232 HYBRID MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: FIVE-YEAR SURVIVAL RESULTS OF THE MIRO TRIAL.

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
F Nuytens ◽  
S Dabakuyo-Yonli ◽  
B Meunier ◽  
D Pezet ◽  
D Collet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Disease Recurrence ◽  
Pulmonary Complications ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy

Abstract   Multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the short term benefits of (hybrid) minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) over open esophagectomy. Data regarding long term results are more conflicting with similar or even better results in the MIE arm. In this follow-up study of the MIRO-trial we evaluated the long-term 5-year outcomes including overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) as well as the pattern of disease recurrence, along with evaluation of potential prognostic factors affecting these outcomes. Methods From October 2009 till April 2012, we conducted a multicentre, open-label, prospective, randomized, controlled trial including patients who were diagnosed with thoracic esophageal cancer and eligible for curative surgical resection (Ivor-Lewis procedure). Patients were randomized between hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy. The primary end-point of the initial MIRO trial was major intra- and postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo ≥2) within 30 days after surgery. The primary end-points of this follow-up study were OS and DFS. Additional secondary end points were defined as site of disease recurrence and potential prognostic or mediating factors associated with DFS and OS. Results 207 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 58,2 (95% CI, 56,5– 63,8) months. The 5y OS was 59% (95% CI, 48–68) and 47% (95% CI, 37–57) in the hybrid- and open-procedure group respectively (HR, 0,71, 95% CI, 0,48-1,06). The 5y DFS was 52% (95% CI, 42–61) in the hybrid-procedure group vs. 44% (95%CI, 34–53) in the open-procedure group. (HR 0.81 (95% CI, 0,55-1,17). There was no significant difference in recurrence rate (p = 0.519) or -location (p = 0.692) between groups. In a multivariate analysis, major postoperative and pulmonary complications were identified as prognostic factors of impaired OS (p < 0.0001;p = 0.005) and DFS (p = 0.002;p = 0.006). Conclusion Besides a significant reduction in postoperative overall and pulmonary complication rate, minimally invasive (hybrid) esophagectomy offers long-term oncological results that are at least equivalent to open esophagectomy. Postoperative and pulmonary complications are independent prognostic factors for impaired overall- and disease-free survival, providing additional proof that minimally invasive esophagectomy could even be associated with better long-term oncological results compared to open esophagectomy mediated by a reduction in postoperative complications.

696 LONG-TERM OUTCOMES OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY COMPARED TO OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF 2958 CASES IN SINGLE CANCER CENTER

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xue-feng Leng ◽  
Kexun Li ◽  
Qifeng Wang ◽  
Wenwu He ◽  
Kun Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy ◽  
Single Cancer

Abstract   Esophageal cancer is the fourth primary cause of cancer-related death in the male in China.The cornerstone of treatment for resectable esophageal cancer is surgery. With the development of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), it is gradually adopted as an alternative to open esophagectomy (OE) in real-world practice. The purpose of this study is to explore whether MIE vs. OE will bring survival benefits to patients with the advancement of treatment techniques and concepts. Methods Data were obtained from the Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute Esophageal Cancer Case Management Database (SCH-ECCM Database). We retrospective analyzed esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy from Jan. 2010 to Nov. 2017. Patients were divided into two groups: MIE and OE groups. Clinical outcome and survival data were compared using TNM stages of AJCC 8th edition. Results After 65.3 months of median follow-up time, 2958 patients who received esophagectomy were included. 1106 of 2958 patients (37.4%) were underwent MIE, 1533 of 2958 patients (51.8%) were underwent OE. More than half of the patients (56.7%, 1673/2958) were above stage III. The median overall survival (OS) of 2958 patients was 51.6 months (95% CI 45.2–58.1). The MIE group's median OS was 74.6 months compared to 42.4 months in the OE group (95% CI 1.23–1.54, P < 0.001). The OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 90%, 68%, 58% in the MIE group; 85%, 54%, 42% in the OE group,respectively (P<0.001). Conclusion The nearly 8-year follow-up data from this single cancer center suggests that with the advancement of minimally invasive surgical technology, MIE can bring significant benefits to patients' long-term survival compared with OE. Following the continuous progression of minimally invasive surgery and establishing a mature surgical team, MIE should be encouraged.

