Dataset Information

Comparisons of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted, video-assisted, and open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment: a retrospective study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE), video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE), and open esophagectomy (OE) all have significant roles in the management of esophageal cancer (EC). Few studies have compared efficacy and safety between RAE, VAMIE, and OE for resectable EC after neoadjuvant treatment. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the short-term outcomes between RAE, VAMIE, and OE for resectable EC after neoadjuvant treatment.

Methods

Ninety-eight patients were consecutively enrolled who underwent esophagectomy. A retrospective study was performed including 98 consecutive patients treated from January 2021 to August 2022 who received neoadjuvant treatment (including immunochemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy) followed by RAE, VAMIE or OE. Evaluated endpoints in the present study consisted of pathological outcomes, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, as well as postoperative complications.

Results

No significant differences were seen in the operating time, blood loss, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, R0 resection, and number of dissected lymph nodes between the three RAE, VAMIE, or OE groups. The achievement rate of right recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) lymph node removal (P=0.01) and the total cost (P<0.001) were higher in RAE. The postoperative hospital stay of OE was longer than the other two groups (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications.

Conclusions

Compared to VAMIE, no clear benefit exists for RAE in the treatment of resectable EC after neoadjuvant therapy. OE resulted in a longer hospital stay. Although the rate of successful right RLN node removal was higher with RAE, the clinical relevance for this is yet unclear.

SUBMITTER: Wu Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11009584 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparisons of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted, video-assisted, and open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment: a retrospective study.

Wu Ziheng Z Liu Jiacong J Zhang Lichen L Tang Muhu M Shu Wenbo W van der Wilk Berend J BJ Anker Christopher J CJ He Zhehao Z Wang Luming L Lv Wang W Zhu Linhai L Hu Jian J

Journal of thoracic disease 20240318 3

<h4>Background</h4>Robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE), video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE), and open esophagectomy (OE) all have significant roles in the management of esophageal cancer (EC). Few studies have compared efficacy and safety between RAE, VAMIE, and OE for resectable EC after neoadjuvant treatment. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the short-term outcomes between RAE, VAMIE, and OE for resectable EC after neoadjuvant treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>Ninety-eight pat ...[more]

PMID: 38617777

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFor esophageal cancer patients, radical esophagolymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of multimodality treatment with curative intent. Transthoracic esophagectomy is the preferred surgical approach worldwide allowing for en-bloc resection of the tumor with the surrounding lymph nodes. However, the percentage of cardiopulmonary complications associated with the transthoracic approach is high (50 to 70%).Recent studies have shown that robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy (RATE) is at least equivalent to the open transthoracic approach for esophageal cancer in terms of short-term oncological outcomes. RATE was accompanied with reduced blood loss, shorter ICU stay and improved lymph node retrieval compared with open esophagectomy, and the pulmonary complication rate, hospital stay and perioperative mortality were comparable. The objective is to evaluate the efficacy, risks, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of RATE as an alternative to open transthoracic esophagectomy for treatment of esophageal cancer.Methods/designThis is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven monocenter randomized controlled parallel-group, superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 80 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) esophageal carcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 112) with resectable esophageal cancer are randomized in the outpatient department to either RATE (n = 56) or open three-stage transthoracic esophageal resection (n = 56). The primary outcome of this study is the percentage of overall complications (grade 2 and higher) as stated by the modified Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications.DiscussionThis is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RATE with open transthoracic esophagectomy as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal cancer. If our hypothesis is proven correct, RATE will result in a lower percentage of postoperative complications, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, but with at least similar oncologic outcomes and better postoperative quality of life compared with open transthoracic esophagectomy. The study started in January 2012. Follow-up will be 5 years. Short-term results will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient.Trial registrationDutch trial register: NTR3291 ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01544790.

