Dataset Information

Unique Considerations for Females Undergoing Esophagectomy.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To improve understanding of sex differences in clinicopathologic characteristics, treatment and outcomes between male and female patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Summary background data

Esophageal cancer is a male predominant disease, and sex has not been considered in previous studies as an important factor in diagnosis or management. Sex differences in demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, and postoperative outcomes remain largely undefined.

Methods

Retrospective review of 1958 patients (21% female) with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy at a single institution between 1995 and 2017.

Results

Most patients had adenocarcinoma (83%); however, the rate of squamous cell carcinoma was significantly higher in females (35% vs 11%, respectively; P < .0001). Females had a lower rate of smoking (62 vs 73%) and heavy alcohol use (12 vs 19%) but a higher rate of previous mediastinal radiation (8.4 vs 1.8%) (P < 0.001). Postoperative mortality and overall survival (OS) were similar between sexes. However, subanalysis of patients with locoregional disease (clinical stage II/III) demonstrated that females received neoadjuvant therapy less frequently than males and had worse OS (median OS 2.56 yrs vs 2.08; P = 0.034). This difference remained significant on adjusted analysis (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.06-1.46).

Conclusions

Female patients had higher incidence of squamous cell carcinoma despite lower prevalence of behavioral risk factors. Among patients with locoregional disease, undertreatment in females may reflect treatment bias and history of previous mediastinal radiation. Esophageal cancer in females should be considered a unique entity as compared with the presentation and treatment of males.

SUBMITTER: Nobel TB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6864249 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAdult patients with an esophageal cancer can potentially be compromised with postoperative leaks or fistulae if patients' nutritional status is in a vulnerable stage. Currently in Australia, there is a growing need for clinicians to know whether use of immune-enhancing formulas (IEFs) containing Arg, omega-3, and RNA are a cost-effective approach compared with isonitrogenous-isocaloric formulas to reduce postoperative infectious complications in esophagectomy patients. Since IEFs may carry higher costs, this has led to inconsistencies in practice among clinicians and hospitals.ObjectiveOur aim is to compile and present the most up-to-date nutrition evidence available regarding the provision of IEFs containing Arg, omega-3, and RNA to help clinicians develop an evidence-based nutrition care plan; identify available evidence of whether an esophagectomy patient should receive IEF; determine the cost-effectiveness and safety of such nutrition; and determine appropriate administration quantity and timing (pre-, peri-, or postesophagectomy).MethodsThis review will include RCTs involving the use of IEFs enriched with Arg, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, and RNA in the pre-, peri-, or postoperative period (for at least 5-7 days) given orally or via enteral feeding tube, in adult cancer patients undergoing esophageal resection. Lower gastrointestinal, gastric, or head cancer surgery with parenteral nutrition or non-IEF or use of isolated immunonutrient (Arg vs omega-3 vs RNA) will be excluded. Primary outcome comprises postoperative infectious complications. Secondary outcomes (pre/postoperatively) consist of cost-effectiveness, length of stay, survival/mortality, quality of life, nutritional status, percentage of weight loss, and biochemical changes. The risk of bias will be independently assessed by the reviewers, using a domain-based evaluation tool. Blinding will be assessed for subjective and objective outcome measures. Publication bias will be visually assessed by funnel plots. A meta-analysis will be generated by the Review Manager 5.3 software and represented in forest plots.ResultsThe first results are expected in 2018. Outlining the protocol will ensure transparency for the completed review.ConclusionsThis protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis will enable a comprehensive appraisal of the literature to help determine whether overall institutional savings are associated with this approach. Findings will form a knowledge base relevant to stakeholders across the health system and researchers who are involved in decision making on evidence-based nutrition care plan pathways for patients undergoing esophagectomy, as well as the use of IEF, timing, and administration quantity.Trial registrationPROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42017056908; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ display_record.asp? ID=CRD42017056908 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6rLyeqaD6).

Project description:PURPOSE:Though postoperative radiation for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is offered in selected cases, there is conflicting evidence as to whether it improves overall survival (OS). A retrospective investigation was performed to analyze the prognostic impact of postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) in a large cohort of patients. METHODS:From 2001 to 2009, 725 patients underwent radical esophagectomy (R0) with or without PORT were eligible for retrospective analysis. Patients were grouped into surgery alone (n = 467) and surgery plus PORT (n = 258). Median irradiation doses were 50 Gy (range: 40-56 Gy). Radiation fields encompassed the bilateral supraclavicular fossa, mediastinum, subcarinal area, and the tumor bed for the upper/middle-third disease; the bilateral supraclavicular fossa, mediastinum, the tumor bed, subcarinal area, and lower thoracic paraesophageal area for the lower-third disease. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis were used to compare OS. RESULTS:After median follow-up of 53 months, the median OS was 29 months in the PORT group and 23 months in the surgery alone group. The addition of PORT improved OS at 3 years from 36.6 to 43.6% compared with surgery alone. The use of PORT was associated with significantly improved OS (p = 0.018). For American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage III esophageal cancer (T1-2N2M0, T3N1-2M0, T4N1-3M0), there was significant improvement in OS (p = 0.002) in the PORT group, not only for lymph-node metastatic ratio (LNMR) ?0.25 (p = 0.001), but also for LNMR <0.25 (p = 0.043). However, for stage IIB disease (T1-2N1M0) there was no significant differences. The addition of POCT didn't prolong the OS significantly (Surgery alone group, p = 0.079; PORT group, p = 0.111). CONCLUSIONS:This large retrospective analysis supports the use of PORT for pathologic lymph node positive stage III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Given the retrospective nature of this study, the results should be confirmed by appropriately powered randomized trials. Further development of adjuvant therapy in EC is warranted.