Minimal invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant treatments.
Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Minimally invasive esophagectomy
Neoadjuvant treatment
Open surgery
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Feb 2021
09 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
23
07
2020
accepted:
02
02
2021
entrez:
10
2
2021
pubmed:
11
2
2021
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment followed by radical resection is limited. The purpose of our study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the two surgical approaches in treating ESCC patients. Between January 2010 and December 2016, ESCC patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent Mckeown esophagectomy at our institute were eligible. The baseline characteristics, pathological data, short-and long-term outcomes of these patients were collected and compared based on the surgical approach. A total of 195 patients was included in the current study. Compared to patients underwent open surgery, patients underwent MIE had shorter operative time and less intraoperative bleeding (390 min vs 330 min, P = 0.001; 204 ml vs 167 ml, P = 0.021). In addition, the risk of anastomotic leakage was decreased in MIE group (20.0% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001), while the occurrence of other complications did not have statistical significance between two groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was no difference in patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy between the two approaches. For the patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, OS was significantly better in the MIE group (log rank = 6.197; P = 0.013). Minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy is safe and feasible for ESCC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. MIE approach presented better perioperative results than open esophagectomy. The effect of surgical approaches on survival was depending on the scheme of neoadjuvant treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment followed by radical resection is limited. The purpose of our study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the two surgical approaches in treating ESCC patients.
METHODS
METHODS
Between January 2010 and December 2016, ESCC patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent Mckeown esophagectomy at our institute were eligible. The baseline characteristics, pathological data, short-and long-term outcomes of these patients were collected and compared based on the surgical approach.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 195 patients was included in the current study. Compared to patients underwent open surgery, patients underwent MIE had shorter operative time and less intraoperative bleeding (390 min vs 330 min, P = 0.001; 204 ml vs 167 ml, P = 0.021). In addition, the risk of anastomotic leakage was decreased in MIE group (20.0% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001), while the occurrence of other complications did not have statistical significance between two groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was no difference in patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy between the two approaches. For the patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, OS was significantly better in the MIE group (log rank = 6.197; P = 0.013).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy is safe and feasible for ESCC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. MIE approach presented better perioperative results than open esophagectomy. The effect of surgical approaches on survival was depending on the scheme of neoadjuvant treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33563244
doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-07867-9
pii: 10.1186/s12885-021-07867-9
pmc: PMC7871649
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
145Subventions
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 81871986
Références
JAMA Surg. 2015 Apr;150(4):292-8
pubmed: 25650816
J Clin Oncol. 2001 Feb 15;19(4):1137-46
pubmed: 11181679
Onco Targets Ther. 2018 Sep 20;11:6057-6069
pubmed: 30275710
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Oct 20;27(30):5062-7
pubmed: 19770374
Ann Surg. 2017 Mar;265(3):481-491
pubmed: 27429017
Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Aug;102(2):416-23
pubmed: 27157326
J Thorac Oncol. 2007 Jun;2(6):553-68
pubmed: 17545853
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 Jun;155(6):2710-2721.e3
pubmed: 29548582
J Thorac Oncol. 2016 Dec;11(12):2227-2237
pubmed: 27544058
Ann Surg. 2003 Oct;238(4):486-94; discussion 494-5
pubmed: 14530720
World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Dec 21;20(47):18022-30
pubmed: 25548502
Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1995 Feb;5(1):1-5
pubmed: 7735533
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Jan;19(1):68-74
pubmed: 21879261
J Thorac Dis. 2018 Apr;10(4):2481-2489
pubmed: 29850156
Surg Endosc. 2015 Sep;29(9):2614-9
pubmed: 25480610
Lancet Oncol. 2003 Aug;4(8):481-8
pubmed: 12901962
Surg Endosc. 2016 Sep;30(9):3873-81
pubmed: 26659248
J Gastrointest Surg. 2011 Feb;15(2):262-6
pubmed: 21116730
Lancet. 2012 May 19;379(9829):1887-92
pubmed: 22552194
Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2017 Mar;6(2):159-166
pubmed: 28447005
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013 Feb;43(2):268-73
pubmed: 22753051
Ann Surg. 2015 Apr;261(4):702-7
pubmed: 25575253
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep 20;36(27):2796-2803
pubmed: 30089078
Dis Esophagus. 2014 Feb-Mar;27(2):134-40
pubmed: 23088212
J Surg Oncol. 2017 Apr;115(5):564-579
pubmed: 28320055
J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1992 Feb;37(1):7-11
pubmed: 1573620
Onco Targets Ther. 2016 Oct 31;9:6751-6762
pubmed: 27826201
Surg Endosc. 2010 Jul;24(7):1621-9
pubmed: 20108155