Factors Influencing the Long‐Term Survival in Patients with Esophageal Cancer Who Underwent Esophagectomy After Chemoradiotherapy

Takeuchi, Hiroya; Saikawa, Yoshirou; Oyama, Takashi; Ozawa, Soji; Suda, Koichi; Wada, Norihito; Takahashi, Tsunehiro; Nakamura, Rieko; Shigematsu, Naoyuki; Ando, Nobutoshi; Kitajima, Masaki; Kitagawa, Yuko

doi:10.1007/s00268-009-0331-9

Cited by 91 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Eleven studies were identified in the initial literature search to meet inclusion criteria ( Figure 1) (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23). After screening, one further publication (23), was excluded as this institution published their outcomes in a follow-up publication, which was included in the analysis (16).…”

Section: Study and Patient Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After screening, one further publication (23), was excluded as this institution published their outcomes in a follow-up publication, which was included in the analysis (16). Therefore, ten comparative studies were included in this pooled final analysis (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22). In total 1,906 patients were included, 563 in the salvage group and 1,343 in the NCRS group.…”

Section: Study and Patient Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pulmonary complications (Figure 6) All ten studies reported the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22), which showed no significant differences between the groups (POR=1.24, 95% CI, 0.83-1.86, P=0.292). There was evidence of moderate statistical heterogeneity (I 2 =49.3%), however no significant evidence of statistical bias (Egger =0.19, P=0.834).…”

Section: Anastomotic Leak (Figure 5)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine studies reported the incidence of positive (R1/R2) resection margin (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)21,22). Pooled analysis showed no significant difference between the groups in positive resection margin incidence (POR=1.29, 95% CI, 0.94-1.76, P=0.114).…”

Section: Positive Resection Margin (Figure 7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Salvage esophagectomy: safe therapeutic strategy?

Jamel¹,

Markar²

2017

J. Thorac. Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this review were to assess both the short-and long-term clinical outcomes in patients managed with definitive chemoradiotherapy, and salvage esophagectomy subsequently in comparison to those neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by planned esophagectomy (NCRS) for esophageal cancer from published literature. Eleven studies comprising 1,906 patients were included, 563 in the salvage group and 1,343 in the NCRS group. Pooled analysis showed no significant difference between salvage and NCRS groups in overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) =1.17; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), CI, 1.41-2.51, P<0.001). Herein we found that salvage esophagectomy has similar short-and long-term mortality in comparison to planned esophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. However, anastomotic leak is increased following salvage esophagectomy suggesting the need for this practice to be reserved for high volume surgeons within high volume centers.

show abstract

Section: Study and Patient Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study and Patient Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Anastomotic Leak (Figure 5)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Positive Resection Margin (Figure 7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Salvage esophagectomy: safe therapeutic strategy?

Jamel¹,

Markar²

2017

J. Thorac. Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The incidence of postoperative mortality was assessed in a considerable number of studies [61][62][63][64][65], fewer assessed in-hospital mortality, and 30-day mortality was determined in two studies [66]. Values were higher in patients who were treated with salvage esophagectomy after deinitive chemoradiotherapy (23 patients-9.50%) than in patients who treated with planned esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (29 patients-4.07%).…”

Section: Postoperative Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

Multimodal Treatment for Cancer of the Esophagus

Mocan¹,

Moşteanu²,

Pop³

et al. 2017

Esophageal Abnormalities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are about 500,000 new cases of cancer of the esophagus and 400,000 esophageal cancer-related deaths recorded annually around the world. The disease is three to four times more frequent in men than in women, being the sixth most common cancer and the ifth most frequent cancer-related death among men. The prognosis of esophageal cancer is quite poor, despite advances in surgical procedures (two-ield and three-ield lymph node dissection) and perioperative management, which is still controversial. The use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in combination with surgery might be a new approach for future treatment. Progress in optical technology has led to the development of a new minimally invasive surgical approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer, namely esophagectomy.

show abstract