New approaches in esophageal carcinomas

Arnulf H. Hölscher; Benjamin Babic

doi:10.1515/iss-2016-0020

Abstract

New approaches in the treatment of esophageal cancer comprise endoscopy with refinements of esophagoscopic intraluminal resection by endoscopic submucosal dissection. Radical open surgery is more and more replaced by minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIO), especially in the hybrid technique with laparoscopic gastrolysis and transthoracic esophageal resection and gastric pull-up. Total MIO also in the robotic technique has not yet shown that it produces superior results than the hybrid technique. Fluorescent dye can improve the intraoperative visualization of the vascularization of the gastric conduit. The individualization of neoadjuvant therapy is the magic word in clinical research of multimodal treatment of esophageal cancer. This means response prediction based on molecular markers or clinical response evaluation. The documentation of the diversity of postoperative complications is now standardized by an international consensus. The value of enhanced recovery after surgery is not yet approved compared to conventional management.

Keywords: adenocarcinoma; enhanced recovery after surgery; esophageal cancer; neoadjuvant therapy; postoperative complications; squamous cell carcinoma

Introduction

New approaches in esophageal cancer are, on the one hand, technical concerning endoscopic intraluminal therapy or minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIO) and the visualization of vascularization of the gastric conduit. On the other hand, new insights into the genomic causes for the malignant degeneration of Barrett’s esophagus open the possibility for more effective and individualized endoscopic surveillance. Individualized multimodal treatment is tried to be based on response prediction or on the clinical evaluation of response. The standardization of documentation of complications after esophagectomy is a new achievement because the comparability of data is poor. Finally, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a topical issue that is tried to establish in centers for esophageal surgery.

Current guidelines for the treatment of esophageal cancer

For the description of new therapeutic approaches in solid tumors, it is necessary to describe the current standards that are the basis of new developments. The German S3 guideline for esophageal cancer defines the current standard that was completed and published in 2015 [1], [2]. The algorithms for the treatment of adenocarcinoma (AC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in patients functionally fit for surgery are shown in Figures 1 and 2. The diagnostics with endoscopy, biopsy, endosonography, and spiral computed tomography (CT) scan are established and lead to a clinical TNM staging.

Figure 1:

S3 guideline diagnostics and treatment of SCC and AC of the esophagus.

Adapted from Porschen et al. [1].

Figure 2:

S3 guideline diagnostics and treatment of SCC and AC of the esophagus.

Adapted from Hölscher [2].

cT1

In T1 category, mucosal (T1a) carcinomas can be removed by endoscopic means, preferably endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), if a resection without residual tumor (R0) is achievable [3], [4]. On the contrary, submucosal infiltration (T1b) affords radical surgical resection because the risk of lymph node metastasis is too high [5]. Only in deep mucosal infiltration (m3) of an SCC that primary surgery is recommended. New approaches of intraluminal endoscopic resection are aiming on superficially infiltrating (sm1) submucosal carcinomas that have a low risk of lymphatic metastasis [5]. These characteristics are ≤2 cm diameter, no ulceration, L0, and V0. However, outcome data on the prerequisites derive, except for one study, only from Asian populations and are difficult to compare to European patients [6], [7]. New endoscopic approaches with intraluminal circumferential resections to remove longer (>2 cm) lesions or to achieve wider resection margins lead to a very high rate (50%) of stenosis with the necessity of multiple dilatations. Therefore, combined with doubts on radicality, this might be an approach into a dead-end street.

If an endoscopic resection was not successful, for example, because of microscopic residual tumor (R1) or deeper than mucosal infiltration with a risk of lymphatic metastasis or due to intractable stenosis, surgery is indicated. However, the operation should be done within due time. First data on time interval have shown prognostic disadvantages for patients with surgical resection after 6–12 months between endoscopic resection and definitive surgery [8].

cT2

In cT2NxM0 carcinomas, primary surgery is indicated. The guideline offers only the possibility of neoadjuvant therapy, especially in young patients with an individualized indication [9]. However, current studies show no prognostic benefit for neoadjuvant treatment in cT1 or cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer [10], [11]. The study of Markar et al. analyzed a database of 2944 consecutive patients for T2N0M0 and compared a group of 285 patients with primary surgery (S) to 70 with neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgery (NS). There was no significant difference in the 5-year survival between both groups (40% NS and 38% S). Further, 50% of the primary surgery group classified as cT2cN0 showed pN+ in the surgical specimen. From these, 20% were pN2 or pN3. This again underlines the unreliability of clinical N staging.

