Dataset Information

Transcervical versus transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy: a randomized and controlled trial protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Anatomically, the esophagus is located within the mediastinum, and thus it potentially a transcervical approach for esophagectomy, which avoids thoracic manipulation, could be an alternative to transthoracic esophagectomy for the surgical resection of esophageal cancer. A modified transcervical minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), laparo-gastroscopic esophagectomy (LGE), was recently introduced using an integrated gastroscope to mobilize the esophagus. As such, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is necessary to validate its value compared to transthoracic MIE, which carries a high risk of morbidity due to thoracic manipulation.

Methods

This prospective study plans to enroll patients with resectable esophageal cancer with a pathological diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma patients over a 2-year period. Patients will be randomly assigned to one of 2 groups in a 1:1 ratio: patients in Group A will radical LGE and patients in Group B will receive radical laparo-thoracoscopic esophagectomy (LTE). Perioperative and long-term outcomes of all patients will be collected and analyzed. The primary end point will be perioperative morbidity, and the secondary end points will include 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) and quality of life (QOL) score. Other data that will be collected and compared between the groups include the number of harvested lymph nodes, surgical Apgar score, and duration of operation.

Discussion

Transthoracic MIE is the most widely accepted approach for treating esophageal cancer. In this RCT, transthoracic MIE and transcervical LGE will be compared with respect to oncological and surgical outcomes (oncological none-inferiority and surgical superiority).

Trial registration

This study is registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200055312) with the name of 'Transcervical versus Transthoracic Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Randomized and Controlled Trial' on January 6, 2022. Details can be found on http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=133224.

SUBMITTER: Lin M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9073779 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Transcervical versus transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy: a randomized and controlled trial protocol.

Lin Miao M He Mengjiang M Yu Qiaomeng Q Zhang Yiqun Y Shen Yaxing Y Fan Hong H Zhou Pinghong P Tan Lijie L

Annals of translational medicine 20220401 7

<h4>Background</h4>Anatomically, the esophagus is located within the mediastinum, and thus it potentially a transcervical approach for esophagectomy, which avoids thoracic manipulation, could be an alternative to transthoracic esophagectomy for the surgical resection of esophageal cancer. A modified transcervical minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), laparo-gastroscopic esophagectomy (LGE), was recently introduced using an integrated gastroscope to mobilize the esophagus. As such, a randomized ...[more]

PMID: 35530957

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: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:BackgroundThe only curative treatment for most esophageal cancers is radical esophagectomy. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) aims to reduce postoperative morbidity, but is not yet widely established. Linear stapled anastomosis is a promising technique for MIE because it is quite feasible even without robotic assistance. The aim of the present study is to compare total MIE with linear stapled anastomosis to open esophagectomy (OE) with circular stapled anastomosis with special regard to postoperative morbidity in an expertise-based randomized controlled trial (RCT).Methods/designThis superiority RCT compares MIE with linear stapled anastomosis (intervention) to OE with circular stapled anastomosis (control) for Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. It was initiated in February 2019, and recruitment is expected to last for 3 years. For inclusion, patients must be 18 years of age or more with a resectable primary malignancy in the distal esophagus. Participants with tumor localizations above the azygos vein, metastasis, or infiltration into adjacent tissue will be excluded. In an expertise-based approach, the allocated treatment will only be carried out by the single most experienced surgeon of the surgical center for each respective technique. The sample size was calculated with 20 participants per group for the primary endpoint postoperative morbidity according to comprehensive complication index (CCI) within 30 postoperative days. Secondary endpoints include anastomotic insufficiency, pulmonary complications, other intra- and postoperative outcome parameters such as estimated blood loss, operative time, length of stay, short-term oncologic endpoints, adherence to a standardized fast-track protocol, postoperative pain, and postoperative recovery (QoR-15). Quality of life (SF-36, CAT EORTC QLQ-C30, CAT EORTC QLQ-OES18) and oncological outcomes are evaluated with 60 months follow-up.DiscussionMIVATE is the first RCT to compare OE with circular stapled anastomosis to total MIE with linear stapled anastomosis exclusively for intrathoracic anastomosis. The expertise-based approach limits bias due to heterogeneity of surgical expertise. The use of a dedicated fast-track protocol in both OE and MIE will shed light on the role of the access strategy alone in this setting. The findings of this study will serve to define which approach has the best perioperative outcome for patients requiring esophagectomy.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00016773 . Registered on 18 February 2019.

