RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy carries a high risk of morbidity and mortality compared to other major surgeries. With the aim of creating an easy-to-use clinical preoperative risk assessment tool and to validate previously described risk factors for major complications following surgery, esophagectomies at two tertiary medical centers were analyzed. METHODS: A total of 450 patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma at the University Medical Centre, Hamburg, or at the Medical Center University Duisburg-Essen, Germany (January 2008 to January 2020) were retrospectively analyzed. Epidemiological and perioperative data were analyzed to identify the risk factors that impact major complication rates. The primary endpoint of this study was to determine the incidence of major complications. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 63 years with a bimodal distribution. There was a male predominance across the cohort (81% vs. 19%, respectively). Alcohol abuse (p = 0.0341), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p = 0.0264), and cardiac comorbidity (p = 0.0367) were associated with a significantly higher risk of major complications in the multivariate analysis. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly reduced the risk of major postoperative complications (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Various patient-related risk factors increased the rate of major complications following esophagectomy. Patient-tailored prehabilitation programs before esophagectomy that focus on minimizing these risk factors may lead to better surgical outcomes and should be analyzed in further studies.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: To investigate and compare the diagnostic performance of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET/MR and MR alone in whole-body primary staging and restaging of patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed to evaluate diagnostic accuracies of combined reading of PET/MR and MR alone in T, N and M staging against the reference standard. Inter-observer agreement regarding TNM staging was calculated separately for PET/MR and MR alone. RESULTS: A total of 39 studies of 34 patients could be evaluated. Diagnostic accuracies of PET/MR and MR alone were the same in locoregional T staging. For predicting N+ stage, the specificity of combined reading of PET and MR (0.917 and 0.833 for reader 1 and 2, respectively) was slightly higher than MR alone (0.833 and 0.75) without significantly increasing the overall accuracy (0.783 vs. 0.783 and 0.783 vs. 0.739). For detecting distant metastasis, the sensitivities of PET/MR and MR alone were shown equal (1.0 vs. 1.0 and 0.938 vs. 0.938), while the specificity of PET/MR was marginally lower (0.87 vs. 0.913 and 0.826 vs. 0.87). The inter-observer agreements were good to excellent in M (κ = 0.64 and 0.637 for PET/MR and MR alone, p < 0.001) and N staging (0.819 and 0.738, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PET did not yield a significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy of PET/MR in TNM staging of rectal cancer, since MR alone facilitated accurate classification of disease stage with good to excellent inter-observer agreement.
