Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 11/2013

01.11.2013

Impact of comorbidity on outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer

verfasst von: James P. Dolan, Taranjeet Kaur, Brian S. Diggs, Renato A. Luna, Paul H. Schipper, Brandon H. Tieu, Brett C. Sheppard, John G. Hunter

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 11/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to examine the impact of the Charlson Comorbidity Index-Grade (CCI-G) on predicting outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).

Methods

One hundred and forty-six patients who underwent esophagectomy between 1995 and 2011 for stage II and III cancer were selected and separated into open esophagectomy (Open) and MIE groups. Risk adjustment was performed using the CCI-G. The outcomes of interest were operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), lymph node harvest, length of hospital stay (LOS), major complications, 30-day mortality, and overall survival.

Results

Sixty-four patients (44 %) underwent Open while 71 (49 %) had MIE. An additional (7 %) were converted and classified with MIE. There was no significant difference between MIE and Open in terms of operative time. MIE had less EBL (mean difference = 234 mL, p < 0.001), higher lymph node harvest (mean = 7.4 nodes, p < 0.001), and shorter LOS (median = 1.5 days, p = 0.02). Atrial arrhythmias were the most frequent complication, occurring in 33 % of patients in both the MIE and the Open group (p = 0.988). Thirty-day mortality was 2 % for MIE and 5 % for Open (p = 0.459). Five-year survival was 41 % for MIE and 33 % for Open (p = 0.513). Operative approach, age, gender, BMI, clinical stage, and neoadjuvant therapy did not have any significant effect on the outcomes or overall survival. CCI-G influenced outcomes with operative time, LOS, cardiovascular complication, and anastomotic leak rate, favoring CCI-G 0 compared to CCI-G 3. Overall survival was worse for CCI-G 1 in comparison with CCI-G 0 [hazard ratio (HR) 1.99, p = 0.027].

