Consequences of anastomotic leaks after minimally invasive esophagectomy: A single-center experience

Background: Anastomotic leak (AL) after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a well-described source of morbidity for patients undergoing surgical treatment of esophageal neoplasm. With improved early recognition and endoscopic management techniques, the long-term impact remains unclear. Method(s): A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent MIE for esophageal neoplasm between January 2015 and June 2021 at a single institution. Cohorts were stratified by development of AL and subsequent management. Baseline demographics, perioperative data, and post-operative outcomes were examined. Result(s): During this period, 172 MIEs were performed, with 35 of 172 (20.3%) complicated by an AL. Perioperative factors independently associated with AL were post-operative blood transfusion (leak rate 52.9% versus 16.8%;p = 0.0017), incompleteness of anastomotic rings (75.0% vs 19.1%;p = 0.027), and receiving neoadjuvant therapy (18.5% vs 30.8%;p < 0.0001). Inferior short-term outcomes associated with AL included number of esophageal dilations in the first post-operative year (1.40 vs 0.46, p = 0.0397), discharge disposition to a location other than home (22.9% vs 8.8%, p = 0.012), length of hospital stay (17.7 days vs 9.6 days;p = 0.002), and time until jejunostomy tube removal (134 days vs 79 days;p = 0.0023). There was no significant difference in overall survival between patients with or without an AL at 1 year (79% vs 83%) or 5 years (50% vs 47%) (overall log rank p = 0.758). Conclusion(s): In this large single-center series of MIEs, AL was associated with inferior short-term outcomes including hospital length of stay, discharge disposition other than to home, and need for additional endoscopic procedures, without an accompanying impact on 1-year or 5-year survival. Key message: In this large, single-center series of minimally invasive esophagectomies, anastomotic leak was associated with worse short-term outcomes including hospital length of stay, discharge disposition other than to home, and need for additional endoscopic procedures, but was not associated with worse long-term survival. The significant association between neoadjuvant therapy and decreased leak rates is difficult to interpret, given the potential for confounding factors, thus careful attention to modifiable pre- and peri-operative patient factors associated with anastomotic leak is warranted.Copyright © 2022 The Authors

Sleep Problems Prior to Radio-chemotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or the Esophagogastric Junction.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Many patients with locally advanced cancer of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction receive definitive or neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Patient anticipation of this treatment can cause or aggravate distress and sleep disorders. This study aimed to identify the prevalence of sleep disorders and risk factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight patients assigned to radio-chemotherapy were retrospectively evaluated for pre-treatment sleep disorders. Investigated characteristics included age; sex; performance score; comorbidity index; previous malignancies; family history; distress score; emotional, physical or practical problems; tumor site; histology and grading; tumor stage; planned treatment; and relation to 2019 Coronavirus pandemic. RESULTS: Sleep problems were reported by 15 patients (39.5%). Significant associations were found for higher distress scores (p=0.016) and greater numbers of emotional problems (p<0.0001). A trend was observed for greater numbers of physical problems (p=0.176). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of sleep problems was high. Risk factors were found that can help identify patients requiring psychological support already prior to radio-chemotherapy.

Bilateral recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis diagnosed using dynamic digital radiography during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dynamic digital radiography (DDR) is a motion-detecting technique with high temporal resolution. Flexible laryngoscopy is a common modality for the observation of the larynx; however, it generates aerosol. DDR is an easy and less risky screening test for the diagnosis of recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Considerations for the Surgical Management of Thoracic Cancers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Rational Strategies for Thoracic Surgeons.

Objective: The novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in a global health crisis since first case was identified in December 2019. As the pandemic continues to strain global public health systems, elective surgeries for thoracic cancer, such as early-stage lung cancer and esophageal cancer (EC), have been postponed due to a shortage of medical resources and the risk of nosocomial transmission. This review is aimed to discuss the influence of COVID-19 on thoracic surgical practice, prevention of nosocomial transmission during the pandemic, and propose modifications to the standard practices in the surgical management of different thoracic cancer. Methods: A literature search of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar was performed for articles focusing on COVID-19, early-stage lung cancer, and EC prior to 1 July 2021. The evidence from articles was combined with our data and experience. Results: We review the challenges in the management of different thoracic cancer from the perspectives of thoracic surgeons and propose rational strategies for the diagnosis and treatment of early-stage lung cancer and EC during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the optimization of hospital systems and medical resources is to fight against COVID-19. Indolent early lung cancers, such as pure ground-glass nodules/opacities (GGOs), can be postponed with a lower risk of progression, while selective surgeries of more biologically aggressive tumors should be prioritized. As for EC, we recommend immediate or prioritized surgeries for patients with stage Ib or more advanced stage and patients after neoadjuvant therapy. Routine COVID-19 screening should be performed preoperatively before thoracic surgeries. Prevention of nosocomial transmission by providing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), such as N-95 respirator masks with eye protection to healthcare workers, is necessary.

