Masayuki Urabe1, Shusuke Haruta2, Masami Tanaka3, Akikazu Yago2, Yu Ohkura2,4, Tsuyoshi Tanaka2, Shu Hoteya3,4, Masaki Ueno2,4, Harushi Udagawa2,4. 1. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Toranomon Hospital, 2-2-2 Toranomon, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8470, Japan. urabe-tky@umin.ac.jp. 2. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Toranomon Hospital, 2-2-2 Toranomon, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8470, Japan. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Okinaka Memorial Institute for Medical Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although gastric conduit cancer (GCC) arising after esophagectomy is increasingly being reported, therapeutic strategies for resectable GCC have yet to be optimized. We investigated clinicopathological features of patients undergoing endoscopic versus more invasive surgical treatments for GCC and compared their outcomes. METHODS: Fifty-one patients, who had a history of esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction for esophageal cancer and underwent resection for metachronous GCC, were identified. Their characteristics and outcomes were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: There were 48 males and three females, ranging in age from 46-86 years. Twelve patients underwent surgery for GCC (group S) and 39 underwent only endoscopic resection (group E). The most common cause of death was pneumonia (10/51, 19.6%). Neither overall survival nor cumulative incidence of pneumonia-caused death differed significantly between the two groups (P = 0.60, 0.84, respectively). In group S, partial gastrectomy was performed in four cases and total gastrectomy in seven. Partial resections, including three antrectomy without sternotomy or intrathoracic procedures, were completed with significantly shorter operative durations than total resections (median 208 vs 513 min, P = 0.012). GCC recurrence was experienced in two cases: one undergoing open approach partial resection of the corpus and the other thoracoscopic total gastrectomy. CONCLUSION: Even compared with endoscopic treatment, outcomes following surgery for GCC appeared to be acceptable. Open approach total gastric gastrectomy could be the most radical modality, while other less invasive alternatives, e.g., antrectomy, are also an option. Clinicians may select a treatment strategy balancing radicality and patient status, reflecting tolerance to invasive procedures.
PURPOSE: Although gastric conduit cancer (GCC) arising after esophagectomy is increasingly being reported, therapeutic strategies for resectable GCC have yet to be optimized. We investigated clinicopathological features of patients undergoing endoscopic versus more invasive surgical treatments for GCC and compared their outcomes. METHODS: Fifty-one patients, who had a history of esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction for esophageal cancer and underwent resection for metachronous GCC, were identified. Their characteristics and outcomes were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: There were 48 males and three females, ranging in age from 46-86 years. Twelve patients underwent surgery for GCC (group S) and 39 underwent only endoscopic resection (group E). The most common cause of death was pneumonia (10/51, 19.6%). Neither overall survival nor cumulative incidence of pneumonia-caused death differed significantly between the two groups (P = 0.60, 0.84, respectively). In group S, partial gastrectomy was performed in four cases and total gastrectomy in seven. Partial resections, including three antrectomy without sternotomy or intrathoracic procedures, were completed with significantly shorter operative durations than total resections (median 208 vs 513 min, P = 0.012). GCC recurrence was experienced in two cases: one undergoing open approach partial resection of the corpus and the other thoracoscopic total gastrectomy. CONCLUSION: Even compared with endoscopic treatment, outcomes following surgery for GCC appeared to be acceptable. Open approach total gastric gastrectomy could be the most radical modality, while other less invasive alternatives, e.g., antrectomy, are also an option. Clinicians may select a treatment strategy balancing radicality and patient status, reflecting tolerance to invasive procedures.