cT3/resectable cT4

In advanced esophageal cancer, either AC or SCC neoadjuvant therapy is strongly recommended in all international S3 guidelines [1], [2], [12] (Figures 1 and 2). For SCC only, radiochemotherapy (RTX) is indicated, whereas in AC both chemotherapy (CTX) and RTX (RTX/CTX) are effective [13], [14]. The metaanalysis of Sjöquist or Ronellenfitsch and Burmeister and the Stahl trial on esophageal AC reported data on a slightly better survival after RTX/CTX versus CTX [15], [16], [17], [18]. The prospective randomized Scandinavian trial on this matter, including SCC and AC and cT1 to cT3 carcinomas, showed that neoadjuvant RTX/CTX results in a higher histological complete response rate, a higher R0 resection rate, and a lower frequency of lymph node metastases compared to CTX. However, there was no significantly improved 3-year survival, which was in the intention-to-treat analysis 49% in the CTX arm and 47% in the RTX/CTX arm [19].

Individualization of treatment based on response

New approaches in neoadjuvant treatment are individualization based on response.

Via pretherapeutic endoscopic biopsies from the primary tumor and determination of a combination of molecular markers, a prediction of nonresponse is possible with a positive predictive value of 89% for minor histopathological response of the tumor according to our prospective Cologne Esophageal Response Prediction (CERP) study [20]. Minor histopathological response means that less than 10% vital tumor cells are detected by the pathologist [13], [14]. This prediction should identify the nonresponders in whom primary surgery could be performed to avoid time delay and side effects of a noneffective induction therapy. This prediction is also possible from liquid biopsies, which mean molecular markers from blood samples [21], [22], [23].

Our concept in the prospective CERP study, however, was based on an older RTX protocol with 5-FU, cisplatin, and 40 Gy radiation. Therefore, this has to be repeated based on a modern protocol such as in the CROSS study with RTX/CTX or FLOT [24], [25], [26].

The other approach is not based on prediction but clinical detection of response by endoscopy with biopsies, CT scan, or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT. The aim is to omit surgery in clinical complete responders and add more RTX/CTX as a definite treatment. In cases of recurrence salvage, surgery should be performed. A trial with this new approach is already in preparation in The Netherlands. The problem of this strategy is that the clinical detection of “complete” response is very unsafe. The accuracy of relief of dysphagia as a sign of response is low [27]. The accuracy of endoscopy with biopsies is only about 50%, as residuals of the tumor are often in the esophageal wall and not only at the inner surface [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. CT scan cannot exactly differentiate between scar and residual cancer. PET-CT is influenced by inflammation and scaring in the radiated area, and several trials have shown that the predictive value of PET-CT for response during neoadjuvant RTX/CTX is insufficient for routine clinical application [32], [33], [34], [35].

In a French study of 222 patients who had complete clinical response after neoadjuvant treatment, 59 patients who refused surgery were compared to 118 patients who had complete clinical response and esophagectomy [36]. The latter group showed residual tumor in 35% and in a median follow-up of >3 years a significantly better outcome than the group without surgery (Table 1). Therefore, this new approach of avoiding surgery in so-called clinically complete responders after neoadjuvant therapy bears a significant risk of coming too late and should be applied with considerable caution.

Table 1:

Esophagectomy in patients with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy.

	RTX/CTX	RTX/CTX+OP	p-Value
Number of patients	59	118
Median survival (months)	31	83	0.001
Recurrence rate	51%	33%	0.021
Time of recurrence after end of treatment (months)	7.8	19	0.002
Locoregional recurrence	47%	16%	0.008

Matched pairs according to age, gender, site of tumor, TNM stage, histology, nutritional status, and ASA score of 222 patients with clinical complete response after RTX/CTX [36].

Individualization of treatment of Barrett’s esophagus

Novel genetic risk variants for the development of Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal AC have been found by genomic analysis of more than 6000 patients with Barrett’s esophagus and more than 4000 esophageal AC [37]. Eight new risk loci were identified. By these genetic markers, the prediction of malignant degeneration of Barrett’s esophagus seems possible and this can represent a tool for individualized surveillance with endoscopic biopsies.

Oligometastasis

The achievements of multimodal treatment have led to the question if patients with limited resectable distant metastases should be included in protocols with curative intent. This comes from the FLOT trial in gastric cancer, which showed that a group with neoadjuvant CTX and resection of the primary tumor as well as limited metastases had a significantly better outcome than those patients without surgery [25], [38]. Therefore, the new RENAISSANCE trial has been set up to analyze this question in a prospective randomized fashion including patients with AC of the esophagus and the esophagogastric junction (AIO-STO-0215).

Extent of resection

The S3 guideline favors definitely transthoracic en bloc esophagectomy for AC or SCC of the esophagus [2]. This is based on the trials of Omloo or Kutup, which show prognostic advantages of this radical extent compared to transhiatal esophagectomy [39], [40]. For types II and III AC of the esophagogastric junction, transhiatally extended total gastrectomy with distal esophageal resection is favored if R0 resection with a sufficient safety margin can be achieved [41]. This has been approved by the 10-year follow-up results of the randomized clinical trial comparing left thoracoabdominal and abdominal transhiatal approaches to total gastrectomy [42]. Only if the infiltration of the distal esophagus is too extended for complete resection by an abdominal transhiatal approach that transthoracic esophagectomy with resection of the upper stomach and pull-up of a narrow gastric conduit should be applied [2]. However, the question as to which is the best extent of resection for type II AC, transhiatal with extended gastrectomy and distal esophageal resection or transthoracic esophagectomy with upper pole gastric resection, and gastric pull-up is not solved yet, as no prospective randomized trial comparing both strategies has been conducted.

New approaches to reduce the luminal extent of resection or the extent of lymphadenectomy after clinical response to neoadjuvant treatment are under discussion. However, they have the same shortcomings and risks as mentioned above for trials to avoid surgery completely in case of “complete” clinical response after induction therapy.

Total MIO/hybrid/open

There are different new approaches in MIO for esophageal cancer concerning approach and anastomotic technique.

Total minimally invasive

Laparoscopic gastrolysis, thoracoscopic esophagectomy, and gastric pull-up with high intrathoracic anastomosis. This can be performed in conventional MIO technique (five trocars) mostly with circular stapler anastomosis or side-to-side with linear stapler anastomosis or with robotic surgery mostly with hand-sewn esophagogastrostomy.

Hybrid

Laparoscopic gastrolysis, thoracoscopic esophagectomy, and open left cervical esophagogastrostomy hand-sewn or by circular stapler or side-to-side by linear stapler
Laparoscopic gastrolysis, open transthoracic esophagectomy, and high intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy usually by circular stapler anastomosis
Laparoscopic gastrolysis, open transthoracic esophagectomy, and left cervical esophagogastrostomy hand-sewn or by stapler
Laparoscopic gastrolysis and transhiatal esophagectomy with cervical esophagogastrostomy hand-sewn or by stapler
Open transabdominal gastrolysis and thoracoscopic esophagectomy with intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy usually by stapler

This diversity of procedures and the type of anastomosis shows that the ideal technique has not been found yet according to the profound clinical data. One randomized multicenter study (TIME trial) with limited patient numbers on the comparison of open versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic esophagectomy (MIO) has shortcomings of comparability as the MIO group had single lumen tracheal intubation, whereas the patients with open esophagectomy had a double tracheal intubation with right-sided lung block. However, this trial showed significant differences in favor of MIO concerning the following [43]:

Less rate of pulmonary complications
Shorter stay on ICU
Shorter duration of hospitalization

This direction points also to the reports of MIO versus historic controls of open esophagectomy [44], [45]. There were no differences in postoperative mortality and short-term prognosis. The long-term results cannot be evaluated yet. The MIRO trial up to date published only as an ASCO abstract with the comparison of open esophagectomy versus laparoscopic gastrolysis and esophagectomy via thoracotomy and intrathoracic anastomosis (hybrid procedure) resulted in significant differences in favor of the hybrid approach concerning the following [46], [47] (Table 2):

less postoperative morbidity
less postoperative pulmonary complications
reduced rates of postoperative Clavien-Dindo scores II–IV

Table 2:

MIRO trial comparing hybrid to open esophagectomy [46].

	Hybrid	Open	p-Value
n	103	104
Postoperative morbidity	35.9%	64.4%	0.001
30-day mortality	4.9%	4.9%	NS
Severe pulmonary complications	17.7%	30.1%	0.001
Not resected	1	1
AC	63%	66%	NS
Resected lymph nodes (median)	21	22	NS

This is supported by the results of the FREGAT retrospective study on 3009 French patients between 2010 and 2012 and the comparison of the hybrid technique to open surgery [48] (Table 3).

Table 3:

FREGAT retrospective study results comparing hybrid to open esophagectomy [48].

	Hybrid	Open	p-Value
Patients total	663	2346
30-day mortality	3.3%	5.7%	0.005
Hospital mortality	5.6%	8.1%	0.028
90-day mortality	6.9%	10.0%	0.016
Patients after propensity score matching	633	633
30-day mortality	3.3%	5.9%	0.029

In the multivariate analysis, age ≥60 years, malnutrition, and cardiovascular comorbidity were independently associated with higher postoperative mortality, whereas the hybrid technique was combined with a decrease in mortality (OR 0.6; p=0.041).

