Nicolas Briez

The number of metastatic lymph nodes and the ratio between metastatic and examined lymph nodes are independent prognostic factors in esophageal cancer regardless of neoadjuvant chemoradiation or lymphadenectomy extent.

Objective:To investigate whether the number of lymph nodes metastasis (LNMs) and the ratio between metastatic and examined lymph nodes (LNs) are better prognostic factors when compared with traditional staging systems in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Summary Background Data:The accuracy of the 6th UICC/TNM classification is suboptimal, especially when not taking into account neoadjuvant therapy and lymphadenectomy extent. Methods:For 536 patients who underwent curative en bloc esophagectomy, in whom 51.5% (n = 276) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation, LNMs were classified according to the 6th UICC/TNM classification and systems based on the number (≤4 and >4) or the ratio (≤0.2 and >0.2) of LNMs. Survival of the respective stages, predictors of survival, and influence of both chemoradiation and number of examined LNs were studied. Results:After a median follow-up of 50 months, the 5-year survival rates were 47% for the entire population, significantly poorer for patients with >4 LNMs (8% vs. 53%, P < 0.001) or a ratio of LNMs >0.2 (22% vs. 54%, P < 0.001). After adjustment for confounding variables, a number of LNMs >4 and a ratio of LNMs >0.2 were the only predictors of poor prognosis. The prognostic role of both the number and the ratio of LNMs was maintained whether patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation or not. Moreover, LN ratio is shown to be more accurate for inadequately staged patients (<15 examined LNs), whereas the number of LNMs is pertinent for adequately staged patients (≥15 examined LNs). Conclusion:Staging systems for esophageal cancer that use the number (≤4 or >4) and the ratio (≤0.2 or >0.2) of LNMs have greater prognostic importance than the current staging systems because of the good stratification of the groups and their clinical utility, taking into account neoadjuvant therapy and lymphadenectomy extent.

Oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: which therapeutic approach?

Gastric and oesophageal cancers are among the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide. By contrast with the decreasing prevalence of gastric cancer, incidence and prevalence of oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (OGJA) are rising rapidly in developed countries. We provide an update about treatment strategies for resectable OGJA. Here we review findings from the latest randomised trials and meta-analyses, and propose guidelines regarding endoscopic, surgical, and perioperative treatments. Through a team approach, members from all diagnostic and therapeutic disciplines, such as gastroenterologists, surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, and radiotherapists, can effectively administer a range of treatment modalities.

Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial - the MIRO trial

BackgroundOpen transthoracic oesophagectomy is the standard treatment for infracarinal resectable oesophageal carcinomas, although it is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates of 2 to 10% and 30 to 50%, respectively, for both the abdominal and thoracic approaches. The worldwide popularity of laparoscopic techniques is based on promising results, including lower postoperative morbidity rates, which are related to the reduced postoperative trauma. We hypothesise that the laparoscopic abdominal approach (laparoscopic gastric mobilisation) in oesophageal cancer surgery will decrease the major postoperative complication rate due to the reduced surgical trauma.Methods/DesignThe MIRO trial is an open, controlled, prospective, randomised multicentre phase III trial. Patients in study arm A will receive laparoscopic-assisted oesophagectomy, i.e., a transthoracic oesophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy and laparoscopic gastric mobilisation. Patients in study arm B will receive the same procedure, but with the conventional open abdominal approach. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the major postoperative 30-day morbidity. Secondary objectives are to assess the overall 30-day morbidity, 30-day mortality, 30-day pulmonary morbidity, disease-free survival, overall survival as well as quality of life and to perform medico-economic analysis. A total of 200 patients will be enrolled, and two safety analyses will be performed using 25 and 50 patients included in arm A.DiscussionPostoperative morbidity remains high after oesophageal cancer surgery, especially due to major pulmonary complications, which are responsible for 50% of the postoperative deaths. This study represents the first randomised controlled phase III trial to evaluate the benefits of the minimally invasive approach with respect to the postoperative course and oncological outcomes in oesophageal cancer surgery.Trial RegistrationNCT00937456 (ClinicalTrials.gov)

Effects of hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy on major postoperative pulmonary complications

Morbidity after oesophageal cancer surgery remains high, mainly due to major postoperative pulmonary complications (MPPCs). The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy (HMIO) decreases the 30‐day MPPC rate without compromising oncological outcomes.

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.

Objective:To compare the outcomes of a strategy of surveillance versus surgical resection in patients with esophageal cancer (EC) experiencing complete clinical response (cCR) after chemoradiation (CRT). Background:In EC, it remains unclear whether a strategy of surveillance or esophagectomy is appropriate after cCR to CRT. Methods:From 1995 to 2009, 222 operable patients had a cCR based on the results of a computed tomographic scan, endoscopy with biopsies and, when performed, a positron emission tomographic scan. Through an intention-to-treat case-control study, 59 patients treated with CRT and surveillance (group Surv) were matched 1:2 with 118 patients treated by CRT followed by surgery (group Surg), according to age, gender, tumor location and stage, histology, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and nutritional status. Results:The 2 groups were comparable according to the matched variables (P > 0.276). In group Surg, the postoperative mortality rate was 4.2% with evidence of residual tumor in 34.6% of specimens. In group Surv, 2 salvage esophagectomies were performed. Despite the higher dose of radiotherapy received in group Surv (50 vs 45 Gys, P = 0.003), median survival was lower (31 vs 83 months, P = 0.001), with disease recurrence that was more frequent (50.8% vs 32.7%, P = 0.021), occurred earlier (7.8 vs 19.0 months, P = 0.002) and more often locoregional (46.7% vs 16.2%, P = 0.007) in nature. Surgical resection was independently associated with less recurrence [odds ratio = 0.4, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.2–0.8, P = 0.006] and better survival (hazard ratio = 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3–0.8, P = 0.006). Conclusions:Survival of EC patients with a cCR after CRT is better after surgery compared to simply surveillance. In patients of low operative risk and operable disease, surgery should be considered to improve control of locoregional disease and to overcome the inherent limitations of clinical response assessment.

Use of biological mesh versus standard wound care in infected incisional ventral hernias, the SIMBIOSE study: a study protocol for a randomized multicenter controlled trial

BackgroundIn infected incisional ventral hernias (IVHs), the use of a synthetic non-absorbable mesh is not recommended and biological meshes hold promise. However, the level of evidence for their safety and efficacy remains low.MethodsThe SIMBIOSE trial is a multicenter, phase III, randomized, controlled trial comparing the use of a biological mesh versus traditional wound care in patients with an IVH. The primary end point is 6-month infectious and/or wound morbidity. Secondary end points are wound infection and recurrent hernia rates, post-operative pain, quality of life, time to heal, reoperation need, impact of the cross-linked mesh structure, and a medico-economic evaluation. One hundred patients need to be included.ResultsThe main results expected with biological mesh use are a significant decrease of post-operative morbidity, hernia recurrence, time to heal, and costs with an improved quality of life.ConclusionsFor the first time, the impact of biological meshes in the treatment of IVHs will be evaluated in an academic, randomized, phase III trial to provide scientific evidence (NCT01594450).Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov,NCT01594450