Conclusions

MIE is a safe alternative to open esophagectomy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. The presence of comorbidities increased operative time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications while worsening overall survival.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Abrams JA et al (2011) Dating the rise of esophageal adenocarcinoma: analysis of Connecticut Tumor Registry data, 1940–2007. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 20(1):183–186PubMedCrossRef Abrams JA et al (2011) Dating the rise of esophageal adenocarcinoma: analysis of Connecticut Tumor Registry data, 1940–2007. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 20(1):183–186PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Bronson NW, Luna RA, Hunter JG (2012) Tailoring esophageal cancer surgery. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 24(4):275–287PubMedCrossRef Bronson NW, Luna RA, Hunter JG (2012) Tailoring esophageal cancer surgery. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 24(4):275–287PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Birkmeyer JD et al (2002) Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 346(15):1128–1137PubMedCrossRef Birkmeyer JD et al (2002) Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 346(15):1128–1137PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Ben-David K et al (2012) Decreasing morbidity and mortality in 100 consecutive minimally invasive esophagectomies. Surg Endosc 26(1):162–167PubMedCrossRef Ben-David K et al (2012) Decreasing morbidity and mortality in 100 consecutive minimally invasive esophagectomies. Surg Endosc 26(1):162–167PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Luketich JD et al (2003) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg 238(4):486–494; discussion 494–495 Luketich JD et al (2003) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg 238(4):486–494; discussion 494–495
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Verhage RJ et al (2009) Minimally invasive surgery compared to open procedures in esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Minerva Chir 64(2):135–146PubMed Verhage RJ et al (2009) Minimally invasive surgery compared to open procedures in esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Minerva Chir 64(2):135–146PubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Uttley L et al (2013) Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage? Surg Endosc 27(3):724–731PubMedCrossRef Uttley L et al (2013) Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage? Surg Endosc 27(3):724–731PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Nagpal K et al (2010) Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 24(7):1621–1629PubMedCrossRef Nagpal K et al (2010) Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 24(7):1621–1629PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Sgourakis G et al (2010) Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy: meta-analysis of outcomes. Dig Dis Sci 55(11):3031–3040PubMedCrossRef Sgourakis G et al (2010) Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy: meta-analysis of outcomes. Dig Dis Sci 55(11):3031–3040PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Singh RK et al (2011) Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides equivalent oncologic outcomes to open esophagectomy for locally advanced (stage II or III) esophageal carcinoma. Arch Surg 146(6):711–714PubMedCrossRef Singh RK et al (2011) Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides equivalent oncologic outcomes to open esophagectomy for locally advanced (stage II or III) esophageal carcinoma. Arch Surg 146(6):711–714PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Dantoc MM, Cox MR, Eslick GD (2012) Does minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) provide for comparable oncologic outcomes to open techniques? A systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 16(3):486–494PubMedCrossRef Dantoc MM, Cox MR, Eslick GD (2012) Does minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) provide for comparable oncologic outcomes to open techniques? A systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 16(3):486–494PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Mariette C, Robb WB (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer. Lancet 380(9845):883; author reply 885–886 Mariette C, Robb WB (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer. Lancet 380(9845):883; author reply 885–886
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Feinstein AR et al (1977) Cancer of the larynx: a new staging system and a re-appraisal of prognosis and treatment. J Chronic Dis 30(5):277–305PubMedCrossRef Feinstein AR et al (1977) Cancer of the larynx: a new staging system and a re-appraisal of prognosis and treatment. J Chronic Dis 30(5):277–305PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Wells CK et al (1984) Comorbid and clinical determinants of prognosis in endometrial cancer. Arch Intern Med 144(10):2004–2009PubMedCrossRef Wells CK et al (1984) Comorbid and clinical determinants of prognosis in endometrial cancer. Arch Intern Med 144(10):2004–2009PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Concato J et al (1990) Severity of comorbidity, not type of surgery, affects outcome of prostatectomy. Trans Assoc Am Physicians 103:90–95PubMed Concato J et al (1990) Severity of comorbidity, not type of surgery, affects outcome of prostatectomy. Trans Assoc Am Physicians 103:90–95PubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Concato J et al (1992) Problems of comorbidity in mortality after prostatectomy. J Am Med Assoc 267(8):1077–1082CrossRef Concato J et al (1992) Problems of comorbidity in mortality after prostatectomy. J Am Med Assoc 267(8):1077–1082CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Charlson ME et al (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383PubMedCrossRef Charlson ME et al (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Singh B et al (1997) Validation of the Charlson comorbidity index in patients with head and neck cancer: a multi-institutional study. Laryngoscope 107(11 Pt 1):1469–1475PubMedCrossRef Singh B et al (1997) Validation of the Charlson comorbidity index in patients with head and neck cancer: a multi-institutional study. Laryngoscope 107(11 Pt 1):1469–1475PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Patnaik JL et al (2011) The influence of comorbidities on overall survival among older women diagnosed with breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(14):1101–1111PubMedCrossRef Patnaik JL et al (2011) The influence of comorbidities on overall survival among older women diagnosed with breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(14):1101–1111PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen CI et al (2013) Comorbidity as an independent risk factor in patients with cancer: an 8-year population-based study. Asia Pac J Public Health. doi:10.1177/1010539513481491 Chen CI et al (2013) Comorbidity as an independent risk factor in patients with cancer: an 8-year population-based study. Asia Pac J Public Health. doi:10.​1177/​1010539513481491​
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Rice TW, Blackstone EH, Rusch VW (2010) 7th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: esophagus and esophagogastric junction. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1721–1724PubMedCrossRef Rice TW, Blackstone EH, Rusch VW (2010) 7th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: esophagus and esophagogastric junction. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1721–1724PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Tisdale JE et al (2010) A randomized, controlled study of amiodarone for prevention of atrial fibrillation after transthoracic esophagectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 140(1):45–51PubMedCrossRef Tisdale JE et al (2010) A randomized, controlled study of amiodarone for prevention of atrial fibrillation after transthoracic esophagectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 140(1):45–51PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Kaplan MH, Feinstein AR (1974) The importance of classifying initial co-morbidity in evaluating the outcome of diabetes mellitus. J Chronic Dis 27(7–8):387–404PubMedCrossRef Kaplan MH, Feinstein AR (1974) The importance of classifying initial co-morbidity in evaluating the outcome of diabetes mellitus. J Chronic Dis 27(7–8):387–404PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Lewis I (1946) The surgical treatment of carcinoma of the oesophagus, with special reference to a new operation for growths of the middle third. Br J Surg 34:18–31PubMedCrossRef Lewis I (1946) The surgical treatment of carcinoma of the oesophagus, with special reference to a new operation for growths of the middle third. Br J Surg 34:18–31PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Hoppo T, Jobe BA, Hunter JG (2011) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: the evolution and technique of minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer. World J Surg 35(7):1454–1463PubMedCrossRef Hoppo T, Jobe BA, Hunter JG (2011) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: the evolution and technique of minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer. World J Surg 35(7):1454–1463PubMedCrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD (2000) Eliminating the cervical esophagogastric anastomotic leak with a side-to-side stapled anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 119(2):277–288PubMedCrossRef Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD (2000) Eliminating the cervical esophagogastric anastomotic leak with a side-to-side stapled anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 119(2):277–288PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Biere SS et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379(9829):1887–1892PubMedCrossRef Biere SS et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379(9829):1887–1892PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Pham TH et al (2010) Comparison of perioperative outcomes after combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and open Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. Am J Surg 199(5):594–598PubMedCrossRef Pham TH et al (2010) Comparison of perioperative outcomes after combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and open Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. Am J Surg 199(5):594–598PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Kohn GP et al (2009) National trends in esophageal surgery—are outcomes as good as we believe? J Gastrointest Surg 13(11):1900–1910; discussion 1910–1912 Kohn GP et al (2009) National trends in esophageal surgery—are outcomes as good as we believe? J Gastrointest Surg 13(11):1900–1910; discussion 1910–1912
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Markar SR et al (2013) Systematic review and pooled analysis assessing the association between elderly age and outcome following surgical resection of esophageal malignancy. Dis Esophagus 26(3):250–262PubMedCrossRef Markar SR et al (2013) Systematic review and pooled analysis assessing the association between elderly age and outcome following surgical resection of esophageal malignancy. Dis Esophagus 26(3):250–262PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Bartels H, Stein HJ, Siewert JR (1998) Preoperative risk analysis and postoperative mortality of oesophagectomy for resectable oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg 85(6):840–844PubMedCrossRef Bartels H, Stein HJ, Siewert JR (1998) Preoperative risk analysis and postoperative mortality of oesophagectomy for resectable oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg 85(6):840–844PubMedCrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Ott K et al (2009) Surgical factors influence the outcome after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a consecutive series of 240 patients at an experienced center. Ann Surg Oncol 16(4):1017–1025PubMedCrossRef Ott K et al (2009) Surgical factors influence the outcome after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a consecutive series of 240 patients at an experienced center. Ann Surg Oncol 16(4):1017–1025PubMedCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Dhungel B et al (2010) Patient and peri-operative predictors of morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy: American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP), 2005–2008. J Gastrointest Surg 14(10):1492–1501PubMedCrossRef Dhungel B et al (2010) Patient and peri-operative predictors of morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy: American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP), 2005–2008. J Gastrointest Surg 14(10):1492–1501PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Impact of comorbidity on outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer
verfasst von
James P. Dolan
Taranjeet Kaur
Brian S. Diggs
Renato A. Luna
Paul H. Schipper
Brandon H. Tieu
Brett C. Sheppard
John G. Hunter
Publikationsdatum
01.11.2013
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 11/2013
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3066-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2013