The only comparison between this hybrid technique and total MIO has been reported by Bonavina et al. [49]. On a propensity score-matched basis using the covariates age, sex, body mass index, forced expiration volume at 1 s (FEV1), Charlson comorbidity index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, histological tumor type, tumor site, pTNM stage, and neoadjuvant therapy, all postoperative outcomes including morbidity, mortality, nodal harvest, R0 resection rate, and 1-year survival rate were similar. Only the duration of operation was significantly longer in total MIO patients (Table 4).

Table 4:

Comparison of hybrid Ivor Lewis (laparoscopic/thoracotomy) to total MIO in prone position [49].

	Hybrid	Total MIO	p-Value
Total number of patients	197	93
Patients after propensity scoring	80	80
Hospital mortality	2.5%	3.7%	NS
Anastomotic leakage	12.5%	13.7%	NS
Duration of surgery (min)	300	330	0.01
1-year survival	92.3%	93.5%	NS

The results of this report are parallel to our own experiences with 20 versus 20 propensity score-matched similar patients, with also no difference between both procedures [50]. In a total of 1200 consecutive hybrid esophagectomies of our own patients, we observed a 30-day mortality rate of 1%, a 90-day mortality rate of 3%, an anastomotic leak rate of 6.3%, and a normal postoperative course with a ventilation of less than 24 h in 77% of the patients.

These data from France, Italy, and Germany show that the hybrid procedure with laparoscopic gastric mobilization, abdominal lymphadenectomy, transthoracic esophagectomy, mediastinal lymphadenectomy, and high intrathoracic stapler anastomosis currently is the most justified technique. The laparoscopic dissective part is good to teach and safe to perform after a certain training period of about 20 procedures. The extent of lymphadenectomy is the same as in the open technique. A special trick is to place the suture for the hiatoplasty untied into the lower mediastinum and tie it only after transthoracic gastric pull-up to adjust the narrowing of the hiatal crus to the gastric conduit without stenosing the stomach.

The right transthoracic en bloc esophagectomy is radical, safe, and very reproducible. Lung adhesions can easily be severed and the lung can be palpated for lesions. The dissection in the upper mediastinum along the posterior tracheobronchial tree can be performed safely, especially in esophageal tumors at the trachea or tracheal bifurcation. This can be very demanding by scarring especially after induction RTX/CTX. Particularly, the stapler esophagogastrostomy in the upper mediastinum and the tailoring of the gastric conduit can be performed very safely. This procedure is good to teach stepwise. Thoracic pain control can effectively be achieved by peridural catheter.

In contrast, thoracoscopic esophagectomy has a long learning curve of at least 60 procedures, and lung adhesions and the dissection of the tumor at the trachea or main bronchi can be very demanding. The anastomotic technique with the stapler is much more difficult than the open technique and affords at least a minithoracotomy for the insertion of a circular stapler and the removal of the specimen. If the anastomosis is placed in the neck (sort of hybrid) to avoid the mentioned problems of manufacturing the intrathoracic anastomosis by MIO, one encounters other difficulties, especially the definitely higher rate of anastomotic leakage. This was, for example, 22% or 30% in the CROSS trial in the two arms [24].

The operation time of total MIO and the one lung ventilation time is usually longer than the open technique. Considering the favorable results of the hybrid technique, it would be very difficult to prove in a prospectively randomized trial the superiority of total MIO compared to hybrid [49]. The target criteria would be very difficult to define and could only be postoperative pain, pulmonary problems, and duration of ICU stay and this would probably afford about 500 patients in each study arm.

Intraoperative evaluation of vascularization of gastric conduit

The most important factors for anastomotic healing of the esophagogastrostomy are no tension and good vascularization of the conduit. A new achievement is the visualization of vascularization by laser-assisted fluorescent dye angiography (LAA) with indigo cyanine green. In a study of 144 patients with esophagogastric anastomosis, the leakage rate was 16.7% [51]. A leak was significantly less likely when the anastomosis was placed in an area of good perfusion compared to when the anastomosis was placed in an area of less robust perfusion by LAA (2% vs. 45%; p<0.0001). This technique may contribute to reduced morbidity due to anastomotic insufficiency but has to be approved in further trials.

