723 Two- Vs. Three-Field Lymphadenectomy for Esophageal Cancer. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Short- And Long-Term Outcomes.

Abstract

Nowadays, there is still no consensus about the benefits of adding neck lymphadenectomy to the traditional two-fields esophagectomy. An extended lymphadenectomy could potentially increase operation time and the risks for postoperative complications. However, extended lymphadenectomy allows resection of cervical nodes at risk for metastases, potentially increasing long-term survival rates. This study aims to estimate whether cervical prophylactic lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer influences short- and long-term outcomes through a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Methods A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Central, and Lilacs (BVS). The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies that compare two-field vs. three-field esophagectomy; (2) adults (>18 years); (3) articles that analyze short- or long-term outcomes; and (4) clinical trials or cohort studies. The results were summarized by forest plots, with effect size (ES) or risk difference (RD) and 95% CI. Results Twenty-five articles were selected, comprising 8,954 patients. Three-field lymphadenectomy was associated to higher operation time (ES: -1.51; 95%CI -1.84, −1.18) and higher blood loss (ES: -0.24; 95%CI: −0.37, −0.11). Also, neck lymphadenectomy inputs additional risk for pulmonary complications (RD: 0.03; 95%CI: 0.01, 0.05). No difference was noted for morbidity (RD: 0.01; 95%CI: −0.01, 0.03); leak (−0.02; 95%CI: −0.07, 0.03); postoperative mortality (RD: 0.00; 95%CI: −0.00, 0.01), and hospital stay (ES: -0.05; 95%CI -0.20, 0.10). Three-field lymphadenectomy allowed higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD: -1.51; 95%CI -1.84, −1.18), but did not increase the overall survival (HR: 1.11; 95%CI: 0.96, 1.26). Conclusion Prophylactic neck lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer should be performed with caution once it is associated with poorer short-term outcomes compared to traditional two-field lymphadenectomy and does not improve long-term survival. Future esophageal cancer studies should determine the subgroup of patients who could benefit from prophylactic neck lymphadenectomy in long-term outcomes.