Paul H. Schipper

Optimum lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer.

Objective:Using Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration data, we sought to (1) characterize the relationship between survival and extent of lymphadenectomy, and (2) from this, define optimum lymphadenectomy. Summary Background Data:What constitutes optimum lymphadenectomy to maximize survival is controversial because of variable goals, analytic methodology, and generalizability of the underpinning data. Methods:A total of 4627 patients who had esophagectomy alone for esophageal cancer were identified from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration database. Patient-specific risk-adjusted survival was estimated using random survival forests. Risk-adjusted 5-year survival was averaged for each number of lymph nodes resected and its relation to cancer characteristics explored. Optimum number of nodes that should be resected to maximize 5-year survival was determined by random forest multivariable regression. Results:For pN0M0 moderately and poorly differentiated cancers, and all node-positive (pN+) cancers, 5-year survival improved with increasing extent of lymphadenectomy. In pN0M0 cancers, no optimum lymphadenectomy was defined for pTis; optimum lymphadenectomy was 10 to 12 nodes for pT1, 15 to 22 for pT2, and 31 to 42 for pT3/T4, depending on histopathologic cell type. In pN+M0 cancers and 1 to 6 nodes positive, optimum lymphadenectomy was 10 for pT1, 15 for pT2, and 29 to 50 for pT3/T4. Conclusions:Greater extent of lymphadenectomy was associated with increased survival for all patients with esophageal cancer except at the extremes (TisN0M0 and ≥7 regional lymph nodes positive for cancer) and well-differentiated pN0M0 cancer. Maximum 5-year survival is modulated by T classification: resecting 10 nodes for pT1, 20 for pT2, and ≥30 for pT3/T4 is recommended.

Surveyed Opinion of American Trauma, Orthopedic, and Thoracic Surgeons On Rib and Sternal Fracture Repair

INTRODUCTION Rib and sternal fracture repair are controversial. The opinion of surgeons regarding those patients who would benefit from repair is unknown. METHODS Members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, the Orthopedic Trauma Association, and thoracic surgeons (THS) affiliated with teaching hospitals in the United States were recruited to complete an electronic survey regarding rib and sternal fracture repair. RESULTS Two hundred thirty-eight trauma surgeons (TRS), 97 orthopedic trauma surgeons (OTS), and 70 THS completed the survey. Eighty-two percent of TRS, 66% of OTS, and 71% of THS thought that rib fracture repair was indicated in selected patients. A greater proportion of surgeons thought that sternal fracture repair was indicated in selected patients (89% of TRS, 85% of OTS, and 95% of THS). Chest wall defect/pulmonary hernia (58%) and sternal fracture nonunion (>6 weeks) (68%) were the only two indications accepted by a majority of respondents. Twenty-six percent of surgeons reported that they had performed or assisted on a chest wall fracture repair, whereas 22% of surgeons were familiar with published randomized trials of the surgical repair of flail chest. Of surgeons who thought rib fracture or sternal fracture repair was rarely, if ever, indicated, 91% and 95%, respectively, specified that a randomized trial confirming efficacy would be necessary to change their negative opinion. CONCLUSIONS A majority of surveyed surgeons reported that rib and sternal fracture repair is indicated in selected patients; however, a much smaller proportion indicated that they had performed the procedures. The published literature on surgical repair is sparse and unfamiliar to most surgeons. Barriers to surgical repair of rib and sternal fracture include a lack of expertise among TRS, lack of research of optimal techniques, and a dearth of randomized trials.

Office-Based Unsedated Small-Caliber Endoscopy Is Equivalent to Conventional Sedated Endoscopy in Screening and Surveillance for Barrett's Esophagus: A Randomized and Blinded Comparison

OBJECTIVES:A major limitation to screening and surveillance of Barretts esophagus is the complexity, expense, and risk associated with sedation for upper endoscopy. This study examines the feasibility, accuracy, and patient acceptability of office-based unsedated endoscopy as an alternative.METHODS:Of 274 eligible adults scheduled for endoscopic screening for gastroesophageal reflux symptoms or surveillance of Barretts esophagus at a tertiary care center, 121 underwent unsedated small-caliber endoscopy and conventional endoscopy in a randomized crossover study. The two procedures were compared with regard to histological detection of Barretts esophagus and dysplasia and biopsy size. Patients answered questionnaires assessing the tolerability of the procedures.RESULTS:The prevalence of Barretts esophagus was 26% using conventional endoscopy and 30% using unsedated endoscopy (P = 0.503). The level of agreement between the two approaches was “moderate” (κ = 0.591). Each modality detected four cases of low-grade dysplasia with concordance on one case. The tissue samples collected with unsedated endoscopy were smaller than with conventional endoscopy (P < 0.001). The majority of subjects rated their experience with both procedures as being well tolerated with minimal or no difficulty. When asked which procedure they would prefer in the future, 71% (81/114) chose unsedated small-caliber endoscopy.CONCLUSIONS:Office-based unsedated small-caliber endoscopy is technically feasible, well tolerated, and accurate in screening for Barretts esophagus, despite yielding a smaller biopsy specimen. This approach bears the potential to eliminate the infrastructure and cost required for intravenous sedation in this application.

