261. CONVERSION ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR CT4B ESOPHAGEAL CANCER - MIE VS OPEN -

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI:10.1093/dote/doae057.040
Koshiro Ishiyama, Daisuke Kurita, Jyunya Oguma, Hiroyuki Daiko
{"title":"261. CONVERSION ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR CT4B ESOPHAGEAL CANCER - MIE VS OPEN -","authors":"Koshiro Ishiyama, Daisuke Kurita, Jyunya Oguma, Hiroyuki Daiko","doi":"10.1093/dote/doae057.040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Aims The standard treatment for locally advanced unresectable esophageal cancer is definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT), however, after induction chemotherapy with a triplet chemotherapy regimen (docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-FU: DCF) or dCRT, conversion surgery could be performed if esophageal cancer is considered resectable. Furthermore, minimally invasive surgery such as robot-assisted or thoracoscopic procedures are expected to improve the outcome of patients with advanced esophageal cancer. We investigated the feasibility of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in conversion surgery. Materials and Methods Sixty-six patients who underwent conversion thoracic esophagectomy for cT4b esophageal cancer from 2007 to 2023 were included. The short-term outcomes of 25 open esophagectomy group and 41 MIE group (8 robot-assisted and 33 thoracoscopic) were compared. Results No differences in age, gender, PS, tumor location, histology, cN, or cM were observed between the two groups. cT4b organs tended to be in the airway in the MIE group (airway 70.7% vs 44%, major vessels 19.5% vs 24%, both 9.7% vs 32%, p=0.04) and DCF therapy was significantly performed in the MIE group for induction therapy (DCF 87.8% vs 56%, dCRT 12.2% vs 44%, p<0.001). On the other hand, salvage surgery was significantly associated with open esophagectomy (24.3% vs. 52%, p=0.003). There was no difference in surgical outcomes regarding thoracic operation time (157 min vs. 180 min, p=0.09), whereas the total operation time was significantly shorter in the MIE group (392 min vs. 439 min, p=0.02). Blood loss was significantly lower in the MIE group (79 ml vs. 470 ml, p<0.001), and R0 resection rate did not differ (82.9% vs. 72%, p=0.357). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications including pneumonia (26.8% vs. 44%, p=0.183) and recurrent nerve palsy (21.9% vs. 36%, p=0.260), but anastomotic leakage was significantly lower in the MIE group (4.8% vs. 24%, p=0.04). There was no difference in median postoperative hospital stay (16 [11-20] vs. 16 [14-29] days), however, median ICU stay (3 [3-4] vs. 4 [3-4] days, p=0.03) and readmission within 1 month after discharge (2.4% vs. 16%, p=0.04) were significantly lower in the MIE group. In-hospital mortality was observed in 1 case in the MIE group and 3 in the open esophagectomy group. Conclusion Despite the bias associated with the transition of treatment modalities and surgical techniques, MIE may contribute to improved short-term outcomes in conversion surgery.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doae057.040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Aims The standard treatment for locally advanced unresectable esophageal cancer is definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT), however, after induction chemotherapy with a triplet chemotherapy regimen (docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-FU: DCF) or dCRT, conversion surgery could be performed if esophageal cancer is considered resectable. Furthermore, minimally invasive surgery such as robot-assisted or thoracoscopic procedures are expected to improve the outcome of patients with advanced esophageal cancer. We investigated the feasibility of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in conversion surgery. Materials and Methods Sixty-six patients who underwent conversion thoracic esophagectomy for cT4b esophageal cancer from 2007 to 2023 were included. The short-term outcomes of 25 open esophagectomy group and 41 MIE group (8 robot-assisted and 33 thoracoscopic) were compared. Results No differences in age, gender, PS, tumor location, histology, cN, or cM were observed between the two groups. cT4b organs tended to be in the airway in the MIE group (airway 70.7% vs 44%, major vessels 19.5% vs 24%, both 9.7% vs 32%, p=0.04) and DCF therapy was significantly performed in the MIE group for induction therapy (DCF 87.8% vs 56%, dCRT 12.2% vs 44%, p<0.001). On the other hand, salvage surgery was significantly associated with open esophagectomy (24.3% vs. 52%, p=0.003). There was no difference in surgical outcomes regarding thoracic operation time (157 min vs. 180 min, p=0.09), whereas the total operation time was significantly shorter in the MIE group (392 min vs. 439 min, p=0.02). Blood loss was significantly lower in the MIE group (79 ml vs. 470 ml, p<0.001), and R0 resection rate did not differ (82.9% vs. 72%, p=0.357). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications including pneumonia (26.8% vs. 44%, p=0.183) and recurrent nerve palsy (21.9% vs. 36%, p=0.260), but anastomotic leakage was significantly lower in the MIE group (4.8% vs. 24%, p=0.04). There was no difference in median postoperative hospital stay (16 [11-20] vs. 16 [14-29] days), however, median ICU stay (3 [3-4] vs. 4 [3-4] days, p=0.03) and readmission within 1 month after discharge (2.4% vs. 16%, p=0.04) were significantly lower in the MIE group. In-hospital mortality was observed in 1 case in the MIE group and 3 in the open esophagectomy group. Conclusion Despite the bias associated with the transition of treatment modalities and surgical techniques, MIE may contribute to improved short-term outcomes in conversion surgery.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
261.ct4b食管癌的转换食管切除术--米氏与开腹食管切除术
背景和目的 局部晚期不可切除食管癌的标准治疗方法是确定性化放疗(dCRT),但在使用三联化疗方案(多西他赛、顺铂和 5-FU:DCF)或 dCRT 诱导化疗后,如果认为食管癌可切除,则可进行转换手术。此外,机器人辅助或胸腔镜手术等微创手术有望改善晚期食管癌患者的预后。我们研究了微创食管切除术(MIE)在转换手术中的可行性。材料与方法 纳入了从 2007 年到 2023 年因 cT4b 食管癌接受转换胸腔食管切除术的 66 例患者。比较了25例开放食管切除术组和41例MIE组(8例机器人辅助,33例胸腔镜)的短期疗效。结果 两组患者在年龄、性别、PS、肿瘤位置、组织学、cN或cM方面均无差异。MIE组患者的cT4b器官多位于气道(气道70.7% vs 44%,大血管19.5% vs 24%,两者均为9.7% vs 32%,P=0.04),MIE组患者在诱导治疗中显著采用DCF治疗(DCF 87.8% vs 56%,dCRT 12.2% vs 44%,P<0.001)。另一方面,挽救手术与开放性食管切除术显著相关(24.3% 对 52%,p=0.003)。胸腔手术时间(157 分钟对 180 分钟,P=0.09)与手术结果无差异,而 MIE 组的总手术时间明显更短(392 分钟对 439 分钟,P=0.02)。MIE组的失血量明显更少(79毫升对470毫升,P<0.001),R0切除率没有差异(82.9%对72%,P=0.357)。术后并发症包括肺炎(26.8% 对 44%,P=0.183)和复发性神经麻痹(21.9% 对 36%,P=0.260)没有明显差异,但 MIE 组的吻合口漏显著降低(4.8% 对 24%,P=0.04)。术后中位住院时间(16 [11-20] 天 vs. 16 [14-29]天)没有差异,但MIE组的ICU中位住院时间(3 [3-4] 天 vs. 4 [3-4]天,p=0.03)和出院后1个月内再入院率(2.4% vs. 16%,p=0.04)显著低于MIE组。MIE组有1例出现院内死亡,开放式食管切除术组有3例。结论 尽管治疗方式和手术技术的转变存在偏差,但 MIE 可能有助于改善转换手术的短期疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1