2. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
• The main goal of surgery in esophageal
cancer was good palliation and the cure is
an accident.
- Ronald H. Belsey (1910-2007)
3. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
History
• First excision of Esophagus is done by
Christian Albert Theodor Billroth, an
Austrian surgeon -1872
• Vincenz Czerny (1842-1916) performed the
first successful human resection of cervical
Esophagus in 1877 where he had resected
a carcinoma of cervical Esophagus that
provided patient a one year survival.
4. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
• A Major pioneer in esophageal surgery was
Ivor Lewis (1895 to 1982) who in 1946 made a
substantial advancements with the
introduction of esophagectomy and
esophagogastrostomy
• Surgery has normally been considers the only
option for patients with early stage cancer of
Esophagus until the mid 1980s, later that
other combined modality options became
available to patients
5. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
Treatment of Premalignant Disease
• Photodynamic laser
• Multipolar Electro coagulation
• argon plasma coagulation
• Cryotherapy
• Radio frequency ablation
6. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
• A RCT of 127 Overall,
• 77.4% of patients in the ablation group had
complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia, as
compared with 2.3% of those in the ( PLACEBO)
control group (P<0.001).
• Patients in the ablation group had less disease
progression (3.6% vs. 16.3%, P=0.03) and fewer
cancers (1.2% vs. 9.3%, P=0.045).
7. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
Chance of lymphnode involvement
• m1 and m2 is 0%
• m3 8%
• sm1 17% ( <200 micro meter thickness)
• sm2 30%
8. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
Endoscopic resection
SIZE < 2cm
Not poorly differentiated
No Nodal involvement
Lesion thickness not beyond sm1
9. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
EMR or ESD for superficial
esophageal cancer
• EMR for lesions < 2cm/ ESD for >2cm
• Pooled R0 resection rate – 90%
• If tumor > 2.5cms – R0 resection rate is 85%
• 5 year recurrence rate – EMR (23%) vs ESD (2.9%)
10. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
•If the disease is extensive, or
pT1b(sm2,sm3) esophagectomy is
recommended
11. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
NCCN Guidelines
• Esophagectomy is recommended primary
treatment option for patients with pT1b,N0
tumours and cT2,N0 low risk lesions (
<3cm in diameter and well- differentiated)
12. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
NCCN guidelines
• Preoperative Chemoradiation ( for
Non cervical Esophagus) and
definitive Chemoradiation ( for
cervical Esophagus) are recommended
for patients with cT2,N0 high risk
lesions ( LVI, >3cm, poorly
differentiated) and cT1b-cT2, N+ or
cT3-cT4a, any N tumours
13. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
Transhiatal Esophagectomy
• En-bloc resection is feasible for distal esophageal
tumors
• Laparotomy and cervical approach
• Peritumoral or two field lymph node dissection (
Abdominal and lower mediastinal)
• Cervical anastomosis
16. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
• N – 1525 patients
• 79% of them had Adeno carcinoma
• Tumors located in lower third Esophagus in 82%,
middle and upper third in 18%
• In hospital mortality was 3%
• Most common complication was anastomotic leak
(12%), Recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (4.5%)
• 5 year OS was 29%
23. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
• Pulmonary complications are more or less
same
• 5 year overall survival was similar – 24%
for transhiatal esophagectomies and 26%
for transthoracic esophagectomies
28. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
• 30 day mortality high in trans thoracic group (
10.6% vs 7.2%) as was the pulmonary
complications and length of stay ( 4days more)
• Anastomotic stricture and vocal cord palsy was
significantly higher in transhiatal group
• 5 year OS was not statistically different 26.6% in
transthoracic and 25.8% in trans hiatal group
32. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
• New update from the author showed OS 34% in
transhiatal and 36% in transthoracic resection –
though lymphnode retrieval is more in trans
thoracic esophagectomy
34. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
• MIE can be performed safely with an overall
operative mortality of 1.68%
• a median ICU stay of 2 days, and a median
hospital stay of 8 days.
• The morbidity of the procedure was acceptable
and similar to or better than most published
series of open esophagectomy.
35. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
• In preliminary comparison of outcomes between the MIE-
neck and MIE-chest groups, median length of ICU and
hospital stay, overall morbidity, and operative mortality
seemed to be similar between the 2 approaches.
• The 30-day mortality was 0.9% in the MIE Ivor Lewis
group and 2.5% in the MIE-Neck group.
• The incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) injury
was significantly lower in the Ivor Lewis MIE-chest
group (1%) than in the MIE-Neck group (P < 0.001).
37. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
• 115 patients were randomly assigned to minimally invasive
esophagectomy and open esophagectomy with the primary
endpoint of post operative infections within 2 weeks of surgery
• Minimally invasive group were associated with statistically
significant reduction pulmonary infections 9% vs 29% and and
also in hospital pulmonary infections were less in MIE ( 12% vs
34%)
• Hospital stay ( 11 vs 14 days)
• there was no difference detected in 30 days or in hospital
mortality and post operative complications rate were similar
38. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
• in-hospital mortality, one patient in the
open esophagectomy group died from
anastomotic leakage and two in the
minimally invasive group from aspiration
and mediastinitis after anastomotic
leakage.
43. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
• A reduction in in hospital mortality (3% vs 4.6%)
• Pulmonary complications 17.8% vs 20.4
• Other complications are more or less same
• Conclusion: MIE is superior to open
esophagectomy
47. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
JCOG 1409
• JAPAN is conducting a RCT with n=300
patients
• End point is Overall survival
• This is largest trial with survival as
outcome in the debate between MIE vs
open esophagectomy
48. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
• Minimally invasive esophagectomy is the
ideal approach to operate esophageal
cancer
• Reduced morbidity with equivalent
oncological outcomes
• No difference in routine community
practice
52. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
• 174 patients underwent 3 field lymphadenectomy
• A total of 23% of patients with adenocarcinoma and 25%
of those with SCC had positive cervical nodes
• 5 year survival for patients with positive cervical nodes
was 27% for SCC And 12% in adenocarcinoma patients
53. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
• Authors suggest that 3 field
lymphadenectomy may have a role in
patients with SCC and this remains
investigational for patients with
adenocarcinoma
61. PROF S.SUBBIAH et al.
• If patient requires rapid palliation – laser
or stent placement are recommended
• EBRT with or without Chemotherapy
takes at least 2 weeks to produce
palliation, but once palliation is achieved it
is more durable
Because 5 year survival rates are just touching 20%
High grade dysplasia in barrets – most powerful predictor of subsequent invasive adenocarcinoma and is associated with a per year cancer incidence of 6%, therefore warranting therapeutic intervention
But esophagectomy is extra kill– most of them do not develop invasive carcinoma in life time
Which led to use of these endoscopic methods to cure
eliminate mucosa at risk
All of these techniques cause destruction of mucosal layer. RFA is considered as preferred ablative technique
once the lesion goes into sm1 chance of Lymphnode involvement is high
So till sm1 can try endoscopic resection
Localised resectable carcinoma
Surgery is the treatment of choice
Locally advanced cancers
Recently gained popularity in USA with increasing incidence of adenocarcinoma
Division of diaphragmatic crus allows wide access to the mediastinum and dissection under vision of middle and lower third of Esophagus
A left cervical incision to mobilise upper thoracic Esophagus
We preserve right gastroepiploic and right gastric vessels on whose pedicle reconstructive conduit will be based
Shorter duration of operation
Main advantage of transhiatal esophagectomy include avoidance of thoracotomy incision which there by minimizes pain and subsequent pulmonary complications
Lethal complications like mediastinitis associated with an intrathoracic anastomotic leak is avoided
2007
Leak was managed simply by opening the wound and local care
Among this 185 patients who has leak 81(44%) has undergone Neoadjuvant chemoradiation
Hoarseness settled spontaneously in 99% of cases in 2 to 12 wk, Less than 1% needed cord medialisation
Chylothorax in 1% managed successfully by transthoracic ligation of the thoracic duct
Stage specific survival was 65% for Stage 1, 28% for stage II, 29% for stage IIB and 11% for stage III
A right thoracotomy and a upper midline laparotomy ( ivor lewis) is most common procedure used for esophageal resection
Right thoracotomy through 5th or 6Th ICS, azygous vein is divided, mediastinal pleura incised, the intrathoracic Esophagus mobilizesd and mediastinal nodes mobilised
Under direct visualization more adequate radial margin and more thorough lymph node dissection is possible( theoretically oncologically more sound)
Old age with comorbidities – this may compromise cardiorespiratory function
An intrathoracic anastomosis leak can lead to medistinitis, sepsis and death – 3 incision modification effectively potential complications associated with intra thoracic esophago gastric anastomosis
a meta analysis published in 1999
44 studies
44 series ( published between 1986 – 1996
Other parameters are more or less same
Perioerative mortality was significantly higher in transthoracic esophagectomy group than in the thanshiatal group
Pulmonary complications are more or less same
Cardiac complications are a bit higher in trans hiatal groupjh
5 year overall survival was similar – 24% for transhiatal esophagectomies and 26% for transthoracic esophagectomies
2000- hulscher et al , A bigger meta analysis
50 studies
3 RCT
6 prospective trials
18 retrospective comparative trials
15 series of TTE
11 series of THE
