Dataset Information

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted, Video-Assisted, and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

ABSTRACT: Key Points

Question

Are there differences in clinical outcomes with use of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) compared with video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) for cancer?

Findings

In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 articles including 9355 patients, RAMIE was associated with fewer pulmonary complications than VAMIE but had otherwise similar outcomes. Compared with OE, RAMIE was associated with increased operative time, decreased estimated blood loss, and fewer pulmonary and total complications.

Meaning

In this study, RAMIE was associated with fewer procedural complications; further work is needed to explore surgical approach and long-term oncologic outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the literature for clinical outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) compared with video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE).

Importance

The utilization of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer is increasing, despite limited data comparing RAMIE with other surgical approaches.

Objective

To evaluate the literature for clinical outcomes of RAMIE compared with video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE).

Data Sources

A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Embase databases from January 1, 2013, to May 6, 2020, was performed.

Study Selection

Studies that compared RAMIE with VAMIE and/or OE for cancer were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Following 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 Measures

The 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.

Results

Overall, 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 Relevance

In 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.

SUBMITTER: Mederos M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8561331 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:For 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.This 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.This 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.Dutch trial register: NTR3291 ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01544790.

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: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:Currently, 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). METHODS:This 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. DISCUSSION:This 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 REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT03094351 (March 29, 2017). The trial was prospectively registered.