机器人辅助食管癌切除术与传统开腹食管癌切除术的长期肿瘤学结果对比:倾向分数匹配分析。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Ejso Pub Date : 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2025.109591
Yelee Kwon , Jae Kwang Yun , Yun-Ho Jeon , Yong-Hee Kim
{"title":"机器人辅助食管癌切除术与传统开腹食管癌切除术的长期肿瘤学结果对比:倾向分数匹配分析。","authors":"Yelee Kwon ,&nbsp;Jae Kwang Yun ,&nbsp;Yun-Ho Jeon ,&nbsp;Yong-Hee Kim","doi":"10.1016/j.ejso.2025.109591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>This study aimed to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) with those of conventional open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal cancer.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Between January 2006 and December 2021, 1745 consecutive patients underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer at Asan Medical Center, Korea. Among them, we retrieved 1133 patients (mean age 63.1 ± 7.8 years, 86 [7.6 %] women, 1100 [97.1 %] squamous cell carcinomas), who were operated by a single surgeon. These patients were categorized into following two groups based on their surgical approaches: RAMIE (<em>n</em> = 497) and OE (<em>n</em> = 636). The RAMIE and OE groups were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared between the groups.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The median follow-up was 51.8 (24.6–90.2, interquartile) months. Five-year OS (70.7 % vs. 55.0 %, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.01) and RFS (63.3 % vs. 50.1 %, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.01) rates were significantly higher in RAMIE than in OE group.</div><div>Following propensity-score matching, 886 patients (443 pairs) were successfully matched, demonstrating no significant intergroup differences, including the pathologic stage. The RAMIE group consistently demonstrated enhanced OS (70.4 % vs. 61.8 %, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.01) and RFS (62.8 % vs. 55.8 %, <em>P</em> = 0.04) after five years, even after adjustment. The rate of noncancer mortality was significantly higher in the OE group (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.01), whereas the rate of esophageal cancer-related mortality showed no significant differences between the groups (<em>P</em> = 0.25).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>RAMIE could be a safer option for patients compared with conventional open esophagectomy with favorable long-term outcomes related to noncancer mortality.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11522,"journal":{"name":"Ejso","volume":"51 5","pages":"Article 109591"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-term oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: Propensity-score matched anaylsis\",\"authors\":\"Yelee Kwon ,&nbsp;Jae Kwang Yun ,&nbsp;Yun-Ho Jeon ,&nbsp;Yong-Hee Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejso.2025.109591\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>This study aimed to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) with those of conventional open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal cancer.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Between January 2006 and December 2021, 1745 consecutive patients underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer at Asan Medical Center, Korea. Among them, we retrieved 1133 patients (mean age 63.1 ± 7.8 years, 86 [7.6 %] women, 1100 [97.1 %] squamous cell carcinomas), who were operated by a single surgeon. These patients were categorized into following two groups based on their surgical approaches: RAMIE (<em>n</em> = 497) and OE (<em>n</em> = 636). The RAMIE and OE groups were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared between the groups.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The median follow-up was 51.8 (24.6–90.2, interquartile) months. Five-year OS (70.7 % vs. 55.0 %, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.01) and RFS (63.3 % vs. 50.1 %, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.01) rates were significantly higher in RAMIE than in OE group.</div><div>Following propensity-score matching, 886 patients (443 pairs) were successfully matched, demonstrating no significant intergroup differences, including the pathologic stage. The RAMIE group consistently demonstrated enhanced OS (70.4 % vs. 61.8 %, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.01) and RFS (62.8 % vs. 55.8 %, <em>P</em> = 0.04) after five years, even after adjustment. The rate of noncancer mortality was significantly higher in the OE group (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.01), whereas the rate of esophageal cancer-related mortality showed no significant differences between the groups (<em>P</em> = 0.25).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>RAMIE could be a safer option for patients compared with conventional open esophagectomy with favorable long-term outcomes related to noncancer mortality.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ejso\",\"volume\":\"51 5\",\"pages\":\"Article 109591\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ejso\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0748798325000198\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ejso","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0748798325000198","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究旨在比较机器人辅助微创食管切除术(RAMIE)与传统开放式食管切除术(OE)治疗食管癌的长期肿瘤预后。方法:2006年1月至2021年12月,在韩国牙山医疗中心连续1745例食管癌患者行食管癌切除术。其中1133例患者(平均年龄63.1±7.8岁,女性86例(7.6%),鳞状细胞癌1100例(97.1%)),均由同一位外科医生进行手术。这些患者根据手术入路分为以下两组:RAMIE (n = 497)和OE (n = 636)。苎麻组和OE组使用倾向评分按1:1的比例进行匹配。比较两组患者的总生存期(OS)和无复发生存期(RFS)。结果:中位随访时间为51.8个月(24.6-90.2个月,四分位数间隔)。结论:与传统的开放式食管切除术相比,RAMIE可能是一种更安全的选择,与非癌症死亡率相关的长期预后良好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Long-term oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: Propensity-score matched anaylsis

Background

This study aimed to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) with those of conventional open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal cancer.

Methods

Between January 2006 and December 2021, 1745 consecutive patients underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer at Asan Medical Center, Korea. Among them, we retrieved 1133 patients (mean age 63.1 ± 7.8 years, 86 [7.6 %] women, 1100 [97.1 %] squamous cell carcinomas), who were operated by a single surgeon. These patients were categorized into following two groups based on their surgical approaches: RAMIE (n = 497) and OE (n = 636). The RAMIE and OE groups were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared between the groups.

Results

The median follow-up was 51.8 (24.6–90.2, interquartile) months. Five-year OS (70.7 % vs. 55.0 %, P < 0.01) and RFS (63.3 % vs. 50.1 %, P < 0.01) rates were significantly higher in RAMIE than in OE group.
Following propensity-score matching, 886 patients (443 pairs) were successfully matched, demonstrating no significant intergroup differences, including the pathologic stage. The RAMIE group consistently demonstrated enhanced OS (70.4 % vs. 61.8 %, P < 0.01) and RFS (62.8 % vs. 55.8 %, P = 0.04) after five years, even after adjustment. The rate of noncancer mortality was significantly higher in the OE group (P < 0.01), whereas the rate of esophageal cancer-related mortality showed no significant differences between the groups (P = 0.25).

Conclusions

RAMIE could be a safer option for patients compared with conventional open esophagectomy with favorable long-term outcomes related to noncancer mortality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ejso
Ejso 医学-外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1148
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: JSO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology ("the Journal of Cancer Surgery") is the Official Journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and BASO ~ the Association for Cancer Surgery. The EJSO aims to advance surgical oncology research and practice through the publication of original research articles, review articles, editorials, debates and correspondence.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Calendar of events Epidemiology of cholangiocarcinoma National consensus on a new resectability classification for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma - A modified Delphi method Surgical management, including the role of transplantation, for intrahepatic and peri-hilar cholangiocarcinoma
×
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