Project description:ImportanceThe utilization of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer is increasing, despite limited data comparing RAMIE with other surgical approaches.ObjectiveTo evaluate the literature for clinical outcomes of RAMIE compared with video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE).Data sourcesA systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Embase databases from January 1, 2013, to May 6, 2020, was performed.Study selectionStudies that compared RAMIE with VAMIE and/or OE for cancer were included.Data extraction and synthesisFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline, data were extracted by independent reviewers. A random-effects meta-analysis of 9 propensity-matched studies was performed for the RAMIE vs VAMIE comparison only. A narrative synthesis of RAMIE vs VAMIE and OE was performed.Main outcomes and measuresThe outcomes of interest were intraoperative outcomes (ie, estimated blood loss [EBL], operative time, lymph node [LN] harvest), short-term outcomes (anastomotic leak, recurrent laryngeal nerve [RLN] palsy, pulmonary and total complications, and 90-day mortality), and long-term oncologic outcomes.ResultsOverall, 21 studies (2 randomized clinical trials, 11 propensity-matched studies, and 8 unmatched studies) with 9355 patients were included. A meta-analysis was performed with 9 propensity-matched studies comparing RAMIE with VAMIE. The random-effects pooled estimate found an adjusted risk difference (RD) of -0.06 (95% CI, -0.11 to -0.01) favoring fewer pulmonary complications with RAMIE. There was no evidence of differences between RAMIE and VAMIE in LN harvest (mean difference [MD], -1.1 LN; 95% CI, -2.45 to 0.25 LNs), anastomotic leak (RD, 0.0; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.03), EBL (MD, -6.25 mL; 95% CI, -18.26 to 5.77 mL), RLN palsy (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.10), total complications (RD, 0.05; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.11), or 90-day mortality (RD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.0). There was low certainty of evidence that RAMIE was associated with a longer disease-free survival compared with VAMIE. For OE comparisons (data not pooled), RAMIE was associated with a longer operative time, decreased EBL, and less pulmonary and total complications.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, RAMIE had similar outcomes as VAMIE but was associated with fewer pulmonary complications compared with VAMIE and OE. Studies on long-term functional and cancer outcomes are needed.

Project description:BackgroundFor patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent. Both conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) were shown to be superior compared to open transthoracic esophagectomy considering postoperative complications. However, no randomized comparison exists between MIE and RAMIE in the Western World for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.MethodsThis is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 218) with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction are randomized to either RAMIE (n = 109) or MIE (n = 109). The primary outcome of this study is the total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes specified per lymph node station.ConclusionThis is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAMIE to MIE as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in the Western World. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that RAMIE will result in a higher abdominal and mediastinal lymph node yield specified per station compared to conventional MIE. Short-term results and the primary endpoint (total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes per lymph node station) will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient within this trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04306458 . Registered 13th March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04306458; Date of first enrolment 18.01.2021; Target sample size 218; Recruitment status: Recruiting; Protocol version 2; Issue date 10.03.2020; Rev. 02.02.2021; Authors ET, PCvdS, PPG.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there are three main surgical approaches for resectable esophageal cancer: open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTE), conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE). Previous studies had demonstrated the better short-term outcomes in MIE or RAE when compared to OTE, respectively. However, to date, no prospective study was designed to compare these two minimally invasive approaches (MIE and RAE). The primary objective of this study is to compare the outcomes on survival, safety and efficacy, quality of life between RAE and MIE in the treatment for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).MethodsThis study is designed as a multicenter, prospective, randomized, non-inferiority phase III clinical trial, investigating the safety and efficacy of RAE compared with MIE in the treatment of resectable ESCC. Eligible patients are randomly assigned to either RAE (n = 180) or MIE (n = 180) group. The follow-up visits will be scheduled at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in the first two years, and then every 6 months until the end of the study. During the follow-up period, clinical data and quality of life questionnaires will be examined. The primary endpoint is the 5-year overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints are 3-year OS, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), short-term outcomes as well as quality of life.DiscussionThis is the first prospectively randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAE with MIE as surgical treatment for resectable ESCC. According to our hypothesis, RAE will result in at least similar oncologic outcomes and long-term quality of life, but with a shorter operation time, lower percentage of perioperative complications, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay when compared with MIE. This study started in July 2017. Follow-up will terminate after 5 years from the time when the last patient was enrolled.Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov: NCT03094351 (March 29, 2017). The trial was prospectively registered.

