Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 212
Filter
1.
J Am Coll Surg ; 2024 Jun 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38828935
2.
JTCVS Tech ; 24: 213-216, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38835574
3.
Ann Surg ; 2024 Jun 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38841851

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how the Siewert classification of gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas correlates with genomic profiles. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND DATA: Current staging and treatment guidelines recommend that tumors with an epicenter less than 2 cm into the gastric cardia be treated as esophageal cancers, while tumors with epicenter greater than 2 cm into the cardia be staged and treated as gastric cancers. To date, however, few studies have compared the genomic profiles of the 3 Siewert classification groups to validate this distinction. METHODS: Using targeted tumor sequencing data on patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction previously treated with surgery at our institution, we compared genomic features across Siewert classification groups. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were included: 121 had Siewert type I, 170 type II, and 59 type III. Comparisons by Siewert location revealed that Siewert type I and II were primarily characterized as the chromosomal instability (CIN) molecular subtype and displayed Barrett's metaplasia and p53 and cell cycle pathway dysregulation. Siewert type III tumors, by contrast, were more heterogeneous, including higher proportions of microsatellite instability (MSI) and genomically stable (GS) tumors and more frequently displayed ARID1A and somatic CDH1 alterations, signet ring cell features, and poor differentiation. Overall, Siewert type I and II tumors demonstrated greater genomic overlap with lower esophageal tumors, while Siewert type III tumors shared genomic features with gastric tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results support recent updates in treatment and staging guidelines. Ultimately, however, molecular rather than anatomic classification may prove more valuable in determining staging, treatment, and prognosis.

4.
Ann Thorac Surg ; 2024 May 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38777248

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The current guidelines for the treatment of esophageal cancer recommend a multimodal approach that includes chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy, radiation, and surgery. Despite advances in treatment, rates of treatment failure, pathologic incomplete response, tumor metastasis, and death remain unacceptably high. METHODS: We performed a narrative literature review using the terms "resectable esophageal cancer" and "multimodal therapy" to identify prospective trials of neoadjuvant radiation and chemotherapy, individually or combined with surgery, for esophageal cancer. Trials performed between 1984 and 2022 were identified and analyzed. CLINICALTRIALS: gov was queried to identify ongoing studies. RESULTS: Twenty-one clinical studies were identified: 15 randomized controlled trials and 6 prospective nonrandomized trials. The results of the randomized trials suggest that multimodal therapy-in the form of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus radiation or chemotherapy alone, followed by surgery-is associated with better rates of local disease control and partial clinical response and, potentially, longer survival than with surgery alone. Immunotherapy is an emerging option for the treatment of patients with esophageal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of patients with resectable esophageal cancer is rapidly evolving. Although previous treatment options have had only limited benefits for patients, significant progress has been made during last 3 decades. The results of the available studies suggest that advances in the treatment of esophageal cancer have the potential to improve survival in these patients; however, questions remain regarding mechanisms of action, patient selection, and the use of personalized approaches based on genetics.

5.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38788834

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of knowledge regarding the use of prognostic features in stage I lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). Thus, we investigated clinicopathologic features associated with recurrence after complete resection for stage I LUAD. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with pathologic stage I LUAD who underwent R0 resection from 2010 to 2020. Exclusion criteria included history of lung cancer, induction or adjuvant therapy, noninvasive or mucinous LUAD, and death within 90 days of surgery. Fine and Gray competing-risk regression assessed associations between clinicopathologic features and disease recurrence. RESULTS: In total, 1912 patients met inclusion criteria. Most patients (1565 [82%]) had stage IA LUAD, and 250 developed recurrence: 141 (56%) distant and 109 (44%) locoregional only. The 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrence was 12% (95% confidence interval, 11%-14%). Higher maximum standardized uptake value of the primary tumor (hazard ratio [HR]=1.04), sublobar resection (HR=2.04), higher IASLC grade (HR=5.32 [grade 2]; HR=7.93 [grade 3]), lymphovascular invasion (HR=1.70), visceral pleural invasion (HR=1.54), and tumor size (HR=1.30) were independently associated with hazard of recurrence. Tumors with 3-4 high-risk features had a higher cumulative incidence of recurrence at 5 years than tumors without these features (30% vs. 4%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence after resection for stage I LUAD remains an issue for select patients. Commonly reported clinicopathologic features can be used to define patients at high risk of recurrence and should be considered when assessing the prognosis of patients with stage I disease.

