Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

No abstract

Early carcinomas of the esophagus are histologically classified as adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma and microscopically subdivided into mucosal and submucosal carcinomas depending on infiltration depth. The prevalence of lymph node metastasis in mucosal carcinoma remains low. However, lymph node metastases arise frequently from tumors with submucosal infiltration, with increasing prevalence in the deeper submucosal sublayers. According to current German guidelines, endoscopic resection is the recommended treatment in mucosal adenocarcinoma without histologic risk factors (lymphatic invasion 1, vascular invasion 1, >grade 2, R1-margin). In superficial submucosal infiltration without histologic risk factors, endoscopic resection can be considered. In squamous cell carcinoma, endoscopic resection is indicated up to middle layer mucosal carcinoma. Beyond these criteria, surgical resection should be considered. The gold standard is a subtotal transthoracic esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy. Total esophagectomy is performed in cervical esophageal carcinoma and transhiatal extended gastrectomy in carcinoma of the cardia. Minimally invasive procedures show good oncologic results and reduce the morbidity of radical esophagectomy. Reduced morbidity might be an argument for surgical resection in borderline cases between endoscopic and surgical resection. In early squamous cell cancer, the combination of endoscopic resection and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is a therapeutic option with promising results.

Management of gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma is a controversial topic. The rising incidence of this cancer requires a clear consensus to ensure proper management. Application of oncological principles for tumors of the esophagus or stomach is not possible because of comparative differences in the biology of GEJ adenocarcinoma, leading to different therapeutic options. Staging work-up with endoscopy, endosonography, and PET is essential to inform the choice of neoadjuvant treatment and surgical approach to GEJ adenocarcinoma. Surgery remains the only curative treatment and should be undertaken in specialized centers.

Esophagectomy, even with the progress in surgical technique and perioperative management, is a highly specialized surgery, associated with a high rate of complications. Early recognition and adequate treatment should be a standard of care for the most common postoperative complications: anastomotic leakage, pneumonia, atrial fibrillation, chylothorax, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Recent progress in endoscopy with vacuum and stent placement, or in radiology with embolization, has changed the management of these complications. The success of nonoperative treatments should be frequently reassessed and reoperation must be proposed in case of failure. We have summarized the clinical signs, diagnostic process, and management of the frequent complications after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.