The Influence of Surgeon Specialty on Outcomes in General Thoracic Surgery: A National Sample 1996 to 2005

BACKGROUND While general thoracic surgical procedures are performed by several different surgical subspecialties, debate remains as to whether surgeon specialty impacts outcomes. METHODS The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried for procedure codes for pneumonectomy, lobectomy, limited lung resection, and decortication. We constructed multivariate logistic regression models to calculate odds of hospital mortality or length-of-stay (LOS) greater than 14 days (a marker of morbidity), adjusted for age, sex, patient comorbidities, hospital setting, and surgeon specialty. A surgeon was considered general thoracic if they performed greater than 75% general thoracic operations and less than 10% cardiac operations, Cardiac if greater than 10% cardiac operations, and general surgeon if less than 75% general thoracic and less than 10% cardiac operations. A second set of models additionally adjusted for procedure-specific hospital and surgeon volume. RESULTS From 1996 to 2005, the NIS estimates 41,808 pneumonectomies, 321,767 lobectomies, 75,200 limited lung resections, and 149,318 decortications were performed in the United States. For all procedures studied, general thoracic surgeons had significantly decreased odds-of-death and LOS greater than 14 days compared with general surgeons. Cardiac surgeons had significantly decreased LOS greater than 14 days for all operations and decreased odds-of-death for decortications, lobectomy, and limited lung resection compared with general surgeons. When further adjusted for surgeon volume, most differences in odds-of-death were no longer present; however, significantly decreased LOS greater than 14 days largely persisted for both general thoracic and cardiac surgeons. CONCLUSIONS The majority of general thoracic surgical operations in the United States are performed by surgeons not specializing in thoracic surgery. Both general thoracic surgeons and cardiac surgeons achieve better outcomes than general surgeons. Differences in mortality may be more dependent on surgeon volume than subspecialty. Differences in morbidity are significantly impacted by surgeon specialty and volume.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes after combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and open Ivor–Lewis esophagectomy

BACKGROUND Thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) has gained popularity in specialized centers. This study compares the perioperative outcomes of TLE and Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (ILE). METHODS Forty-four consecutive TLEs were compared with 46 historical ILEs. Outcomes included surgical time and blood loss, hospital length of stay, 30-day mortality rate, and complications. RESULTS TLE took longer to perform (543 vs 437 min; P < .01) than ILE, but produced less blood loss (407 vs 780 mL; P < .01). The median length of stay and 30-day mortality did not differ between groups. Cardiovascular (41% for TLE vs 30% for ILE; P = .19) and pulmonary complications (31% TLE vs 30% ILE; P = 1.0) occurred frequently in both groups, but TLE patients had fewer wound complications (4% TLE vs 17% ILE; P = .05). CONCLUSIONS Despite longer surgical times, TLE produced decreased intraoperative blood loss and wound complications. These findings suggest that with further technical refinement TLE may ameliorate the morbidity seen with ILE.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Comparison of Early Surgical Outcomes From The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database

BACKGROUND Open esophagectomy results in significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has become increasingly popular at specialized centers with the aim of improving perioperative outcomes. Numerous single-institution studies suggest MIE may offer lower short-term morbidity. The two approaches are compared using a large, multiinstitutional database. METHODS The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) National Database (v2.081) was queried for all resections performed for esophageal cancer between 2008 and 2011 (n = 3,780). Minimally invasive approaches included both transhiatal (n = 214) and Ivor Lewis (n = 600), and these were compared directly with open transhiatal (n = 1,065) and Ivor Lewis (n = 1,291) procedures, respectively. Thirty-day outcomes were examined using nonparametric statistical testing. RESULTS Both open and MIE groups were similar in terms of preoperative risk factors. Morbidity and all-cause mortality were equivalent at 62.2% and 3.8%. MIE was associated with longer median procedure times (443.0 versus 312.0 minutes; p < 0.001), but a shorter median length of hospital stay (9.0 versus 10.0 days; p < 0.001). Patients who underwent MIE had higher rates of reoperation (9.9% versus 4.4%; p < 0.001) and empyema (4.1% versus 1.8%; p < 0.001). Open technique led to an increased rate of wound infections (6.3% versus 2.3%; p < 0.001), postoperative transfusion (18.7% versus 14.1%; p = 0.002), and ileus (4.5% versus 2.2%; p = 0.002). Propensity score-matched analysis confirmed these findings. High- and low-volume centers had similar outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Early results from the STS National Database indicate that MIE is safe, with comparable rates of morbidity and mortality as open technique. Longer procedure times and a higher rate of reoperation following MIE may reflect a learning curve.