Management of postoperative complications

The two main complications after esophagectomy are still pneumonia and anastomotic leakage. A new study has shown that preoperative airway colonization before transthoracic esophagectomy predicts postoperative pulmonary complications [52]. In 20% of 64 study patients, the pathological colonization of the bronchial airways could be proven before operation. The modern postoperative management includes all measures to avoid pulmonary infections by preoperative lung training, MIO, effective pain control by peridural catheter for good breathing and coughing, early mobilization, and, maybe in selected patients, preoperative antibiotic therapy.

The management of anastomotic leaks is based on rapid diagnostics with endoscopy and spiral CT scan. Except for very early noncontained insufficiencies or conduit necrosis, which need reoperation, the treatment of choice today is endoscopic sealing of the leak by stent or the endovacuum swamp (VAC) [53], [54]. Most leaks can successfully be controlled by these means.

Standardized documentation of complications after esophagectomy

A really new and important achievement is the International Consensus on Standardization of Data Collection for Complications Associated with Esophagectomy. Representatives of the leading centers for esophageal surgery from different countries [Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG)] under the direction of Don Low from Seattle have developed this basis for documentation. The reason is that in the literature the definitions for complications of esophagectomy are lacking or varied enormously. Consequently, a meaningful comparison of postoperative results from different countries is not possible. In the ECCG, the definitions have been discussed in detail and consented and published in 2015 [55]. The start of data collection in 2016 has shown that the database is appropriate and easy to handle. Up to September 21, 2016, 2087 patients with esophagectomy were included under the prerequisite that each esophagectomy of the participating centers is continuously documented to avoid selection bias [56]. The analysis of these reliable data will result in further important publications on this topic.

Enhanced recovery after esophagectomy

The concept of ERAS has been established in colorectal surgery and also applied for esophageal resection [57], [58]. This program includes especially detailed preoperative information and preparation of the patient, minimally invasive surgery, intraoperative heart time volume orientated fluid management, consequent intraoperative and postoperative pain control via peridural catheter, extubation in the operating theater, no gastric tube, early oral feeding, intensive mobilization of the patient by physiotherapists starting on the day of operation, no abdominal drains, and early removal of thoracic drainages.

This program is possible but affords investments in manpower and convinced acceptance of all specialties that treat the patient in the perioperative period. The early discharge of the patient also implies the necessity of ambulant observation and continuous contact to avoid overlooking late complications and the necessity of rehospitalization. Therefore, these concepts still have to prove their significance in clinical routine for being equal or better compared to conventional postoperative treatments.

Author Statement

Research funding: Authors state no funding involved. Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest. Informed consent: Informed consent is not applicable. Ethical approval: The conducted research is not related to either human or animals use.

Author Contributions

Writing of the manuscript: Arnulf Hölscher, Benjamin Babic; Revision of the manuscript: Arnulf Hölscher; Approval of the manuscript: Arnulf Hölscher; Analysis of literature: Arnulf Hölscher, Benjamin Babic.

Publication Funding

The German Society of Surgery funded the article processing charges of this article.

References

[1] Porschen RS, Hölscher A, Körber J, et al. S3-guideline diagnostics and treatment of squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Z Gastroenterol 2015;53:1288–1347.Suche in Google Scholar

[2] Hölscher AH, Stahl M, Messmann H, Stuschke M, Meyer HJ, Porschen R. New S3 guideline for esophageal cancer. Chirurg 2016;87:865–872.10.1007/s00104-016-0214-1Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[3] Pech O, Bollschweiler E, Manner H, Leers J, Ell C, Hölscher AH. Comparison between endoscopic and surgical resection of mucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus at two high-volume centers. Ann Surg 2011;254:67–72.10.1097/SLA.0b013e31821d4bf6Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Pech O, May A, Manner H, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection for patients with mucosal adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Gastroenterology 2014;146:652–660.10.1053/j.gastro.2013.11.006Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] Hölscher AH, Bollschweiler E, Schröder W, Metzger R, Gutschow C, Drebber U. Prognostic impact of upper, middle, and lower third mucosal or submucosal infiltration in early esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 2011;254:802–807.10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182369128Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[6] Manner H, Pech O, Heldmann Y, et al. Efficacy, safety, and long-term results of endoscopic treatment for early stage adenocarcinoma of the esophagus with low-risk sm1 invasion. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;11:630–635.10.1016/j.cgh.2012.12.040Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Guo HM, Zhang XQ, Chen M, Huang SL, Zou XP. Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:5540–5547.10.3748/wjg.v20.i18.5540Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[8] Plum PS, Hoelscher AH, Bollschweiler E. Abstract ESA Meeting, Edinburgh, April 2016.Suche in Google Scholar