Project description:BackgroundTranscervical esophagectomy is a less invasive procedure performed within mediastinum. However, the mediastinum offers limited surgical space and the surgery via this route differs from conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy. Therefore, the physiological study of this surgical approach on an animal model would be necessary before the procedure gained more popularity.MethodsWe conducted transcervical minimally invasive esophagectomy on animal model (swine) under CO2 pneumomediastinum. The hemodynamic parameters were monitored using float catheter cannulated via right jugular vein. At different anatomical level (the upper, middle, and lower thoracic part of the animal esophagus), increased artificial pneumomediastinal pressures (0, 4, 8, 12, and 16 mmHg) were consecutively allocated to record the intra-operative changes of blood pressure, cardiac output (CO), central venous pressure (CVP), pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) and extravascular lung water (EVLW). Meanwhile, the surgical field under different pneumomediastinum pressure was recorded and balanced with animals' hemodynamic changes to determine the optimal pressure for transcervical minimally invasive esophagectomy.ResultsThe animal procedures were accomplished without conversions. During the upper thoracic stage, increased CO2 pressures did not lead to significant changes in hemodynamic parameters including the blood pressure, CO, CVP, PAP or the level of EVLW. During the middle thoracic stage, pneumomediastinum under 4-12 mmHg did not lead to significant changes in hemodynamic parameters. However, pneumomediastinum at 16 mmHg resulted in lower CO (P=0.038) when compared to 0-12 mmHg. During lower thoracic stage, as the pneumomediastinum pressures increased from 0 to 16 mmHg, significant decrease in CO (P=0.022), and increase in CVP (P=0.036) was recorded. In compared to 4 mmHg pneumomediastinum, the surgical field under 8-16 mmHg artificial CO2 pneumomediastinum was suitable for mediastinal manipulation.ConclusionsDuring transcervical minimally invasive esophagectomy on animal model, the mobilization of swine thoracic esophagus with optimal pneumomediastinum pressure 8-12 mmHg is safe and effective based on hemodynamic analysis.

Project description:Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97-2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13-2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34-1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: -0.59--0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.

Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic surgery has been shown to provide important advantages in comparison with open procedures in the treatment of several malignant diseases, such as less perioperative blood loss and faster patient recovery. It also maintains similar results with regard to tumor resection margins and oncological long-term survival. In gastric cancer the role of laparoscopic surgery remains unclear. Current recommended treatment for gastric cancer consists of radical resection of the stomach, with a free margin of 5 to 6 cm from the tumor, combined with a lymphadenectomy. The extent of the lymphadenectomy is considered a marker for radicality of surgery and quality of care. Therefore, it is imperative that a novel surgical technique, such as minimally invasive total gastrectomy, should be non-inferior with regard to radicality of surgery and lymph node yield.Methods/designThe Surgical Techniques, Open versus Minimally invasive gastrectomy After CHemotherapy (STOMACH) study is a randomized, clinical multicenter trial. All adult patients with primary carcinoma of the stomach, in which the tumor is considered surgically resectable (T1-3, N0-1, M0) after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, are eligible for inclusion and randomization. The primary endpoint is quality of oncological resection, measured by radicality of surgery and number of retrieved lymph nodes. The pathologist is blinded towards patient allocation. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) regarding quality of life, postoperative complications and cost-effectiveness. Based on a non-inferiority model for lymph node yield, with an average lymph node yield of 20, a non-inferiority margin of -4 and a 90% power to detect non-inferiority, a total of 168 patients are to be included.DiscussionThe STOMACH trial is a prospective, multicenter, parallel randomized study to define the optimal surgical strategy in patients with proximal or central gastric cancer after neo-adjuvant therapy: the conventional 'open' approach or minimally invasive total gastrectomy.Trial registrationThis trial was registered on 28 April 2014 at Clinicaltrials.gov with the identifier NCT02130726 .

Dataset Information

Transcervical versus transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy: a randomized and controlled trial protocol.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

Transcervical versus transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy: a randomized and controlled trial protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets