L van der Peet; Miguel A Cuesta Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: F Klevebro; G Alexandersson von Döbeln; N Wang; G Johnsen; A-B Jacobsen; S Friesland; I Hatlevoll; N I Glenjen; P Lind; J A Tsai; L Lundell; M Nilsson Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-01-17 Impact factor: 32.976