We aim to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing R0 esophagectomy by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) with outcomes after surgery alone performed by surgeons working independently in a UK cancer unit. An historical control group of 77 consecutive patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer and undergoing surgery with curative intent by six general surgeons between 1991 and 1997 (54 R0 esophagectomies) were compared with a group of 67 consecutive patients managed by the MDT between 1998 and 2003 (53 R0 esophagectomies, 26 patients received multimodal therapy). The proportion of patients undergoing open and closed laparotomy and thoracotomy decreased from 21% and 5%, respectively, in control patients, to 13% and 0% in MDT patients (chi2 = 11.90, DF = 1, P = 0.001; chi2 = 5.45, DF = 1, P = 0.02 respectively). MDT patients had lower operative mortality (5.7%vs. 26%; chi2 = 8.22, DF = 1, P = 0.004) than control patients, and were more likely to survive 5 years (52%vs. 10%, chi2 = 15.05, P = 0.0001). In a multivariate analysis, MDT management (HR = 0.337, 95% CI = 0.201-0.564, P < 0.001), lymph node metastases (HR = 1.728, 95% CI = 1.070-2.792, P = 0.025), and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (HR = 2.207, 95% CI = 1.412-3.450, P = 0.001) were independently associated with duration of survival. Multidisciplinary team management and surgical subspecialization improved outcomes after surgery significantly for patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer.

No abstract

Introduction Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has rapidly emerged as a novel approach for rectal cancer surgery. Safety profiles are still emerging and more comparative data is urgently needed. This study aimed to compare indications and short‐term outcomes of TaTME, open, laparoscopic, and robotic TME internationally. Methods A pre‐planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak. Results Of 2579 included patients, 76.2% (1966/2579) underwent TME with restorative anastomosis of which 19.9% (312/1966) had a minimally invasive approach (laparoscopic or robotic) which included a transanal component (TaTME). Overall, 9.0% (175/1951, 15 missing outcome data) of patients suffered an anastomotic leak. On univariate analysis both laparoscopic TaTME (OR 1.61, 1.02–2.48, P = 0.04) and robotic TaTME (OR 3.05, 1.10–7.34, P = 0.02) were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leak than non‐transanal laparoscopic TME. However this association was lost in the mixed‐effects model controlling for patient and disease factors (OR 1.23, 0.77–1.97, P = 0.39 and OR 2.11, 0.79–5.62, P = 0.14 respectively), whilst low rectal anastomosis (OR 2.72, 1.55–4.77, P < 0.001) and male gender (OR 2.29, 1.52–3.44, P < 0.001) remained strongly associated. The overall positive circumferential margin resection rate was 4.0%, which varied between operative approaches: laparoscopic 3.2%, transanal 3.8%, open 4.7%, robotic 1%. Conclusion This contemporaneous international snapshot shows that uptake of the TaTME approach is widespread and is associated with surgically and pathologically acceptable results.

No abstract