Medical Oncology or Surgical Oncology: Which Branch Should Be Started in Esophageal Cancer Diagnostic Evaluation?

Objective We evaluated the effect of the branch of the cancer specialist (medical oncologist versus surgical oncologist) who initially examines a patient on treatment delay. The objective was to evaluate whether surgical oncology and medical oncology clinics, which have different operating styles, impact the timeliness of treatment. Additionally, we investigated the prognostic impact of the clinical and treatment-related factors in patients with esophageal cancer treated at our center. Methods This was a retrospective single-center study. The prognostic impact of resection type (R0 or R1-2), multimodal treatment, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), perineural invasion (PNI), lymph node metastases, cachexia at the time of diagnosis, smoking, and diagnostic application of endoscopic ultrasound was evaluated. Patients were stratified according to whether the orientation and management processes were based on a multimodal approach and whether they were first examined by a surgical oncologist or a medical oncologist for diagnostic workup and management. The impact of the management approach on progression-free survival (PFS) was evaluated. Results Use of a multimodal approach in patients with esophageal cancer was associated with longer PFS (26.7 vs 13.9 months, p = 0.002). LVI and cachexia were associated with shorter PFS (16.1 vs 29.4 months, p = 0.044 and 14.6 vs 29.0, p = 0.019, respectively). The first appointment of the patients in the medical oncology department was associated with shorter treatment delay (54 [IQR: 36-71] vs 31 [IQR: 24-48] days, p < 0.001). Conclusions Our findings suggest that the first appointment of patients in the medical oncology department may lead to a more systematic workup and treatment progress. We believe that systematic use of multimodal approaches for esophageal cancer may confer prognostic benefits.

Risk Prediction Model for Esophageal Cancer Among General Population: A Systematic Review.

Objective: The risk prediction model is an effective tool for risk stratification and is expected to play an important role in the early detection and prevention of esophageal cancer. This study sought to summarize the available evidence of esophageal cancer risk predictions models and provide references for their development, validation, and application. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for original articles published in English up to October 22, 2021. Studies that developed or validated a risk prediction model of esophageal cancer and its precancerous lesions were included. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics including predictors, model performance and methodology, and assessed risk of bias and applicability with PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool). Results: A total of 20 studies including 30 original models were identified. The median area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of risk prediction models was 0.78, ranging from 0.68 to 0.94. Age, smoking, body mass index, sex, upper gastrointestinal symptoms, and family history were the most commonly included predictors. None of the models were assessed as low risk of bias based on PROBST. The major methodological deficiencies were inappropriate date sources, inconsistent definition of predictors and outcomes, and the insufficient number of participants with the outcome. Conclusions: This study systematically reviewed available evidence on risk prediction models for esophageal cancer in general populations. The findings indicate a high risk of bias due to several methodological pitfalls in model development and validation, which limit their application in practice.

THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON MANAGEMENT OF GASTROINTESTINAL MALIGNANCIES;A NARRATIVE REVIEW

The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to widespread disruptions in the delivery of all essential and non-essential health care globally, with individuals afflicted with cancer representing a particularly vulnerable sub set of those affected. This article reviews the published literature and guidelines on the management of gastrointestinal malignancies during the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide and summarizes the challenges posed, innovations made and outcomes of the various screening, diagnostic and therapeutic modalities employed during the period from March to December 2020.