Surgical Endoscopy 11/2013 Zur Ausgabe

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 Ablationstherapie Nachrichten

Nach der Katheterablation von Vorhofflimmern kommt es bei etwa einem Drittel der Patienten zu Rezidiven, meist binnen eines Jahres. Wie sich spätere Rückfälle auf die Erfolgschancen einer erneuten Ablation auswirken, haben Schweizer Kardiologen erforscht.

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 Appendizitis Nachrichten

Schmerzen im Unterbauch, aber sonst nicht viel, was auf eine Appendizitis hindeutete: Ein junger Mann hatte Glück, dass trotzdem eine Laparoskopie mit Appendektomie durchgeführt und der Wurmfortsatz histologisch untersucht wurde.

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

23.04.2024 Operationsvorbereitung Nachrichten

Derzeit wird empfohlen, eine Therapie mit GLP-1-Rezeptoragonisten präoperativ zu unterbrechen. Eine neue Studie nährt jedoch Zweifel an der Notwendigkeit der Maßnahme.

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

19.04.2024 EAU 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Ureterstriktur ist eine relativ seltene Komplikation, trotzdem bedarf sie einer differenzierten Versorgung. In komplexen Fällen wird dies durch die roboterassistierte OP-Technik gewährleistet. Erste Resultate ermutigen.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.