[9] Metzger R, Lorenz D, Gockel I, et al. pT2 Adenocarcinoma of the esophagus: early or advanced cancer? Ann Thorac Surg 2013;96:1840–1859.10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.05.086Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[10] Markar SR, Gronnier C, Pasquer A, et al.; French Eso-Gastric Tumors (FREGAT) Working Group, Federation de Recherche en Chirurgie (FRENCH), Association Francaise de Chirurgie (AFC). Role of neoadjuvant treatment in clinical T2N0M0 oesophageal cancer: results from a retrospective multi-center European study. Eur J Cancer 2016;56:59–68.10.1016/j.ejca.2015.11.024Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Mariette C, Dahan L, Mornex F, et al. Surgery alone versus chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for stage I and II esophageal cancer: final analysis of randomized controlled phase III trial FFCD 9901. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:2416–2422.10.1200/JCO.2013.53.6532Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Allum WH, Blazeby JM, Griffin SM, Cunningham D, Jankowski JA, Wong R. Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, the British Society of Gastroenterology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology. Guidelines for the management of oesophageal and gastric cancer. Gut 2011;60:1449–1472.10.1136/gut.2010.228254Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] Hölscher AH, Bollschweiler E, Bogoevski D, Schmidt H, Semrau R, Izbicki JR. Prognostic impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in cT3 oesophageal cancer – a propensity score matched analysis. Eur J Cancer 2014;50:2950–2957.10.1016/j.ejca.2014.08.020Suche in Google Scholar

[14] Hölscher AH, Drebber U, Schmidt H, Bollschweiler E. Prognostic classification of histopathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy in esophageal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg 2014;260:779–784.10.1097/SLA.0000000000000964Suche in Google Scholar

[15] Sjoquist KM, Burmeister BH, Smithers BM, et al. Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group. Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:681–692.10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70142-5Suche in Google Scholar

[16] Ronellenfitsch U, Schwarzbach M, Hofheinz R, et al. GE Adenocarcinoma Meta-analysis Group. Perioperative chemo(radio)therapy versus primary surgery for resectable adenocarcinoma of the stomach, gastroesophageal junction, and lower esophagus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;CD008107.10.1002/14651858.CD008107.pub2Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[17] Burmeister BH, Thomas JM, Burmeister EA, et al. Is concurrent radiation therapy required in patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus? A randomised phase II trial. Eur J Cancer 2011;47:354–360.10.1016/j.ejca.2010.09.009Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] Stahl M, Walz MK, Stuschke M, et al. Phase III comparison of preoperative chemotherapy compared with chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:851–856.10.1200/JCO.2008.17.0506Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] Klevebro F, Alexandersson von Döbeln G, Wang N, et al. A randomized clinical trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction. Ann Oncol 2016;27:660–667.10.1093/annonc/mdw010Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[20] Bollschweiler E, Hoelscher AH, Herbold T, et al. Molecular markers for the prediction of minor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 2016;264:839–846.10.1097/SLA.0000000000001911Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] Brabender J, Vallböhmer D, Grimminger P, et al. ERCC1 RNA expression in peripheral blood predicts minor histopathological response to neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced cancer of the esophagus. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:1815–1821.10.1007/s11605-008-0668-7Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] Brabender J, Metzger R, Vallböhmer D, et al. Roles of thymidylate synthase and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase expression in blood as predictors of response to multimodal therapy in esophageal cancer. Surgery 2012;151:306–312.10.1016/j.surg.2011.07.018Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] Grimminger PP, Maus MK, Bergenthal J, et al. Prognostic impact of blood biomarkers TS and DPD in neoadjuvant-treated esophageal cancer patients. Anticancer Res 2015;35:1297–1302.Suche in Google Scholar

[24] van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, et al. CROSS Group. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;366:2074–2084.10.1056/NEJMoa1112088Suche in Google Scholar

[25] Al-Batran SE, Hartmann JT, Hofheinz R, et al. Biweekly fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) for patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or esophagogastric junction: a phase II trial of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie. Ann Oncol 2008;19:1882–1887.10.1093/annonc/mdn403Suche in Google Scholar

[26] Lorenzen S, Pauligk C, Homann N, Schmalenberg H, Jäger E, Al-Batran SE. Feasibility of perioperative chemotherapy with infusional 5-FU, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with (FLOT) or without (FLO) docetaxel in elderly patients with locally advanced esophagogastric cancer. Br J Cancer 2013;108:519–526.10.1038/bjc.2012.588Suche in Google Scholar

[27] Adelstein DJ, Rice TW, Becker M, et al. Use of concurrent chemotherapy, accelerated fractionation radiation, and surgery for patients with esophageal carcinoma. Cancer 1997;80:1011–1020.10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19970915)80:6<1011::AID-CNCR2>3.0.CO;2-CSuche in Google Scholar

[28] Brown WA, Thomas J, Gotley D, et al. Use of oesophagogastroscopy to assess the response of oesophageal carcinoma to neoadjuvant therapy. Br J Surg 2004;91:199–204.10.1002/bjs.4411Suche in Google Scholar

[29] Schneider PM, Metzger R, Schaefer H, et al. Response evaluation by endoscopy, rebiopsy, and endoscopic ultrasound does not accurately predict histopathologic regression after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 2008;248:902–908.10.1097/SLA.0b013e31818f3afbSuche in Google Scholar

[30] Sarkaria IS, Rizk NP, Bains MS, et al. Post-treatment endoscopic biopsy is a poor-predictor of pathologic response in patients undergoing chemoradiation therapy for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 2009;249:764–767.10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181a38e9eSuche in Google Scholar

[31] van Rossum PS, Goense L, Meziani J, et al. Endoscopic biopsy and EUS for the detection of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:866–879.10.1016/j.gie.2015.11.026Suche in Google Scholar

[32] Levine EA, Farmer MR, Clark P, et al. Predictive value of 18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose-positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) in the identification of responders to chemoradiation therapy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 2006;243:472–4787.10.1097/01.sla.0000208430.07050.61Suche in Google Scholar

[33] Rebollo Aguirre AC, Ramos-Font C, Villegas Portero R, Cook GJ, Llamas Elvira JM, Tabares AR. 18F-fluorodeoxiglucose positron emission tomography for the evaluation of neoadjuvant therapy response in esophageal cancer: systematic review of the literature. Ann Surg 2009;250:247–254.10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b0c3a6Suche in Google Scholar

[34] Vallböhmer D, Hölscher AH, Dietlein M, et al. [18F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography for the assessment of histopathologic response and prognosis after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 2009;250:888–894.10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181bc9c0dSuche in Google Scholar

[35] Heneghan HM, Donohoe C, Elliot J, et al. Can CT-PET and endoscopic assessment postneoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy predict residual disease in esophageal cancer? Ann Surg 2016;264:831–838.10.1097/SLA.0000000000001902Suche in Google Scholar

[36] Piessen G, Messager M, Mirabel X, et al. Is there a role for surgery for patients with a complete clinical response after chemoradiation for esophageal cancer? An intention-to-treat case-control study. Ann Surg 2013;258:793–799.10.1097/SLA.0000000000000228Suche in Google Scholar

[37] Gharahkhani P, Fitzgerald RC, Vaughan TL, et al. Genome-wide association studies in oesophageal adenocarcinoma and Barrett’s oesophagus: a large-scale meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:1363–1373.10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30240-6Suche in Google Scholar

[38] Pauligk C, Tannapfel A, Meiler J, et al. Pathological response to neoadjuvant 5-FU, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and 5-FU (ECF) in patients with locally advanced, resectable gastric/esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer: data from the phase II part of the FLOT4 phase III study of the AIO. 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting Abstract. J Clin Oncol 2015;33 (suppl; abstr 4016).10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.4016Suche in Google Scholar

[39] Omloo JM, Lagarde SM, Hulscher JB, et al. Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the mid/distal esophagus: five-year survival of a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 2007;246:992–1000.10.1097/SLA.0b013e31815c4037Suche in Google Scholar

[40] Kutup A, Nentwich MF, Bollschweiler E, Bogoevski D, Izbicki JR, Hölscher AH. What should be the gold standard for the surgical component in the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer: transthoracic versus transhiatal esophagectomy. Ann Surg 2014;260:1016–1022.10.1097/SLA.0000000000000335Suche in Google Scholar

[41] Moehler M, Al-Batran SE, Andus T, et al. AWMF. German S3-guideline “diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric cancer”. Z Gastroenterol 2011;49:461–531.10.1055/s-0031-1273201Suche in Google Scholar

[42] Kurokawa Y, Sasako M, Sano T, et al. Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG9502). Ten-year follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial comparing left thoracoabdominal and abdominal transhiatal approaches to total gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction or gastric cardia. Br J Surg 2015;102:341–348.10.1002/bjs.9764Suche in Google Scholar

[43] Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012;379:1887–1892.10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60516-9Suche in Google Scholar

[44] Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, et al. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg 2012;256:95–103.10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182590603Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[45] Smithers BM, Gotley DC, Martin I, Thomas JM. Comparison of the outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann Surg 2007;245:232–240.10.1097/01.sla.0000225093.58071.c6Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[46] Mariette M, Meunier B, Pezet D, et al. Hybrid minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III controlled trial, the MIRO trial. Abstract ASCO, J Clin Oncol, 2015 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, January 15–17, 2015.Suche in Google Scholar