This Week in the Journal

The clinician must pay close attention to the patient history, aided by the development of molecular diagnostic tests, to distinguish infections from other causes. see Review Article, N Engl J Med 2022;386:463-477 Lisch Nodules A 40-year-old man with a history of neurofibromatosis type 1 presented for a routine eye examination. Six weeks before jaundice developed, he had been hospitalized with Covid-19. see Clinical Problem-Solving, N Engl J Med 2022;386:479-485 Using Economics to Inform Public Health Policy Although public health practitioners and researchers focus primarily on improving health, economists view health as but one important component of what people may value. [...]substantial neutralization of the omicron variant was detected in samples from participants who had received three doses. see Correspondence, N Engl J Med 2022;386:492-494 Preliminary Data on Vaccine Protection against Omicron Using a test-negative study design focused on the period of dominance of the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant in South Africa, investigators found that two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine had an efficacy of 50 to 70% against hospitalization caused by omicron in Gauteng province. see Correspondence, N Engl J Med 2022;386:494-496

Contributing factors common to COVID­19 and gastrointestinal cancer.

The devastating complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID­19) result from the dysfunctional immune response of an individual following the initial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS­CoV­2) infection. Multiple toxic stressors and behaviors contribute to underlying immune system dysfunction. SARS­CoV­2 exploits the dysfunctional immune system to trigger a chain of events, ultimately leading to COVID­19. The authors have previously identified a number of contributing factors (CFs) common to myriad chronic diseases. Based on these observations, it was hypothesized that there may be a significant overlap between CFs associated with COVID­19 and gastrointestinal cancer (GIC). Thus, in the present study, a streamlined dot­product approach was used initially to identify potential CFs that affect COVID­19 and GIC directly (i.e., the simultaneous occurrence of CFs and disease in the same article). The nascent character of the COVID­19 core literature (~1­year­old) did not allow sufficient time for the direct effects of numerous CFs on COVID­19 to emerge from laboratory experiments and epidemiological studies. Therefore, a literature­related discovery approach was used to augment the COVID­19 core literature­based 'direct impact' CFs with discovery­based 'indirect impact' CFs [CFs were identified in the non­COVID­19 biomedical literature that had the same biomarker impact pattern (e.g., hyperinflammation, hypercoagulation, hypoxia, etc.) as was shown in the COVID­19 literature]. Approximately 2,250 candidate direct impact CFs in common between GIC and COVID­19 were identified, albeit some being variants of the same concept. As commonality proof of concept, 75 potential CFs that appeared promising were selected, and 63 overlapping COVID­19/GIC potential/candidate CFs were validated with biological plausibility. In total, 42 of the 63 were overlapping direct impact COVID­19/GIC CFs, and the remaining 21 were candidate GIC CFs that overlapped with indirect impact COVID­19 CFs. On the whole, the present study demonstrates that COVID­19 and GIC share a number of common risk/CFs, including behaviors and toxic exposures, that impair immune function. A key component of immune system health is the removal of those factors that contribute to immune system dysfunction in the first place. This requires a paradigm shift from traditional Western medicine, which often focuses on treatment, rather than prevention.

Technical details for a robot-assisted hand-sewn esophago-gastric anastomosis during minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIILE) provides better outcomes than open techniques, particularly in terms of post-operative recovery and pulmonary complications. However, in addition to requiring advanced technical skills, thoracoscopic access makes it hard to perform esophagogastric anastomosis safely, and the reported rates of anastomotic leak vary from 5 to 16%. Several minimally invasive esophago-gastric anastomotic techniques have been described, but to date strong evidence to support one technique over the others is still lacking. We herein report the technical details and preliminary results of a new robot-assisted hand-sewn esophago-gastric anastomosis technique. METHODS: From January 2018 to December 2020, 12 cases of laparoscopic/thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with robot-assisted hand-sewn esophago-gastric anastomosis were performed. The gastric conduit was prepared and tailored taking care of vascularization with a complete resection of the gastric fundus. The anastomosis consisted of a robot-assisted, hand-sewn four layers of absorbable monofilament running barbed suture (V-lock). The posterior outer layer incorporated the gastric and esophageal staple lines. RESULTS: The post-operative course was uneventful in nine cases. Two patients developed chyloperitoneum, one patient a Sars-Cov-2 infection, and one patient a late anastomotic stricture. In all cases, there were no anastomotic leaks or delayed gastric conduit emptying. The median post-operative stay was 13 days (min 7, max 37 days); the longest in-hospital stay was recorded in patients who developed chyloperitoneum. CONCLUSION: Despite the small series, we believe that our technique looks to be promising, safe, and reproducible. Some key points may be useful to guarantee a low complications rate after MIILE, particularly regarding anastomotic leaks and delayed emptying: the resection of the gastric fundus, the use of robot assistance, the incorporation of the staple lines in the posterior aspect of the anastomosis, and the use of barbed suture. Further cases are needed to validate the preliminary, but very encouraging, results.