Project description:Patients with upper third esophageal cancer or esophageal cancer with upper mediastinal paratracheal lymph node metastases are often precluded from surgery because of technical difficulties. With the aid of robotic surgery, an excellent overview and reach of the thoracic inlet can be accomplished. In this way, patients with upper mediastinal esophageal cancer are eligible for esophageal resection with curative intent. The aim of this study was to review the results of a consecutive series of patients who underwent robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for tumors of the upper 1/3 of the esophagus or positive lymph nodes in the upper mediastinum.Between 2007-2016, 31 patients who underwent RAMIE in the UMC Utrecht for proximal esophageal cancer or proximal thoracic lymphadenopathy were identified from a prospective surgical database. Perioperative characteristics and oncologic outcomes were collected.The majority of patients had a squamous cell carcinoma. Clinical tumor stage was cT3 or higher in 25 (81%) of patients. Clinically positive lymph nodes (cN1-3) were observed in 29 (94%) patients. Neoadjuvant treatment was administered in 27 (87%) patients. Median duration of the surgical procedure was 435 min (range 299-874 min). Pulmonary complications were most frequent and occurred in 13 (42%) patients. Median intensive care (ICU stay) was 1 day (range 1-65 days) and median overall postoperative hospital stay was 15 days (range 10-118 days). In hospital mortality was 10%. Causes of mortality were tracheo-neo-esophageal fistula, sepsis after abdominal wall drainage due to leakage of the jejunal fistula resulting in respiratory and kidney failure, after which refraining further treatment resulting in death, and irreversible ARDS in a patient with COPD Gold III needing extracorporeal life support. Radical resection was achieved in 30 (97%) of the patients. Median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 22 (range 9-57). Median time of follow up was 18 months (range 3-81 months). Median disease-free survival was 13 months (range 0-81 months) and median overall survival was 16 months (range 0-81 months). Tumor recurrence occurred in 15 patients (48%) and was locoregional only in 3 patients, systemic only in 5 patients and combined locoregional and systemic in 7 patients.Robot assisted thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy with curative intent in patients with upper mediastinal esophageal cancer is feasible, but associated with increased in hospital mortality. Short-term oncologic results are encouraging.

Project description:Background Whether extended robot-assisted esophagectomy with thoracic duct resection (RAE-TDR) has a favorable effect on esophageal cancer patients is not yet known. This study sought to analyze the safety and efficiency of RAE-TDR. Methods From January 2019 to July 2020, 73 thoracic duct (TD)-resected and 127 TD-preserved consecutive patients who received standard RAE McKeown surgery were enrolled in this study. The perioperative-related indicators of recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) at 1-year were compared between the 2 groups. Results In relation to morbidity, the Clavien–Dindo (CD) classifications for grades greater than or equal to II–III were similar between the 2 groups (P>0.05). The number of retrieved total lymph nodes (LNs) and mediastinal nodes were significantly higher in the TD-resected group than in the TD-preserved group (total lymph nodes: 29.0±11.1 vs. 25.1±8.5, P=0.006; mediastinal nodes: 19.5±8.0 vs. 16.1±5.5, P=0.002). Additionally, more metastatic TD-related LNs were harvested in cT3–4 patients (2.3±3.7 vs. 1.7±2.8; P=0.21). The rates of LN recurrence and local recurrence were similar between the 2 groups (LN recurrence: 6.8% vs. 7.1%, P>0.99; local recurrence: 1.4% vs. 2.4%, P>0.99). The OS and RFS at 1-year were equivalent regardless of the TD procedure at each stage (P>0.05). However, the rate of hematogenous metastasis in the TD-resected group was significantly elevated (17.8% vs. 7.9%; P=0.034). Conclusions RAE-TDR may help to improve total and metastatic LN harvest, especially in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) without increasing the intra- and post-operative adverse events. However, RAE-TDR did not lead to a decrease in the local recurrence rate within the short-term follow-up period. Whether the increase in distant metastasis rate in the TD-resected group was associated with relevant immune system damage is unclear. Thus, nonselective RAE-TDR is not routinely recommended.

Dataset Information

Comparisons of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted, video-assisted, and open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment: a retrospective study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparisons of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted, video-assisted, and open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment: a retrospective study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets