Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides equivalent oncologic outcomes to open esophagectomy for locally advanced (stage II or III) esophageal carcinoma

Rajneesh K. Singh, Thai H. Pham, Brian S. Diggs, Serene Perkins, John Hunter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been performed at specialized centers for 15 years, but few studies have looked at outcomes in patients with locally advanced cancers, and few studies have provided longterm survival comparison with Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (ILE) to determine oncologic benefit or equivalence of MIE. Hypothesis: Minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma has similar oncologic outcomes to traditional open ILE with less associated short-term morbidity and mortality. Design: Retrospective comparison of patients with stage II or III esophageal carcinoma undergoing 3-field MIE compared with open ILE. Setting: University medical center. Patients: From 1995 to 2009, 64 patients who underwent MIE (33 patients) or ILE (31 patients) with clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer were compared. Main Outcome Measures: Primary end points included operative performance, morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and survival. Results: No differences were noted between the groups in demographics, neoadjuvant therapy use (P=.22), resection completeness (R0:R1) (P=.57), length of stay (P=.59), intensive care unit stay (P=.36), anastomotic leak (P=1.0), pulmonary morbidity (P=.26), and mortality (P=1.0). Median follow-up was 19 months for MIE and 17 months for ILE. Survival at 2 years was 55% for MIE (18 of 33 patients) and 32% for ILE (10 of 31 patients) while diseasefree survival was 55% for MIE (18) and 26% for ILE (8). Conclusions: Our survival analysis shows divergent curves that favor MIE but have not yet reached statistical significance. The oncologic outcomes of MIE are comparable to that of ILE 2 years after resection.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)711-714
Number of pages4
JournalArchives of Surgery
Volume146
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2011

Fingerprint

Esophagectomy
Carcinoma
Survival
Morbidity
Mortality
Length of Stay
Anastomotic Leak
Neoadjuvant Therapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides equivalent oncologic outcomes to open esophagectomy for locally advanced (stage II or III) esophageal carcinoma. / Singh, Rajneesh K.; Pham, Thai H.; Diggs, Brian S.; Perkins, Serene; Hunter, John.

In: Archives of Surgery, Vol. 146, No. 6, 06.2011, p. 711-714.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c7e1e395a39c4d84b2deb88cbfd58361,
title = "Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides equivalent oncologic outcomes to open esophagectomy for locally advanced (stage II or III) esophageal carcinoma",
abstract = "Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been performed at specialized centers for 15 years, but few studies have looked at outcomes in patients with locally advanced cancers, and few studies have provided longterm survival comparison with Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (ILE) to determine oncologic benefit or equivalence of MIE. Hypothesis: Minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma has similar oncologic outcomes to traditional open ILE with less associated short-term morbidity and mortality. Design: Retrospective comparison of patients with stage II or III esophageal carcinoma undergoing 3-field MIE compared with open ILE. Setting: University medical center. Patients: From 1995 to 2009, 64 patients who underwent MIE (33 patients) or ILE (31 patients) with clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer were compared. Main Outcome Measures: Primary end points included operative performance, morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and survival. Results: No differences were noted between the groups in demographics, neoadjuvant therapy use (P=.22), resection completeness (R0:R1) (P=.57), length of stay (P=.59), intensive care unit stay (P=.36), anastomotic leak (P=1.0), pulmonary morbidity (P=.26), and mortality (P=1.0). Median follow-up was 19 months for MIE and 17 months for ILE. Survival at 2 years was 55{\%} for MIE (18 of 33 patients) and 32{\%} for ILE (10 of 31 patients) while diseasefree survival was 55{\%} for MIE (18) and 26{\%} for ILE (8). Conclusions: Our survival analysis shows divergent curves that favor MIE but have not yet reached statistical significance. The oncologic outcomes of MIE are comparable to that of ILE 2 years after resection.",
author = "Singh, {Rajneesh K.} and Pham, {Thai H.} and Diggs, {Brian S.} and Serene Perkins and John Hunter",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1001/archsurg.2011.146",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "146",
pages = "711--714",
journal = "JAMA Surgery",
issn = "2168-6254",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides equivalent oncologic outcomes to open esophagectomy for locally advanced (stage II or III) esophageal carcinoma

AU - Singh, Rajneesh K.

AU - Pham, Thai H.

AU - Diggs, Brian S.

AU - Perkins, Serene

AU - Hunter, John

PY - 2011/6

Y1 - 2011/6

N2 - Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been performed at specialized centers for 15 years, but few studies have looked at outcomes in patients with locally advanced cancers, and few studies have provided longterm survival comparison with Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (ILE) to determine oncologic benefit or equivalence of MIE. Hypothesis: Minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma has similar oncologic outcomes to traditional open ILE with less associated short-term morbidity and mortality. Design: Retrospective comparison of patients with stage II or III esophageal carcinoma undergoing 3-field MIE compared with open ILE. Setting: University medical center. Patients: From 1995 to 2009, 64 patients who underwent MIE (33 patients) or ILE (31 patients) with clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer were compared. Main Outcome Measures: Primary end points included operative performance, morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and survival. Results: No differences were noted between the groups in demographics, neoadjuvant therapy use (P=.22), resection completeness (R0:R1) (P=.57), length of stay (P=.59), intensive care unit stay (P=.36), anastomotic leak (P=1.0), pulmonary morbidity (P=.26), and mortality (P=1.0). Median follow-up was 19 months for MIE and 17 months for ILE. Survival at 2 years was 55% for MIE (18 of 33 patients) and 32% for ILE (10 of 31 patients) while diseasefree survival was 55% for MIE (18) and 26% for ILE (8). Conclusions: Our survival analysis shows divergent curves that favor MIE but have not yet reached statistical significance. The oncologic outcomes of MIE are comparable to that of ILE 2 years after resection.

AB - Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been performed at specialized centers for 15 years, but few studies have looked at outcomes in patients with locally advanced cancers, and few studies have provided longterm survival comparison with Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (ILE) to determine oncologic benefit or equivalence of MIE. Hypothesis: Minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma has similar oncologic outcomes to traditional open ILE with less associated short-term morbidity and mortality. Design: Retrospective comparison of patients with stage II or III esophageal carcinoma undergoing 3-field MIE compared with open ILE. Setting: University medical center. Patients: From 1995 to 2009, 64 patients who underwent MIE (33 patients) or ILE (31 patients) with clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer were compared. Main Outcome Measures: Primary end points included operative performance, morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and survival. Results: No differences were noted between the groups in demographics, neoadjuvant therapy use (P=.22), resection completeness (R0:R1) (P=.57), length of stay (P=.59), intensive care unit stay (P=.36), anastomotic leak (P=1.0), pulmonary morbidity (P=.26), and mortality (P=1.0). Median follow-up was 19 months for MIE and 17 months for ILE. Survival at 2 years was 55% for MIE (18 of 33 patients) and 32% for ILE (10 of 31 patients) while diseasefree survival was 55% for MIE (18) and 26% for ILE (8). Conclusions: Our survival analysis shows divergent curves that favor MIE but have not yet reached statistical significance. The oncologic outcomes of MIE are comparable to that of ILE 2 years after resection.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79959345607&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79959345607&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archsurg.2011.146

DO - 10.1001/archsurg.2011.146

M3 - Article

C2 - 21690448

AN - SCOPUS:79959345607

VL - 146

SP - 711

EP - 714

JO - JAMA Surgery

JF - JAMA Surgery

SN - 2168-6254

IS - 6

ER -