Long-term survival in esophageal cancer after minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to open esophagectomy

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Eivind Gottlieb-Vedi ◽  
Joonas H. Kauppila ◽  
Fredrik Mattsson ◽  
Mats Lindblad ◽  
Magnus Nilsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy

623 MINIMALLY INVASIVE VERSUS OPEN MCKEOWN FOR PATIENTS WITH ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Zheng ◽  
Wenqun Xing ◽  
Xianben Liu ◽  
Haibo Sun
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Group 14 ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy ◽  
Surgery Department

Abstract   McKeown Minimally invasive esophagectomy(McKeown-MIE) offers advantages in short-term outcomes compared with McKeown open esophagectomy(McKeown-OE). However, debate as to whether MIE is equivalent or better than OE regarding survival outcomes is ongoing. The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival between McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE in a large cohort of esophageal cancer(EC) patients. Methods We used a prospective database of the Thoracic Surgery Department at our Cancer Hospital and included patients who underwent McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE for EC during January 1, 2015, to January 6, 2018. The perioperative data and overall survival(OS) rate in the two groups were retrospectively compared. Results We included 502 patients who underwent McKeown-MIE (n = 306) or McKeown-OE (n = 196) for EC. The median age was 63 years. All baseline characteristics were well-balanced between two groups. There was a significantly shorter mean operative time (269.76 min vs. 321.14 min, P < 0.001) in OE group. The 30-day and in hospital mortality were 0 and no difference for 90-day mortality (P = 0.116). The postoperative stay was shorter in MIE group, 14 days and 18 days in the MIE and OE groups(P < 0.001). The OS at 32 months was 76.82% and 64.31% in the MIE and OE groups (P = 0.001); hazard ratio(HR) (95% CI): 2.333 (1.384–3.913). Conclusion These results showed the McKeown-MIE group was associated with a better long-term survival, compared with open-MIE for patients with resectable EC.

scholarly journals Long-term oncological outcomes following completely minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
K Patel ◽  
A Askari ◽  
K Moorthy
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Surgical Trauma ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy ◽  
Oncological Outcomes

Summary Open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal and gastroesophageal junctional cancers is associated with high morbidity. Completely minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) techniques have evolved over the last two decades and significantly reduce surgical trauma compared to open surgery. Despite this, long-term oncological outcomes following CMIE compared to OE remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare overall 5-year survival (OFS) and disease-free 5-year survival (DFFS) between CMIE and OE. It was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive electronic literature search from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. The PROSPERO database was also searched for studies comparing OFS and DFFS between CMIE and OE. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality for included studies. Overall, seven studies (containing 949 patients: 527 OE and 422 CMIE) were identified from screening. On pooled meta-analysis, there was no significant difference in OFS or DFFS between CMIE and OE cohorts ([odds ratio 1.12; 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.48; P = 0.41] and [odds ratio 1.34; 95% CI: 0.81–2.22; P = 0.25] respectively). Sensitivity and subgroup analysis with high-quality studies, three highest sample sized studies, and three most recent studies also revealed no difference in long-term oncological outcomes between the two operative groups. This review demonstrates long-term oncological outcomes following CMIE appear equivalent to OE based on amalgamation of existing published literature. Limited high-level evidence comparing OFS and DFFS between CMIE and OE exists. Further research with a randomized controlled trial is required to clinically validate these findings.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is associated with superior survival, lymphadenectomy and surgical margins: propensity matched analysis of the National Cancer Database

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie G Worrell ◽  
Katelynn C Bachman ◽  
Anuja L Sarode ◽  
Yaron Perry ◽  
Philip A Linden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
National Cancer Database ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy

Abstract Despite excellent short-term outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), there is minimal data on long-term outcomes compared to open esophagectomy. MIE’s superior visualization may have improved lymphadenectomy and complete resection rate and therefore improved long-term outcomes. We hypothesized that MIE would have superior long-term survival. Patients undergoing an esophagectomy for cancer between 2010 and 2016 were identified in the National Cancer Database. MIE included laparoscopic/robotic approach, and conversions were categorized as open. A 1:1 propensity match was performed. Lymphadenectomy and margin status were compared between MIE and open using Stuart Maxwell marginal homogeneity and Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test. Survival was compared using log-rank test. 13,083 patients were identified: 8,906 (68%) open and 4,177 (32%) MIE. Propensity matching identified 3,659 ‘pairs’ of MIE and open esophagectomy patients. Among them, MIE was associated with higher number lymph nodes examined (16 vs. 14, P < 0.001) and similar number of positive lymph nodes (0 vs. 0, P = 0.33). MIE had higher rate of negative pathologic margin (95 vs. 93.5%, P < 0.001). MIE was also associated with shorter hospitalization (9 vs. 10 days, P < 0.001). Survival was improved among MIE patients (46.6 vs. 41.4 months for open, P = 0.003) and among pathologic node-negative patients (71.4 vs. 61.5 months, P = 0.005). These data suggest that MIE has improved short-term outcomes (improved lymphadenectomy, pathologic margins, and length of stay) and also associated improved overall survival. The etiology of superior overall survival is likely secondary to many factors related and unrelated to surgical approach.

P147 IS HYBRID MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY SAFE FOR SIEWERT TYPE II OESOGASTRIC JUNCTION TUMORS?

