Abstract Reasons for structural and outcome differences in esophageal cancer surgery in Western Europe remain unclear. This questionnaire study aimed to identify differences in the organization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. A cross-sectional international questionnaire study was conducted among upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons from Western Europe. One surgeon per country was selected based on scientific output and active membership in the European Society for Diseases of the Esophagus or (inter)national upper GI committee. The questionnaire consisted of 51 structured questions on the structural organization of esophageal cancer surgery, surgical training, and clinical audit processes. Between October 2021 and October 2022, 16 surgeons from 16 European countries participated in this study. In 5 countries (31%), a volume threshold was present ranging from 10 to 26 annual esophagectomies, in 7 (44%) care was centralized in designated centers, and in 4 (25%) no centralizing regulations were present. The number of centers performing esophageal cancer surgery per country differed from 4 to 400, representing 0.5–4.9 centers per million inhabitants. In 4 countries (25%), esophageal cancer surgery was part of general surgical training and 8 (50%) reported the availability of upper GI surgery fellowships. A national audit for upper GI surgery was present in 8 (50%) countries. If available, all countries use the audit to monitor the quality of care. Substantial differences exist in the organization and centralization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. The exchange of experience in the organizational aspects of care could further improve the results of esophageal cancer surgical care in Europe.
The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands.A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018-2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates.Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018-2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001).The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay.COVID-19 has had a significant impact on healthcare worldwide. Hospital visits were reduced, operating facilities were used for COVID-19 care, and cancer screening programmes were cancelled. This study describes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Dutch surgical healthcare in 2020. Patterns of care in terms of changed or delayed treatment are described for patients who had surgery in 2020, compared with those who had surgery in 2018–2019. The study found that mainly non-cancer surgical treatments were cancelled during months with high COVID-19 rates. Outcomes for patients undergoing surgery were similar but with fewer ICU admissions and shorter hospital stay. These data provide no insight into the burden endured by patients who had postponed or cancelled operations.
Abstract Background Standard therapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma is trimodality therapy (TMT) consisting of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and oesophagectomy. Evidence of survival advantage of TMT over organ preserving definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is inconclusive. The aim of this study is to compare survival between TMT and dCRT. Methods A systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies on primary resectable, curatively treated, oesophageal carcinoma patients above 18 years were included. Three online databases were searched for studies comparing TMT with dCRT. Primary outcomes were two-, three- and five-year overall survival rates. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools for RCTs and cohort studies. Results Thirty-two studies described in 35 articles were included in this systematic review, thirty-three were included in the meta-analyses. Two-, three- and five-year overall survival was significantly lower in dCRT compared to TMT, with relative risks (RR) of 0.69 (95%CI, 0.57–0.83), 0.76 (95%CI, 0.63–0.92), and 0.57 (95%CI, 0.47–0.71) respectively. However, when only analysing studies with equal patient groups at baseline no differences for two-, three- and five-year overall survival were found with RRs of 0.83 (95%CI, 0.62–1.10), 0.81 (95%CI 0.57–1.14), 0.63 (95%CI, 0.36–1.12). The forest plot for three-year overall survival is presented in figure 1. Figure 1. 3 year overall survival rates Conclusion Despite limitations of the available evidence these meta-analyses suggest there is no survival advantage for TMT over dCRT, assuming comparable groups at baseline. Selection of surgical candidates in oesophageal carcinoma should be part of personalised and tailored care. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Abstract Adrenal incidentalomas are regularly encountered during imaging for esophageal cancer patients, but their oncological significance remains unknown. This study aimed to describe the incidence and etiology of adrenal incidentalomas observed during the diagnostic workup for esophageal cancer. This retrospective cohort study included all esophageal cancer patients referred to or diagnosed in the Amsterdam UMC between January 2012 and December 2016. Radiology and multidisciplinary team meeting reports were reviewed for adrenal incidentalomas. In case of adrenal incidentaloma, the 18FDG-PET/CT was reassessed by a radiologist blinded for the original report. In case of a metachronous incidentaloma during follow-up, visibility on previous imaging was reassessed. Primary outcome was the incidence, etiology and oncological consequence of synchronous adrenal incidentalomas. This study included 1,164 esophageal cancer patients, with a median age of 66 years. Patients were predominantly male (76.1%) and most had an adenocarcinoma (69.0%). Adrenal incidentalomas were documented in 138 patients (11.9%) during the diagnostic workup. At primary esophageal cancer workup, 22 incidentalomas proved malignant. However, follow-up showed seven malignant incidentalomas missed or inaccurately diagnosed as benign. In total, stage migration occurred in 15 of 22 (68.2%), but this number would have been higher if no incidentalomas were missed or inaccurately diagnosed. The oncological impact of adrenal incidentalomas in patients with esophageal cancer is significant as a considerable part of incidentalomas changed treatment intent from curative to palliative. As stage migration is likely, pathological examination of a synchronous adrenal incidentaloma should be considered.
Abstract Objective The aim of this study is to identify preoperative patient-related prognostic factors for anastomotic leakage, mortality, and major complications in patients undergoing oncological esophagectomy. Background Esophagectomy is a high-risk procedure with an incidence of major complications around 25% and short-term mortality around 4%. Methods We systematically searched the Medline and Embase databases for studies investigating the associations between patient-related prognostic factors and anastomotic leakage, major postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥ IIIa), and/or 30-day/in-hospital mortality after esophagectomy for cancer. Results Thirty-nine eligible studies identifying 37 prognostic factors were included. Cardiac comorbidity was associated with anastomotic leakage, major complications, and mortality. Male sex and diabetes were prognostic factors for anastomotic leakage and major complications. Additionally, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score > III and renal disease were associated with anastomotic leakage and mortality. Pulmonary comorbidity, vascular comorbidity, hypertension, and adenocarcinoma tumor histology were identified as prognostic factors for anastomotic leakage. Age > 70 years, habitual alcohol usage, and body mass index (BMI) 18.5–25 kg/m 2 were associated with increased risk for mortality. Conclusions Various patient-related prognostic factors are associated with anastomotic leakage, major postoperative complications, and postoperative mortality following oncological esophagectomy. This knowledge may define case-mix adjustment models used in benchmarking or auditing and may assist in selection of patients eligible for surgery or tailored perioperative care.
This study aimed to describe failure to cure in terms of incidence, hospital variation, and as an outcome parameter for salvage esophagectomy.Failure to cure is a composite outcome measure that could be used for hospital comparison in esophageal carcinoma care.All patients registered in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit who underwent potentially curative esophageal carcinoma surgery in 2011 to 2018, were included in this nationwide cohort study. Failure to cure was defined as: 1) no surgical resection due to intraoperative metastasis or locally irresectable tumor, 2) macroscopically or microscopically incomplete resection, or 3) 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Association of baseline characteristics with failure to cure was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression in the total population and in salvage patients.Some 5894 patients from 22 hospitals were included, of whom 630 (10.7%) had failure to cure (hospital variation [5.5%-19.1%]). Higher age, preoperative weight loss, higher ASA-score, higher N-stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or no neoadjuvant therapy (compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy), open surgery, and resection before 2014 were associated with failure to cure. After case-mix correction, 2 hospitals had statistically significant higher failure to cure percentages, whereas 2 had lower percentages. Of 151 salvage esophagectomy patients, 32.5% had failure to cure. The failure to cure rate after salvage surgery was 27.6% in high-volume hospitals and 47.6% in medium-volume hospitals.The incidence of failure to cure was 10.7%. Given the significant hospital variation in the percentage of failure to cure, improvement is needed. Since salvage procedures are more often successful in high-volume hospitals, further centralization of this procedure is warranted.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