6.
Surg Oncol Clin N Am ; 33(3): 529-538, 2024 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38789195

ABSTRACT

Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is a technically demanding operation that requires an experienced surgeon, assistant, and anesthesiologist. The preoperative workup should focus on the extent of disease and extent of resection required, as well as the cardiopulmonary fitness of the patient. Surgical outcomes show decreased postoperative pain, decreased morbidity largely due to a reduction in respiratory complications, and decreased length of stay. Quality metrics and 5-year overall survival are equivalent to traditional open esophagectomy.


Subject(s)
Esophageal Neoplasms , Esophagectomy , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures , Humans , Esophagectomy/methods , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Laparoscopy/methods
7.
J Thorac Oncol ; 2024 May 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38762120

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Electronic nose (E-nose) technology has reported excellent sensitivity and specificity in the setting of lung cancer screening. However, the performance of E-nose specifically for early-stage tumors remains unclear. Therefore, the aim of our study was to assess the diagnostic performance of E-nose technology in clinical stage I lung cancer. METHODS: This phase IIc trial (NCT04734145) included patients diagnosed with a single greater than or equal to 50% solid stage I nodule. Exhalates were prospectively collected from January 2020 to August 2023. Blinded bioengineers analyzed the exhalates, using E-nose technology to determine the probability of malignancy. Patients were stratified into three risk groups (low-risk, [<0.2]; moderate-risk, [≥0.2-0.7]; high-risk, [≥0.7]). The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of E-nose versus histopathology (accuracy and F1 score). The secondary outcome was the clinical performance of the E-nose versus clinicoradiological prediction models. RESULTS: Based on the predefined cutoff (<0.20), E-nose agreed with histopathologic results in 86% of cases, achieving an F1 score of 92.5%, based on 86 true positives, two false negatives, and 12 false positives (n = 100). E-nose would refer fewer patients with malignant nodules to observation (low-risk: 2 versus 9 and 11, respectively; p = 0.028 and p = 0.011) than would the Swensen and Brock models and more patients with malignant nodules to treatment without biopsy (high-risk: 27 versus 19 and 6, respectively; p = 0.057 and p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of clinical stage I lung cancer, E-nose agrees well with histopathology. Accordingly, E-nose technology can be used in addition to imaging or as part of a "multiomics" platform.

8.
Ann Surg ; 2024 May 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38726663

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of a lower predicted postoperative (ppo) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) or diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) (ppoFEV1/ppoDLCO) threshold to predict cardiopulmonary complications after minimally invasive surgery (MIS) lobectomy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although MIS is associated with better postoperative outcomes than open surgery, MIS uses risk-assessment algorithms developed for open surgery. Moreover, several different definitions of cardiopulmonary complications are used for assessment. METHODS: All patients who underwent MIS lobectomy for clinical stage I-II lung cancer from 2018 to 2022 at our institution were considered. The performance of a ppoFEV1/ppoDLCO threshold of <45% was compared against that of the current guideline threshold of <60%. Three different definitions of cardiopulmonary complications were compared: Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS), and Berry et al. RESULTS: In 946 patients, the ppoFEV1/ppoDLCO threshold of <45% was associated with a higher proportion correctly classified (79% [95% CI, 76%-81%] vs. 65% [95% CI, 62%-68%]; P<0.001). The complication with the biggest difference in incidence between ppoFEV1/ppoDLCO of 45%-60% and >60% was prolonged air leak (33 [13%] vs. 34 [6%]; P<0.001). The predicted probability curves for cardiopulmonary complications were higher for the STS definition than for the ESTS or Berry definitions across ppoFEV1 and ppoDLCO values. CONCLUSIONS: The ppoFEV1/ppoDLCO threshold of <45% more accurately classified patients for cardiopulmonary complications after MIS lobectomy, emphasizing the need for updated risk-assessment guidelines for MIS lobectomy to optimize additional cardiopulmonary function evaluation.

9.
J Gastrointest Surg ; 28(4): 337-342, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38583881

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The relationship among obesity, bariatric surgery, and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is complex, given that some bariatric procedures are thought to be associated with increased incidence of reflux and Barrett's esophagus. Previous bariatric surgery may complicate the use of the stomach as a conduit for esophagectomy. In this study, we presented our experience with patients who developed EAC after bariatric surgery and described the challenges encountered and the techniques used. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of our institutional database to identify all patients at our institution who were treated for EAC after previously undergoing bariatric surgery. RESULTS: In total, 19 patients underwent resection with curative intent for EAC after bariatric surgery, including 10 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy. The median age at diagnosis of EAC was 63 years; patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy were younger (median age, 56 years). The median time from bariatric surgery to EAC was 7 years. Most patients had a body mass index (BMI) score of >30 kg/m2 at the time of diagnosis of EAC; approximately 40% had class III obesity (BMI score > 40 kg/m2). Six patients (32%) had known Barrett's esophagus before undergoing a reflux-increasing bariatric procedure. Sleeve gastrectomy patients underwent esophagectomy with gastric conduit, colonic interposition, or esophagojejunostomy. Only 1 patient had an anastomotic leak (after esophagojejunostomy). CONCLUSION: Endoscopy should be required both before (for treatment selection) and after all bariatric surgical procedures. Resection of EAC after bariatric surgery requires a highly individualized approach but is safe and feasible.


Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Bariatric Surgery , Barrett Esophagus , Esophageal Neoplasms , Gastroesophageal Reflux , Obesity, Morbid , Humans , Middle Aged , Barrett Esophagus/etiology , Barrett Esophagus/surgery , Barrett Esophagus/diagnosis , Esophageal Neoplasms/etiology , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Esophageal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Adenocarcinoma/etiology , Adenocarcinoma/surgery , Adenocarcinoma/diagnosis , Bariatric Surgery/adverse effects , Gastroesophageal Reflux/surgery , Gastroesophageal Reflux/complications , Obesity/complications , Obesity/surgery , Gastrectomy/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , Obesity, Morbid/surgery
10.
JAMA Netw Open ; 7(3): e244084, 2024 Mar 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38546649

ABSTRACT

This cohort study evaluates the association of a virtual synchronized prehabilitation program with perioperative outcomes among patients undergoing thoracic cancer surgery.


Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Thoracic Surgical Procedures , Humans , Preoperative Exercise
11.
Ann Thorac Surg ; 2024 Feb 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38408631

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care for locally advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers includes neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy with surgical resection; however, disease-free survival in these patients remains poor. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for adjuvant treatment of locally advanced esophageal and GEJ cancers, but their benefit in the perioperative and neoadjuvant settings remains under investigation. METHODS: We used the PubMed online database to conduct a literature search to identify studies that investigated immunotherapy for locally advanced esophageal and GEJ carcinoma. A review of ClinicalTrials.gov yielded a list of ongoing trials. RESULTS: Adjuvant nivolumab for residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery is the only approved immunotherapy regimen for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Early-phase trials investigating the addition of neoadjuvant or perioperative ICIs to standard-of-care multimodality approaches have observed pathologic complete response rates as high as 60%. Response rates are highest for ICIs plus chemoradiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and dual checkpoint inhibition in mismatch repair-deficient adenocarcinomas. Safety profiles are acceptable, with a pooled adverse event rate of 27%. Surgical morbidity and mortality with immunotherapy are similar to historical controls with no immunotherapy, and R0 resection rates are high. When reported, disease-free survival among patients treated with perioperative immunotherapy is promising. CONCLUSIONS: Outside of clinical trials, immunotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma is limited to the adjuvant setting. Phase III trials investigating neoadjuvant and perioperative immunotherapy are now underway and will provide much-needed data on survival that may ultimately lead to practice-changing recommendations.

12.
J Natl Cancer Inst ; 116(2): 299-308, 2024 Feb 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37699004

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The rate of esophagogastric cancer is rising among individuals under 50 years of age. It remains unknown whether early-onset esophagogastric cancer represents a unique entity. This study investigated the clinical and molecular characteristics of early-onset and average-onset esophagogastric cancer . METHODS: We reviewed the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center gastric, esophageal, and gastroesophageal junction cancer database. Associations between baseline characteristics and tumor and germline molecular alterations were compared between those with early-onset and average-onset esophagogastric cancer using Fisher exact tests and the Benjamini-Hochberg method for multiple-hypothesis correction. RESULTS: We included 1123 patients with early-onset esophagogastric cancer (n = 219; median age = 43 years [range = 18-49 years]) and average-onset esophagogastric cancer (n = 904; median age = 67 years [range = 50-94 years]) treated between 2005 and 2018. The early-onset group had more women (39% vs 28%, P = .002). Patients with early-onset esophagogastric cancer were more likely to have a gastric primary site (64% vs 44%, P < .0001). The signet ring cell and/or diffuse type was 3 times more common in the early-onset esophagogastric cancer group (31% vs 9%, P < .0001). Early-onsite tumors were more frequently genomically stable (31% vs 18%, P = .0002) and unlikely to be microsatellite instability high (2% vs 7%, P = .003). After restricting to adenocarcinoma and signet ring cell and/or diffuse type carcinomas, we observed no difference in stage (P = .40) or overall survival from stage IV diagnosis (median = 22.7 vs 22.1 months, P = .78). CONCLUSIONS: Our study supported a preponderance of gastric primary disease sites, signet ring histology, and genomically stable molecular subtypes in early-onset esophagogastric cancer. Our findings highlight the need for further research to define the underlying pathogenesis and strategies for early detection and prevention.


Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Carcinoma, Signet Ring Cell , Esophageal Neoplasms , Stomach Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Adolescent , Young Adult , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Esophageal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Esophageal Neoplasms/genetics , Stomach Neoplasms/diagnosis , Stomach Neoplasms/epidemiology , Stomach Neoplasms/genetics , Adenocarcinoma/epidemiology , Adenocarcinoma/genetics , Cardia/metabolism , Esophagogastric Junction/metabolism , Esophagogastric Junction/pathology , Carcinoma, Signet Ring Cell/metabolism , Carcinoma, Signet Ring Cell/pathology , Retrospective Studies
13.
Pract Radiat Oncol ; 14(1): 28-46, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37921736

ABSTRACT

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.


Subject(s)
Esophageal Neoplasms , Radiation Oncology , Surgeons , Humans , United States , Combined Modality Therapy , Esophageal Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Esophagogastric Junction
14.
Ann Thorac Surg ; 117(1): 15-32, 2024 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37921794

ABSTRACT

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.


Subject(s)
Esophageal Neoplasms , Radiation Oncology , Surgeons , Humans , United States , Combined Modality Therapy , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Esophagogastric Junction/surgery
15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38042400

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to assess the outcomes of lung resection in patients with non-small cell lung cancer previously treated with nonoperative treatment and to identify prognostic factors associated with survival. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery (2010-2022) after initial nonoperative treatment at a single institution were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Exclusion criteria included metachronous cancer, planned neoadjuvant therapy, and surgery for diagnostic or palliative indications. Cox models were constructed for overall survival and event-free survival. Survival of patients with stage IV disease was compared with survival of a nonstudy cohort who did not undergo surgery. RESULTS: In total, 120 patients met the inclusion criteria. Initial clinical stage was early stage in 16%, locoregionally advanced in 25%, and metastatic in 59% of patients. The indication for surgery was recurrence in 18%, local persistent disease in 23%, oligoprogression in 22%, and local control of oligometastatic disease in 38% of patients. Grade 3 or greater complications occurred in 5% of patients; 90-day mortality was 3%. Three-year event-free survival and overall survival were 39% and 73%, respectively. Male sex and lymphovascular invasion were associated with shorter event-free survival and overall survival; younger age and prior radiation therapy were associated with shorter overall survival. Patients with stage IV disease who received salvage lung resection had better overall survival than similar patients who received subsequent systemic therapy and no surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In this selected, heterogeneous population, lung resection after initial nonoperative treatment for non-small cell lung cancer was safe. Surgery as local consolidative therapy was associated with encouraging outcomes and should be considered for these patients.

16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37788788

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The current staging system for esophageal adenocarcinoma only considers tumor grade in early tumors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of tumor differentiation on response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and survival in patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This was a multi-institution retrospective review of all patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy from January 2010 to December 2017. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and survival was compared between patients with well- or moderately differentiated (G1/2) tumors versus poorly differentiated (G3) tumors. RESULTS: There were 550 patients, 485 men (88.2%) and 65 women. The median age was 61 years, and the tumor was G1/2 in 288 (52.4%) and G3 in 262 patients. Overall clinical stage before neoadjuvant therapy was similar between groups. Pathologic complete response (pCR) was found in 87 patients (15.8%). The frequency of pCR was similar between groups, but residual disease in the esophagus and lymph nodes was significantly more likely with G3 tumors. Median follow-up was 63 months and absolute survival, overall survival, and disease-free survival were all significantly worse in patients with G3 tumors. Further, even with pCR, patients with G3 tumors had significantly worse survival. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that response to neoadjuvant therapy was not affected by tumor differentiation. However, poor differentiation was associated with worse survival compared with patients with G1/2 tumors, even among those with pCR. These results suggest that poor differentiation should be considered as an added risk factor for clinical staging in patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma.

18.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg ; 64(6)2023 Dec 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37846030

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes between biologic and synthetic reconstructions after chest wall resection in a matched cohort. METHODS: All patients who underwent reconstruction after full-thickness chest wall resection from 2000 to 2022 were reviewed and stratified by prosthesis type (biologic or synthetic). Biologic prostheses were of biologic origin or were fully absorbable and incorporable. Integer matching was performed to reduce confounding. The study end point was surgical site complications requiring reoperation. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify associated risk factors. RESULTS: In total, 438 patients underwent prosthetic chest wall reconstruction (unmatched: biologic, n = 49; synthetic, n = 389; matched: biologic, n = 46; synthetic, n = 46). After matching, the median (interquartile range) defect size was 83 cm2 (50-142) for the biologic group and 90 cm2 (48-146) for the synthetic group (P = 0.97). Myocutaneous flaps were used in 33% of biologic reconstructions (n = 15) and 33% of synthetic reconstructions (n = 15) in the matched cohort (P = 0.99). The incidence of surgical site complications requiring reoperation was not significantly different between biologic and synthetic reconstructions in the unmatched (3 [6%] vs 29 [7%]; P = 0.99) and matched (2 [4%] vs 4 [9%]; P = 0.68) cohorts. On the multivariable analysis, operative time [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-1.01; P = 0.006] and operative blood loss (aOR = 1.00, 95% CI, 1.00-1.00]; P = 0.012) were associated with higher rates of surgical site complications requiring reoperation; microvascular free flaps (aOR = 0.03, 95% CI, 0.00-0.42; P = 0.024) were associated with lower rates. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of surgical site complications requiring reoperation was not significantly different between biologic and synthetic prostheses in chest wall reconstructions.


Subject(s)
Biological Products , Thoracic Wall , Humans , Thoracic Wall/surgery , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/surgery , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Treatment Outcome , Prostheses and Implants/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies
19.
J Gastrointest Oncol ; 14(4): 1919-1926, 2023 Aug 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37720430

ABSTRACT

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has risen dramatically over the last decade. Over this same period, our understanding and treatments have been revolutionized. Just over a decade ago, the majority of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer went directly to surgery and our overall survival was bleak. Our current strategy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is a multi-disciplinary approach. This approach consists of chemotherapy plus or minus radiation followed by surgical resection followed by adjuvant immunotherapy with the presence of any residual disease. Therefore, now more than ever, the goals of surgery are to minimize morbidity, provide aggressive local control and allow patients to receive to quickly recover so they can receive adjuvant systemic therapy. Surgery continues to play a crucial role in the multi-disciplinary approach to EAC. This review will highlight the on-going areas of controversy in surgical treatment. These controversies are around surgical selection, perioperative decision making and the role of surgery. Specifically, there are controversies in the type of surgical approach offered. This review will discuss the benefits of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy. The indications for gastrectomy versus esophagectomy in patients with gastroesophageal junction EAC. Further, at the time of operation, there is still debate and on-going trials addressing the addition of a pyloric intervention. Lastly, as we push the limits of systemic therapy, there are those who may not even need a surgical resection. This review will cover the most recent data on selective esophageal resection and the concerns regarding this approach.

20.
Int J Surg ; 109(11): 3251-3261, 2023 Nov 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37549056

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Residual tumor at the proximal or distal margin after esophagectomy is associated with worse survival outcomes; however, the significance of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) remains controversial. In this study, we sought to evaluate the prognostic significance of the CRM in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients who underwent esophagectomy for pathologic T3 esophageal cancer from 2000 to 2019. Patients were divided into three groups: CRM- (residual tumor >1 mm from the CRM), CRM-close (residual tumor >0 to 1 mm from the CRM), and CRM+ (residual tumor at the surgical CRM). CRM was also categorized and analyzed per the Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) and College of American Pathologists (CAP) classifications. RESULTS: Of the 519 patients included, 351 (68%) had CRM-, 132 (25%) had CRM-close, and 36 (7%) had CRM+. CRM+ was associated with shorter disease-free survival [DFS; CRM+ vs. CRM-: hazard ratio (HR), 1.53 [95% CI, 1.03-2.28]; P =0.034] and overall survival (OS; CRM+ vs. CRM-: HR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.32-2.95]; P <0.001). Survival was not significantly different between CRM-close and CRM-. After adjustment for potential confounders, CAP+ was associated with poor oncologic outcomes (CAP+ vs. CAP-: DFS: HR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.00-2.17]; P =0.050; OS: HR, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.30-2.86]; P =0.001); RCP+ was not (RCP+ vs. RCP-: DFS: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.97-1.52]; P =0.10; OS: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.96-1.54]; P =0.11). CONCLUSION: CRM status has critical prognostic significance for patients undergoing esophagectomy: CRM+ was associated with worse outcomes, and outcomes between CRM-close and CRM- were similar.


Subject(s)
Esophageal Neoplasms , Esophagectomy , Humans , Prognosis , Esophagectomy/adverse effects , Margins of Excision , Neoplasm, Residual/surgery , Neoplasm Staging , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...