[47] Briez N, Piessen G, Torres F, Lebuffe G, Triboulet JP, Mariette C. Effects of hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy on major postoperative pulmonary complications. Br J Surg 2012;99:1547–1553.10.1002/bjs.8931Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[48] Messager M, Pasquer A, Duhamel A, Caranhac G, Piessen G, Mariette C. FREGAT Working Group. Laparoscopic gastric mobilization reduces postoperative mortality after esophageal cancer surgery: a French nationwide study. Ann Surg 2015;262:817–822.10.1097/SLA.0000000000001470Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[49] Bonavina L, Scolari F, Aiolfi A, et al. Early outcome of thoracoscopic and hybrid esophagectomy: propensity-matched comparative analysis. Surgery 2016;159:1073–1081.10.1016/j.surg.2015.08.019Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[50] Berlth F, Hoelscher AH, Gutschow C, Schröder W, Bludau M, Bollschweiler E. Comparison of total minimal invasive 3D-esophagectomy to hybrid esophagectomy. matched-pair-analysis for early postoperative results. Abstract, German Surgical Congress 2016.Suche in Google Scholar

[51] Zehetner J, DeMeester SR, Alicuben ET, et al. Intraoperative assessment of perfusion of the gastric graft and correlation with anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy. Ann Surg 2015;262:74–78.10.1097/SLA.0000000000000811Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[52] Bludau M, Hölscher AH, Bollschweiler E, et al. Preoperative airway colonization prior to transthoracic esophagectomy predicts postoperative pulmonary complications. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2015;400:707–714.10.1007/s00423-015-1326-7Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[53] Girard E, Messager M, Sauvanet A, et al. Anastomotic leakage after gastrointestinal surgery: diagnosis and management. J Visc Surg 2014;151:441–450.10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2014.10.004Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[54] Bludau M, Hölscher AH, Herbold T, et al. Management of upper intestinal leaks using an endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure system (E-VAC). Surg Endosc 2014;28:896–901.10.1007/s00464-013-3244-5Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[55] Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I, et al. International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: esophagectomy complications consensus group (ECCG). Ann Surg 2015;262:286–294.10.1097/SLA.0000000000001098Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[56] Low D, Alderson D, Cecconello I, et al. The updated results of the beta testing of the ECCG Group. Abstract. Congress of the ISDE Singapore, 18–21.09.2016.Suche in Google Scholar

[57] Shewale JB, Correa AM, Baker CM, et al. University of Texas MD Anderson Esophageal Cancer Collaborative Group. Impact of a fast-track esophagectomy protocol on esophageal cancer patient outcomes and hospital charges. Ann Surg 2015;261:1114–1123.10.1097/SLA.0000000000000971Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[58] Ford SJ, Adams D, Dudnikov S, et al. The implementation and effectiveness of an enhanced recovery programme after oesophago-gastrectomy: a prospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2014;12:320–324.10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.01.015Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

Supplemental Material:

The article (DOI: 10.1515/iss-2016-0020) offers reviewer assessments as supplementary material.

Received: 2016-08-29

Accepted: 2016-10-18

Published Online: 2016-11-25

Published in Print: 2016-12-01

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Reviewer assessments

New approaches in esophageal carcinomas

Abstract

Introduction

Current guidelines for the treatment of esophageal cancer

cT1

cT2

cT3/resectable cT4

Individualization of treatment based on response

Individualization of treatment of Barrett’s esophagus

Oligometastasis

Extent of resection

Total MIO/hybrid/open

Intraoperative evaluation of vascularization of gastric conduit

Management of postoperative complications

Standardized documentation of complications after esophagectomy

Enhanced recovery after esophagectomy

Author Statement

Author Contributions

Publication Funding

References

Supplemental Material:

Artikel in diesem Heft

Artikel in diesem Heft

New approaches in esophageal carcinomas

Artikel

Abstract

Introduction

Current guidelines for the treatment of esophageal cancer

cT1

cT2

cT3/resectable cT4

Individualization of treatment based on response

Individualization of treatment of Barrett’s esophagus

Oligometastasis

Extent of resection

Total MIO/hybrid/open

Intraoperative evaluation of vascularization of gastric conduit

Management of postoperative complications

Standardized documentation of complications after esophagectomy

Enhanced recovery after esophagectomy

Author Statement

Author Contributions

Publication Funding

References

Supplemental Material:

Zusatzmaterial

Artikel in diesem Heft

Artikel in diesem Heft

Artikel in diesem Heft