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Simon ◽  
Challine Alexandre ◽  
Messier Marguerite ◽  
Eveno Clarisse ◽  
Warlaumont Maxime ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Lower Incidence ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Hybrid Approach ◽  
Pulmonary Complications ◽  
Siewert Type Ii ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Hybrid Group

Abstract Background In the MIRO trial, hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis (IL) resulted in a lower incidence of intraoperative and postoperative major complications, specifically pulmonary complications, than open IL without compromising oncological resection criteria and 3 years survival results. However, only infracarenal and Siewert I oesogastric junction (OGJ) tumors were included. Whether hybrid approach for Siewert II OGJ tumours remains unknown with a potential risk of tumor spillage. The aim of this study was to compare hybrid and open IL for patients with Siewert II OGJ tumours. Materials and Methods Data from 83 patients who underwent surgery for Siewert II OGJ tumours in our institution were collected prospectively between 2011 and 2017. Overall, 53 patients were included in the hybrid group and 30 in the open group. The main outcome was radicality of resection (R0 / R1 margins and number of lymph nodes resected). Groups were compared in univariate and multivariate analysis with a propensity score-adjustment. Results After adjustment, the hybrid and open groups were comparable in terms of number of lymph nodes resection: OR=0.65 (0.25-1.66) and radicality of resection; (R0/R1): OR=0.93 (0.10-8.58) with similar long term overall (OS) and disease-free (DFS) survival (5-year OS: 68% vs. 58%, p=0.463; 5-year DFS: 56% vs. 42%, p=0. 323). There were significantly fewer pulmonary complications in the hybrid group: OR=0.38 (.14-0.95). Conclusion Hybrid IL for Siewert II OGJ tumors do not compromise oncological quality resection and long term OS and DFS and results in a lower incidence of pulmonary complications than open IL.

Short- and long-term outcomes in patients operated with total minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Hauge ◽  
Dag T Førland ◽  
Hans-Olaf Johannessen ◽  
Egil Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Resection Margins ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Short And Long Term

Summary At our hospital, the main treatment for resectable esophageal cancer (EC) has since 2013 been total minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE). The aim of this study was to present the short- and long-term results in patients operated with TMIE. This cross-sectional study includes all patients scheduled for TMIE from June 2013 to January 2016 at Oslo University Hospital. Data on morbidity, mortality, and survival were retrospectively collected from the patient administration system and the Norwegian Cause of Death Registry. Long-term postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQL) and level of dysphagia were assessed by patients completing the following questionaries: EORTC QLQ-OG25, QLQ-C30, and the Ogilvie grading scale. A total of 123 patients were included in this study with a median follow-up time of 58 months (1–88 months). 85% had adenocarcinoma, 15% squamous cell carcinoma. Seventeen patients (14%) had T1N0M0, 68 (55%) T2-T3N0M0, or T1-T2N1M0 and 38 (31%) had either T3N1M0 or T4anyNM0. Ninety-eight patients (80%) received neoadjuvant (radio)chemotherapy and 104 (85%) had R0 resection. Anastomotic leak rate and 90-days mortality were 14% and 2%, respectively. The 5-year overall survival was 53%. Patients with tumor free resection margins of >1 mm (R0) had a 5-year survival of 57%. Median 60 months (range 49–80) postoperatively the main symptoms reducing HRQL were anxiety, chough, insomnia, and reflux. Median Ogilvie score was 0 (0–1). In this study, we report relatively low mortality and good overall survival after TMIE for EC. Moreover, key symptoms reducing long-term HRQL were identified.

Costs and benefits of different methods of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 513-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alongkorn Yanasoot ◽  
Kamtorn Yolsuriyanwong ◽  
Sakchai Ruangsin ◽  
Supparerk Laohawiriyakamol ◽  
Somkiat Sunpaweravong
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy

Background A minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy is being used increasingly, but concerns remain regarding the feasibility, safety, cost, and outcomes. We performed an analysis of the costs and benefits of minimally invasive, hybrid, and open esophagectomy approaches for esophageal cancer surgery. Methods The data of 83 consecutive patients who underwent a McKeown’s esophagectomy at Prince of Songkla University Hospital between January 2008 and December 2014 were analyzed. Open esophagectomy was performed in 54 patients, minimally invasive esophagectomy in 13, and hybrid esophagectomy in 16. There were no differences in patient characteristics among the 3 groups Minimally invasive esophagectomy was undertaken via a thoracoscopic-laparoscopic approach, hybrid esophagectomy via a thoracoscopic-laparotomy approach, and open esophagectomy by a thoracotomy-laparotomy approach. Results Minimally invasive esophagectomy required a longer operative time than hybrid or open esophagectomy ( p = 0.02), but these patients reported less postoperative pain ( p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in blood loss, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, or postoperative complications among the 3 groups. Minimally invasive esophagectomy incurred higher operative and surgical material costs than hybrid or open esophagectomy ( p = 0.01), but there were no significant differences in inpatient care and total hospital costs. Conclusion Minimally invasive esophagectomy resulted in the least postoperative pain but the greatest operative cost and longest operative time. Open esophagectomy was associated with the lowest operative cost and shortest operative time but the most postoperative pain. Hybrid esophagectomy had a shorter learning curve while sharing the advantages of minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document