ABSTRACT
Background: There are multiple choices for the nutritional management mode after esophageal cancer surgery. Currently, there is still controversy regarding which nutritional management mode has an impact on the postoperative recovery and overall survival (OS) of patients. This study aims to compare the differences between two commonly used clinical nutritional management modes: jejunostomy feeding plus oral intake (JF plus OI) and intravenous nutrition plus oral intake (IN plus OI), in terms of short-term efficacy and 3-year OS, in order to further explore the optimal mode of enteral nutrition management after esophageal cancer surgery. Methods: We evaluated esophageal cancer patients who underwent radical surgery at Union Hospital of Fujian Medical University between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2020. The purpose of this analysis was to compare the perioperative complications, Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) nutritional scores at 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 months after surgery, as well as the 3-year OS rates, between two different nutritional management approaches: JF plus OI and IN plus OI following esophageal cancer surgery. Results: Among the 822 patients included, 668 and 154 patients belonged to JF plus OI and IN plus OI groups, respectively. After propensity score matching, 149 patients per group were evaluated. The amount of gastric drainage fluid was higher in the IN plus OI group (P<0.05), and the incidence of postoperative gastrointestinal emptying disorder and intestinal obstruction was significantly higher in the JF plus OI group (P<0.05). The IN plus OI group had a higher incidence of perioperative hypoproteinemia (P<0.05), and a higher risk of malnutrition in 2 weeks after surgery (P<0.05). The 3-year OS was not significantly different (P>0.05). Conclusions: JF plus OI may be the preferable nutritional management approach after esophageal cancer resection as it can potentially reduce perioperative nutritional deficiency. However, attention should be paid to the risk of gastrointestinal emptying and intestinal obstruction associated with JF.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy in esophageal cancer (EC) treatment is still a subject of debate. AIM: To compare the clinical efficacy and toxic side effects between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) for locally advanced EC (LAEC). METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted using multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Science Direct, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database Article. Studies up to December 2022 comparing nCRT and nCT in patients with EC were selected. RESULTS: The analysis revealed significant differences between nCRT and nCT in terms of disease-free survival. The results indicated that nCRT provided better outcomes in terms of the 3-year overall survival rate (OSR) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.95], complete response rate (OR = 3.15), and R0 clearance rate (CR) (OR = 2.25). However, nCT demonstrated a better 5-year OSR (OR = 1.02) than nCRT. Moreover, when compared to nCRT, nCT showed reduced risks of cardiac complications (OR = 1.15) and pulmonary complications (OR = 1.30). CONCLUSION: Overall, both nCRT and nCT were effective in terms of survival outcomes for LAEC. However, nCT exhibited better performance in terms of postoperative complications.