IntroductionCachexia and obesity have been suggested to be risk factors for postoperative complications. However, high body mass index (BMI) might result in a higher R0-resection rate because of the presence of more fatty tissue surrounding the tumor. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether BMI is of prognostic value with regard to short-term and long-term outcome in patients who undergo esophagectomy for cancer.MethodsIn 556 patients who underwent esophagectomy (1991–2007), clinical and pathological outcome were compared between different BMI classes (underweight, normal weight, overweight, obesity).ResultsOverall morbidity, mortality, and reoperation rate did not differ in underweight and obese patients. However, severe complications seemed to occur more often in obese patients (p = 0.06), and the risk for anastomotic leakage increased with higher BMI (12.5% in underweight patients compared with 27.6% in obese patients, p = 0.04). Histopathological assessment showed comparable pTNM stages, although an advanced pT stage was seen more often in patients with low/normal BMI (p = 0.02). A linear association between BMI and R0-resection rate was detected (p = 0.02): 60% in underweight patients compared with 81% in obese patients. However, unlike pT-stage (p < 0.001), BMI was not an independent predictor for R0 resection (p = 0.12). There was no significant difference in overall or disease-free 5-year survival between the BMI classes (p = 0.25 and p = 0.6, respectively).ConclusionsBMI is not of prognostic value with regard to short-term and long-term outcome in patients who undergo esophagectomy for cancer and is not an independent predictor for radical R0 resection. Patients oncologically eligible for esophagectomy should not be denied surgery on the basis of their BMI class.

Radiation combined with chemotherapy (neo-CRT) is increasingly the standard of care for the treatment of esophageal cancer, either as neoadjuvant therapy in multimodal protocols or as primary therapy. Unfortunately, ~60% of patients demonstrate little or no response to neo-CRT. Accordingly, understanding the molecular mechanisms of resistance to therapy may underpin significant advances through the identification of nonresponders either before or early in treatment. We previously identified the RNPC1 gene, which is important in stabilizing p21, as being upregulated in the tumors of esophageal cancer patients who had a poor response to neo-CRT. We hypothesize that RNPC1 contributes to resistance to radiation therapy through a p21-mediated cell cycle accumulation/arrest mechanism. Analysis revealed that p53 and RNPC1 expression were highest in the JH-EsoAd1 cell line and lowest in OE19 cells. This was associated with accumulation of cells in G₀/G₁. p21 expression, which was highest in OE19 cells and lowest in OE33 cells, was associated with relative intrinsic sensitivity to radiation. OE33 cells were transfected with a plasmid (pCMV6-AC-GFP) encoding a C-terminal GFP-tagged RNPC1, and overexpression was confirmed by qPCR and fluorescence microscopy. Overexpression of RNPC1-GFP resulted in significantly increased levels of the p21 transcript and protein through a direct physical interaction between the RNPC1 protein and the p21 transcript. Furthermore, RNPC1 overexpression led to significant G₀/G₁ cell cycle accumulation and significantly enhanced cellular resistance to radiation. We conclude that RNPC1 contributes to tumor resistance to radiotherapy, which likely occurs through a p21-mediated G₀/G₁ accumulation mechanism. Therefore, RNPC1 may represent a potential therapeutic target for enhancing tumor sensitivity to radiation.

IntroductionMany authors have reported on a myopic post-operative refractive prediction error when combining phacoemulsification with pars plana vitrectomy (phacovitrectomy). In this study we evaluate the amount of this error in our facility and try to elucidate the various factors involved.MethodsThis was a retrospective study which included 140 patients who underwent phacovitrectomy (39 with macular holes, 88 with puckers, and 13 with floaters). Post-operative refractive error was defined as the difference between the actual spherical equivalent (SEQ) and expected SEQ based on the SRK/T and Holladay-II formulas. Both univariate (paired t test, independent t test, one-way analysis of variance, or Mann–Whitney test) and multivariate (regression analysis) statistical analyses were performed.ResultsOverall, a refractive error of − 0.13 dpt (p = 0.033) and − 0.26 dpt (p < 0.01) were found in the SRK/T and Holladay-II formulas, respectively. For the independent diagnoses, only macular holes showed a myopic error with the SRK/T (− 0.31 dpt; p < 0.01) and Holladay-II (− 0.44 dpt; p < 0.01) formulas. In univariate analysis, significant factors involved in myopic refractive error were macular hole as diagnosis (p < 0.01 for SRK/T and Holladay-II), gas tamponade (SRK/T p = 0.024; Holladay-II p = 0.025), pre-operative myopia (p < 0.01 for SRK/T), and optical technique for axial length measurement (SRK/T and Holladay-II p < 0.01). In the multivariate analysis, pre-operative axial length (p = 0.026), optical technique for axial length measurement (p < 0.01), and pre-operative SEQ (p < 0.01) were independent predictors for myopic refractive error in the SRK/T formula. For the Holladay-II formula, optical technique for axial length measurement (p < 0.01) and pre-operative SEQ (p = 0.04) were predictive.ConclusionVarious factors are involved in determining the myopic refractive error after phacovitrectomy. Not every factor seems to be as important in each individual patient, suggesting a more tailored approach is warranted to overcome this problem.