Case Report: Management of Malignancy-Exacerbated Pemphigus Vulgaris During COVID-19 Pandemic.

Pemphigus vulgaris is an intraepidermal autoimmune mucocutaneous blistering disease whose etiopathogenesis includes various trigger factors, i.e., drugs and malignancies. We present a case of malignancy-exacerbated pemphigus vulgaris which required a careful diagnostic process in order to rule out paraneoplastic pemphigus, along with the challenges posed by the need of treating both cutaneous and oncologic diseases. Possible post-operative complications post-poned the start of first-line immunosuppressive treatment of pemphigus. Moreover, the infective risks had to be minimized during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. Intravenous immunoglobulins were chosen as "bridge" therapy before the tumor surgical excision, followed by rituximab in post-operative phase.

Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer Performed During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Delay in time to esophagectomy for esophageal cancer has been shown to have worse peri-operative and long-term outcomes. We hypothesized that COVID-19 would cause a delay to surgery, with worse perioperative outcomes, compared to standard operations. All esophagectomies for esophageal cancer at a single institution from March-June 2020, COVID-19 group, and from 2019 were reviewed and peri-operative details were compared between groups. Ninety-six esophagectomies were performed in 2019 vs 37 during March-June 2020 (COVID-19 group). No differences between groups were found for preoperative comorbidities. Wait-time to surgery from final neoadjuvant treatment was similar, median 50 days in 2019 vs 53 days during COVID-19 p = 0.601. There was no increased upstaging, from clinical stage to pathologic stage, 9.4% in 2019 vs 7.5% in COVID-19 p = 0.841. Fewer overall complications occurred during COVID-19 vs 2019, 43.2% vs 64.6% p = 0.031, but complications were similar by specific grades. Readmission rates were not statistically different during COVID-19 than 2019, 16.2% vs 10.4% p = 0.38. No peri-operative mortalities or COVID-19 infections were seen in the COVID-19 group. Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer was not associated with worse outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic with minimal risk of infection when careful COVID-19 guidelines are followed. Prioritization is recommended to ensure no delays to surgery.

Time to surgery in thoracic cancers and prioritization during COVID-19: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has overwhelmed hospital resources worldwide, requiring widespread cancellation of non-emergency operations, including lung and esophageal cancer operations. In the United States, while hospitals begin to increase surgical volume and tackle the backlog of cases, the specter of a "second wave," with a potential vaccine months to years away, highlights the ongoing need to triage cases based upon the risk of surgical delay. We synthesize the available literature on time to surgery and its impact on outcomes along with a critical appraisal of the released triage guidelines in the United States. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review using PubMed according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines evaluating relevant literature from the past 15 years. RESULTS: Out of 679 screened abstracts, 12 studies investigating time to surgery in lung cancer were included. In stage I-II lung cancer, delayed resection beyond 6 to 8 weeks is consistently associated with lower survival. No identified evidence justifies a 2 cm cutoff for immediate versus delayed surgery. For stage IIIa lung cancer, time to surgery greater than 6 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy is similarly associated with worse survival. For esophageal cancer, 254 abstracts were screened and 23 studies were included. Minimal literature addresses primary esophagectomy, but time to surgery over 8 weeks is associated with lower survival. In the neoadjuvant setting, longer time to surgery is associated with increased pathologic complete response, but also decreased survival. The optimal window for esophagectomy following neoadjuvant therapy is 6 to 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, timely resection of lung and esophageal cancer should be prioritized whenever possible based upon local resources and disease-burden.

Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on esophageal cancer surgery in Northern Italy: lessons learned from a multicentric snapshot.

Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak has significantly burdened healthcare systems worldwide, leading to reorganization of healthcare services and reallocation of resources. The Italian Society for Study of Esophageal Diseases (SISME) conducted a national survey to evaluate changes in esophageal cancer management in a region severely struck by COVID-19 pandemic. A web-based questionnaire (26 items) was sent to 12 SISME units. Short-term outcomes of esophageal resections performed during the lockdown were compared with those achieved in the same period of 2019. Six (50%) centers had significant restrictions in their activity. However, overall number of resections did not decrease compared to 2019, while a higher rate of open esophageal resections was observed (40 vs. 21.7%; P = 0.034). Surgery was delayed in 24 (36.9%) patients in 6 (50%) centers, mostly due to shortage of anesthesiologists, and occupation of intensive care unit beds from intubated COVID-19 patients. Indications for neoadjuvant chemo (radio) therapy were extended in 14% of patients. Separate COVID-19 hospital pathways were active in 11 (91.7%) units. COVID-19 screening protocols included nasopharyngeal swab in 91.7%, chest computed tomography scan in 8.3% and selective use of lung ultrasound in 75% of units. Postoperative interstitial pneumonia occurred in 1 (1.5%) patient. Recovery from COVID-19 pandemic was characterized by screening of patients in all units, and follow-up outpatient visits in only 33% of units. This survey shows that clinical strategies differed considerably among the 12 SISME centers. Evidence-based guidelines are needed to support the surgical esophageal community and to standardize clinical practice in case of further pandemics.

Modeling the impact of delaying surgery for early esophageal cancer in the era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Surgical society guidelines have recommended changing the treatment strategy for early esophageal cancer during the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Delaying resection can allow for interim disease progression, but the impact of this delay on mortality is unknown. The COVID-19 infection rate at which immediate operative risk exceeds benefit is unknown. We sought to model immediate versus delayed surgical resection in a T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A decision analysis model was developed, and sensitivity analyses performed. The base case was a 65-year-old male smoker presenting with cT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma scheduled for esophagectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic. We compared immediate surgical resection to delayed resection after 3 months. The likelihood of key outcomes was derived from the literature where available. The outcome was 5-year overall survival. RESULTS: Proceeding with immediate esophagectomy for the base case scenario resulted in slightly improved 5-year overall survival when compared to delaying surgery by 3 months (5-year overall survival 0.74 for immediate and 0.73 for delayed resection). In sensitivity analyses, a delayed approach became preferred when the probability of perioperative COVID-19 infection increased above 7%. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate resection of early esophageal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic did not decrease 5-year survival when compared to resection after 3 months for the base case scenario. However, as the risk of perioperative COVID-19 infection increases above 7%, a delayed approach has improved 5-year survival. This balance should be frequently re-examined by surgeons as infection risk changes in each hospital and community throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Esophageal cancer: challenges, concerns, and recommendations for management amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Since December 2019, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread worldwide, raising great concern, particularly in immunosuppressed cancer patients. The pandemic situation remains extremely dynamic, which necessitates proactive management decisions from oncologists and oncologic surgeons in effort to mitigate the risk of both SARS-CoV-2 infection and cancer metastasis. Esophageal cancer, in particular, is one of the deadliest types of malignancy worldwide, reflecting both aggressive biology and a lack of adequate treatment. Several challenges and concerns regarding the management of esophageal cancer have been raised in light of the ongoing viral pandemic. The primary aim of this review is to summarize the salient evidence for recommendations and optimal treatment strategies for patients with esophageal cancer amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

The influence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on esophagogastric cancer services: an international survey of esophagogastric surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Several guidelines to guide clinical practice among esophagogastric surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic were produced. However, none provide reflection of current service provision. This international survey aimed to clarify the changes observed in esophageal and gastric cancer management and surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An online survey covering key areas for esophagogastric cancer services, including staging investigations and oncological and surgical therapy before and during (at two separate time-points-24th March 2020 and 18th April 2020) the COVID-19 pandemic were developed. RESULTS: A total of 234 respondents from 225 centers and 49 countries spanning six continents completed the first round of the online survey, of which 79% (n = 184) completed round 2. There was variation in the availability of staging investigations ranging from 26.5% for endoscopic ultrasound to 62.8% for spiral computed tomography scan. Definitive chemoradiotherapy was offered in 14.8% (adenocarcinoma) and 47.0% (squamous cell carcinoma) of respondents and significantly increased by almost three-fold and two-fold, respectively, in both round 1 and 2. There were uncertainty and heterogeneity surrounding prioritization of patients undergoing cancer resections. Of the surgeons symptomatic with COVID-19, only 40.2% (33/82) had routine access to COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction testing for staff. Of those who had testing available (n = 33), only 12.1% (4/33) had tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight management challenges and several practice variations in caring for patients with esophagogastric cancers. Therefore, there is a need for clear consistent guidelines to be in place in the event of a further pandemic to ensure a standardized level of oncological care for patients with esophagogastric cancers.