Cardiac complications are more in THE , may be due to blind mobilisation of Esophagus
if u take only RCT into consideration cardiac and pulmonary complications are same in THE and TTE
In TTE also leak rates are more with mc keowns than with ivoe lewis, as stomach travels a shorted distance so it will be more vascular
5 year OS 21.7 in transhiatal group compared to 23% in transthoracic group
It included 50 studies, it included studies till 2010
30 day mortality high in trans thoracic group ( 10.6% vs 7.2%) as was the pulmonary complications and length of stay ( 4days more)
Anastomotic stricture and vocal cord palsy was significantly higher in transhiatal group
5 year Os was not statistically different 26.6% in transthoracic and 25.8% in trans hiatal group
This trial from Netherlands deserves a special mention
220 patients
Trans thoracic group underwent a systematic mediastinal and upper abdominal lymphnode dissection, although the no of LNs retrieved in transthortacxic group is high (31 vs 16)
there is no difference in the radicality of the procedure
New update from this author showed OS 34% in transhiatal and 36% in transthoracic resection – though lymphnode retrieval is more in trans thoracic esophagectomy
In esophageal cancers when u did a TTE (51%) there is 14% increase OS compared to THA (37%)
Authors concluded that TTE for esophageal and THE for junctional and cardiac cancers
Either it may be transhiatal or trans thoracic can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality and out comes are remarkably similar
Either it may be transhiatal or trans thoracic can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality and out comes are remarkably similar
In an attempt to reduce morbidity and mortality while achieving an equivocal oncological outcome, minimally invasive esophageal resection have been designed and continued to be investigated
Variety of these including laparoscopic, thoracoscopic, lap and thoracoscopic combined, hand assisted, robotic assisted were being studied
Largest single institutional study has been reported by Luketich et al 2012 which included 1011 patients
Stage specific survival was similar to series with open esophagectomies
Results from this study where promising an impressive but whether the reproducible in other institutions need to be determined through further study
The first multicentre( Netherlands) randomised controlled trail of minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy recently reported its short term results
R0 resection rates and lymphnode retrieval were equivalent
There is no difference in 3yr OS and DFS
One can reasonably conclude that MIE is safe when compared to open esophagectomy and MIE may be non inferior to open esophagectomy
although large multicentre randomized trails would be valuable
Meta analysis
48 studies
Most of them are again retrospective or prospective non RCTs
Over all complications in this has favoured MIE
Marten et al Netherlands
Explanation for high gastric conduit necrosis: ? Higher use of energy devices, and going close to gastric wall, harsher handling of gastric tube with instruments compared to hand
Needs to be investigated
Accrural is going on
China 6 high vol centers
With robot shorter time of surgery, improved efficacy of LN dissection
No diff in blood loss, R0 resections
Peri op complications are same
OS data is yet to come out
It involves resection of middle and lower esophageal tumors with an envelope of adjacent tissue that includes the mediastinal pleura laterally, pericardium anteriorly, azygous vein and thoracic duct postero-laterally with surrounding periesophageal tissue and lymph nodes
For tumors traversing esophageal hiatus, a cuff of diaphragm is resected
Lerut et al
Authors suggest that 3 field lymphadenectomy may have a role in patients with SCC and this remains investigational for patients with adenocarcinoma
Extended resections may improve staging and may enhance locoregional control how ever no reliable data confirming a survival benefit of these procedures
Not much survival benefit
ever no reliable data confirming a survival benefit of these procedures
Options of palliation include stents, feeding tubes, CT, EBRT, brachytherapy or combination of all these procedures
Harvey et al treated 106 patients with CTRT and reported 78% had improvement of at least one grade in their dysphagia score, and 51% maintained swallowing improvement until time of last follow up
A recent phase 3 randomised trial conducted in UK, Canada, Australia and NZ – they compared palliation with RT vs CTRT
220 patients were randomized
35 Gy EBRT vs EBRT with cisplatin and 5FU
Dysphagia was measured with using several QOL instrument and common terminology criteria for adverse events
No difference in dysphagia response but high GI toxicities in CTRT arm, median survival is 210 in CTRT vs 203 in RT arm
However 10% of all there patients were alive at 2yrs indicating that this group should not be denied some active cancer treatment
Endoluminal brachy is also an effective method in achieving palliation but limited availability
Stent vs 12 Gy brachy
Dysphagia improved more rapidly after stent placement how ever long term relief was with Brachytherapy
Major limitation with brachy is it can treat disease only up to 1cm from source, >1cm suboptimal response
So brachy is not as successful as EBRT in treating entire tumor volume
Rosenblatt et al reported in their multi institutionsl phase 3 RCT
HDR brachy vs Brachy with EBRT
Dysphagia was significantly improved with combined therapy and there is no difference in toxicities and OS