Comparison of pulmonary nodule detection rates between preoperative CT imaging and intraoperative lung palpation

BACKGROUND Recent advances in computed tomographic (CT) imaging have improved the detection rate of pulmonary metastasis. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the pulmonary nodule detection rate for preoperative CT imaging and intraoperative palpation are now equivalent. METHODS A retrospective review of 108 pulmonary metastasectomies in 84 patients was performed. The number of nodules detected on preoperative CT imaging by radiologist report was compared with the number of malignant nodules identified on pathology. Secondary outcome measures were operative approach and primary malignancy. RESULTS Sarcoma metastases were the most common indication for resection (n = 54 [50%]). Thirty-three percent of metastasectomies were performed using a thoracoscopic approach. When thoracotomy was used, significantly more nodules were palpated and resected than were identified on preoperative CT imaging (3.24 vs 2.12, P < .001). Significantly more of these nodules were confirmed malignant on final pathology (2.40 vs 1.60, P = .01). This difference was not seen for thoracoscopic resections. CONCLUSIONS Although the sensitivity of CT imaging has improved, a significant number of malignant pulmonary nodules are detected intraoperatively that are not identified on preoperative imaging. Patients undergoing pulmonary metastasectomy require careful intraoperative palpation of lung parenchyma, and therefore open thoracotomy remains the standard of care.

Intraoperative Oncologic Staging and Outcomes for Lung Cancer Resection Vary by Surgeon Specialty

BACKGROUND In the United States the majority of lung cancer resections are performed by general surgeons, although surgeons specializing in thoracic surgery have demonstrated superior perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes. Why these differences exist has not been well studied. We hypothesized that the completeness of intraoperative oncologic staging may explain some of these differences. METHODS The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was used to review 222,233 patients with primary lung cancer treated surgically with wedge resection, segmentectomy, lobectomy, or pneumonectomy from 1998 to 2007. Surgeons were classified as general thoracic surgeons if they performed greater than 75% general thoracic operations and less than 10% cardiac operations; they were classified as cardiac surgeons if they performed greater than 10% cardiac operations; they were classified as general surgeons if they performed less than 75% thoracic operations and less than 10% cardiac operations. The main outcome measure was the performance of lymphadenectomy or mediastinoscopy during the same admission as the cancer resection. RESULTS The overall lymphadenectomy rate was 56% (n = 125,115) and was highest for general thoracic surgeons at 73% (n = 13,313), followed by 55% (n = 65,453) for general surgeons, and 54% (n = 46,349) for cardiac surgeons (p < 0.0001). General surgeons had a significantly higher risk for in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; confidence interval [CI], 1.14 to 1.90; p = 0.003) and postoperative complications (OR, 1.17; CI, 1.00 to 1.36; p = 0.043) compared with general thoracic surgeons. CONCLUSIONS Surgeon specialty impacts the adequacy of oncologic staging in patients undergoing resection for primary lung cancer. Specifically, general thoracic surgeons performed intraoperative oncologic staging significantly more often than did their general surgeon and cardiac surgeon counterparts while achieving significantly lower in-hospital mortality and complication rates.

Worldwide esophageal cancer collaboration: clinical staging data

To address uncertainty of whether clinical stage groupings (cTNM) for esophageal cancer share prognostic implications with pathologic groupings after esophagectomy alone (pTNM), we report data-simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non-risk-adjusted survival-for clinically staged patients from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted data using variables with standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 22,123 clinically staged patients, 8,156 had squamous cell carcinoma, 13,814 adenocarcinoma, 116 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 37 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (62 years) men (80%) with normal body mass index (18.5-25 mg/kg2 , 47%), little weight loss (2.4 ± 7.8 kg), 0-1 ECOG performance status (67%), and history of smoking (67%). Cancers were cT1 (12%), cT2 (22%), cT3 (56%), cN0 (44%), cM0 (95%), and cG2-G3 (89%); most involved the distal esophagus (73%). Non-risk-adjusted survival for squamous cell carcinoma was not distinctive for early cT or cN; for adenocarcinoma, it was distinctive for early versus advanced cT and for cN0 versus cN+. Patients with early cancers had worse survival and those with advanced cancers better survival than expected from equivalent pathologic categories based on prior WECC pathologic data. Thus, clinical and pathologic categories do not share prognostic implications. This makes clinically based treatment decisions difficult and pre-treatment prognostication inaccurate. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient characteristics, cancer categories, and treatment characteristics and should direct 9th edition data collection.

Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: pathologic staging data

We report data-simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non-risk-adjusted survival-for patients with pathologically staged cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction after resection or ablation with no preoperative therapy from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted de-identified data using standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 13,300 patients, 5,631 had squamous cell carcinoma, 7,558 adenocarcinoma, 85 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 26 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (62 years) men (80%) with normal body mass index (51%), little weight loss (1.8 kg), 0-2 ECOG performance status (83%), and a history of smoking (70%). Cancers were pT1 (24%), pT2 (15%), pT3 (50%), pN0 (52%), pM0 (93%), and pG2-G3 (78%); most involved distal esophagus (71%). Non-risk-adjusted survival for both squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma was monotonic and distinctive across pTNM. Survival was more distinctive for adenocarcinoma than squamous cell carcinoma when pT was ordered by pN. Survival for pTis-1 adenocarcinoma was better than for squamous cell carcinoma, although monotonic and distinctive for both. WECC pathologic staging data is improved over that of the 7th edition, with more patients studied and patient and cancer variables collected. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient, cancer, and treatment characteristics, and should direct 9th edition data collection. However, the role of pure pathologic staging as the principal point of reference for esophageal cancer staging is waning.